After considering Christ's conception, we must treat of His nativity.
First, as to the nativity itself; secondly, as to His manifestation after
birth.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] Out. Para. 2/2
Concerning the first there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether nativity regards the nature or the person?
(2) Whether another, besides His eternal, birth should be attributed to
Christ?
(3) Whether the Blessed Virgin is His Mother in respect of His temporal
birth?
(4) Whether she ought to be called the Mother of God?
(5) Whether Christ is the Son of God the Father and of the Virgin Mother
in respect of two filiations?
(6) Of the mode of the Nativity;
(7) Of its place;
(8) Of the time of the Nativity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether nativity regards the nature rather than the person?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that nativity regards the nature rather than the
person. For Augustine [*Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad Petrum): "The
eternal Divine Nature could not be conceived and born of human nature,
except in a true human nature." Consequently it becomes the Divine Nature
to be conceived and born by reason of the human nature. Much more,
therefore, does it regard human nature itself.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), "nature" is so
denominated from "nativity." But things are denominated from one another
by reason of some likeness. Therefore it seems that nativity regards the
nature rather than the person.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, properly speaking, that is born which begins to exist by
nativity. But Christ's Person did not begin to exist by His nativity,
whereas His human nature did. Therefore it seems that the nativity
properly regards the nature, and not the person.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "Nativity regards
the hypostasis, not the nature."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Nativity can be attributed to someone in two ways: first,
as to its subject; secondly, as to its terminus. To him that is born it
is attributed as to its subject: and this, properly speaking, is the
hypostasis, not the nature. For since to be born is to be generated; as a
thing is generated in order for it to be, so is a thing born in order for
it to be. Now, to be, properly speaking, belongs to that which subsists;
since a form that does not subsist is said to be only inasmuch as by it
something is: and whereas person or hypostasis designates something as
subsisting, nature designates form, whereby something subsists.
Consequently, nativity is attributed to the person or hypostasis as to
the proper subject of being born, but not to the nature.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] Body Para. 2/2
But to the nature nativity is attributed as to its terminus. For the
terminus of generation and of every nativity is the form. Now, nature
designates something as a form: wherefore nativity is said to be "the
road to nature," as the Philosopher states (Phys. ii): for the purpose of
nature is terminated in the form or nature of the species.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: On account of the identity of nature and hypostasis in God,
nature fs sometimes put instead of person or hypostasis. And in this
sense Augustine says that the Divine Nature was conceived and born,
inasmuch as the Person of the Son was conceived and born in the human
nature.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: No movement or change is denominated from the subject
moved, but from the terminus of the movement, whence the subject has its
species. For this reason nativity is not denominated from the person
born, but from nature, which is the terminus of nativity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Nature, properly speaking, does not begin to exist: rather
is it the person that begins to exist in some nature. Because, as stated
above, nature designates that by which something is; whereas person
designates something as having subsistent being.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a temporal nativity should be attributed to Christ?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that temporal nativity is not to be attributed to
Christ. For "to be born is a certain movement of a thing that did not
exist before it was born, which movement procures for it the benefit of
existence" [*Cf. Augustine, De Unit. Trin. xii]. But Christ was from all
eternity. Therefore He could not be born in time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, what is perfect in itself needs not to be born. But the
Person of the Son of God was perfect from eternity. Therefore He needs
not to be born in time. Therefore it seems that He had no temporal birth.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, properly speaking, nativity regards the person. But in
Christ there is only one person. Therefore in Christ there is but one
nativity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, what is born by two nativities is born twice. But this
proposition is false; "Christ was born twice": because the nativity
whereby He was born of the Father suffers no interruption; since it is
eternal. Whereas interruption is required to warrant the use of the
adverb "twice": for a man is said to run twice whose running is
interrupted. Therefore it seems that we should not admit a double
nativity in Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "We confess two
nativities in Christ: one of the Father---eternal; and one which occurred
in these latter times for our sake."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), nature is compared to nativity,
as the terminus to movement or change. Now, movement is diversified
according to the diversity of its termini, as the Philosopher shows
(Phys. v). But, in Christ there is a twofold nature: one which He
received of the Father from eternity, the other which He received from
His Mother in time. Therefore we must needs attribute to Christ a twofold
nativity: one by which He was born of the Father from all eternity; one
by which He was born of His Mother in time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This was the argument of a certain heretic, Felician, and
is solved thus by Augustine (Contra Felic. xii). "Let us suppose," says
he, "as many maintain, that in the world there is a universal soul,
which, by its ineffable movement, so gives life to all seed, that it is
not compounded with things begotten, but bestows life that they may be
begotten. Without doubt, when this soul reaches the womb, being intent on
fashioning the passible matter to its own purpose, it unites itself to
the personality thereof, though manifestly it is not of the same
substance; and thus of the active soul and passive matter, one man is
made out of two substances. And so we confess that the soul is born from
out the womb; but not as though, before birth, it was nothing at all in
itself. Thus, then, but in a way much more sublime, the Son of God was
born as man, just as the soul is held to be born together with the body:
not as though they both made one substance, but that from both, one
person results. Yet we do not say that the Son of God began thus to
exist: lest it be thought that His Divinity is temporal. Nor do we
acknowledge the flesh of the Son of God to have been from eternity: lest
it be thought that He took, not a true human body, but some resemblance
thereof."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This was an argument of Nestorius, and it is thus solved by
Cyril in an epistle [*Cf. Acta Concil. Ephes., p. 1, cap. viii]: "We do
not say that the Son of God had need, for His own sake, of a second
nativity, after that which is from the Father: for it is foolish and a
mark of ignorance to say that He who is from all eternity, and co-eternal
with the Father, needs to begin again to exist. But because for us and
for our salvation, uniting the human nature to His Person, He became the
child of a woman, for this reason do we say that He was born in the
flesh."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Nativity regards the person as its subject, the nature as
its terminus. Now, it is possible for several transformations to be in
the same subject: yet must they be diversified in respect of their
termini. But we do not say this as though the eternal nativity were a
transformation or a movement, but because it is designated by way of a
transformation or movement.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Christ can be said to have been born twice in respect of
His two nativities. For just as he is said to run twice who runs at two
different times, so can He be said to be born twice who is born once from
eternity and once in time: because eternity and time differ much more
than two different times, although each signifies a measure of duration.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the Blessed Virgin can be called Christ's Mother in respect of
His temporal nativity?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin cannot be called Christ's
Mother in respect of His temporal nativity. For, as stated above (Q[32],
A[4]), the Blessed Virgin Mary did not cooperate actively in begetting
Christ, but merely supplied the matter. But this does not seem sufficient
to make her His Mother: otherwise wood might be called the mother of the
bed or bench. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin cannot be called
the Mother of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ was born miraculously of the Blessed Virgin. But
a miraculous begetting does not suffice for motherhood or sonship: for we
do not speak of Eve as being the daughter of Adam. Therefore neither
should Christ be called the Son of the Blessed Virgin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, motherhood seems to imply partial separation of the
semen. But, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii), "Christ's body was
formed, not by a seminal process, but by the operation of the Holy
Ghost." Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin should not be called
the Mother of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 1:18): "The generation of Christ was
in this wise. When His Mother Mary was espoused to Joseph," etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The Blessed Virgin Mary is in truth and by nature the
Mother of Christ. For, as we have said above (Q[5], A[2]; Q[31], A[5]),
Christ's body was not brought down from heaven, as the heretic Valentine
maintained, but was taken from the Virgin Mother, and formed from her
purest blood. And this is all that is required for motherhood, as has
been made clear above (Q[31], A[5]; Q[32], A[4]). Therefore the Blessed
Virgin is truly Christ's Mother.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated above (Q[32], A[3]), not every generation implies
fatherhood or motherhood and sonship, but only the generation of living
things. Consequently when inanimate things are made from some matter, the
relationship of motherhood and sonship does not follow from this, but
only in the generation of living things, which is properly called
nativity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "The temporal
nativity by which Christ was born for our salvation is, in a way,
natural, since a Man was born of a woman, and after the due lapse of time
from His conception: but it is also supernatural, because He was
begotten, not of seed, but of the Holy Ghost and the Blessed Virgin,
above the law of conception." Thus, then, on the part of the mother,
this nativity was natural, but on the part of the operation of the Holy
Ghost it was supernatural. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is the true and
natural Mother of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[31], A[5], ad 3; Q[32], A[4]), the
resolution of the woman's semen is not necessary for conception; neither,
therefore, is it required for motherhood.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the Blessed Virgin should be called the Mother of God?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin should not be called the
Mother of God. For in the Divine mysteries we should not make any
assertion that is not taken from Holy Scripture. But we read nowhere in
Holy Scripture that she is the mother or parent of God, but that she is
the "mother of Christ" or of "the Child," as may be seen from Mt. 1:18.
Therefore we should not say that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ is called God in respect of His Divine Nature.
But the Divine Nature did not first originate from the Virgin. Therefore
the Blessed Virgin should not be called the Mother of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the word "God" is predicated in common of Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost. If, therefore, the Blessed Virgin is Mother of God it
seems to follow that she was the Mother of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
which cannot be allowed. Therefore the Blessed Virgin should not be
called Mother of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, In the chapters of Cyril, approved in the Council of
Ephesus (P. 1, Cap. xxvi), we read: "If anyone confess not that the
Emmanuel is truly God, and that for this reason the Holy Virgin is the
Mother of God, since she begot of her flesh the Word of God made flesh,
let him be anathema."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[16], A[1]), every word that signifies
a nature in the concrete can stand for any hypostasis of that nature.
Now, since the union of the Incarnation took place in the hypostasis, as
above stated (Q[2], A[3]), it is manifest that this word "God" can stand
for the hypostasis, having a human and a Divine nature. Therefore
whatever belongs to the Divine and to the human nature can be attributed
to that Person: both when a word is employed to stand for it, signifying
the Divine Nature, and when a word is used signifying the human nature.
Now, conception and birth are attributed to the person and hypostasis in
respect of that nature in which it is conceived and born. Since,
therefore, the human nature was taken by the Divine Person in the very
beginning of the conception, as stated above (Q[33], A[3]), it follows
that it can be truly said that God was conceived and born of the Virgin.
Now from this is a woman called a man's mother, that she conceived him
and gave birth to him. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is truly called the
Mother of God. For the only way in which it could be denied that the
Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God would be either if the humanity were
first subject to conception and birth, before this man were the Son of
God, as Photinus said; or if the humanity were not assumed unto unity of
the Person or hypostasis of the Word of God, as Nestorius maintained. But
both of these are erroneous. Therefore it is heretical to deny that the
Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: This was an argument of Nestorius, and it is solved by
saying that, although we do not find it said expressly in Scripture that
the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, yet we do find it expressly said
in Scripture that "Jesus Christ is true God," as may be seen 1 Jn. 5:20,
and that the Blessed Virgin is the "Mother of Jesus Christ," which is
clearly expressed Mt. 1:18. Therefore, from the words of Scripture it
follows of necessity that she is the Mother of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
Again, it is written (Rm. 9:5) that Christ is of the Jews "according to
the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever." But He is not
of the Jews except through the Blessed Virgin. Therefore He who is "above
all things, God blessed for ever," is truly born of the Blessed Virgin as
of His Mother.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This was an argument of Nestorius. But Cyril, in a letter
against Nestorius [*Cf. Acta Conc. Ephes., p. 1, cap. ii], answers it
thus: "Just as when a man's soul is born with its body, they are
considered as one being: and if anyone wish to say that the mother of the
flesh is not the mother of the soul, he says too much. Something like
this may be perceived in the generation of Christ. For the Word of God
was born of the substance of God the Father: but because He took flesh,
we must of necessity confess that in the flesh He was born of a woman."
Consequently we must say that the Blessed Virgin is called the Mother of
God, not as though she were the Mother of the Godhead, but because she is
the mother, according to His human nature, of the Person who has both the
divine and the human nature.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Although the name "God" is common to the three Persons, yet
sometimes it stands for the Person of the Father alone, sometimes only
for the Person of the Son or of the Holy Ghost, as stated above (Q[16],
A[1]; FP, Q[39], A[4]). So that when we say, "The Blessed Virgin is the
Mother of God," this word "God" stands only for the incarnate Person of
the Son.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there are two filiations in Christ?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that there are two filiations in Christ. For
nativity is the cause of filiation. But in Christ there are two
nativities. Therefore in Christ there are also two filiations.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, filiation, which is said of a man as being the son of
someone, his father or his mother, depends, in a way, on him: because the
very being of a relation consists "in being referred to another";
wherefore if one of two relatives be destroyed, the other is destroyed
also. But the eternal filiation by which Christ is the Son of God the
Father depends not on His Mother, because nothing eternal depends on what
is temporal. Therefore Christ is not His Mother's Son by temporal
filiation. Either, therefore, He is not her Son at all, which is in
contradiction to what has been said above (AA[3],4), or He must needs be
her Son by some other temporal filiation. Therefore in Christ there are
two filiations.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, one of two relatives enters the definition of the other;
hence it is clear that of two relatives, one is specified from the other.
But one and the same cannot be in diverse species. Therefore it seems
impossible that one and the same relation be referred to extremes which
are altogether diverse. But Christ is said to be the Son of the Eternal
Father and a temporal mother, who are terms altogether diverse. Therefore
it seems that Christ cannot, by the same relation, be called the Son of
the Father and of His Mother Therefore in Christ there are two filiations.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii), things
pertaining to the nature are multiple in Christ; but not those things
that pertain to the Person. But filiation belongs especially to the
Person, since it is a personal property, as appears from what was said in
the FP, Q[32], A[3]; FP, Q[40], A[2]. Therefore there is but one
filiation in Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, opinions differ on this question. For some, considering
only the cause of filiation, which is nativity, put two filiations in
Christ, just as there are two nativities. On the contrary, others,
considering only the subject of filiation, which is the person or
hypostasis, put only one filiation in Christ, just as there is but one
hypostasis or person. Because the unity or plurality of a relation is
considered in respect, not of its terms, but of its cause or of its
subject. For if it were considered in respect of its terms, every man
would of necessity have in himself two filiations---one in reference to
his father, and another in reference to his mother. But if we consider
the question aright, we shall see that every man bears but one relation
to both his father and his mother, on account of the unity of the cause
thereof. For man is born by one birth of both father and mother: whence
he bears but one relation to both. The same is said of one master who
teaches many disciples the same doctrine, and of one lord who governs
many subjects by the same power. But if there be various causes
specifically diverse, it seems that in consequence the relations differ
in species: wherefore nothing hinders several such relations being in the
same subject. Thus if a man teach grammar to some and logic to others,
his teaching is of a different kind in one case and in the other; and
therefore one and the same man may have different relations as the master
of different disciples, or of the same disciples in regard to diverse
doctrines. Sometimes, however, it happens that a man bears a relation to
several in respect of various causes, but of the same species: thus a
father may have several sons by several acts of generation. Wherefore the
paternity cannot differ specifically, since the acts of generation are
specifically the same. And because several forms of the same species
cannot at the same time be in the same subject, it is impossible for
several paternities to be in a man who is the father of several sons by
natural generation. But it would not be so were he the father of one son
by natural generation and of another by adoption.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] Body Para. 2/3
Now, it is manifest that Christ was not born by one and the same
nativity, of the Father from eternity, and of His Mother in time: indeed,
these two nativities differ specifically. Wherefore, as to this, we must
say that there are various filiations, one temporal and the other
eternal. Since, however, the subject of filiation is neither the nature
nor part of the nature, but the person or hypostasis alone; and since in
Christ there is no other hypostasis or person than the eternal, there can
be no other filiation in Christ but that which is in the eternal
hypostasis. Now, every relation which is predicated of God from time does
not put something real in the eternal God, but only something according
to our way of thinking, as we have said in the FP, Q[13], A[7]. Therefore
the filiation by which Christ is referred to His Mother cannot be a real
relation, but only a relation of reason.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] Body Para. 3/3
Consequently each opinion is true to a certain extent. For if we
consider the adequate causes of filiation, we must needs say that there
are two filiations in respect of the twofold nativity. But if we consider
the subject of filiation, which can only be the eternal suppositum, then
no other than the eternal filiation in Christ is a real relation.
Nevertheless, He has the relation of Son in regard to His Mother, because
it is implied in the relation of motherhood to Christ. Thus God is called
Lord by a relation which is implied in the real relation by which the
creature is subject to God. And although lordship is not a real relation
in God, yet is He really Lord through the real subjection of the creature
to Him. In the same way Christ is really the Son of the Virgin Mother
through the real relation of her motherhood to Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Temporal nativity would cause a real temporal filiation in
Christ if there were in Him a subject capable of such filiation. But this
cannot be; since the eternal suppositum cannot be receptive of a temporal
relation, as stated above. Nor can it be said that it is receptive of
temporal filiation by reason of the human nature, just as it is receptive
of the temporal nativity; because human nature would need in some way to
be the subject of filiation, just as in a way it is the subject of
nativity; for since an Ethiopian is said to be white by reason of his
teeth, it must be that his teeth are the subject of whiteness. But human
nature can nowise be the subject of filiation, because this relation
regards directly the person.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Eternal filiation does not depend on a temporal mother, but
together with this eternal filiation we understand a certain temporal
relation dependent on the mother, in respect of which relation Christ is
called the Son of His Mother.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: One and being are mutually consequent, as is said Metaph.
iv. Therefore, just as it happens that in one of the extremes of a
relation there is something real, whereas in the other there is not
something real, but merely a certain aspect, as the Philosopher observes
of knowledge and the thing known; so also it happens that on the part of
one extreme there is one relation, whereas on the part of the other there
are many. Thus in man on the part of his parents there is a twofold
relation, the one of paternity, the other of motherhood, which are
specifically diverse, inasmuch as the father is the principle of
generation in one way, and the mother in another (whereas if many be the
principle of one action and in the same way---for instance, if many.
together draw a ship along---there would be one and the same relation in
all of them); but on the part of the child there is but one filiation in
reality, though there be two in aspect, corresponding to the two
relations in the parents, as considered by the intellect. And thus in one
way there is only one real filiation in Christ, which is in respect of
the Eternal Father: yet there is another temporal relation in regard to
His temporal mother.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ was born without His Mother suffering?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ was not born without His Mother
suffering. For just as man's death was a result of the sin of our first
parents, according to Gn. 2:17: "In what day soever ye shall eat, ye
shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt] die"; so were the pains
of childbirth, according to Gn. 3:16: "In sorrow shalt thou bring forth
children." But Christ was willing to undergo death. Therefore for the
same reason it seems that His birth should have been with pain.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the end is proportionate to the beginning. But Christ
ended His life in pain, according to Is. 53:4: "Surely . . . He hath
carried our sorrows." Therefore it seems that His nativity was not
without the pains of childbirth.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour [*Protevangelium
Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were present at Christ's
birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the mother's suffering pain.
Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin suffered pain in giving birth
to her Child.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ. [*Supposititious]),
addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: "In conceiving thou wast all
pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening
the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (Q[28], A[2],
Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of
His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently
there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on
the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man "was born into
the world," according to Is. 35:1,2: "Like the lily, it shall bud forth
and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The pains of childbirth in the woman follow from the
mingling of the sexes. Wherefore (Gn. 3:16) after the words, "in sorrow
shalt thou bring forth children," the following are added: "and thou
shalt be under thy husband's power." But, as Augustine says (Serm. de
Assumpt. B. Virg., [*Supposititious]), from this sentence we must exclude
the Virgin-Mother of God; who, "because she conceived Christ without the
defilement of sin, and without the stain of sexual mingling, therefore
did she bring Him forth without pain, without violation of her virginal
integrity, without detriment to the purity of her maidenhood." Christ,
indeed, suffered death, but through His own spontaneous desire, in order
to atone for us, not as a necessary result of that sentence, for He was
not a debtor unto death.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As "by His death" Christ "destroyed our death" [*Preface of
the Mass in Paschal-time], so by His pains He freed us from our pains;
and so He wished to die a painful death. But the mother's pains in
childbirth did not concern Christ, who came to atone for our sins. And
therefore there was no need for His Mother to suffer in giving birth.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: We are told (Lk. 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin herself
"wrapped up in swaddling clothes" the Child whom she had brought forth,
"and laid Him in a manger." Consequently the narrative of this book,
which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv):
"No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother
and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,' says he, 'she wrapped up the
child, and laid Him in a manger.'" These words prove the falseness of the
apocryphal ravings.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ should have been born in Bethlehem?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been born in Bethlehem.
For it is written (Is. 2:3): "The law shall come forth from Sion, and the
Word of the Lord from Jerusalem." But Christ is truly the Word of God.
Therefore He should have come into the world at Jerusalem.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is said (Mt. 2:23) that it is written of Christ that
"He shall be called a Nazarene"; which is taken from Is. 11:1: "A flower
shall rise up out of his root"; for "Nazareth" is interpreted "a flower."
But a man is named especially from the place of his birth. Therefore it
seems that He should have been born in Nazareth, where also He was
conceived and brought up.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, for this was our Lord born into the world, that He might
make known the true faith. according to Jn. 18:37: "For this was I born,
and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the
truth." But this would have been easier if He had been born in the city
of Rome, which at that time ruled the world; whence Paul, writing to the
Romans (1:8) says: "Your faith is spoken of in the whole world."
Therefore it seems that He should not have been born in Bethlehem.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mich. 5:2): "And thou, Bethlehem,
Ephrata . . . out of thee shall He come forth unto Me, that is to be the
ruler in Israel."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Christ willed to be born in Bethlehem for two reasons.
First, because "He was made . . . of the seed of David according to the
flesh," as it is written (Rm. 1:3); to whom also was a special promise
made concerning Christ; according to 2 Kgs. 23:1: "The man to whom it was
appointed concerning the Christ of the God of Jacob . . . said."
Therefore He willed to be born at Bethlehem, where David was born, in
order that by the very birthplace the promise made to David might be
shown to be fulfilled. The Evangelist points this out by saying: "Because
He was of the house and of the family of David." Secondly, because, as
Gregory says (Hom. viii in Evang.): "Bethlehem is interpreted 'the house
of bread.' It is Christ Himself who said, 'I am the living Bread which
came down from heaven.'"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: As David was born in Bethlehem, so also did he choose
Jerusalem to set up his throne there, and to build there the Temple of
God, so that Jerusalem was at the same time a royal and a priestly city.
Now, Christ's priesthood and kingdom were "consummated" principally in
His Passion. Therefore it was becoming that He should choose Bethlehem
for His Birthplace and Jerusalem for the scene of His Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
At the same time, too, He put to silence the vain boasting of men who
take pride in being born in great cities, where also they desire
especially to receive honor. Christ, on the contrary, willed to be born
in a mean city, and to suffer reproach in a great city.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ wished "to flower" by His holy life, not in His
carnal birth. Therefore He wished to be fostered and brought up at
Nazareth. But He wished to be born at Bethlehem away from home; because,
as Gregory says (Hom. viii in Evang.), through the human nature which He
had taken, He was born, as it were, in a foreign place---foreign not to
His power, but to His Nature. And, again, as Bede says on Lk. 2:7: "In
order that He who found no room at the inn might prepare many mansions
for us in His Father's house."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: According to a sermon in the Council of Ephesus [*P. iii,
cap. ix]: "If He had chosen the great city of Rome, the change in the
world would be ascribed to the influence of her citizens. If He had been
the son of the Emperor, His benefits would have been attributed to the
latter's power. But that we might acknowledge the work of God in the
transformation of the whole earth, He chose a poor mother and a
birthplace poorer still."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
"But the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that He may confound
the strong" (1 Cor. 1:27). And therefore, in order the more to show His
power, He set up the head of His Church in Rome itself, which was the
head of the world, in sign of His complete victory, in order that from
that city the faith might spread throughout the world; according to Is.
26:5,6: "The high city He shall lay low . . . the feet of the poor," i.e.
of Christ, "shall tread it down; the steps of the needy," i.e. of the
apostles Peter and Paul.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ was born at a fitting time?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ was not born at a fitting time. Because
Christ came in order to restore liberty to His own. But He was born at a
time of subjection---namely, when the whole world, as it were, tributary
to Augustus, was being enrolled, at his command as Luke relates (2:1).
Therefore it seems that Christ was not born at a fitting time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the promises concerning the coming of Christ were not
made to the Gentiles; according to Rm. 9:4: "To whom belong . . . the
promises." But Christ was born during the reign of a foreigner, as
appears from Mt. 2:1: "When Jesus was born in the days of King Herod."
Therefore it seems that He was not born at a fitting time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the time of Christ's presence on earth is compared to
the day, because He is the "Light of the world"; wherefore He says
Himself (Jn. 9:4): "I must work the works of Him that sent Me, whilst it
is day." But in summer the days are longer than in winter. Therefore,
since He was born in the depth of winter, eight days before the Kalends
of January, it seems that He was not born at a fitting time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Gal. 4:4): "When the fulness of the time
was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, There is this difference between Christ and other men,
that, whereas they are born subject to the restrictions of time, Christ,
as Lord and Maker of all time, chose a time in which to be born, just as
He chose a mother and a birthplace. And since "what is of God is well
ordered" and becomingly arranged, it follows that Christ was born at a
most fitting time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 1: Christ came in order to bring us back from a state of
bondage to a state of liberty. And therefore, as He took our mortal
nature in order to restore us to life, so, as Bede says (Super Luc. ii,
4,5), "He deigned to take flesh at such a time that, shortly after His
birth, He would be enrolled in Caesar's census, and thus submit Himself
to bondage for the sake of our liberty."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 2/3
Moreover, at that time, when the whole world lived under one ruler,
peace abounded on the earth. Therefore it was a fitting time for the
birth of Christ, for "He is our peace, who hath made both one," as it is
written (Eph. 2:14). Wherefore Jerome says on Is. 2:4: "If we search the
page of ancient history, we shall find that throughout the whole world
there was discord until the twenty-eighth year of Augustus Caesar: but
when our Lord was born, all war ceased"; according to Is. 2:4: "Nation
shall not lift up sword against nation."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 3/3
Again, it was fitting that Christ should be born while the world was
governed by one ruler, because "He came to gather His own [Vulg.: 'the
children of God'] together in one" (Jn. 11:52), that there might be "one
fold and one shepherd" (Jn. 10:16).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ wished to be born during the reign of a foreigner,
that the prophecy of Jacob might be fulfilled (Gn. 49:10): "The sceptre
shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till He
come that is to be sent." Because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth.
[*Opus Imperf., falsely ascribed to Chrysostom]), as long as the Jewish
"people was governed by Jewish kings, however wicked, prophets were sent
for their healing. But now that the Law of God is under the power of a
wicked king, Christ is born; because a grave and hopeless disease
demanded a more skilful physician."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: As says the author of the book De Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test.,
"Christ wished to be born, when the light of day begins to increase in
length," so as to show that He came in order that man might come nearer
to the Divine Light, according to Lk. 1:79: "To enlighten them that sit
in darkness and in the shadow of death."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
In like manner He chose to be born in the rough winter season, that He
might begin from then to suffer in body for us.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE MANIFESTATION OF THE NEWLY BORN CHRIST (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We must now consider the manifestation of the newly born Christ:
concerning which there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to all?
(2) Whether it should have been made known to some?
(3) To whom should it have been made known?
(4) Whether He should have made Himself known, or should He rather have
been manifested by others?
(5) By what other means should it have been made known?
(6) Of the order of these manifestations;
(7) Of the star by means of which His birth was made known;
(8) of the adoration of the Magi, who were informed of Christ's nativity
by means of the star.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to all?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should have been made known to
all. Because fulfilment should correspond to promise. Now, the promise of
Christ's coming is thus expressed (Ps. 49:3): "God shall come manifestly.
But He came by His birth in the flesh." Therefore it seems that His birth
should have been made known to the whole world.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (1 Tim. 1:15): "Christ came into this
world to save sinners." But this is not effected save in as far as the
grace of Christ is made known to them; according to Titus 2:11,12: "The
grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men, instructing us, that
denying ungodliness and worldly desires, we should live soberly, and
justly, and godly in this world." Therefore it seems that Christ's birth
should have been made known to all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, God is most especially inclined to mercy; according to
Ps. 144:9: "His tender mercies are over all His works." But in His second
coming, when He will "judge justices" (Ps. 70:3), He will come before the
eyes of all; according to Mt. 24:27: "As lightning cometh out of the
east, and appeareth even into the west, so shall also the coming of the
Son of Man be." Much more, therefore, should His first coming, when He
was born into the world according to the flesh, have been made known to
all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 45:15): "Thou art a hidden God, the
Holy [Vulg.: 'the God] of Israel, the Saviour." And, again (Is. 43:3):
"His look was, as it were, hidden and despised."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, It was unfitting that Christ's birth should be made known
to all men without distinction. First, because this would have been a
hindrance to the redemption of man, which was accomplished by means of
the Cross; for, as it is written (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had known it,
they would never have crucified the Lord of glory."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] Body Para. 2/3
Secondly, because this would have lessened the merit of faith, which He
came to offer men as the way to righteousness. according to Rm. 3:22:
"The justice of God by faith of Jesus Christ." For if, when Christ was
born, His birth had been made known to all by evident signs, the very
nature of faith would have been destroyed, since it is "the evidence of
things that appear not," as stated, Heb. 11:1.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] Body Para. 3/3
Thirdly, because thus the reality of His human nature would have come
into doubt. Whence Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum cxxxvii): "If He had
not passed through the different stages of age from babyhood to youth,
had neither eaten nor slept, would He not have strengthened an erroneous
opinion, and made it impossible for us to believe that He had become true
man? And while He is doing all things wondrously, would He have taken
away that which He accomplished in mercy?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: According to the gloss, the words quoted must be understood
of Christ's coming as judge.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: All men were to be instructed unto salvation, concerning
the grace of God our Saviour, not at the very time of His birth, but
afterwards, in due time, after He had "wrought salvation in the midst of
the earth" (Ps. 73:12). Wherefore after His Passion and Resurrection, He
said to His disciples (Mt. 28:19): "Going . . . teach ye all nations."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: For judgment to be passed, the authority of the judge needs
to be known: and for this reason it behooves that the coming of Christ
unto judgment should be manifest. But His first coming was unto the
salvation of all, which is by faith that is of things not seen. And
therefore it was fitting that His first coming should be hidden.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to some?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should not have been made known
to anyone. For, as stated above (A[1], ad 3), it befitted the salvation
of mankind that Christ's first coming should be hidden. But Christ came
to save all; according to 1 Tim. 4:10: "Who is the Saviour of all men,
especially of the faithful." Therefore Christ's birth should not have
been made known to anyone.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, before Christ was born, His future birth was made known
to the Blessed Virgin and Joseph. Therefore it was not necessary that it
should be made known to others after His birth.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, no wise man makes known that from which arise
disturbance and harm to others. But, when Christ's birth was made known,
disturbance arose: for it is written (Mt. 2:3) that "King Herod, hearing"
of Christ's birth, "was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." Moreover,
this brought harm to others; because it was the occasion of Herod's
killing "all the male children that were in Bethlehem . . . from two
years old and under." Therefore it seems unfitting for Christ's birth to
have been made known to anyone.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Christ's birth would have been profitable to none if it
had been hidden from all. But it behooved Christ's birth to be
profitable: else He were born in vain. Therefore it seems that Christ's
birth should have been made known to some.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rm. 13:1) "what is of God is well
ordered." Now it belongs to the order of Divine wisdom that God's gifts
and the secrets of His wisdom are not bestowed on all equally, but to
some immediately, through whom they are made known to others. Wherefore,
with regard to the mystery of the Resurrection it is written (Acts
10:40,41): "God . . . gave" Christ rising again "to be made manifest, not
to all the people, but to witnesses pre-ordained by God." Consequently,
that His birth might be consistent with this, it should have been made
known, not to all, but to some, through whom it could be made known to
others.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As it would have been prejudicial to the salvation of
mankind if God's birth had been made known to all men, so also would it
have been if none had been informed of it. Because in either case faith
is destroyed, whether a thing be perfectly manifest, or whether it be
entirely unknown, so that no one can hear it from another; for "faith
cometh by hearing" (Rm. 10:17).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Mary and Joseph needed to be instructed concerning Christ's
birth before He was born, because it devolved on them to show reverence
to the child conceived in the womb, and to serve Him even before He was
born. But their testimony, being of a domestic character, would have
aroused suspicion in regard to Christ's greatness: and so it behooved it
to be made known to others, whose testimony could not be suspect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/4
Reply OBJ 3: The very disturbance that arose when it was known that
Christ was born was becoming to His birth. First, because thus the
heavenly dignity of Christ is made manifest. Wherefore Gregory says (Hom.
x in Evang.): "After the birth of the King of heaven, the earthly king is
troubled: doubtless because earthly grandeur is covered with confusion
when the heavenly majesty is revealed."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 2/4
Secondly, thereby the judicial power of Christ was foreshadowed. Thus
Augustine says in a sermon (30 de Temp.) on the Epiphany: "What will He
be like in the judgment-seat; since from His cradle He struck terror into
the heart of a proud king?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 3/4
Thirdly, because thus the overthrow of the devil's kingdom was
foreshadowed. For, as Pope Leo says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Serm. v
[*Opus Imperfectum in Matth., Hom. ii, falsely ascribed to St. John
Chrysostom]): "Herod was not so much troubled in himself as the devil in
Herod. For Herod thought Him to be a man, but the devil thought Him to be
God. Each feared a successor to his kingdom: the devil, a heavenly
successor; Herod, an earthly successor." But their fear was needless:
since Christ had not come to set up an earthly kingdom, as Pope Leo says,
addressing himself to Herod: "Thy palace cannot hold Christ: nor is the
Lord of the world content with the paltry power of thy scepter." That the
Jews were troubled, who, on the contrary, should have rejoiced, was
either because, as Chrysostom says, "wicked men could not rejoice at the
coming of the Holy one," or because they wished to court favor with
Herod, whom they feared; for "the populace is inclined to favor too much
those whose cruelty it endures."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 4/4
And that the children were slain by Herod was not harmful to them, but
profitable. For Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (66 de
Diversis): "It cannot be questioned that Christ, who came to set man
free, rewarded those who were slain for Him; since, while hanging on the
cross, He prayed for those who were putting Him to death."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether those to whom Christ's birth was made known were suitably chosen?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that those to whom Christ's birth was made known
were not suitably chosen. For our Lord (Mt. 10:5) commanded His
disciples, "Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles," so that He might be
made known to the Jews before the Gentiles. Therefore it seems that much
less should Christ's birth have been at once revealed to the Gentiles who
"came from the east," as stated Mt. 2:1.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the revelation of Divine truth should be made especially
to the friends of God, according to Job 37 [Vulg.: Job 36:33]: "He
sheweth His friend concerning it." But the Magi seem to be God's foes;
for it is written (Lev. 19:31): "Go not aside after wizards [magi],
neither ask anything of soothsayers." Therefore Christ's birth should not
have been made known to the Magi.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Christ came in order to set free the whole world from
the power of the devil; whence it is written (Malachi 1:11): "From the
rising of the sun even to the going down, My name is great among the
Gentiles." Therefore He should have been made known, not only to those
who dwelt in the east, but also to some from all parts of the world.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, all the sacraments of the Old Law were figures of
Christ. But the sacraments of the Old Law were dispensed through the
ministry of the legal priesthood. Therefore it seems that Christ's birth
should have been made known rather to the priests in the Temple than to
the shepherds in the fields.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, Christ was born of a Virgin-Mother, and was as yet a
little child. It was therefore more suitable that He should be made known
to youths and virgins than to old and married people or to widows, such
as Simeon and Anna.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 13:18): "I know whom I have chosen."
But what is done by God's wisdom is done becomingly. Therefore those to
whom Christ's birth was made known were suitably chosen.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Salvation, which was to be accomplished by Christ,
concerns all sorts and conditions of men: because, as it is written (Col.
3:11), in Christ "there is neither male nor female, [*These words are in
reality from Gal. 3:28] neither Gentile nor Jew . . . bond nor free," and
so forth. And in order that this might be foreshadowed in Christ's birth,
He was made known to men of all conditions. Because, as Augustine says in
a sermon on the Epiphany (32 de Temp.), "the shepherds were Israelites,
the Magi were Gentiles. The former were nigh to Him, the latter far from
Him. Both hastened to Him together as to the cornerstone." There was also
another point of contrast: for the Magi were wise and powerful; the
shepherds simple and lowly. He was also made known to the righteous as
Simeon and Anna; and to sinners, as the Magi. He was made known both to
men, and to women---namely, to Anna---so as to show no condition of men
to be excluded from Christ's redemption.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: That manifestation of Christ's birth was a kind of
foretaste of the full manifestation which was to come. And as in the
later manifestation the first announcement of the grace of Christ was
made by Him and His Apostles to the Jews and afterwards to the Gentiles,
so the first to come to Christ were the shepherds, who were the
first-fruits of the Jews, as being near to Him; and afterwards came the
Magi from afar, who were "the first-fruits of the Gentiles," as Augustine
says (Serm. 30 de Temp. cc.).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Serm. 30 de
Temp.): "As unskilfulness predominates in the rustic manners of the
shepherd, so ungodliness abounds in the profane rites of the Magi. Yet
did this Corner-Stone draw both to Itself; inasmuch as He came 'to choose
the foolish things that He might confound the wise,' and 'not to call the
just, but sinners,'" so that "the proud might not boast, nor the weak
despair." Nevertheless, there are those who say that these Magi were not
wizards, but wise astronomers, who are called Magi among the Persians or
Chaldees.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Chrysostom says [*Hom. ii in Matth. in the Opus Imperf.,
among the supposititious works of Chrysostom]: "The Magi came from the
east, because the first beginning of faith came from the land where the
day is born; since faith is the light of the soul." Or, "because all who
come to Christ come from Him and through Him": whence it is written
(Zach. 6:12): "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name." Now, they are said
to come from the east literally, either because, as some say, they came
from the farthest parts of the east, or because they came from the
neighboring parts of Judea that lie to the east of the region inhabited
by the Jews. Yet it is to be believed that certain signs of Christ's
birth appeared also in other parts of the world: thus, at Rome the river
flowed with oil [*Eusebius, Chronic. II, Olymp. 185]; and in Spain three
suns were seen, which gradually merged into one [*Cf. Eusebius, Chronic.
II, Olymp. 184].
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 4: As Chrysostom observes (Theophylact., Enarr. in Luc. ii,
8), the angel who announced Christ's birth did not go to Jerusalem, nor
did he seek the Scribes and Pharisees, for they were corrupted, and full
of ill-will. But the shepherds were single-minded, and were like the
patriarchs and Moses in their mode of life.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 2/2
Moreover, these shepherds were types of the Doctors of the Church, to
whom are revealed the mysteries of Christ that were hidden from the Jews.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: As Ambrose says (on Lk. 2:25): "It was right that our
Lord's birth should be attested not only by the shepherds, but also by
people advanced in age and virtue": whose testimony is rendered the more
credible by reason of their righteousness.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ Himself should have made His birth know?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should have Himself made His birth
known. For "a direct cause is always of greater power than an indirect
cause," as is stated Phys. viii. But Christ made His birth known through
others---for instance, to the shepherds through the angels, and to the
Magi through the star. Much more, therefore, should He Himself have made
His birth known.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 20:32): "Wisdom that is hid and
treasure that is not seen; what profit is there in them both?" But Christ
had, to perfection, the treasure of wisdom and grace from the beginning
of His conception. Therefore, unless He had made the fulness of these
gifts known by words and deeds, wisdom and grace would have been given
Him to no purpose. But this is unreasonable: because "God and nature do
nothing without a purpose" (De Coelo i).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, we read in the book De Infantia Salvatoris that in His
infancy Christ worked many miracles. It seems therefore that He did
Himself make His birth known.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Pope Leo says (Serm. xxxiv) that the Magi found the
"infant Jesus in no way different from the generality of human infants."
But other infants do not make themselves known. Therefore it was not
fitting that Christ should Himself make His birth known.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Christ's birth was ordered unto man's salvation, which is
by faith. But saving faith confesses Christ's Godhead and humanity. It
behooved, therefore, Christ's birth to be made known in such a way that
the proof of His Godhead should not be prejudicial to faith in His human
nature. But this took place while Christ presented a likeness of human
weakness, and yet, by means of God's creatures, He showed the power of
the Godhead in Himself. Therefore Christ made His birth known, not by
Himself, but by means of certain other creatures.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: By the way of generation and movement we must of necessity
come to the imperfect before the perfect. And therefore Christ was made
known first through other creatures, and afterwards He Himself manifested
Himself perfectly.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although hidden wisdom is useless, yet there is no need for
a wise man to make himself known at all times, but at a suitable time;
for it is written (Ecclus. 20:6): "There is one that holdeth his peace
because he knoweth not what to say: and there is another that holdeth his
peace, knowing the proper time." Hence the wisdom given to Christ was not
useless, because at a suitable time He manifested Himself. And the very
fact that He was hidden at a suitable time is a sign of wisdom.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The book De Infantia Salvatoris is apocryphal. Moreover,
Chrysostom (Hom. xxi super Joan.) says that Christ worked no miracles
before changing the water into wine, according to Jn. 2:11: "'This
beginning of miracles did Jesus.' For if He had worked miracles at an
early age, there would have been no need for anyone else to manifest Him
to the Israelites; whereas John the Baptist says (Jn. 1:31): 'That He may
be made manifest in Israel; therefore am I come baptizing with water.'
Moreover, it was fitting that He should not begin to work miracles at an
early age. For people would have thought the Incarnation to be unreal,
and, out of sheer spite, would have crucified Him before the proper time."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's birth should have been manifested by means of the angels
and the star?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should not have been manifested
by means of the angels. For angels are spiritual substances, according to
Ps. 103:4: "Who maketh His [Vulg.: 'makest Thy'] angels, spirits." But
Christ's birth was in the flesh, and not in His spiritual substance.
Therefore it should not have been manifested by means of angels.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the righteous are more akin to the angels than to any
other, according to Ps. 33:8: "The angel of the Lord shall encamp round
about them that fear Him, and shall deliver them." But Christ's birth was
not announced to the righteous, viz. Simeon and Anna, through the angels.
Therefore neither should it have been announced to the shepherds by means
of the angels.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it seems that neither ought it to have been announced to
the Magi by means of the star. For this seems to favor the error of those
who think that man's birth is influenced by the stars. But occasions of
sin should be taken away from man. Therefore it was not fitting that
Christ's birth should be announced by a star.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, a sign should be certain, in order that something be
made known thereby. But a star does not seem to be a certain sign of
Christ's birth. Therefore Christ's birth was not suitably announced by a
star.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 32:4): "The works of God are
perfect." But this manifestation is the work of God. Therefore it was
accomplished by means of suitable signs.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As knowledge is imparted through a syllogism from
something which we know better, so knowledge given by signs must be
conveyed through things which are familiar to those to whom the knowledge
is imparted. Now, it is clear that the righteous have, through the spirit
of prophecy, a certain familiarity with the interior instinct of the Holy
Ghost, and are wont to be taught thereby, without the guidance of
sensible signs. Whereas others, occupied with material things, are led
through the domain of the senses to that of the intellect. The Jews,
however, were accustomed to receive Divine answers through the angels;
through whom they also received the Law, according to Acts 7:53: "You
[Vulg.: 'who'] . . . have received the Law by the disposition of angels."
And the Gentiles, especially astrologers, were wont to observe the course
of the stars. And therefore Christ's birth was made known to the
righteous, viz. Simeon and Anna, by the interior instinct of the Holy
Ghost, according to Lk. 2:26: "He had received an answer from the Holy
Ghost that he should not see death before he had seen the Christ of the
Lord." But to the shepherds and Magi, as being occupied with material
things, Christ's birth was made known by means of visible apparitions.
And since this birth was not only earthly, but also, in a way, heavenly,
to both (shepherds and Magi) it is revealed through heavenly signs: for,
as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cciv): "The angels
inhabit, and the stars adorn, the heavens: by both, therefore, do the
'heavens show forth the glory of God.'" Moreover, it was not without
reason that Christ's birth was made known, by means of angels, to the
shepherds, who, being Jews, were accustomed to frequent apparitions of
the angels: whereas it was revealed by means of a star to the Magi, who
were wont to consider the heavenly bodies. Because, as Chrysostom says
(Hom. vi in Matth.): "Our Lord deigned to call them through things to
which they were accustomed." There is also another reason. For, as
Gregory says (Hom. x in Evang.): "To the Jews, as rational beings, it was
fitting that a rational animal [*Cf. FP, Q[51], A[1], ad 2]," viz. an
angel, "should preach. Whereas the Gentiles, who were unable to come to
the knowledge of God through the reason, were led to God, not by words,
but by signs. And as our Lord, when He was able to speak, was announced
by heralds who spoke, so before He could speak He was manifested by
speechless elements." Again, there is yet another reason. For, as
Augustine [*Pope Leo] says in a sermon on the Epiphany: "To Abraham was
promised an innumerable progeny, begotten, not of carnal propagation, but
of the fruitfulness of faith. For this reason it is compared to the
multitude of stars; that a heavenly progeny might be hoped for."
Wherefore the Gentiles, "who are thus designated by the stars, are by the
rising of a new star stimulated" to seek Christ, through whom they are
made the seed of Abraham.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: That which of itself is hidden needs to be manifested, but
not that which in itself is manifest. Now, the flesh of Him who was born
was manifest, whereas the Godhead was hidden. And therefore it was
fitting that this birth should be made known by angels, who are the
ministers of God. Wherefore also a certain "brightness" (Lk. 2:9)
accompanied the angelic apparition, to indicate that He who was just born
was the "Brightness of" the Father's "glory."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The righteous did not need the visible apparition of the
angel; on account of their perfection the interior instinct of the Holy
Ghost was enough for them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: The star which manifested Christ's birth removed all
occasion of error. For, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. ii): "No
astrologer has ever so far connected the stars with man's fate at the
time of his birth as to assert that one of the stars, at the birth of any
man, left its orbit and made its way to him who was just born": as
happened in the case of the star which made known the birth of Christ.
Consequently this does not corroborate the error of those who "think
there is a connection between man's birth and the course of the stars,
for they do not hold that the course of the stars can be changed at a
man's birth."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
In the same sense Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Matth.): "It is not an
astronomer's business to know from the stars those who are born, but to
tell the future from the hour of a man's birth: whereas the Magi did not
know the time of the birth, so as to conclude therefrom some knowledge of
the future; rather was it the other way about."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 1/4
Reply OBJ 4: Chrysostom relates (Hom. ii in Matth.) that, according to
some apocryphal books, a certain tribe in the far east near the ocean was
in the possession of a document written by Seth, referring to this star
and to the presents to be offered: which tribe watched attentively for
the rising of this star, twelve men being appointed to take observations,
who at stated times repaired to the summit of a mountain with faithful
assiduity: whence they subsequently perceived the star containing the
figure of a small child, and above it the form of a cross.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 2/4
Or we may say, as may be read in the book De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu.
lxiii, that "these Magi followed the tradition of Balaam," who said, "'A
star shall rise out of Jacob.' Wherefore observing this star to be a
stranger to the system of this world, they gathered that it was the one
foretold by Balaam to indicate the King of the Jews."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 3/4
Or again, it may be said with Augustine, in a sermon on the Epiphany
(ccclxxiv), that "the Magi had received a revelation through the angels"
that the star was a sign of the birth of Christ: and he thinks it
probable that these were "good angels; since in adoring Christ they were
seeking for salvation."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 4/4
Or with Pope Leo, in a sermon on the Epiphany (xxxiv), that "besides the
outward form which aroused the attention of their corporeal eyes, a more
brilliant ray enlightened their minds with the light of faith."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's birth was made known in a becoming order?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's birth was made known in an unbecoming
order. For Christ's birth should have been made known to them first who
were nearest to Christ, and who longed for Him most; according to Wis.
6:14: "She preventeth them that covet her, so that she first showeth
herself unto them." But the righteous were nearest to Christ by faith,
and longed most for His coming; whence it is written (Lk. 2:25) of Simeon
that "he was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel."
Therefore Christ's birth should have been made known to Simeon before the
shepherds and Magi.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the Magi were the "first-fruits of the Gentiles," who
were to believe in Christ. But first the "fulness of the Gentiles . . .
come in" unto faith, and afterwards "all Israel" shall "be saved," as is
written (Rm. 11:25). Therefore Christ's birth should have been made known
to the Magi before the shepherds.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is written (Mt. 2:16) that "Herod killed all the male
children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two
years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently
inquired from the wise men": so that it seems that the Magi were two
years in coming to Christ after His birth. It was therefore unbecoming
that Christ should be made known to the Gentiles so long after His birth.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Dan. 2:21): "He changes time and ages."
Consequently the time of the manifestation of Christ's birth seems to
have been arranged in a suitable order.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Christ's birth was first made known to the shepherds on
the very day that He was born. For, as it is written (Lk. 2:8,15,16):
"There were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the
night-watches over their flock . . . And it came to pass, after the
angels departed from them into heaven they [Vulg.: 'the shepherds'] said
one to another: Let us go over to Bethlehem . . . and they came with
haste." Second in order were the Magi, who came to Christ on the
thirteenth day after His birth, on which day is kept the feast of the
Epiphany. For if they had come after a year, or even two years, they
would not have found Him in Bethlehem, since it is written (Lk. 2:39)
that "after they had performed all things according to the law of the
Lord"---that is to say, after they had offered up the Child Jesus in the
Temple---"they returned into Galilee, to their city"---namely,
"Nazareth." In the third place, it was made known in the Temple to the
righteous on the fortieth day after His birth, as related by Luke (2:22).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] Body Para. 2/2
The reason of this order is that the shepherds represent the apostles
and other believers of the Jews, to whom the faith of Christ was made
known first; among whom there were "not many mighty, not many noble," as
we read 1 Cor. 1:26. Secondly, the faith of Christ came to the "fulness
of the Gentiles"; and this is foreshadowed in the Magi. Thirdly it came
to the fulness of the Jews, which is foreshadowed in the righteous.
Wherefore also Christ was manifested to them in the Jewish Temple.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As the Apostle says (Rm. 9:30,31): "Israel, by following
after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of justice": but the
Gentiles, "who followed not after justice," forestalled the generality of
the Jews in the justice which is of faith. As a figure of this, Simeon,
"who was waiting for the consolation of Israel," was the last to know
Christ born: and he was preceded by the Magi and the shepherds, who did
not await the coming of Christ with such longing.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although the "fulness of the Gentiles came in" unto faith
before the fulness of the Jews, yet the first-fruits of the Jews preceded
the first-fruits of the Gentiles in faith. For this reason the birth of
Christ was made known to the shepherds before the Magi.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: There are two opinions about the apparition of the star
seen by the Magi. For Chrysostom (Hom. ii in Matth. [*Opus Imperf. in
Matth., falsely ascribed to Chrysostom]), and Augustine in a sermon on
the Epiphany (cxxxi, cxxxii), say that the star was seen by the Magi
during the two years that preceded the birth of Christ: and then, having
first considered the matter and prepared themselves for the journey, they
came from the farthest east to Christ, arriving on the thirteenth day
after His birth. Wherefore Herod, immediately after the departure of the
Magi, "perceiving that He was deluded by them," commanded the male
children to be killed "from two years old and under," being doubtful lest
Christ were already born when the star appeared, according as he had
heard from the Magi.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
But others say that the star first appeared when Christ was born, and
that the Magi set off as soon as they saw the star, and accomplished a
journey of very great length in thirteen days, owing partly to the Divine
assistance, and partly to the fleetness of the dromedaries. And I say
this on the supposition that they came from the far east. But others,
again, say that they came from a neighboring country, whence also was
Balaam, to whose teaching they were heirs; and they are said to have come
from the east, because their country was to the east of the country of
the Jews. In this case Herod killed the babes, not as soon as the Magi
departed, but two years after: and that either because he is said to have
gone to Rome in the meanwhile on account of an accusation brought against
him, or because he was troubled at some imminent peril, and for the time
being desisted from his anxiety to slay the child, or because he may have
thought that the Magi, "being deceived by the illusory appearance of the
star, and not finding the child, as they had expected to, were ashamed to
return to him": as Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii). And the reason
why he killed not only those who were two years old, but also the younger
children, would be, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Innocents,
because he feared lest a child whom the stars obey, might make himself
appear older or younger.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the star which appeared to the Magi belonged to the heavenly
system?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the star which appeared to the Magi belonged
to the heavenly system. For Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany
(cxxii): "While God yet clings to the breast, and suffers Himself to be
wrapped in humble swaddling clothes, suddenly a new star shines forth in
the heavens." Therefore the star which appeared to the Magi belonged to
the heavenly system.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cci):
"Christ was made known to the shepherds by angels, to the Magi by a star.
A heavenly tongue speaks to both, because the tongue of the prophets
spoke no longer." But the angels who appeared to the shepherds were
really angels from heaven. Therefore also the star which appeared to the
Magi was really a star from the heavens.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, stars which are not in the heavens but in the air are
called comets, which do not appear at the birth of kings, but rather are
signs of their approaching death. But this star was a sign of the King's
birth: wherefore the Magi said (Mt. 2:2): "Where is He that is born King
of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the east." Therefore it seems
that it was a star from the heavens.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. ii): "It was not one of
those stars which since the beginning of the creation observe the course
appointed to them by the Creator; but this star was a stranger to the
heavens, and made its appearance at the strange sight of a virgin in
childbirth."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Matth.), it is clear, for
many reasons, that the star which appeared to the Magi did not belong to
the heavenly system. First, because no other star approaches from the
same quarter as this star, whose course was from north to south, these
being the relative positions of Persia, whence the Magi came, and Judea.
Secondly, from the time [at which it was seen]. For it appeared not only
at night, but also at midday: and no star can do this, not even the moon.
Thirdly, because it was visible at one time and hidden at another. For
when they entered Jerusalem it hid itself: then, when they had left
Herod, it showed itself again. Fourthly, because its movement was not
continuous, but when the Magi had to continue their journey the star
moved on; when they had to stop the star stood still; as happened to the
pillar of a cloud in the desert. Fifthly, because it indicated the
virginal Birth, not by remaining aloft, but by coming down below. For it
is written (Mt. 2:9) that "the star which they had seen in the east went
before them, until it came and stood over where the child was." Whence it
is evident that the words of the Magi, "We have seen His star in the
east," are to be taken as meaning, not that when they were in the east
the star appeared over the country of Judea, but that when they saw the
star it was in the east, and that it preceded them into Judea (although
this is considered doubtful by some). But it could not have indicated the
house distinctly, unless it were near the earth. And, as he [Chrysostom]
observes, this does not seem fitting to a star, but "of some power
endowed with reason." Consequently "it seems that this was some invisible
force made visible under the form of a star."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] Body Para. 2/2
Wherefore some say that, as the Holy Ghost, after our Lord's Baptism,
came down on Him under the form of a dove, so did He appear to the Magi
under the form of a star. While others say that the angel who, under a
human form, appeared to the shepherds, under the form of a star, appeared
to the Magi. But it seems more probable that it was a newly created star,
not in the heavens, but in the air near the earth, and that its movement
varied according to God's will. Wherefore Pope Leo says in a sermon on
the Epiphany (xxxi): "A star of unusual brightness appeared to the three
Magi in the east, which, through being more brilliant and more beautiful
than the other stars, drew men's gaze and attention: so that they
understood at once that such an unwonted event could not be devoid of
purpose."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: In Holy Scripture the air is sometimes called the
heavens---for instance, "The birds of the heavens [Douay: 'air'] and the
fishes of the sea."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The angels of heaven, by reason of their very office, come
down to us, being "sent to minister." But the stars of heaven do not
change their position. Wherefore there is no comparison.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As the star did not follow the course of the heavenly
stars, so neither did it follow the course of the comets, which neither
appear during the daytime nor vary their customary course. Nevertheless
in its signification it has something in common with the comets. Because
the heavenly kingdom of Christ "shall break in pieces, and shall consume
all the kingdoms" of the earth, "and itself shall stand for ever" (Dan.
2:44).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was becoming that the Magi should come to adore Christ and pay
homage to Him?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it was unbecoming that the Magi should come to
adore Christ and pay homage to Him. For reverence is due to a king from
his subjects. But the Magi did not belong to the kingdom of the Jews.
Therefore, since they knew by seeing the star that He that was born was
the "King of the Jews," it seems unbecoming that they should come to
adore Him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it seems absurd during the reign of one king to proclaim
a stranger. But in Judea Herod was reigning. Therefore it was foolish of
the Magi to proclaim the birth of a king.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a heavenly sign is more certain than a human sign. But
the Magi had come to Judea from the east, under the guidance of a
heavenly sign. Therefore it was foolish of them to seek human guidance
besides that of the star, saying: "Where is He that is born King of the
Jews?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the offering of gifts and the homage of adoration are
not due save to kings already reigning. But the Magi did not find Christ
resplendent with kingly grandeur. Therefore it was unbecoming for them to
offer Him gifts and homage.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 60:3): "[The Gentiles] shall walk in
the light, and kings in the brightness of thy rising." But those who walk
in the Divine light do not err. Therefore the Magi were right in offering
homage to Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[3], ad 1), the Magi are the
"first-fruits of the Gentiles" that believed in Christ; because their
faith was a presage of the faith and devotion of the nations who were to
come to Christ from afar. And therefore, as the devotion and faith of the
nations is without any error through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,
so also we must believe that the Magi, inspired by the Holy Ghost, did
wisely in paying homage to Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cc.):
"Though many kings of the Jews had been born and died, none of them did
the Magi seek to adore. And so they who came from a distant foreign land
to a kingdom that was entirely strange to them, had no idea of showing
such great homage to such a king as the Jews were wont to have. But they
had learnt that such a King was born that by adoring Him they might be
sure of obtaining from Him the salvation which is of God."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: By proclaiming [Christ King] the Magi foreshadowed the
constancy of the Gentiles in confessing Christ even until death. Whence
Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth.) that, while they thought of the King
who was to come, the Magi feared not the king who was actually present.
They had not yet seen Christ, and they were already prepared to die for
Him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cc.): "The
star which led the Magi to the place where the Divine Infant was with His
Virgin-Mother could bring them to the town of Bethlehem, in which Christ
was born. Yet it hid itself until the Jews also bore testimony of the
city in which Christ was to be born: so that, being encouraged by a
twofold witness," as Pope Leo says (Serm. xxxiv), "they might seek with
more ardent faith Him, whom both the brightness of the star and the
authority of prophecy revealed." Thus they "proclaim" that Christ is
born, and "inquire where; they believe and ask, as it were, betokening
those who walk by faith and desire to see," as Augustine says in a sermon
on the Epiphany (cxcix). But the Jews, by indicating to them the place of
Christ's birth, "are like the carpenters who built the Ark of Noe, who
provided others with the means of escape, and themselves perished in the
flood. Those who asked, heard and went their way: the teachers spoke and
stayed where they were; like the milestones that point out the way but
walk not" (Augustine, Serm. cclxxiii). It was also by God's will that,
when they no longer saw the star, the Magi, by human instinct, went to
Jerusalem, to seek in the royal city the new-born King, in order that
Christ's birth might be publicly proclaimed first in Jerusalem, according
to Is. 2:3: "The Law shall come forth from Sion, and the Word of the Lord
from Jerusalem"; and also "in order that by the zeal of the Magi who came
from afar, the indolence of the Jews who lived near at hand, might be
proved worthy of condemnation" (Remig., Hom. in Matth. ii, 1).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: As Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth. [*From the
supposititious Opus Imperfectum]): "If the Magi had come in search of an
earthly King, they would have been disconcerted at finding that they had
taken the trouble to come such a long way for nothing. Consequently they
would have neither adored nor offered gifts. But since they sought a
heavenly King, though they found in Him no signs of royal pre-eminence,
yet, content with the testimony of the star alone, they adored: for they
saw a man, and they acknowledged a God." Moreover, they offer gifts in
keeping with Christ's greatness: "gold, as to the great King; they offer
up incense as to God, because it is used in the Divine Sacrifice; and
myrrh, which is used in embalming the bodies of the dead, is offered as
to Him who is to die for the salvation of all" (Gregory, Hom. x in
Evang.). And hereby, as Gregory says (Hom. x in Evang.), we are taught to
offer gold, "which signifies wisdom, to the new-born King, by the luster
of our wisdom in His sight." We offer God incense, "which signifies
fervor in prayer, if our constant prayers mount up to God with an odor of
sweetness"; and we offer myrrh, "which signifies mortification of the
flesh, if we mortify the ill-deeds of the flesh by refraining from them."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] Out. Para. 1/1
OF CHRIST'S CIRCUMCISION, AND OF THE OTHER LEGAL OBSERVANCES ACCOMPLISHED
IN REGARD TO THE CHILD CHRIST (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider Christ's circumcision. And since the circumcision
is a kind of profession of observing the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: "I
testify . . . to every man circumcising himself that he is a debtor to do
the whole Law," we shall have at the same time to inquire about the other
legal observances accomplished in regard to the Child Christ. Therefore
there are four points of inquiry:
(1) His circumcision;
(2) The imposition of His name;
(3) His presentation;
(4) His Mother's purification.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ should have been circumcised?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been circumcised. For
on the advent of the reality, the figure ceases. But circumcision was
prescribed to Abraham as a sign of the covenant concerning his posterity,
as may be seen from Gn. 17. Now this covenant was fulfilled in Christ's
birth. Therefore circumcision should have ceased at once.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, "every action of Christ is a lesson to us" [*Innoc. III,
Serm. xxii de Temp.]; wherefore it is written (Jn. 3:15): "I have given
you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also." But we ought
not to be circumcised; according to Gal. 5:2: "If you be circumcised,
Christ shall profit you nothing." Therefore it seems that neither should
Christ have been circumcised.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, circumcision was prescribed as a remedy of original sin.
But Christ did not contract original sin, as stated above (Q[14], A[3];
Q[15], A[1]). Therefore Christ should not have been circumcised.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 2:21): "After eight days were
accomplished, that the child should be circumcised."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, For several reasons Christ ought to have been
circumcised. First, in order to prove the reality of His human nature, in
contradiction to the Manicheans, who said that He had an imaginary body:
and in contradiction to Apollinarius, who said that Christ's body was
consubstantial with His Godhead; and in contradiction to Valentine, who
said that Christ brought His body from heaven. Secondly, in order to show
His approval of circumcision, which God had instituted of old. Thirdly,
in order to prove that He was descended from Abraham, who had received
the commandment of circumcision as a sign of his faith in Him. Fourthly,
in order to take away from the Jews an excuse for not receiving Him, if
He were uncircumcised. Fifthly, "in order by His example to exhort us to
be obedient" [*Bede, Hom. x in Evang.]. Wherefore He was circumcised on
the eighth day according to the prescription of the Law (Lev. 12:3).
Sixthly, "that He who had come in the likeness of sinful flesh might not
reject the remedy whereby sinful flesh was wont to be healed." Seventhly,
that by taking on Himself the burden of the Law, He might set others free
therefrom, according to Gal. 4:4,5: "God sent His Son . . . made under
the Law, that He might redeem them who were under the Law."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Circumcision by the removal of the piece of skin in the
member of generation, signified "the passing away of the old generation"
[*Athanasius, De Sabb. et Circumcis.]: from the decrepitude of which we
are freed by Christ's Passion. Consequently this figure was not
completely fulfilled in Christ's birth, but in His Passion, until which
time the circumcision retained its virtue and status. Therefore it
behooved Christ to be circumcised as a son of Abraham before His Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: Christ submitted to circumcision while it was yet of
obligation. And thus His action in this should be imitated by us, in
fulfilling those things which are of obligation in our own time. Because
"there is a time and opportunity for every business" (Eccl 8:6).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
Moreover, according to Origen (Hom. xiv in Luc.), "as we died when He
died, and rose again when Christ rose from the dead, so were we
circumcised spiritually through Christ: wherefore we need no carnal
circumcision." And this is what the Apostle says (Col. 2:11): "In whom,"
[i.e. Christ] "you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in
despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of" our Lord
Jesus "Christ."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Christ voluntarily took upon Himself our death, which is
the effect of sin, whereas He had no sin Himself, in order to deliver us
from death, and to make us to die spiritually unto sin, so also He took
upon Himself circumcision, which was a remedy against original sin,
whereas He contracted no original sin, in order to deliver us from the
yoke of the Law, and to accomplish a spiritual circumcision in us---in
order, that is to say, that, by taking upon Himself the shadow, He might
accomplish the reality.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether His name was suitably given to Christ?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that an unsuitable name was given to Christ. For
the Gospel reality should correspond to the prophetic foretelling. But
the prophets foretold another name for Christ: for it is written (Is.
7:14): "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and His name shall
be called Emmanuel"; and (Is. 8:3): "Call His name, Hasten to take away
the spoils; Make haste to take away the prey"; and (Is. 9:6): "His name
shall be called Wonderful, Counselor God the Mighty, the Father of the
world to come, the Prince of Peace"; and (Zach. 6:12): "Behold a Man, the
Orient is His name." Thus it was unsuitable that His name should be
called Jesus.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Is. 62:2): "Thou shalt be called by a new
name, which the mouth of the Lord hath named [Vulg.: 'shall name']." But
the name Jesus is not a new name, but was given to several in the Old
Testament: as may be seen in the genealogy of Christ (Lk. 3:29),
"Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for His name to be called
Jesus."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the name Jesus signifies "salvation"; as is clear from
Mt. 1:21: "She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name
Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins." But salvation
through Christ was accomplished not only in the circumcision, but also in
uncircumcision, as is declared by the Apostle (Rm. 4:11,12). Therefore
this name was not suitably given to Christ at His circumcision.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, in which it is written
(Lk. 2:21): "After eight days were accomplished, that the child should be
circumcised, His name was called Jesus."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, A name should answer to the nature of a thing. This is
clear in the names of genera and species, as stated Metaph. iv: "Since a
name is but an expression of the definition" which designates a thing's
proper nature.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] Body Para. 2/3
Now, the names of individual men are always taken from some property of
the men to whom they are given. Either in regard to time; thus men are
named after the Saints on whose feasts they are born: or in respect of
some blood relation; thus a son is named after his father or some other
relation; and thus the kinsfolk of John the Baptist wished to call him
"by his father's name Zachary," not by the name John, because "there" was
"none of" his "kindred that" was "called by this name," as related Lk.
1:59-61. Or, again, from some occurrence; thus Joseph "called the name
of" the "first-born Manasses, saying: God hath made me to forget all my
labors" (Gn. 41:51). Or, again, from some quality of the person who
receives the name; thus it is written (Gn. 25:25) that "he that came
forth first was red and hairy like a skin; and his name was called Esau,"
which is interpreted "red."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] Body Para. 3/3
But names given to men by God always signify some gratuitous gift
bestowed on them by Him; thus it was said to Abraham (Gn. 17:5): "Thou
shalt be called Abraham; because I have made thee a father of many
nations": and it was said to Peter (Mt. 16:18): "Thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build My Church." Since, therefore, this prerogative of
grace was bestowed on the Man Christ that through Him all men might be
saved, therefore He was becomingly named Jesus, i.e. Saviour: the angel
having foretold this name not only to His Mother, but also to Joseph, who
was to be his foster-father.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/4
Reply OBJ 1: All these names in some way mean the same as Jesus, which
means "salvation." For the name "Emmanuel, which being interpreted is
'God with us,'" designates the cause of salvation, which is the union of
the Divine and human natures in the Person of the Son of God, the result
of which union was that "God is with us."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 2/4
When it was said, "Call his name, Hasten to take away," etc., these
words indicate from what He saved us, viz. from the devil, whose spoils
He took away, according to Col. 2:15: "Despoiling the principalities and
powers, He hath exposed them confidently."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 3/4
When it was said, "His name shall be called Wonderful," etc., the way
and term of our salvation are pointed out: inasmuch as "by the wonderful
counsel and might of the Godhead we are brought to the inheritance of the
life to come," in which the children of God will enjoy "perfect peace"
under "God their Prince."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 4/4
When it was said, "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name," reference is
made to the same, as in the first, viz. to the mystery of the
Incarnation, by reason of which "to the righteous a light is risen up in
darkness" (Ps. 111:4).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The name Jesus could be suitable for some other reason to
those who lived before Christ---for instance, because they were saviours
in a particular and temporal sense. But in the sense of spiritual and
universal salvation, this name is proper to Christ, and thus it is called
a "new" name.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As is related Gn. 17, Abraham received from God and at the
same time both his name and the commandment of circumcision. For this
reason it was customary among the Jews to name children on the very day
of circumcision, as though before being circumcised they had not as yet
perfect existence: just as now also children receive their names in
Baptism. Wherefore on Prov. 4:3, "I was my father's son, tender, and as
an only son in the sight of my mother," the gloss says: "Why does Solomon
call himself an only son in the sight of his mother, when Scripture
testifies that he had an elder brother of the same mother, unless it be
that the latter died unnamed soon after birth?" Therefore it was that
Christ received His name at the time of His circumcision.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ was becomingly presented in the temple?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ was unbecomingly presented in the
Temple. For it is written (Ex. 13:2): "Sanctify unto Me every first-born
that openeth the womb among the children of Israel." But Christ came
forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; and thus He did not open His
Mother's womb. Therefore Christ was not bound by this law to be presented
in the Temple.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, that which is always in one's presence cannot be
presented to one. But Christ's humanity was always in God's presence in
the highest degree, as being always united to Him in unity of person.
Therefore there was no need for Him to be presented to the Lord.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Christ is the principal victim, to whom all the victims
of the old Law are referred, as the figure to the reality. But a victim
should not be offered up for a victim. Therefore it was not fitting that
another victim should be offered up for Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, among the legal victims the principal was the lamb,
which was a "continual sacrifice" [Vulg.: 'holocaust'], as is stated Num.
28:6: for which reason Christ is also called "the Lamb---Behold the Lamb
of God" (Jn. 1: 29). It was therefore more fitting that a lamb should be
offered for Christ than "a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary is the authority of Scripture which relates this as
having taken place (Lk. 2:22).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), Christ wished to be "made under
the Law, that He might redeem them who were under the Law" (Gal. 4:4,5),
and that the "justification of the Law might be" spiritually "fulfilled"
in His members. Now, the Law contained a twofold precept touching the
children born. one was a general precept which affected all---namely,
that "when the days of the mother's purification were expired," a
sacrifice was to be offered either "for a son or for a daughter," as laid
down Lev. 12:6. And this sacrifice was for the expiation of the sin in
which the child was conceived and born; and also for a certain
consecration of the child, because it was then presented in the Temple
for the first time. Wherefore one offering was made as a holocaust and
another for sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] Body Para. 2/3
The other was a special precept in the law concerning the first-born of
"both man and beast": for the Lord claimed for Himself all the first-born
in Israel, because, in order to deliver the Israelites, He "slew every
first-born in the land of Egypt, both men and cattle" (Ex. 12:12,13,29),
the first-born of Israel being saved; which law is set down Ex. 13. Here
also was Christ foreshadowed, who is "the First-born amongst many
brethren" (Rm. 8:29).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] Body Para. 3/3
Therefore, since Christ was born of a woman and was her first-born, and
since He wished to be "made under the Law," the Evangelist Luke shows
that both these precepts were fulfilled in His regard. First, as to that
which concerns the first-born, when he says (Lk. 2:22,23): "They carried
Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord: as it is written in the law
of the Lord, 'Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the
Lord.'" Secondly, as to the general precept which concerned all, when he
says (Lk. 2:24): "And to offer a sacrifice according as it is written in
the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Gregory of Nyssa says (De Occursu Dom.): "It seems that
this precept of the Law was fulfilled in God incarnate alone in a special
manner exclusively proper to Him. For He alone, whose conception was
ineffable, and whose birth was incomprehensible, opened the virginal womb
which had been closed to sexual union, in such a way that after birth the
seal of chastity remained inviolate." Consequently the words "opening the
womb" imply that nothing hitherto had entered or gone forth therefrom.
Again, for a special reason is it written "'a male,' because He
contracted nothing of the woman's sin": and in a singular way "is He
called 'holy,' because He felt no contagion of earthly corruption, whose
birth was wondrously immaculate" (Ambrose, on Lk. 2:23).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As the Son of God "became man, and was circumcised in the
flesh, not for His own sake, but that He might make us to be God's
through grace, and that we might be circumcised in the spirit; so, again,
for our sake He was presented to the Lord, that we may learn to offer
ourselves to God" [*Athanasius, on Lk. 2:23]. And this was done after His
circumcision, in order to show that "no one who is not circumcised from
vice is worthy of Divine regard" [*Bede, on Lk. 2:23].
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: For this very reason He wished the legal victims to be
offered for Him who was the true Victim, in order that the figure might
be united to and confirmed by the reality, against those who denied that
in the Gospel Christ preached the God of the Law. "For we must not
think," says Origen (Hom. xiv in Luc.) "that the good God subjected His
Son to the enemy's law, which He Himself had not given."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The law of Lev. 12:6,[8] "commanded those who could, to
offer, for a son or a daughter, a lamb and also a turtle dove or a
pigeon: but those who were unable to offer a lamb were commanded to offer
two turtle doves or two young pigeons" [*Bede, Hom. xv in Purif.]. "And
so the Lord, who, 'being rich, became poor for our [Vulg.: 'your'] sakes,
that through His poverty we [you] might be rich," as is written 2 Cor.
8:9, "wished the poor man's victim to be offered for Him" just as in His
birth He was "wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger" [*Bede
on Lk. 1]. Nevertheless, these birds have a figurative sense. For the
turtle dove, being a loquacious bird, represents the preaching and
confession of faith; and because it is a chaste animal, it signifies
chastity; and being a solitary animal, it signifies contemplation. The
pigeon is a gentle and simple animal, and therefore signifies gentleness
and simplicity. It is also a gregarious animal; wherefore it signifies
the active life. Consequently this sacrifice signified the perfection of
Christ and His members. Again, "both these animals, by the plaintiveness
of their song, represented the mourning of the saints in this life: but
the turtle dove, being solitary, signifies the tears of prayer; whereas
the pigeon, being gregarious, signifies the public prayers of the Church"
[*Bede, Hom. xv in Purif.]. Lastly, two of each of these animals are
offered, to show that holiness should be not only in the soul, but also
in the body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was fitting that the Mother of God should go to the temple to
be purified?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it was unfitting for the Mother of God to go
to the Temple to be purified. For purification presupposes uncleanness.
But there was no uncleanness in the Blessed Virgin, as stated above
(QQ[27],28). Therefore she should not have gone to the Temple to be
purified.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Lev. 12:2-4): "If a woman, having
received seed, shall bear a man-child, she shall be unclean seven days";
and consequently she is forbidden "to enter into the sanctuary until the
days of her purification be fulfilled." But the Blessed Virgin brought
forth a male child without receiving the seed of man. Therefore she had
no need to come to the Temple to be purified.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, purification from uncleanness is accomplished by grace
alone. But the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace; rather,
indeed, did she have the very Author of grace with her. Therefore it was
not fitting that the Blessed Virgin should come to the Temple to be
purified.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, where it is stated (Lk.
2:22) that "the days of" Mary's "purification were accomplished according
to the law of Moses."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As the fulness of grace flowed from Christ on to His
Mother, so it was becoming that the mother should be like her Son in
humility: for "God giveth grace to the humble," as is written James 4:6.
And therefore, just as Christ, though not subject to the Law, wished,
nevertheless, to submit to circumcision and the other burdens of the Law,
in order to give an example of humility and obedience; and in order to
show His approval of the Law; and, again, in order to take away from the
Jews an excuse for calumniating Him: for the same reasons He wished His
Mother also to fulfil the prescriptions of the Law, to which,
nevertheless, she was not subject.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Although the Blessed Virgin had no uncleanness, yet she
wished to fulfil the observance of purification, not because she needed
it, but on account of the precept of the Law. Thus the Evangelist says
pointedly that the days of her purification "according to the Law" were
accomplished; for she needed no purification in herself.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Moses seems to have chosen his words in order to exclude
uncleanness from the Mother of God, who was with child "without receiving
seed." It is therefore clear that she was not bound to fulfil that
precept, but fulfilled the observance of purification of her own accord,
as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The sacraments of the Law did not cleanse from the
uncleanness of sin which is accomplished by grace, but they foreshadowed
this purification: for they cleansed by a kind of carnal purification,
from the uncleanness of a certain irregularity, as stated in the FS,
Q[102], A[5]; FS, Q[103], A[2]. But the Blessed Virgin contracted neither
uncleanness, and consequently did not need to be purified.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN (SIX ARTICLES)
We now proceed to consider the baptism wherewith Christ was baptized.
And since Christ was baptized with the baptism of John, we shall consider
(1) the baptism of John in general; (2) the baptizing of Christ. In
regard to the former there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it was fitting that John should baptize?
(2) Whether that baptism was from God?
(3) Whether it conferred grace?
(4) Whether others besides Christ should have received that baptism?
(5) Whether that baptism should have ceased when Christ was baptized?
(6) Whether those who received John's baptism had afterwards to receive
Christ's baptism?
�Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was fitting that John should baptize?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that John should baptize.
For every sacramental rite belongs to some law. But John did not
introduce a new law. Therefore it was not fitting that he should
introduce the new rite of baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, John "was sent by God . . . for a witness" (Jn. 1:6,7)
as a prophet; according to Lk. 1:76: "Thou, child, shalt be called the
prophet of the Highest." But the prophets who lived before Christ did not
introduce any new rite, but persuaded men to observe the rites of the
Law. as is clearly stated Malachi 4:4: "Remember the law of Moses My
servant." Therefore neither should John have introduced a new rite of
baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, when there is too much of anything, nothing should be
added to it. But the Jews observed a superfluity of baptisms; for it is
written (Mk. 7:3,4) that "the Pharisees and all the Jews eat not without
often washing their hands . . . and when they come from the market,
unless they be washed, they eat not; and many other things there are that
have been delivered to them to observe, the washings of cups and of pots,
and of brazen vessels, and of beds." Therefore it was unfitting that John
should baptize.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary is the authority of Scripture (Mt. 3:5,6), which, after
stating the holiness of John, adds many went out to him, "and were
baptized in the Jordan."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, It was fitting for John to baptize, for four reasons:
first, it was necessary for Christ to be baptized by John, in order that
He might sanctify baptism; as Augustine observes, super Joan. (Tract.
xiii in Joan.).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] Body Para. 2/4
Secondly, that Christ might be manifested. Whence John himself says (Jn.
1:31): "That He," i.e. Christ, "may be made manifest in Israel, therefore
am I come baptizing with water." For he announced Christ to the crowds
that gathered around him; which was thus done much more easily than if he
had gone in search of each individual, as Chrysostom observes, commenting
on St. John (Hom. x in Matth.).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] Body Para. 3/4
Thirdly, that by his baptism he might accustom men to the baptism of
Christ; wherefore Gregory says in a homily (Hom. vii in Evang.) that
therefore did John baptize, "that, being consistent with his office of
precursor, as he had preceded our Lord in birth, so he might also by
baptizing precede Him who was about to baptize."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] Body Para. 4/4
Fourthly, that by persuading men to do penance, he might prepare men to
receive worthily the baptism of Christ. Wherefore Bede [*Cf. Scot. Erig.
in Joan. iii, 24] says that "the baptism of John was as profitable before
the baptism of Christ, as instruction in the faith profits the
catechumens not yet baptized. For just as he preached penance, and
foretold the baptism of Christ, and drew men to the knowledge of the
Truth that hath appeared to the world, so do the ministers of the Church,
after instructing men, chide them for their sins, and lastly promise them
forgiveness in the baptism of Christ."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The baptism of John was not a sacrament properly so called
[per se], but a kind of sacramental, preparatory to the baptism of
Christ. Consequently, in a way, it belonged to the law of Christ, but not
to the law of Moses.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: John was not only a prophet, but "more than a prophet," as
stated Mt. 11:9: for he was the term of the Law and the beginning of the
Gospel. Therefore it was in his province to lead men, both by word and
deed, to the law of Christ rather than to the observance of the Old Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Those baptisms of the Pharisees were vain, being ordered
merely unto carnal cleanliness. But the baptism of John was ordered unto
spiritual cleanliness, since it led men to do penance, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the baptism of John was from God?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the baptism of John was not from God. For
nothing sacramental that is from God is named after a mere man: thus the
baptism of the New Law is not named after Peter or Paul, but after
Christ. But that baptism is named after John, according to Mt. 21:25:
"The baptism of John . . . was it from heaven or from men?" Therefore the
baptism of John was not from God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, every doctrine that proceeds from God anew is confirmed
by some signs: thus the Lord (Ex. 4) gave Moses the power of working
signs; and it is written (Heb. 2:3,4) that our faith "having begun to be
declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him, God
also bearing them witness by signs and wonders." But it is written of
John the Baptist (Jn. 10:41) that "John did no sign." Therefore it seems
that the baptism wherewith he baptized was not from God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, those sacraments which are instituted by God are
contained in certain precepts of Holy Scripture. But there is no precept
of Holy Writ commanding the baptism of John. Therefore it seems that it
was not from God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 1:33): "He who sent me to baptize
with water said to me: 'He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit,'" etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Two things may be considered in the baptism of
John---namely, the rite of baptism and the effect of baptism. The rite of
baptism was not from men, but from God, who by an interior revelation of
the Holy Ghost sent John to baptize. But the effect of that baptism was
from man, because it effected nothing that man could not accomplish.
Wherefore it was not from God alone, except in as far as God works in man.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: By the baptism of the New Law men are baptized inwardly by
the Holy Ghost, and this is accomplished by God alone. But by the baptism
of John the body alone was cleansed by the water. Wherefore it is written
(Mt. 3:11): "I baptize you in water; but . . . He shall baptize you in
the Holy Ghost." For this reason the baptism of John was named after him,
because it effected nothing that he did not accomplish. But the baptism
of the New Law is not named after the minister thereof, because he does
not accomplish its principal effect, which is the inward cleansing.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The whole teaching and work of John was ordered unto
Christ, who, by many miracles confirmed both His own teaching and that of
John. But if John had worked signs, men would have paid equal attention
to John and to Christ. Wherefore, in order that men might pay greater
attention to Christ, it was not given to John to work a sign. Yet when
the Jews asked him why he baptized, he confirmed his office by the
authority of Scripture, saying: "I am the voice of one crying in the
wilderness," etc. as related, Jn. 1:23 (cf. Is. 40:3). Moreover, the very
austerity of his life was a commendation of his office, because, as
Chrysostom says, commenting on Matthew (Hom. x in Matth.), "it was
wonderful to witness such endurance in a human body."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The baptism of John was intended by God to last only for a
short time, for the reasons given above (A[1]). Therefore it was not the
subject of a general commandment set down in Sacred Writ, but of a
certain interior revelation of the Holy Ghost, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether grace was given in the baptism of John?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that grace was given in the baptism of John. For it
is written (Mk. 1:4): "John was in the desert baptizing and preaching the
baptism of penance unto remission of sins." But penance and remission of
sins are the effect of grace. Therefore the baptism of John conferred
grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, those who were about to be baptized by John "confessed
their sins," as related Mt. 3:6 and Mk. 1:5. But the confession of sins
is ordered to their remission, which is effected by grace. Therefore
grace was conferred in the baptism of John.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the baptism of John was more akin than circumcision to
the baptism of Christ. But original sin was remitted through
circumcision: because, as Bede says (Hom. x in Circumcis.), "under the
Law, circumcision brought the same saving aid to heal the wound of
original sin as baptism is wont to bring now that grace is revealed."
Much more, therefore, did the baptism of John effect the remission of
sins, which cannot be accomplished without grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 3:11): "I indeed baptize you in
water unto penance." Which words Gregory thus expounds in a certain
homily (Hom. vii in Evang.): "John baptized, not in the Spirit, but in
water: because he could not forgive sins." But grace is given by the Holy
Ghost, and by means thereof sins are taken away. Therefore the baptism of
John did not confer grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[2], ad 2), the whole teaching and work
of John was in preparation for Christ: just as it is the duty of the
servant and of the under-craftsman to prepare the matter for the form
which is accomplished by the head-craftsman. Now grace was to be
conferred on men through Christ, according to Jn. 1:17: "Grace and truth
came through Jesus Christ." Therefore the baptism of John did not confer
grace, but only prepared the way for grace; and this in three ways:
first, by John's teaching, which led men to faith in Christ; secondly, by
accustoming men to the rite of Christ's baptism; thirdly, by penance,
preparing men to receive the effect of Christ's baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 1: In these words, as Bede says (on Mk. 1:4), a twofold
baptism of penance may be understood. one is that which John conferred by
baptizing, which is called "a baptism of penance," etc., by reason of its
inducing men to do penance, and of its being a kind of protestation by
which men avowed their purpose of doing penance. The other is the baptism
of Christ, by which sins are remitted, and which John could not give, but
only preach, saying: "He will baptize you in the Holy Ghost."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 2/3
Or it may be said that he preached the "baptism of penance," i.e. which
induced men to do penance, which penance leads men on to "the remission
of sins."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 3/3
Or again, it may be said with Jerome [*Another author on Mk. 1 (inter
op. Hier.)] that "by the baptism of Christ grace is given, by which sins
are remitted gratis; and that what is accomplished by the bridegroom is
begun by the bridesman," i.e. by John. Consequently it is said that "he
baptized and preached the baptism of penance unto remission of sins," not
as though he accomplished this himself, but because he began it by
preparing the way for it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: That confession of sins was not made unto the remission of
sins, to be realized immediately through the baptism of John, but to be
obtained through subsequent penance and through the baptism of Christ,
for which that penance was a preparation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Circumcision was instituted as a remedy for original sin.
Whereas the baptism of John was not instituted for this purpose, but was
merely in preparation for the baptism of Christ, as stated above; whereas
the sacraments attain their effect through the force of their institution.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ alone should have been baptized with the baptism of John?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ alone should have been baptized with
the baptism of John. For, as stated above (A[1]), "the reason why John
baptized was that Christ might receive baptism," as Augustine says (Super
Joan., Tract. xiii). But what is proper to Christ should not be
applicable to others. Therefore no others should have received that
baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, whoever is baptized either receives something from the
baptism or confers something on the baptism. But no one could receive
anything from the baptism of John, because thereby grace was not
conferred, as stated above (A[3]). On the other hand, no one could confer
anything on baptism save Christ, who "sanctified the waters by the touch
of His most pure flesh" [*Mag. Sent. iv, 3]. Therefore it seems that
Christ alone should have been baptized with the baptism of John.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if others were baptized with that baptism, this was only
in order that they might be prepared for the baptism of Christ: and thus
it would seem fitting that the baptism of John should be conferred on
all, old and young, Gentile and Jew, just as the baptism of Christ. But
we do not read that either children or Gentiles were baptized by the
latter; for it is written (Mk. 1:5) that "there went out to him . . . all
they of Jerusalem, and were baptized by him." Therefore it seems that
Christ alone should have been baptized by John.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 3:21): "It came to pass, when all
the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and praying,
heaven was opened."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, For two reasons it behooved others besides Christ to be
baptized with the baptism of John. First, as Augustine says (Super Joan.,
Tract. iv, v), "if Christ alone had been baptized with the baptism of
John, some would have said that John's baptism, with which Christ was
baptized, was more excellent than that of Christ, with which others are
baptized."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
Secondly, because, as above stated, it behooved others to be prepared by
John's baptism for the baptism of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The baptism of John was instituted not only that Christ
might be baptized, but also for other reasons, as stated above (A[1]).
And yet, even if it were instituted merely in order that Christ might be
baptized therewith, it was still necessary for others to receive this
baptism, in order to avoid the objection mentioned above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Others who approached to be baptized by John could not,
indeed, confer anything on his baptism: yet neither did they receive
anything therefrom, save only the sign of penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This was the baptism of "penance," for which children were
not suited; wherefore they were not baptized therewith. But to bring the
nations into the way of salvation was reserved to Christ alone, who is
the "expectation of the nations," as we read Gn. 49:10. Indeed, Christ
forbade the apostles to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles before His
Passion and Resurrection. Much less fitting, therefore, was it for the
Gentiles to be baptized by John.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether John's baptism should have ceased after Christ was baptized?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that John's baptism should have ceased after Christ
was baptized. For it is written (Jn. 1:31): "That He may be made manifest
in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing in water." But when Christ had
been baptized, He was made sufficiently manifest, both by the testimony
of John and by the dove coming down upon Him, and again by the voice of
the Father bearing witness to Him. Therefore it seems that John's baptism
should not have endured thereafter.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. iv): "Christ was
baptized, and John's baptism ceased to avail." Therefore it seems that,
after Christ's baptism, John should not have continued to baptize.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, John's baptism prepared the way for Christ's. But
Christ's baptism began as soon as He had been baptized; because "by the
touch of His most pure flesh He endowed the waters with a regenerating
virtue," as Bede asserts (Mag. Sent. iv, 3). Therefore it seems that
John's baptism ceased when Christ had been baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 3:22,23): "Jesus . . . came into the
land of Judea . . . and baptized: and John also was baptizing." But
Christ did not baptize before being baptized. Therefore it seems that
John continued to baptize after Christ had been baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, It was not fitting for the baptism of John to cease when
Christ had been baptized. First, because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxix
in Joan.), "if John had ceased to baptize" when Christ had been baptized,
"men would think that he was moved by jealousy or anger." Secondly, if he
had ceased to baptize when Christ baptized, "he would have given His
disciples a motive for yet greater envy." Thirdly, because, by continuing
to baptize, "he sent his hearers to Christ" (Hom. xxix in Joan.).
Fourthly, because, as Bede [*Scot. Erig. Comment. in Joan.] says, "there
still remained a shadow of the Old Law: nor should the forerunner
withdraw until the truth be made manifest."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: When Christ was baptized, He was not as yet fully
manifested: consequently there was still need for John to continue
baptizing.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The baptism of John ceased after Christ had been baptized,
not immediately, but when the former was cast into prison. Thus
Chrysostom says (Hom. xxix in Joan.): "I consider that John's death was
allowed to take place, and that Christ's preaching began in a great
measure after John had died, so that the undivided allegiance of the
multitude was transferred to Christ, and there was no further motive for
the divergence of opinions concerning both of them."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: John's baptism prepared the way not only for Christ to be
baptized, but also for others to approach to Christ's baptism: and this
did not take place as soon as Christ was baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether those who had been baptized with John's baptism had to be
baptized with the baptism of Christ?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that those who had been baptized with John's
baptism had not to be baptized with the baptism of Christ. For John was
not less than the apostles, since of him is it written (Mt. 11:11):
"There hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than
John the Baptist." But those who were baptized by the apostles were not
baptized again, but only received the imposition of hands; for it is
written (Acts 8:16,17) that some were "only baptized" by Philip "in the
name of the Lord Jesus": then the apostles---namely, Peter and
John---"laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost."
Therefore it seems that those who had been baptized by John had not to be
baptized with the baptism of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the apostles were baptized with John's baptism, since
some of them were his disciples, as is clear from Jn. 1:37. But the
apostles do not seem to have been baptized with the baptism of Christ:
for it is written (Jn. 4:2) that "Jesus did not baptize, but His
disciples." Therefore it seems that those who had been baptized with
John's baptism had not to be baptized with the baptism of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, he who is baptized is less than he who baptizes. But we
are not told that John himself was baptized with the baptism of Christ.
Therefore much less did those who had been baptized by John need to
receive the baptism of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, it is written (Acts 19:1-5) that "Paul . . . found
certain disciples; and he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost
since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard
whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you
baptized? Who said: In John's baptism." Wherefore "they were" again
"baptized in the name of our [Vulg.: 'the'] Lord Jesus Christ." Hence it
seems that they needed to be baptized again, because they did not know of
the Holy Ghost: as Jerome says on Joel 2:28 and in an epistle (lxix De
Viro unius uxoris), and likewise Ambrose (De Spiritu Sancto). But some
were baptized with John's baptism who had full knowledge of the Trinity.
Therefore these had no need to be baptized again with Christ's baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, on Rm. 10:8, "This is the word of faith, which we
preach," the gloss of Augustine says: "Whence this virtue in the water,
that it touches the body and cleanses the heart, save by the efficacy of
the word, not because it is uttered, but because it is believed?" Whence
it is clear that the virtue of baptism depends on faith. But the form of
John's baptism signified the faith in which we are baptized; for Paul
says (Acts 19:4): "John baptized the people with the baptism of penance,
saying: That they should believe in Him who was to come after him---that
is to say, in Jesus." Therefore it seems that those who had been baptized
with John's baptism had no need to be baptized again with the baptism of
Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. v): "Those who were
baptized with John's baptism needed to be baptized with the baptism of
our Lord."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, According to the opinion of the Master (Sent. iv, D, 2),
"those who had been baptized by John without knowing of the existence of
the Holy Ghost, and who based their hopes on his baptism, were afterwards
baptized with the baptism of Christ: but those who did not base their
hope on John's baptism, and who believed in the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, were not baptized afterwards, but received the Holy Ghost by the
imposition of hands made over them by the apostles."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] Body Para. 2/2
And this, indeed, is true as to the first part, and is confirmed by many
authorities. But as to the second part, the assertion is altogether
unreasonable. First, because John's baptism neither conferred grace nor
imprinted a character, but was merely "in water," as he says himself (Mt.
3:11). Wherefore the faith or hope which the person baptized had in
Christ could not supply this defect. Secondly, because, when in a
sacrament, that is omitted which belongs of necessity to the sacrament,
not only must the omission be supplied, but the whole must be entirely
renewed. Now, it belongs of necessity to Christ's baptism that it be
given not only in water, but also in the Holy Ghost, according to Jn.
3:5: "Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God." Wherefore in the case of those who had been
baptized with John's baptism in water only, not merely had the omission
to be supplied by giving them the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands,
but they had to be baptized wholly anew "in water and the Holy Ghost."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. v): "After John,
baptism was administered, and the reason why was because he gave not
Christ's baptism, but his own . . . That which Peter gave . . . and if
any were given by Judas, that was Christ's. And therefore if Judas
baptized anyone, yet were they not rebaptized . . . For the baptism
corresponds with him by whose authority it is given, not with him by
whose ministry it is given." For the same reason those who were baptized
by the deacon Philip, who gave the baptism of Christ, were not baptized
again, but received the imposition of hands by the apostles, just as
those who are baptized by priests are confirmed by bishops.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says to Seleucianus (Ep. cclxv), "we deem that
Christ's disciples were baptized either with John's baptism, as some
maintain, or with Christ's baptism, which is more probable. For He would
not fail to administer baptism so as to have baptized servants through
whom He baptized others, since He did not fail in His humble service to
wash their feet."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth. [*From the
supposititious Opus Imperfectum]): "Since, when John said, 'I ought to be
baptized by Thee,' Christ answered, 'Suffer it to be so now': it follows
that afterwards Christ did baptize John." Moreover, he asserts that "this
is distinctly set down in some of the apocryphal books." At any rate, it
is certain, as Jerome says on Mt. 3:13, that, "as Christ was baptized in
water by John, so had John to be baptized in the Spirit by Christ."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The reason why these persons were baptized after being
baptized by John was not only because they knew not of the Holy Ghost,
but also because they had not received the baptism of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), our sacraments are
signs of present grace, whereas the sacraments of the Old Law were signs
of future grace. Wherefore the very fact that John baptized in the name
of one who was to come, shows that he did not give the baptism of Christ,
which is a sacrament of the New Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE BAPTIZING OF CHRIST (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the baptizing of Christ, concerning which there
are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ should have been baptized?
(2) Whether He should have been baptized with the baptism of John?
(3) Of the time when He was baptized;
(4) Of the place;
(5) Of the heavens being opened unto Him;
(6) Of the apparition of the Holy Ghost under the form of a dove;
(7) Whether that dove was a real animal?
(8) Of the voice of the Father witnessing unto Him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was fitting that Christ should be baptized?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to be baptized.
For to be baptized is to be washed. But it was not fitting for Christ to
be washed, since there was no uncleanness in Him. Therefore it seems
unfitting for Christ to be baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ was circumcised in order to fulfil the law. But
baptism was not prescribed by the law. Therefore He should not have been
baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the first mover in every genus is unmoved in regard to
that movement; thus the heaven, which is the first cause of alteration,
is unalterable. But Christ is the first principle of baptism, according
to Jn. 1:33: "He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and
remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth." Therefore it was unfitting
for Christ to be baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 3:13) that "Jesus cometh from
Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to be baptized. First, because,
as Ambrose says on Lk. 3:21: "Our Lord was baptized because He wished,
not to be cleansed, but to cleanse the waters, that, being purified by
the flesh of Christ that knew no sin, they might have the virtue of
baptism"; and, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.), "that He might
bequeath the sanctified waters to those who were to be baptized
afterwards." Secondly, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.), "although
Christ was not a sinner, yet did He take a sinful nature and 'the
likeness of sinful flesh.' Wherefore, though He needed not baptism for
His own sake, yet carnal nature in others had need thereof." And, as
Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix) "Christ was baptized that He might
plunge the old Adam entirely in the water." Thirdly, He wished to be
baptized, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxvi),
"because He wished to do what He had commanded all to do." And this is
what He means by saying: "So it becometh us to fulfil all justice" (Mt.
3:15). For, as Ambrose says (on Lk. 3:21), "this is justice, to do first
thyself that which thou wishest another to do, and so encourage others by
thy example."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ was baptized, not that He might be cleansed, but
that He might cleanse, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: It was fitting that Christ should not only fulfil what was
prescribed by the Old Law, but also begin what appertained to the New
Law. Therefore He wished not only to be circumcised, but also to be
baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ is the first principle of baptism's spiritual
effect. Unto this He was not baptized, but only in water.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was fitting for Christ to be baptized with John's baptism?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it was unfitting for Christ to be baptized
with John's baptism. For John's baptism was the "baptism of penance."
But penance is unbecoming to Christ, since He had no sin. Therefore it
seems that He should not have been baptized with John's baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, John's baptism, as Chrysostom says (Hom. de Bapt.
Christi), "was a mean between the baptism of the Jews and that of
Christ." But "the mean savors of the nature of the extremes" (Aristotle,
De Partib. Animal.). Since, therefore, Christ was not baptized with the
Jewish baptism, nor yet with His own, on the same grounds He should not
have been baptized with the baptism of John.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, whatever is best in human things should be ascribed to
Christ. But John's baptism does not hold the first place among baptisms.
Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to be baptized with John's
baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 3:13) that "Jesus cometh to the
Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. xiii): "After
being baptized, the Lord baptized, not with that baptism wherewith He was
baptized." Wherefore, since He Himself baptized with His own baptism, it
follows that He was not baptized with His own, but with John's baptism.
And this was befitting: first, because John's baptism was peculiar in
this, that he baptized, not in the Spirit, but only "in water"; while
Christ did not need spiritual baptism, since He was filled with the grace
of the Holy Ghost from the beginning of His conception, as we have made
clear above (Q[34], A[1]). And this is the reason given by Chrysostom
(Hom. de Bapt. Christi). Secondly, as Bede says on Mk. 1:9, He was
baptized with the baptism of John, that, "by being thus baptized, He
might show His approval of John's baptism." Thirdly, as Gregory Nazianzen
says (Orat. xxxix), "by going to John to be baptized by him, He
sanctified baptism."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated above (A[1]), Christ wished to be baptized in
order by His example to lead us to baptism. And so, in order that He
might lead us thereto more efficaciously, He wished to be baptized with a
baptism which He clearly needed not, that men who needed it might
approach unto it. Wherefore Ambrose says on Lk. 3:21: "Let none decline
the laver of grace, since Christ did not refuse the laver of penance."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The Jewish baptism prescribed by the law was merely
figurative, whereas John's baptism, in a measure, was real, inasmuch as
it induced men to refrain from sin; but Christ's baptism is efficacious
unto the remission of sin and the conferring of grace. Now Christ needed
neither the remission of sin, which was not in Him, nor the bestowal of
grace, with which He was filled. Moreover, since He is "the Truth," it
was not fitting that He should receive that which was no more than a
figure. Consequently it was more fitting that He should receive the
intermediate baptism than one of the extremes.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Baptism is a spiritual remedy. Now, the more perfect a
thing is, the less remedy does it need. Consequently, from the very fact
that Christ is most perfect, it follows that it was fitting that He
should not receive the most perfect baptism: just as one who is healthy
does not need a strong medicine.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ was baptized at a fitting time?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ was baptized at an unfitting time. For
Christ was baptized in order that He might lead others to baptism by His
example. But it is commendable that the faithful of Christ should be
baptized, not merely before their thirtieth year, but even in infancy.
Therefore it seems that Christ should not have been baptized at the age
of thirty.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, we do not read that Christ taught or worked miracles
before being baptized. But it would have been more profitable to the
world if He had taught for a longer time, beginning at the age of twenty,
or even before. Therefore it seems that Christ, who came for man's
profit, should have been baptized before His thirtieth year.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the sign of wisdom infused by God should have been
especially manifest in Christ. But in the case of Daniel this was
manifested at the time of his boyhood; according to Dan. 13:45: "The Lord
raised up the holy spirit of a young boy, whose name was Daniel." Much
more, therefore, should Christ have been baptized or have taught in His
boyhood.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, John's baptism was ordered to that of Christ as to its
end. But "the end is first in intention and last in execution." Therefore
He should have been baptized by John either before all the others, or
after them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 3:21): "It came to pass, when all
the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying;"
and further on (Lk. 3:23): "And Jesus Himself was beginning about the age
of thirty years."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Christ was fittingly baptized in His thirtieth year.
First, because Christ was baptized as though for the reason that He was
about forthwith to begin to teach and preach: for which purpose perfect
age is required, such as is the age of thirty. Thus we read (Gn. 41:46)
that "Joseph was thirty" years old when he undertook the government of
Egypt. In like manner we read (2 Kgs. 5:4) that "David was thirty years
old when he began to reign." Again, Ezechiel began to prophesy in "his
thirtieth year," as we read Ezech. 1:1.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] Body Para. 2/3
Secondly, because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. x in Matth.), "the law was
about to pass away after Christ's baptism: wherefore Christ came to be
baptized at this age which admits of all sins; in order that by His
observing the law, no one might say that because He Himself could not
fulfil it, He did away with it."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] Body Para. 3/3
Thirdly, because by Christ's being baptized at the perfect age, we are
given to understand that baptism brings forth perfect men, according to
Eph. 4:13: "Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the
knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the
age of the fulness of Christ." Hence the very property of the number
seems to point to this. For thirty is product of three and ten: and by
the number three is implied faith in the Trinity, while ten signifies the
fulfilment of the commandments of the Law: in which two things the
perfection of Christian life consists.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xl), Christ was baptized,
not "as though He needed to be cleansed, or as though some peril
threatened Him if He delayed to be baptized. But no small danger besets
any other man who departs from this life without being clothed with the
garment of incorruptibility"---namely, grace. And though it be a good
thing to remain clean after baptism, "yet is it still better," as he
says, "to be slightly sullied now and then than to be altogether deprived
of grace."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The profit which accrues to men from Christ is chiefly
through faith and humility: to both of which He conduced by beginning to
teach not in His boyhood or youth, but at the perfect age. To faith,
because in this manner His human nature is shown to be real, by its
making bodily progress with the advance of time; and lest this progress
should be deemed imaginary, He did not wish to show His wisdom and power
before His body had reached the perfect age: to humility, lest anyone
should presume to govern or teach others before attaining to perfect age.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ was set before men as an example to all. Wherefore
it behooved that to be shown forth in Him, which is becoming to all
according to the common law---namely, that He should teach after reaching
the perfect age. But, as Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix), that which
seldom occurs is not the law of the Church; as "neither does one swallow
make the spring." For by special dispensation, in accordance with the
ruling of Divine wisdom, it has been granted to some, contrary to the
common law, to exercise the functions of governing or teaching. such as
Solomon, Daniel, and Jeremias.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: It was not fitting that Christ should be baptized by John
either before or after all others. Because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv
in Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus Imperfectum]), for this was
Christ baptized, "that He might confirm the preaching and the baptism of
John, and that John might bear witness to Him." Now, men would not have
had faith in John's testimony except after many had been baptized by him.
Consequently it was not fitting that John should baptize Him before
baptizing anyone else. In like manner, neither was it fitting that he
should baptize Him last. For as he (Chrysostom) says in the same
passage: "As the light of the sun does not wait for the setting of the
morning star, but comes forth while the latter is still above the
horizon, and by its brilliance dims its shining: so Christ did not wait
till John had run his course, but appeared while he was yet teaching and
baptizing."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ should have been baptized in the Jordan?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been baptized in the
Jordan. For the reality should correspond to the figure. But baptism was
prefigured in the crossing of the Red Sea, where the Egyptians were
drowned, just as our sins are blotted out in baptism. Therefore it seems
that Christ should rather have been baptized in the sea than in the river
Jordan.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, "Jordan" is interpreted a "going down." But by baptism a
man goes up rather than down: wherefore it is written (Mt. 3:16) that
"Jesus being baptized, forthwith came up [Douay: 'out'] from the water."
Therefore it seems unfitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, while the children of Israel were crossing, the waters
of the Jordan "were turned back," as it is related Jos. 4, and as it is
written Ps. 113:3,5. But those who are baptized go forward, not back.
Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mk. 1:9) that "Jesus was baptized by
John in the Jordan."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, It was through the river Jordan that the children of
Israel entered into the land of promise. Now, this is the prerogative of
Christ's baptism over all other baptisms: that it is the entrance to the
kingdom of God, which is signified by the land of promise; wherefore it
is said (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." To this also is to be
referred the dividing of the water of the Jordan by Elias, who was to be
snatched up into heaven in a fiery chariot, as it is related 4 Kgs. 2:
because, to wit, the approach to heaven is laid open by the fire of the
Holy Ghost, to those who pass through the waters of baptism. Therefore it
was fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The crossing of the Red Sea foreshadowed baptism in
this---that baptism washes away sin: whereas the crossing of the Jordan
foreshadows it in this---that it opens the gate to the heavenly kingdom:
and this is the principal effect of baptism, and accomplished through
Christ alone. And therefore it was fitting that Christ should be baptized
in the Jordan rather than in the sea.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In baptism we "go up" by advancing in grace: for which we
need to "go down" by humility, according to James 4:6: "He giveth grace
to the humble." And to this "going down" must the name of the Jordan be
referred.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says in a sermon for the Epiphany (x): "As of
yore the waters of the Jordan were held back, so now, when Christ was
baptized, the torrent of sin was held back." Or else this may signify
that against the downward flow of the waters the river of blessings
flowed upwards.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the heavens should have been opened unto Christ at His baptism?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the heavens should not have been opened unto
Christ at His baptism. For the heavens should be opened unto one who
needs to enter heaven, by reason of his being out of heaven. But Christ
was always in heaven, according to Jn. 3:13: "The Son of Man who is in
heaven." Therefore it seems that the heavens should not have been opened
unto Him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the opening of the heavens is understood either in a
corporal or in a spiritual sense. But it cannot be understood in a
corporal sense: because the heavenly bodies are impassible and
indissoluble, according to Job 37:18: "Thou perhaps hast made the heavens
with Him, which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass." In
like manner neither can it be understood in a spiritual sense, because
the heavens were not previously closed to the eyes of the Son of God.
Therefore it seems unbecoming to say that when Christ was baptized "the
heavens were opened."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, heaven was opened to the faithful through Christ's
Passion, according to Heb. 10:19: "We have [Vulg.: 'Having'] a confidence
in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ." Wherefore not
even those who were baptized with Christ's baptism, and died before His
Passion, could enter heaven. Therefore the heavens should have been
opened when Christ was suffering rather than when He was baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 3:21): "Jesus being baptized and
praying, heaven was opened."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]; Q[38], A[1]), Christ wished to be
baptized in order to consecrate the baptism wherewith we were to be
baptized. And therefore it behooved those things to be shown forth which
belong to the efficacy of our baptism: concerning which efficacy three
points are to be considered. First, the principal power from which it is
derived; and this, indeed, is a heavenly power. For which reason, when
Christ was baptized, heaven was opened, to show that in future the
heavenly power would sanctify baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] Body Para. 2/4
Secondly, the faith of the Church and of the person baptized conduces to
the efficacy of baptism: wherefore those who are baptized make a
profession of faith, and baptism is called the "sacrament of faith." Now
by faith we gaze on heavenly things, which surpass the senses and human
reason. And in order to signify this, the heavens were opened when Christ
was baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] Body Para. 3/4
Thirdly, because the entrance to the heavenly kingdom was opened to us
by the baptism of Christ in a special manner, which entrance had been
closed to the first man through sin. Hence, when Christ was baptized, the
heavens were opened, to show that the way to heaven is open to the
baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] Body Para. 4/4
Now after baptism man needs to pray continually, in order to enter
heaven: for though sins are remitted through baptism, there still remain
the fomes of sin assailing us from within, and the world and the devils
assailing us from without. And therefore it is said pointedly (Lk. 3:21)
that "Jesus being baptized and praying, heaven was opened": because, to
wit, the faithful after baptism stand in need of prayer. Or else, that we
may be led to understand that the very fact that through baptism heaven
is opened to believers is in virtue of the prayer of Christ. Hence it is
said pointedly (Mt. 3:16) that "heaven was opened to Him"---that is, "to
all for His sake." Thus, for example, the Emperor might say to one asking
a favor for another: "Behold, I grant this favor, not to him, but to
thee"---that is, "to him for thy sake," as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in
Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus Imperfectum]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: According to Chrysostom (Hom. iv in Matth.; from the
supposititious Opus Imperfectum), as Christ was baptized for man's sake,
though He needed no baptism for His own sake, so the heavens were opened
unto Him as man, whereas in respect of His Divine Nature He was ever in
heaven.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Jerome says on Mt. 3:16,17, the heavens were opened to
Christ when He was baptized, not by an unfolding of the elements, but by
a spiritual vision: thus does Ezechiel relate the opening of the heavens
at the beginning of his book. And Chrysostom proves this (Hom. iv in
Matth.; from the supposititious Opus Imperfectum) by saying that "if the
creature"---namely, heaven---"had been sundered he would not have said,
'were opened to Him,' since what is opened in a corporeal sense is open
to all." Hence it is said expressly (Mk. 1:10) that Jesus "forthwith
coming up out of the water, saw the heavens opened"; as though the
opening of the heavens were to be considered as seen by Christ. Some,
indeed, refer this to the corporeal vision, and say that such a brilliant
light shone round about Christ when He was baptized, that the heavens
seemed to be opened. It can also be referred to the imaginary vision, in
which manner Ezechiel saw the heavens opened: since such a vision was
formed in Christ's imagination by the Divine power and by His rational
will, so as to signify that the entrance to heaven is opened to men
through baptism. Lastly, it can be referred to intellectual vision:
forasmuch as Christ, when He had sanctified baptism, saw that heaven was
opened to men: nevertheless He had seen before that this would be
accomplished.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: Christ's Passion is the common cause of the opening of
heaven to men. But it behooves this cause to be applied to each one, in
order that he enter heaven. And this is effected by baptism, according to
Rm. 6:3: "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in His
death." Wherefore mention is made of the opening of the heavens at His
baptism rather than at His Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
Or, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.; from the supposititious Opus
Imperfectum): "When Christ was baptized, the heavens were merely opened:
but after He had vanquished the tyrant by the cross; since gates were no
longer needed for a heaven which thenceforth would be never closed, the
angels said, not 'open the gates,' but 'Take them away.'" Thus Chrysostom
gives us to understand that the obstacles which had hitherto hindered the
souls of the departed from entering into heaven were entirely removed by
the Passion: but at Christ's baptism they were opened, as though the way
had been shown by which men were to enter into heaven.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is fitting to say that when Christ was baptized the Holy Ghost
came down on Him in the form of a dove?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it is not fitting to say that when Christ was
baptized the Holy Ghost came down on Him in the form of a dove. For the
Holy Ghost dwells in man by grace. But the fulness of grace was in the
Man-Christ from the beginning of His conception, because He was the
"Only-begotten of the Father," as is clear from what has been said above
(Q[7], A[12]; Q[34], A[1]). Therefore the Holy Ghost should not have been
sent to Him at His baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ is said to have "descended" into the world in the
mystery of the Incarnation, when "He emptied Himself, taking the form of
a servant" (Phil. 2:7). But the Holy Ghost did not become incarnate.
Therefore it is unbecoming to say that the Holy Ghost "descended upon
Him."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, that which is accomplished in our baptism should have
been shown in Christ's baptism, as in an exemplar. But in our baptism no
visible mission of the Holy Ghost takes place. Therefore neither should a
visible mission of the Holy Ghost have taken place in Christ's baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the Holy Ghost is poured forth on others through Christ,
according to Jn. 1:16: "Of His fulness we all have received." But the
Holy Ghost came down on the apostles in the form, not of a dove, but of
fire. Therefore neither should He have come down on Christ in the form of
a dove, but in the form of fire.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 3:22): "The Holy Ghost descended in
a bodily shape as a dove upon Him."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, What took place with respect to Christ in His baptism, as
Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus
Imperfectum]), "is connected with the mystery accomplished in all who
were to be baptized afterwards." Now, all those who are baptized with the
baptism of Christ receive the Holy Ghost, unless they approach
unworthily; according to Mt. 3:11: "He shall baptize you in the Holy
Ghost." Therefore it was fitting that when our Lord was baptized the Holy
Ghost should descend upon Him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says (De Trin. xv): "It is most absurd to say
that Christ received the Holy Ghost, when He was already thirty years
old: for when He came to be baptized, since He was without sin, therefore
was He not without the Holy Ghost. For if it is written of John that 'he
shall be filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb,' what must we
say of the Man-Christ, whose conception in the flesh was not carnal, but
spiritual? Therefore now," i.e. at His baptism, "He deigned to foreshadow
His body," i.e. the Church, "in which those who are baptized receive the
Holy Ghost in a special manner."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says (De Trin. ii), the Holy Ghost is said to
have descended on Christ in a bodily shape, as a dove, not because the
very substance of the Holy Ghost was seen, for He is invisible: nor as
though that visible creature were assumed into the unity of the Divine
Person; since it is not said that the Holy Ghost was the dove, as it is
said that the Son of God is man by reason of the union. Nor, again, was
the Holy Ghost seen under the form of a dove, after the manner in which
John saw the slain Lamb in the Apocalypse (5:6): "For the latter vision
took place in the spirit through spiritual images of bodies; whereas no
one ever doubted that this dove was seen by the eyes of the body." Nor,
again, did the Holy Ghost appear under the form of a dove in the sense in
which it is said (1 Cor. 10:4): "'Now, the rock was Christ': for the
latter had already a created existence, and through the manner of its
action was called by the name of Christ, whom it signified: whereas this
dove came suddenly into existence, to fulfil the purpose of its
signification, and afterwards ceased to exist, like the flame which
appeared in the bush to Moses."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
Hence the Holy Ghost is said to have descended upon Christ, not by
reason of His being united to the dove: but either because the dove
itself signified the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as it "descended" when it came
upon Him; or, again, by reason of the spiritual grace, which is poured
out by God, so as to descend, as it were, on the creature, according to
James 1:17: "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming
down from the Father of lights."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xii in Matth.): "At the beginning
of all spiritual transactions sensible visions appear, for the sake of
them who cannot conceive at all an incorporeal nature . . . so that,
though afterwards no such thing occur, they may shape their faith
according to that which has occurred once for all." And therefore the
Holy Ghost descended visibly, under a bodily shape, on Christ at His
baptism, in order that we may believe Him to descend invisibly on all
those who are baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 1/6
Reply OBJ 4: The Holy Ghost appeared over Christ at His baptism, under
the form of a dove, for four reasons. First, on account of the
disposition required in the one baptized---namely, that he approach in
good faith: since! as it is written (Wis. 1:5): "The holy spirit of
discipline will flee from the deceitful." For the dove is an animal of a
simple character, void of cunning and deceit: whence it is said (Mt.
10:16): "Be ye simple as doves."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 2/6
Secondly, in order to designate the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, which
are signified by the properties of the dove. For the dove dwells beside
the running stream, in order that, on perceiving the hawk, it may plunge
in and escape. This refers to the gift of wisdom, whereby the saints
dwell beside the running waters of Holy Scripture, in order to escape the
assaults of the devil. Again, the dove prefers the more choice seeds.
This refers to the gift of knowledge, whereby the saints make choice of
sound doctrines, with which they nourish themselves. Further, the dove
feeds the brood of other birds. This refers to the gift of counsel, with
which the saints, by teaching and example, feed men who have been the
brood, i.e. imitators, of the devil. Again, the dove tears not with its
beak. This refers to the gift of understanding, wherewith the saints do
not rend sound doctrines, as heretics do. Again, the dove has no gall.
This refers to the gift of piety, by reason of which the saints are free
from unreasonable anger. Again, the dove builds its nest in the cleft of
a rock. This refers to the gift of fortitude, wherewith the saints build
their nest, i.e. take refuge and hope, in the death wounds of Christ, who
is the Rock of strength. Lastly, the dove has a plaintive song. This
refers to the gift of fear, wherewith the saints delight in bewailing
sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 3/6
Thirdly, the Holy Ghost appeared under the form of a dove on account of
the proper effect of baptism, which is the remission of sins and
reconciliation with God: for the dove is a gentle creature. Wherefore, as
Chrysostom says, (Hom. xii in Matth.), "at the Deluge this creature
appeared bearing an olive branch, and publishing the tidings of the
universal peace of the whole world: and now again the dove appears at the
baptism, pointing to our Deliverer."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 4/6
Fourthly, the Holy Ghost appeared over our Lord at His baptism in the
form of a dove, in order to designate the common effect of
baptism---namely, the building up of the unity of the Church. Hence it is
written (Eph. 5:25-27): "Christ delivered Himself up . . . that He might
present . . . to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle,
or any such thing . . . cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of
life." Therefore it was fitting that the Holy Ghost should appear at the
baptism under the form of a dove, which is a creature both loving and
gregarious. Wherefore also it is said of the Church (Cant 6:8): "One is
my dove."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 5/6
But on the apostles the Holy Ghost descended under the form of fire, for
two reasons. First, to show with what fervor their hearts were to be
moved, so as to preach Christ everywhere, though surrounded by
opposition. And therefore He appeared as a fiery tongue. Hence Augustine
says (Super Joan., Tract. vi): Our Lord "manifests" the Holy Ghost
"visibly in two ways"---namely, "by the dove corning upon the Lord when
He was baptized; by fire, coming upon the disciples when they were met
together . . . In the former case simplicity is shown, in the latter
fervor . . . We learn, then, from the dove, that those who are sanctified
by the Spirit should be without guile: and from the fire, that their
simplicity should not be left to wax cold. Nor let it disturb anyone that
the tongues were cloven . . . in the dove recognize unity."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 6/6
Secondly, because, as Chrysostom says (Gregory, Hom. xxx in Ev.): "Since
sins had to be forgiven," which is effected in baptism, "meekness was
required"; this is shown by the dove: "but when we have obtained grace we
must look forward to be judged"; and this is signified by the fire.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the dove in which the Holy Ghost appeared was real?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the dove in which the Holy Ghost appeared was
not real. For that seems to be a mere apparition which appears in its
semblance. But it is stated (Lk. 3:22) that the "Holy Ghost descended in
a bodily shape as a dove upon Him." Therefore it was not a real dove, but
a semblance of a dove.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, just as "Nature does nothing useless, so neither does
God" (De Coelo i). Now since this dove came merely "in order to signify
something and pass away," as Augustine says (De Trin. ii), a real dove
would have been useless: because the semblance of a dove was sufficient
for that purpose. Therefore it was not a real dove.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the properties of a thing lead us to a knowledge of that
thing. If, therefore, this were a real dove, its properties would have
signified the nature of the real animal, and not the effect of the Holy
Ghost. Therefore it seems that it was not a real dove.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xxii): "Nor do we say
this as though we asserted that our Lord Jesus Christ alone had a real
body, and that the Holy Ghost appeared to men's eyes in a fallacious
manner: but we say that both those bodies were real."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[5], A[1]), it was unbecoming that the
Son of God, who is the Truth of the Father, should make use of anything
unreal; wherefore He took, not an imaginary, but a real body. And since
the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Truth, as appears from Jn. 16:13,
therefore He too made a real dove in which to appear, though He did not
assume it into unity of person. Wherefore, after the words quoted above,
Augustine adds: "Just as it behooved the Son of God not to deceive men,
so it behooved the Holy Ghost not to deceive. But it was easy for
Almighty God, who created all creatures out of nothing, to frame the
body of a real dove without the help of other doves, just as it was easy
for Him to form a true body in Mary's womb without the seed of a man:
since the corporeal creature obeys its Lord's command and will, both in
the mother's womb in forming a man, and in the world itself in forming a
dove."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The Holy Ghost is said to have descended in the shape or
semblance of a dove, not in the sense that the dove was not real, but in
order to show that He did not appear in the form of His substance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: It was not superfluous to form a real dove, in which the
Holy Ghost might appear, because by the very reality of the dove the
reality of the Holy Ghost and of His effects is signified.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The properties of the dove lead us to understand the dove's
nature and the effects of the Holy Ghost in the same way. Because from
the very fact that the dove has such properties, it results that it
signifies the Holy Ghost.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was becoming, when Christ was baptized that the Father's voice
should be heard, bearing witness to the Son?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it was unbecoming when Christ was baptized for
the Father's voice to be heard bearing witness to the Son. For the Son
and the Holy Ghost, according as they have appeared visibly, are said to
have been visibly sent. But it does not become the Father to be sent, as
Augustine makes it clear (De Trin. ii). Neither, therefore, (does it
become Him) to appear.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the voice gives expression to the word conceived in the
heart. But the Father is not the Word. Therefore He is unfittingly
manifested by a voice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the Man-Christ did not begin to be Son of God at His
baptism, as some heretics have stated: but He was the Son of God from the
beginning of His conception. Therefore the Father's voice should have
proclaimed Christ's Godhead at His nativity rather than at His baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 3:17): "Behold a voice from heaven,
saying: This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[5]), that which is accomplished in our
baptism should be manifested in Christ's baptism, which was the exemplar
of ours. Now the baptism which the faithful receive is hallowed by the
invocation and the power of the Trinity; according to Mt. 28:19: "Go ye
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Wherefore, as Jerome says on Mt.
3:16,17: "The mystery of the Trinity is shown forth in Christ's baptism.
our Lord Himself is baptized in His human nature; the Holy Ghost
descended in the shape of a dove: the Father's voice is heard bearing
witness to the Son." Therefore it was becoming that in that baptism the
Father should be manifested by a voice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The visible mission adds something to the apparition, to
wit, the authority of the sender. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost
who are from another, are said not only to appear, but also to be sent
visibly. But the Father, who is not from another, can appear indeed, but
cannot be sent visibly.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The Father is manifested by the voice, only as producing
the voice or speaking by it. And since it is proper to the Father to
produce the Word---that is, to utter or to speak---therefore was it most
becoming that the Father should be manifested by a voice, because the
voice designates the word. Wherefore the very voice to which the Father
gave utterance bore witness to the Sonship of the Word. And just as the
form of the dove, in which the Holy Ghost was made manifest, is not the
Nature of the Holy Ghost, nor is the form of man in which the Son Himself
was manifested, the very Nature of the Son of God, so neither does the
voice belong to the Nature of the Word or of the Father who spoke. Hence
(Jn. 5:37) our Lord says: "Neither have you heard His," i.e. the
Father's, "voice at any time, nor seen His shape." By which words, as
Chrysostom says (Hom. xl in Joan.), "He gradually leads them to the
knowledge of the philosophical truth, and shows them that God has neither
voice nor shape, but is above all such forms and utterances." And just as
the whole Trinity made both the dove and the human nature assumed by
Christ, so also they formed the voice: yet the Father alone as speaking
is manifested by the voice, just as the Son alone assumed human nature,
and the Holy Ghost alone is manifested in the dove, as Augustine
[*Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum] makes evident.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: It was becoming that Christ's Godhead should not be
proclaimed to all in His nativity, but rather that It should be hidden
while He was subject to the defects of infancy. But when He attained to
the perfect age, when the time came for Him to teach, to work miracles,
and to draw men to Himself then did it behoove His Godhead to be attested
from on high by the Father's testimony, so that His teaching might become
the more credible. Hence He says (Jn. 5:37): "The Father Himself who sent
Me, hath given testimony of Me." And specially at the time of baptism, by
which men are born again into adopted sons of God; since God's sons by
adoption are made to be like unto His natural Son, according to Rm. 8:29:
"Whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the
image of His Son." Hence Hilary says (Super Matth. ii) that when Jesus
was baptized, the Holy Ghost descended on Him, and the Father's voice was
heard saying: "'This is My beloved Son,' that we might know, from what
was accomplished in Christ, that after being washed in the waters of
baptism the Holy Ghost comes down upon us from on high, and that the
Father's voice declares us to have become the adopted sons of God."
�Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] Out. Para. 1/2
OF CHRIST'S MANNER OF LIFE (FOUR ARTICLES)
Having considered those things which relate to Christ's entrance into
the world, or to His beginning, it remains for us to consider those that
relate to the process of His life. And we must consider (1) His manner of
life; (2) His temptation; (3) His doctrine; (4) His miracles.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] Out. Para. 2/2
Concerning the first there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ should have led a solitary life, or have associated
with men?
(2) Whether He should have led an austere life as regards food, drink,
and clothing? Or should He have conformed Himself to others in these
respects?
(3) Whether He should have adopted a lowly state of life, or one of
wealth and honor?
(4) Whether He should have lived in conformity with the Law?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ should have associated with men, or led a solitary life?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should not have associated with men,
but should have led a solitary life. For it behooved Christ to show by
His manner of life not only that He was man, but also that He was God.
But it is not becoming that God should associate with men, for it is
written (Dan. 2:11): "Except the gods, whose conversation is not with
men"; and the Philosopher says (Polit. i) that he who lives alone is
"either a beast"---that is, if he do this from being wild---"or a god,"
if his motive be the contemplation of truth. Therefore it seems that it
was not becoming for Christ to associate with men.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, while He lived in mortal flesh, it behooved Christ to
lead a most perfect life. But the most perfect is the contemplative life,
as we have stated in the SS, Q[182], AA[1],2. Now, solitude is most
suitable to the contemplative life; according to Osee 2:14: "I will lead
her into the wilderness, and I will speak to her heart." Therefore it
seems that Christ should have led a solitary life.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Christ's manner of life should have been uniform:
because it should always have given evidence of that which is best. But
at times Christ avoided the crowd and sought lonely places: hence
Remigius [*Cf. Catena Aurea, Matth. 5:1], commenting on Matthew, says:
"We read that our Lord had three places of refuge: the ship, the
mountain, the desert; to one or other of which He betook Himself whenever
he was harassed by the crowd." Therefore He ought always to have led a
solitary life.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Baruch 3:38): "Afterwards He was seen
upon earth and conversed with men."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Christ's manner of life had to be in keeping with the
end of His Incarnation, by reason of which He came into the world. Now He
came into the world, first, that He might publish the truth. thus He says
Himself (Jn. 18:37): "For this was I born, and for this came I into the
world, that I should give testimony to the truth." Hence it was fitting
not that He should hide Himself by leading a solitary life, but that He
should appear openly and preach in public. Wherefore (Lk. 4:42,43) He
says to those who wished to stay Him: "To other cities also I must preach
the kingdom of God: for therefore am I sent."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] Body Para. 2/3
Secondly, He came in order to free men from sin; according to 1 Tim.
1:15: "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners." And hence, as
Chrysostom says, "although Christ might, while staying in the same place,
have drawn all men to Himself, to hear His preaching, yet He did not do
so; thus giving us the example to go about and seek those who perish,
like the shepherd in his search of the lost sheep, and the physician in
his attendance on the sick."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] Body Para. 3/3
Thirdly, He came that by Him "we might have access to God," as it is
written (Rm. 5:2). And thus it was fitting that He should give men
confidence in approaching Him by associating familiarly with them.
Wherefore it is written (Mt. 9:10): "It came to pass as He was sitting .
. in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came, and sat down
with Jesus and His disciples." On which Jerome comments as follows: "They
had seen the publican who had been converted from a sinful to a better
life: and consequently they did not despair of their own salvation."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ wished to make His Godhead known through His human
nature. And therefore, since it is proper to man to do so, He associated
with men, at the same time manifesting His Godhead to all, by preaching
and working miracles, and by leading among men a blameless and righteous
life.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated in the SS, Q[182], A[1]; SS, Q[188], A[6], the
contemplative life is, absolutely speaking, more perfect than the active
life, because the latter is taken up with bodily actions: yet that form
of active life in which a man, by preaching and teaching, delivers to
others the fruits of his contemplation, is more perfect than the life
that stops at contemplation, because such a life is built on an abundance
of contemplation, and consequently such was the life chosen by Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ's action is our instruction. And therefore, in order
to teach preachers that they ought not to be for ever before the public,
our Lord withdrew Himself sometimes from the crowd. We are told of three
reasons for His doing this. First, for the rest of the body: hence (Mk.
6:31) it is stated that our Lord said to His disciples: "Come apart into
a desert place, and rest a little. For there were many coming and going:
and they had not so much as time to eat." But sometimes it was for the
sake of prayer; thus it is written (Lk. 6:12): "It came to pass in those
days, that He went out into a mountain to pray; and He passed the whole
night in the prayer of God." On this Ambrose remarks that "by His example
He instructs us in the precepts of virtue." And sometimes He did so in
order to teach us to avoid the favor of men. Wherefore Chrysostom,
commenting on Mt. 5:1, Jesus, "seeing the multitude, went up into a
mountain," says: "By sitting not in the city and in the market-place, but
on a mountain and in a place of solitude, He taught us to do nothing for
show, and to withdraw from the crowd, especially when we have to
discourse of needful things."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was becoming that Christ should lead an austere life in this
world?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it was becoming that Christ should lead an
austere life in this world. For Christ preached the perfection of life
much more than John did. But John led an austere life in order that he
might persuade men by his example to embrace a perfect life; for it is
written (Mt. 3:4) that "the same John had his garment of camel's hair and
a leathern girdle about his loins: and his meat was locusts and wild
honey"; on which Chrysostom comments as follows (Hom. x): "It was a
marvelous and strange thing to behold such austerity in a human frame:
which thing also particularly attracted the Jews." Therefore it seems
that an austere life was much more becoming to Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, abstinence is ordained to continency; for it is written
(Osee 4:10): "They shall eat and shall not be filled; they have committed
fornication, and have not ceased." But Christ both observed continency in
Himself and proposed it to be observed by others when He said (Mt.
19:12): "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the
kingdom of heaven: he that can take it let him take it." Therefore it
seems that Christ should have observed an austere life both in Himself
and in His disciples.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it seems absurd for a man to begin a stricter form of
life and to return to an easier life: for one might quote to his
discredit that which is written, Lk. 14:30: "This man began to build, and
was not able to finish." Now Christ began a very strict life after His
baptism, remaining in the desert and fasting for "forty days and forty
nights." Therefore it seems unbecoming that, after leading such a strict
life, He should return to the common manner of living.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 11:19): "The Son of Man came eating
and drinking."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), it was in keeping with the end of
the Incarnation that Christ should not lead a solitary life, but should
associate with men. Now it is most fitting that he who associates with
others should conform to their manner of living; according to the words
of the Apostle (1 Cor. 9:22): "I became all things to all men." And
therefore it was most fitting that Christ should conform to others in the
matter of eating and drinking. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xvi)
that "John is described as 'neither eating nor drinking,' because he did
not take the same food as the Jews. Therefore, unless our Lord had taken
it, it would not be said of Him, in contrast, 'eating and drinking.'"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: In His manner of living our Lord gave an example of
perfection as to all those things which of themselves relate to
salvation. Now abstinence in eating and drinking does not of itself
relate to salvation, according to Rm. 14:17: "The kingdom of God is not
meat and drink." And Augustine (De Qq. Evang. ii, qu. 11) explains Mt.
11:19, "Wisdom is justified by her children," saying that this is because
the holy apostles "understood that the kingdom of God does not consist in
eating and drinking, but in suffering indigence with equanimity," for
they are neither uplifted by affluence, nor distressed by want. Again (De
Doctr. Christ. iii), he says that in all such things "it is not making
use of them, but the wantonness of the user, that is sinful." Now both
these lives are lawful and praiseworthy---namely, that a man withdraw
from the society of other men and observe abstinence; and that he
associate with other men and live like them. And therefore our Lord
wished to give men an example of either kind of life.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
As to John, according to Chrysostom (Hom. xxxvii super Matth.), "he
exhibited no more than his life and righteous conduct . . . but Christ
had the testimony also of miracles. Leaving, therefore, John to be
illustrious by his fasting, He Himself came the opposite way, both coming
unto publicans' tables and eating and drinking."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Just as by abstinence other men acquire the power of
self-restraint, so also Christ, in Himself and in those that are His,
subdued the flesh by the power of His Godhead. Wherefore, as we read Mt.
9:14, the Pharisees and the disciples of John fasted, but not the
disciples of Christ. On which Bede comments, saying that "John drank
neither wine nor strong drink: because abstinence is meritorious where
the nature is weak. But why should our Lord, whose right by nature it is
to forgive sins, avoid those whom He could make holier than such as
abstain?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xiii super Matth.), "that thou
mightest learn how great a good is fasting, and how it is a shield
against the devil, and that after baptism thou shouldst give thyself up,
not to luxury, but to fasting---for this cause did He fast, not as
needing it Himself, but as teaching us . . . And for this did He proceed
no further than Moses and Elias, lest His assumption of our flesh might
seem incredible." The mystical meaning, as Gregory says (Hom. xvi in
Evang.), is that by Christ's example the number "forty" is observed in
His fast, because the power of the "decalogue is fulfilled throughout the
four books of the Holy Gospel: since ten multiplied by four amounts to
forty." Or, because "we live in this mortal body composed of the four
elements, and by its lusts we transgress the commandments of the Lord,
which are expressed in the decalogue." Or, according to Augustine (QQ.
lxxxiii, qu. 81): "To know the Creator and the creature is the entire
teaching of wisdom. The Creator is the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost. Now the creature is partly invisible, as the soul, to
which the number three may be ascribed, for we are commanded to love God
in three ways, 'with our whole heart, our whole soul, and our whole
mind'; and partly visible, as the body, to which the number four is
applicable on account of its being subject to heat, moisture, cold, and
dryness. Hence if we multiply ten, which may be referred to the entire
moral code, by four, which number may be applied to the body, because it
is the body that executes the law, the product is the number forty: in
which," consequently, "the time during which we sigh and grieve is shown
forth." And yet there was no inconsistency in Christ's returning to the
common manner of living, after fasting and (retiring into the) desert.
For it is becoming to that kind of life, which we hold Christ to have
embraced, wherein a man delivers to others the fruits of his
contemplation, that he devote himself first of all to contemplation, and
that he afterwards come down to the publicity of active life by
associating with other men. Hence Bede says on Mk. 2:18: "Christ fasted,
that thou mightest not disobey the commandment; He ate with sinners, that
thou mightest discern His sanctity and acknowledge His power."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ should have led a life of poverty in this world?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should not have led a life of poverty
in this world. Because Christ should have embraced the most eligible form
of life. But the most eligible form of life is that which is a mean
between riches and poverty; for it is written (Prov. 30:8): "Give me
neither beggary nor riches; give me only the necessaries of life."
Therefore Christ should have led a life, not of poverty, but of
moderation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, external wealth is ordained to bodily use as to food and
raiment. But Christ conformed His manner of life to those among whom He
lived, in the matter of food and raiment. Therefore it seems that He
should have observed the ordinary manner of life as to riches and
poverty, and have avoided extreme poverty.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Christ specially invited men to imitate His example of
humility, according to Mt. 11:29: "Learn of Me, because I am meek and
humble of heart." But humility is most commendable in the rich; thus it
is written (1 Tim. 6:11): "Charge the rich of this world not to be
high-minded." Therefore it seems that Christ should not have chosen a
life of poverty.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 8:20): "The Son of Man hath not
where to lay His head": as though He were to say as Jerome observes: "Why
desirest thou to follow Me for the sake of riches and worldly gain, since
I am so poor that I have not even the smallest dwelling-place, and I am
sheltered by a roof that is not Mine?" And on Mt. 17:26: "That we may not
scandalize them, go to the sea," Jerome says: "This incident, taken
literally, affords edification to those who hear it when they are told
that our Lord was so poor that He had not the wherewithal to pay the tax
for Himself and His apostles."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to lead a life of poverty in
this world. First, because this was in keeping with the duty of
preaching, for which purpose He says that He came (Mk. 1:38): "Let us go
into the neighboring towns and cities, that I may preach there also: for
to this purpose am I come." Now in order that the preachers of God's word
may be able to give all their time to preaching, they must be wholly free
from care of worldly matters: which is impossible for those who are
possessed of wealth. Wherefore the Lord Himself, when sending the
apostles to preach, said to them (Mt. 10:9): "Do not possess gold nor
silver." And the apostles (Acts 6:2) say: "It is not reasonable that we
should leave the word of God and serve tables."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] Body Para. 2/4
Secondly, because just as He took upon Himself the death of the body in
order to bestow spiritual life on us, so did He bear bodily poverty, in
order to enrich us spiritually, according to 2 Cor. 8:9: "You know the
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ: that . . . He became poor for our [Vulg.:
'your'] sakes that through His poverty we [Vulg.: 'you'] might be rich."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] Body Para. 3/4
Thirdly, lest if He were rich His preaching might be ascribed to
cupidity. Wherefore Jerome says on Mt. 10:9, that if the disciples had
been possessed of wealth, "they had seemed to preach for gain, not for
the salvation of mankind." And the same reason applies to Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] Body Para. 4/4
Fourthly, that the more lowly He seemed by reason of His poverty, the
greater might the power of His Godhead be shown to be. Hence in a sermon
of the Council of Ephesus (P. iii, c. ix) we read: "He chose all that was
poor and despicable, all that was of small account and hidden from the
majority, that we might recognize His Godhead to have transformed the
terrestrial sphere. For this reason did He choose a poor maid for His
Mother, a poorer birthplace; for this reason did He live in want. Learn
this from the manger."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Those who wish to live virtuously need to avoid abundance
of riches and beggary, in as far as these are occasions of sin: since
abundance of riches is an occasion for being proud; and beggary is an
occasion of thieving and lying, or even of perjury. But forasmuch as
Christ was incapable of sin, He had not the same motive as Solomon for
avoiding these things. Yet neither is every kind of beggary an occasion
of theft and perjury, as Solomon seems to add (Prov. 30:8); but only that
which is involuntary, in order to avoid which, a man is guilty of theft
and perjury. But voluntary poverty is not open to this danger: and such
was the poverty chosen by Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: A man may feed and clothe himself in conformity with
others, not only by possessing riches, but also by receiving the
necessaries of life from those who are rich. This is what happened in
regard to Christ: for it is written (Lk. 8:2,3) that certain women
followed Christ and "ministered unto Him of their substance." For, as
Jerome says on Mt. 27:55, "It was a Jewish custom, nor was it thought
wrong for women, following the ancient tradition of their nation, out of
their private means to provide their instructors with food and clothing.
But as this might give scandal to the heathens, Paul says that he gave it
up": thus it was possible for them to be fed out of a common fund, but
not to possess wealth, without their duty of preaching being hindered by
anxiety.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Humility is not much to be praised in one who is poor of
necessity. But in one who, like Christ, is poor willingly, poverty itself
is a sign of very great humility.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ conformed His conduct to the Law?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not conform His conduct to the Law.
For the Law forbade any work whatsoever to be done on the Sabbath, since
God "rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done." But
He healed a man on the Sabbath, and commanded him to take up his bed.
Therefore it seems that He did not conform His conduct to the Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, what Christ taught, that He also did, according to Acts
1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." But He taught (Mt. 15:11) that
"not" all "that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man": and this is
contrary to the precept of the Law, which declared that a man was made
unclean by eating and touching certain animals, as stated Lev. 11.
Therefore it seems that He did not conform His conduct to the Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, he who consents to anything is of the same mind as he
who does it, according to Rm. 1:32: "Not only they that do them, but they
also that consent to them that do them." But Christ, by excusing His
disciples, consented to their breaking the Law by plucking the ears of
corn on the Sabbath; as is related Mt. 12:1-8. Therefore it seems that
Christ did not conform His conduct to the Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 5:17): "Do not think that I am come
to destroy the Law or the Prophets." Commenting on these words,
Chrysostom says: "He fulfilled the Law . . . in one way, by transgressing
none of the precepts of the Law; secondly, by justifying us through
faith, which the Law, in the letter, was unable to do."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Christ conformed His conduct in all things to the
precepts of the Law. In token of this He wished even to be circumcised;
for the circumcision is a kind of protestation of a man's purpose of
keeping the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: "I testify to every man
circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
And Christ, indeed, wished to conform His conduct to the Law, first, to
show His approval of the Old Law. Secondly, that by obeying the Law He
might perfect it and bring it to an end in His own self, so as to show
that it was ordained to Him. Thirdly, to deprive the Jews of an excuse
for slandering Him. Fourthly, in order to deliver men from subjection to
the Law, according to Gal. 4:4,5: "God sent His Son . . . made under the
Law that He might redeem them who were under the Law."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 1: Our Lord excuses Himself from any transgression of the Law
in this matter, for three reasons. First, the precept of the hallowing of
the Sabbath forbids not Divine work, but human work: for though God
ceased on the seventh day from the creation of new creatures, yet He ever
works by keeping and governing His creatures. Now that Christ wrought
miracles was a Divine work: hence He says (Jn. 5:17): "My Father worketh
until now; and I work."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 2/3
Secondly, He excuses Himself on the ground that this precept does not
forbid works which are needful for bodily health. Wherefore He says (Lk.
13:15): "Doth not every one of you on the Sabbath-day loose his ox or his
ass from the manger, and lead them to water?" And farther on (Lk. 14:5):
"Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into a pit, and will not
immediately draw him out on the Sabbath-day?" Now it is manifest that the
miraculous works done by Christ related to health of body and soul.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 3/3
Thirdly, because this precept does not forbid works pertaining to the
worship of God. Wherefore He says (Mt. 12:5): "Have ye not read in the
Law that on the Sabbath-days the priests in the Temple break the Sabbath,
and are without blame?" And (Jn. 7:23) it is written that a man receives
circumcision on the Sabbath-day. Now when Christ commanded the paralytic
to carry his bed on the Sabbath-day, this pertained to the worship of
God, i.e. to the praise of God's power. And thus it is clear that He did
not break the Sabbath: although the Jews threw this false accusation in
His face, saying (Jn. 9:16): "This man is not of God, who keepeth not the
Sabbath."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: By those words Christ wished to show that man is made
unclean as to his soul, by the use of any sort of foods considered not in
their nature, but only in some signification. And that certain foods are
in the Law called "unclean" is due to some signification; whence
Augustine says (Contra Faust. vi): "If a question be raised about swine
and lambs, both are clean by nature, since 'all God's creatures are
good'; but by a certain signification lambs are clean and swine unclean."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The disciples also, when, being hungry, they plucked the
ears of corn on the Sabbath, are to be excused from transgressing the
Law, since they were pressed by hunger: just as David did not transgress
the Law when, through being compelled by hunger, he ate the loaves which
it was not lawful for him to eat.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] Out. Para. 1/1
OF CHRIST'S TEMPTATION (FOUR ARTICLES)
We have now to consider Christ's temptation, concerning which there are
four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it was becoming that Christ should be tempted?
(2) Of the place;
(3) Of the time;
(4) Of the mode and order of the temptation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was becoming that Christ should be tempted?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it was not becoming for Christ to be tempted.
For to tempt is to make an experiment, which is not done save in regard
to something unknown. But the power of Christ was known even to the
demons; for it is written (Lk. 4:41) that "He suffered them not to speak,
for they knew that He was Christ." Therefore it seems that it was
unbecoming for Christ to be tempted.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ was come in order to destroy the works of the
devil, according to 1 Jn. 3:8: "For this purpose the Son of God appeared,
that He might destroy the works of the devil." But it is not for the same
to destroy the works of a certain one and to suffer them. Therefore it
seems unbecoming that Christ should suffer Himself to be tempted by the
devil.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, temptation is from a threefold source---the flesh, the
world, and the devil. But Christ was not tempted either by the flesh or
by the world. Therefore neither should He have been tempted by the devil.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 4:1): "Jesus was led by the Spirit
into the desert to be tempted by the devil."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, Christ wished to be tempted; first that He might
strengthen us against temptations. Hence Gregory says in a homily (xvi in
Evang.): "It was not unworthy of our Redeemer to wish to be tempted, who
came also to be slain; in order that by His temptations He might conquer
our temptations, just as by His death He overcame our death."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] Body Para. 2/4
Secondly, that we might be warned, so that none, however holy, may think
himself safe or free from temptation. Wherefore also He wished to be
tempted after His baptism, because, as Hilary says (Super Matth., cap.
iii.): "The temptations of the devil assail those principally who are
sanctified, for he desires, above all, to overcome the holy. Hence also
it is written (Ecclus. 2): Son, when thou comest to the service of God,
stand in justice and in fear, and prepare thy soul for temptation."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] Body Para. 3/4
Thirdly, in order to give us an example: to teach us, to wit, how to
overcome the temptations of the devil. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. iv)
that Christ "allowed Himself to be tempted" by the devil, "that He might
be our Mediator in overcoming temptations, not only by helping us, but
also by giving us an example."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] Body Para. 4/4
Fourthly, in order to fill us with confidence in His mercy. Hence it is
written (Heb. 4:15): "We have not a high-priest, who cannot have
compassion on our infirmities, but one tempted in all things like as we
are, without sin."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix): "Christ was known to
the demons only so far as He willed; not as the Author of eternal life,
but as the cause of certain temporal effects," from which they formed a
certain conjecture that Christ was the Son of God. But since they also
observed in Him certain signs of human frailty, they did not know for
certain that He was the Son of God: wherefore (the devil) wished to tempt
Him. This is implied by the words of Mt. 4:2,3, saying that, after "He
was hungry, the tempter" came "to Him," because, as Hilary says (Super
Matth., cap. iii), "Had not Christ's weakness in hungering betrayed His
human nature, the devil would not have dared to tempt Him." Moreover,
this appears from the very manner of the temptation, when he said: "If
Thou be the Son of God." Which words Ambrose explains as follows (In Luc.
iv): "What means this way of addressing Him, save that, though he knew
that the Son of God was to come, yet he did not think that He had come in
the weakness of the flesh?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, not by
powerful deeds, but rather by suffering from him and his members, so as
to conquer the devil by righteousness, not by power; thus Augustine says
(De Trin. xiii) that "the devil was to be overcome, not by the power of
God, but by righteousness." And therefore in regard to Christ's
temptation we must consider what He did of His own will and what He
suffered from the devil. For that He allowed Himself to be tempted was
due to His own will. Wherefore it is written (Mt. 4:1): "Jesus was led by
the Spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil"; and Gregory
(Hom. xvi in Evang.) says this is to be understood of the Holy Ghost, to
wit, that "thither did His Spirit lead Him, where the wicked spirit would
find Him and tempt Him." But He suffered from the devil in being "taken
up" on to "the pinnacle of the Temple" and again "into a very high
mountain." Nor is it strange, as Gregory observes, "that He allowed
Himself to be taken by him on to a mountain, who allowed Himself to be
crucified by His members." And we understand Him to have been taken up by
the devil, not, as it were, by force, but because, as Origen says (Hom.
xxi super Luc.), "He followed Him in the course of His temptation like a
wrestler advancing of his own accord."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As the Apostle says (Heb. 4:15), Christ wished to be
"tempted in all things, without sin." Now temptation which comes from an
enemy can be without sin: because it comes about by merely outward
suggestion. But temptation which comes from the flesh cannot be without
sin, because such a temptation is caused by pleasure and concupiscence;
and, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix), "it is not without sin that
'the flesh desireth against the spirit.'" And hence Christ wished to be
tempted by an enemy, but not by the flesh.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ should have been tempted in the desert?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been tempted in the
desert. Because Christ wished to be tempted in order to give us an
example, as stated above (A[1]). But an example should be set openly
before those who are to follow it. Therefore He should not have been
tempted in the desert.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Chrysostom says (Hom. xii in Matth.): "Then most
especially does the devil assail by tempting us, when he sees us alone.
Thus did he tempt the woman in the beginning when he found her apart from
her husband." Hence it seems that, by going into the desert to be
tempted, He exposed Himself to temptation. Since, therefore, His
temptation is an example to us, it seems that others too should take such
steps as will lead them into temptation. And yet this seems a dangerous
thing to do, since rather should we avoid the occasion of being tempted.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Mt. 4:5, Christ's second temptation is set down, in
which "the devil took" Christ up "into the Holy City, and set Him upon
the pinnacle of the Temple": which is certainly not in the desert.
Therefore He was not tempted in the desert only.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mk. 1:13) that Jesus "was in the desert
forty days and forty nights, and was tempted by Satan."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 2), Christ of His own free-will
exposed Himself to be tempted by the devil, just as by His own free-will
He submitted to be killed by His members; else the devil would not have
dared to approach Him. Now the devil prefers to assail a man who is
alone, for, as it is written (Eccles. 4:12), "if a man prevail against
one, two shall withstand him." And so it was that Christ went out into
the desert, as to a field of battle, to be tempted there by the devil.
Hence Ambrose says on Lk. 4:1, that "Christ was led into the desert for
the purpose of provoking the devil. For had he," i.e. the devil, "not
fought, He," i.e. Christ, "would not have conquered." He adds other
reasons, saying that "Christ in doing this set forth the mystery of
Adam's delivery from exile," who had been expelled from paradise into the
desert, and "set an example to us, by showing that the devil envies those
who strive for better things."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ is set as an example to all through faith, according
to Heb. 12:2: "Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith." Now
faith, as it is written (Rm. 10:17), "cometh by hearing," but not by
seeing: nay, it is even said (Jn. 20:29): "Blessed are they that have not
seen and have believed." And therefore, in order that Christ's temptation
might be an example to us, it behooved that men should not see it, and it
was enough that they should hear it related.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: The occasions of temptation are twofold. one is on the part
of man---for instance, when a man causes himself to be near to sin by not
avoiding the occasion of sinning. And such occasions of temptation should
be avoided, as it is written of Lot (Gn. 19:17): "Neither stay thou in
all the country about" Sodom.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
Another occasion of temptation is on the part of the devil, who always
"envies those who strive for better things," as Ambrose says (In Luc. iv,
1). And such occasions of temptation are not to be avoided. Hence
Chrysostom says (Hom. v in Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus
Imperfectum]): "Not only Christ was led into the desert by the Spirit,
but all God's children that have the Holy Ghost. For it is not enough for
them to sit idle; the Holy Ghost urges them to endeavor to do something
great: which is for them to be in the desert from the devil's standpoint,
for no unrighteousness, in which the devil delights, is there. Again,
every good work, compared to the flesh and the world, is the desert;
because it is not according to the will of the flesh and of the world."
Now, there is no danger in giving the devil such an occasion of
temptation; since the help of the Holy Ghost, who is the Author of the
perfect deed, is more powerful* than the assault of the envious devil.
[*All the codices read 'majus.' One of the earliest printed editions has
'magis,' which has much to commend it, since St. Thomas is commenting the
text quoted from St. Chrysostom. The translation would run thus: 'since
rather is it (the temptation) a help from the Holy Ghost, who,' etc.].
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Some say that all the temptations took place in the desert.
Of these some say that Christ was led into the Holy City, not really, but
in an imaginary vision; while others say that the Holy City itself, i.e.
Jerusalem, is called "a desert," because it was deserted by God. But
there is no need for this explanation. For Mark says that He was tempted
in the desert by the devil, but not that He was tempted in the desert
only.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's temptation should have taken place after His fast?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's temptation should not have taken
place after His fast. For it has been said above (Q[40], A[2]) that an
austere mode of life was not becoming to Christ. But it savors of extreme
austerity that He should have eaten nothing for forty days and forty
nights, for Gregory (Hom. xvi inn Evang.) explains the fact that "He
fasted forty days and forty nights," saying that "during that time He
partook of no food whatever." It seems, therefore, that He should not
thus have fasted before His temptation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Mk. 1:13) that "He was in the desert
forty days and forty nights; and was tempted by Satan." Now, He fasted
forty days and forty nights. Therefore it seems that He was tempted by
the devil, not after, but during, His fast.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, we read that Christ fasted but once. But He was tempted
by the devil, not only once, for it is written (Lk. 4:13) "that all the
temptation being ended, the devil departed from Him for a time." As,
therefore, He did not fast before the second temptation, so neither
should He have fasted before the first.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 4:2,3): "When He had fasted forty
days and forty nights, afterwards He was hungry": and then "the tempter
came to Him."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, It was becoming that Christ should wish to fast before
His temptation. First, in order to give us an example. For since we are
all in urgent need of strengthening ourselves against temptation, as
stated above (A[1]), by fasting before being tempted, He teaches us the
need of fasting in order to equip ourselves against temptation. Hence the
Apostle (2 Cor. 6:5,7) reckons "fastings" together with the "armor of
justice."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] Body Para. 2/3
Secondly, in order to show that the devil assails with temptations even
those who fast, as likewise those who are given to other good works. And
so Christ's temptation took place after His fast, as also after His
baptism. Hence since rather Chrysostom says (Hom. xiii super Matth.): "To
instruct thee how great a good is fasting, and how it is a most powerful
shield against the devil; and that after baptism thou shouldst give
thyself up, not to luxury, but to fasting; for this cause Christ fasted,
not as needing it Himself, but as teaching us."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] Body Para. 3/3
Thirdly, because after the fast, hunger followed, which made the devil
dare to approach Him, as already stated (A[1], ad 1). Now, when "our Lord
was hungry," says Hilary (Super Matth. iii), "it was not because He was
overcome by want of food, but because He abandoned His manhood to its
nature. For the devil was to be conquered, not by God, but by the flesh."
Wherefore Chrysostom too says: "He proceeded no farther than Moses and
Elias, lest His assumption of our flesh might seem incredible."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It was becoming for Christ not to adopt an extreme form of
austere life in order to show Himself outwardly in conformity with those
to whom He preached. Now, no one should take up the office of preacher
unless he be already cleansed and perfect in virtue, according to what is
said of Christ, that "Jesus began to do and to teach" (Acts 1:1).
Consequently, immediately after His baptism Christ adopted an austere
form of life, in order to teach us the need of taming the flesh before
passing on to the office of preaching, according to the Apostle (1 Cor.
9:27): "I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection, lest perhaps
when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: These words of Mark may be understood as meaning that "He
was in the desert forty days and forty nights," and that He fasted during
that time: and the words, "and He was tempted by Satan," may be taken as
referring, not to the time during which He fasted, but to the time that
followed: since Matthew says that "after He had fasted forty days and
forty nights, afterwards He was hungry," thus affording the devil a
pretext for approaching Him. And so the words that follow, and the angels
ministered to Him, are to be taken in sequence, which is clear from the
words of Matthew (4:11): "Then the devil left Him," i.e. after the
temptation, "and behold angels came and ministered to Him." And as to the
words inserted by Mark, "and He was with the beasts," according to
Chrysostom (Hom. xiii in Matth.), they are set down in order to describe
the desert as being impassable to man and full of beasts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
On the other hand, according to Bede's exposition of Mk. 1:12,13, our
Lord was tempted forty days and forty nights. But this is not to be
understood of the visible temptations which are related by Matthew and
Luke, and occurred after the fast, but of certain other assaults which
perhaps Christ suffered from the devil during that time of His fast.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Ambrose says on Lk. 4:13, the devil departed from Christ
"for a time, because, later on, he returned, not to tempt Him, but to
assail Him openly"---namely, at the time of His Passion. Nevertheless, He
seemed in this later assault to tempt Christ to dejection and hatred of
His neighbor; just as in the desert he had tempted Him to gluttonous
pleasure and idolatrous contempt of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the mode and order of the temptation were becoming?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the mode and order of the temptation were
unbecoming. For the devil tempts in order to induce us to sin. But if
Christ had assuaged His bodily hunger by changing the stones into bread,
He would not have sinned; just as neither did He sin when He multiplied
the loaves, which was no less a miracle, in order to succor the hungry
crowd. Therefore it seems that this was nowise a temptation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a counselor is inconsistent if he persuades the contrary
to what he intends. But when the devil set Christ on a pinnacle of the
Temple, he purposed to tempt Him to pride or vainglory. Therefore it was
inconsistent to urge Him to cast Himself thence: for this would be
contrary to pride or vainglory, which always seeks to rise.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, one temptation should lead to one sin. But in the
temptation on the mountain he counseled two sins---namely, covetousness
and idolatry. Therefore the mode of the temptation was unfitting.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, temptations are ordained to sin. But there are seven
deadly sins, as we have stated in the FS, Q[84], A[4]. But the tempter
only deals with three, viz. gluttony, vainglory, and covetousness.
Therefore the temptation seems to have been incomplete.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, after overcoming all the vices, man is still tempted to
pride or vainglory: since pride "worms itself in stealthily, and destroys
even good works," as Augustine says (Ep. ccxi). Therefore Matthew
unfittingly gives the last place to the temptation to covetousness on the
mountain, and the second place to the temptation to vainglory in the
Temple, especially since Luke puts them in the reverse order.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1
OBJ 6: Further, Jerome says on Mt. 4:4 that "Christ purposed to overcome
the devil by humility, not by might." Therefore He should not have
repulsed him with a haughty rebuke, saying: "Begone, Satan."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Obj. 7 Para. 1/1
OBJ 7: Further, the gospel narrative seems to be false. For it seems
impossible that Christ could have been set on a pinnacle of the Temple
without being seen by others. Nor is there to be found a mountain so high
that all the world can be seen from it, so that all the kingdoms of the
earth could be shown to Christ from its summit. It seems, therefore, that
Christ's temptation is unfittingly described.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary is the authority of Scripture.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, The temptation which comes from the enemy takes the form
of a suggestion, as Gregory says (Hom. xvi in Evang.). Now a suggestion
cannot be made to everybody in the same way; it must arise from those
things towards which each one has an inclination. Consequently the devil
does not straight away tempt the spiritual man to grave sins, but he
begins with lighter sins, so as gradually to lead him to those of greater
magnitude. Wherefore Gregory (Moral. xxxi), expounding Job 39:25, "He
smelleth the battle afar off, the encouraging of the captains and the
shouting of the army," says: "The captains are fittingly described as
encouraging, and the army as shouting. Because vices begin by insinuating
themselves into the mind under some specious pretext: then they come on
the mind in such numbers as to drag it into all sorts of folly, deafening
it with their bestial clamor."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Body Para. 2/3
Thus, too, did the devil set about the temptation of the first man. For
at first he enticed his mind to consent to the eating of the forbidden
fruit, saying (Gn. 3:1): "Why hath God commanded you that you should not
eat of every tree of paradise?" Secondly [he tempted him] to vainglory by
saying: "Your eyes shall be opened." Thirdly, he led the temptation to
the extreme height of pride, saying: "You shall be as gods, knowing good
and evil." This same order did he observe in tempting Christ. For at
first he tempted Him to that which men desire, however spiritual they may
be---namely, the support of the corporeal nature by food. Secondly, he
advanced to that matter in which spiritual men are sometimes found
wanting, inasmuch as they do certain things for show, which pertains to
vainglory. Thirdly, he led the temptation on to that in which no
spiritual men, but only carnal men, have a part---namely, to desire
worldly riches and fame, to the extent of holding God in contempt. And so
in the first two temptations he said: "If Thou be the Son of God"; but
not in the third, which is inapplicable to spiritual men, who are sons
of God by adoption, whereas it does apply to the two preceding
temptations.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Body Para. 3/3
And Christ resisted these temptations by quoting the authority of the
Law, not by enforcing His power, "so as to give more honor to His human
nature and a greater punishment to His adversary, since the foe of the
human race was vanquished, not as by God, but as by man"; as Pope Leo
says (Serm. 1, De Quadrag. 3).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: To make use of what is needful for self-support is not the
sin of gluttony; but if a man do anything inordinate out of the desire
for such support, it can pertain to the sin of gluttony. Now it is
inordinate for a man who has human assistance at his command to seek to
obtain food miraculously for mere bodily support. Hence the Lord
miraculously provided the children of Israel with manna in the desert,
where there was no means of obtaining food otherwise. And in like fashion
Christ miraculously provided the crowds with food in the desert, when
there was no other means of getting food. But in order to assuage His
hunger, He could have done otherwise than work a miracle, as did John the
Baptist, according to Matthew (3:4); or He could have hastened to the
neighboring country. Consequently the devil esteemed that if Christ was a
mere man, He would fall into sin by attempting to assuage His hunger by a
miracle.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: It often happens that a man seeks to derive glory from
external humiliation, whereby he is exalted by reason of spiritual good.
Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12): "It must be noted
that it is possible to boast not only of the beauty and splendor of
material things, but even of filthy squalor." And this is signified by
the devil urging Christ to seek spiritual glory by casting His body down.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: It is a sin to desire worldly riches and honors in an
inordinate fashion. And the principal sign of this is when a man does
something wrong in order to acquire such things. And so the devil was not
satisfied with instigating to a desire for riches and honors, but he went
so far as to tempt Christ, for the sake of gaining possession of these
things, to fall down and adore him, which is a very great crime, and
against God. Nor does he say merely, "if Thou wilt adore me," but he
adds, "if, falling down"; because, as Ambrose says on Lk. 4:5: "Ambition
harbors yet another danger within itself: for, while seeking to rule, it
will serve; it will bow in submission that it may be crowned with honor;
and the higher it aims, the lower it abases itself."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
In like manner [the devil] in the preceding temptations tried to lead
[Christ] from the desire of one sin to the commission of another; thus
from the desire of food he tried to lead Him to the vanity of the
needless working of a miracle; and from the desire of glory to tempt God
by casting Himself headlong.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: As Ambrose says on Lk. 4:13, Scripture would not have said
that "'all the temptation being ended, the devil departed from Him,'
unless the matter of all sins were included in the three temptations
already related. For the causes of temptations are the causes of
desires"---namely, "lust of the flesh, hope of glory, eagerness for
power."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii): "It is not
certain which happened first; whether the kingdoms of the earth were
first shown to Him, and afterwards He was set on the pinnacle of the
Temple; or the latter first, and the former afterwards. However, it
matters not, provided it be made clear that all these things did take
place." It may be that the Evangelists set these things in different
orders, because sometimes cupidity arises from vainglory, sometimes the
reverse happens.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 6: When Christ had suffered the wrong of being tempted by the
devil saying, "If Thou be the Son of God cast Thyself down," He was not
troubled, nor did He upbraid the devil. But when the devil usurped to
himself the honor due to God, saying, "All these things will I give Thee,
if, falling down, Thou wilt adore me," He was exasperated, and repulsed
him, saying, "Begone, Satan": that we might learn from His example to
bear bravely insults leveled at ourselves, but not to allow ourselves so
much as to listen to those which are aimed at God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 7 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 7: As Chrysostom says (Hom. v in Matth.): "The devil set Him"
(on a pinnacle of the Temple) "that He might be seen by all, whereas,
unawares to the devil, He acted in such sort that He was seen by none."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 7 Para. 2/2
In regard to the words, "'He showed Him all the kingdoms of the world,
and the glory of them,' we are not to understand that He saw the very
kingdoms, with the cities and inhabitants, their gold and silver: but
that the devil pointed out the quarters in which each kingdom or city
lay, and set forth to Him in words their glory and estate." Or, again, as
Origen says (Hom. xxx in Luc.), "he showed Him how, by means of the
various vices, he was the lord of the world."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] Out. Para. 1/2
OF CHRIST'S DOCTRINE (FOUR ARTICLES)
We have now to consider Christ's doctrine, about which there are four
points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ should have preached to the Jews only, or to the
Gentiles also?
(2) Whether in preaching He should have avoided the opposition of the
Jews?
(3) Whether He should have preached in an open or in a hidden manner?
(4) Whether He should have preached by word only, or also by writing?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] Out. Para. 2/2
Concerning the time when He began to teach, we have spoken above when
treating of His baptism (Q[29], A[3]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ should have preached not only to the Jews, but also to the
Gentiles?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should have preached not only to the
Jews, but also to the Gentiles. For it is written (Is. 49:6): "It is a
small thing that thou shouldst be My servant to raise up the tribes of
Israel [Vulg.: 'Jacob'] and to convert the dregs of Jacob [Vulg.:
'Israel']: behold, I have given thee to be the light of the Gentiles,
that thou mayest be my salvation even to the farthest part of the earth."
But Christ gave light and salvation through His doctrine. Therefore it
seems that it was "a small thing" that He preached to Jews alone, and not
to the Gentiles.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, as it is written (Mt. 7:29): "He was teaching them as
one having power." Now the power of doctrine is made more manifest in the
instruction of those who, like the Gentiles, have received no tidings
whatever; hence the Apostle says (Rm. 15:20): "I have so preached the
[Vulg.: 'this'] gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build
upon another man's foundation." Therefore much rather should Christ have
preached to the Gentiles than to the Jews.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is more useful to instruct many than one. But Christ
instructed some individual Gentiles, such as the Samaritan woman (Jn. 4)
and the Chananaean woman (Mt. 15). Much more reason, therefore, was there
for Christ to preach to the Gentiles in general.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord said (Mt. 15:24): "I was not sent but to the
sheep that are lost of the house of Israel." And (Rm. 10:15) it is
written: "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" Therefore Christ
should not have preached to the Gentiles.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, It was fitting that Christ's preaching, whether through
Himself or through His apostles, should be directed at first to the Jews
alone. First, in order to show that by His coming the promises were
fulfilled which had been made to the Jews of old, and not to the
Gentiles. Thus the Apostle says (Rm. 15:8): "I say that Christ . . . was
minister of the circumcision," i.e. the apostle and preacher of the Jews,
"for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] Body Para. 2/4
Secondly, in order to show that His coming was of God; because, as is
written Rm. 13:1: "Those things which are of God are well ordered [Vulg.:
'those that are, are ordained of God']" [*See Scriptural Index on this
passage]. Now the right order demanded that the doctrine of Christ should
be made known first to the Jews, who, by believing in and worshiping one
God, were nearer to God, and that it should be transmitted through them
to the Gentiles: just as in the heavenly hierarchy the Divine
enlightenment comes to the lower angels through the higher. Hence on Mt.
15:24, "I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost in the house of
Israel," Jerome says: "He does not mean by this that He was not sent to
the Gentiles, but that He was sent to the Jews first." And so we read
(Is. 66:19): "I will send of them that shall be saved," i.e. of the Jews,
"to the Gentiles . . . and they shall declare My glory unto the Gentiles."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] Body Para. 3/4
Thirdly, in order to deprive the Jews of ground for quibbling. Hence on
Mt. 10:5, "Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles." Jerome says: "It
behooved Christ's coming to be announced to the Jews first, lest they
should have a valid excuse, and say that they had rejected our Lord
because He had sent His apostles to the Gentiles and Samaritans."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] Body Para. 4/4
Fourthly, because it was through the triumph of the cross that Christ
merited power and lordship over the Gentiles. Hence it is written (Apoc.
2:26,28): "He that shall overcome . . . I will give him power over the
nations . . . as I also have received of My Father"; and that because He
became "obedient unto the death of the cross, God hath exalted Him . . .
that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . ." and that "every
tongue should confess Him" (Phil. 2:8-11). Consequently He did not wish
His doctrine to be preached to the Gentiles before His Passion: it was
after His Passion that He said to His disciples (Mt. 28:19): "Going,
teach ye all nations." For this reason it was that when, shortly before
His Passion, certain Gentiles wished to see Jesus, He said: "Unless the
grain of wheat falling into the ground dieth, itself remaineth alone: but
if it die it bringeth forth much fruit" (Jn. 12:20-25); and as Augustine
says, commenting on this passage: "He called Himself the grain of wheat
that must be mortified by the unbelief of the Jews, multiplied by the
faith of the nations."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ was given to be the light and salvation of the
Gentiles through His disciples, whom He sent to preach to them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: It is a sign, not of lesser, but of greater power to do
something by means of others rather than by oneself. And thus the Divine
power of Christ was specially shown in this, that He bestowed on the
teaching of His disciples such a power that they converted the Gentiles
to Christ, although these had heard nothing of Him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
Now the power of Christ's teaching is to be considered in the miracles
by which He confirmed His doctrine, in the efficacy of His persuasion,
and in the authority of His words, for He spoke as being Himself above
the Law when He said: "But I say to you" (Mt. 5:22,28,32,34,39,44); and,
again, in the force of His righteousness shown in His sinless manner of
life.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Just as it was unfitting that Christ should at the outset
make His doctrine known to the Gentiles equally with the Jews, in order
that He might appear as being sent to the Jews, as to the first-born
people; so neither was it fitting for Him to neglect the Gentiles
altogether, lest they should be deprived of the hope of salvation. For
this reason certain individual Gentiles were admitted, on account of the
excellence of their faith and devotedness.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ should have preached to the Jews without offending them?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should have preached to the Jews
without offending them. For, as Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi): "In
the Man Jesus Christ, a model of life is given us by the Son of God." But
we should avoid offending not only the faithful, but even unbelievers,
according to 1 Cor. 10:32: "Be without offense to the Jews, and to the
Gentiles, and to the Church of God." Therefore it seems that, in His
teaching, Christ should also have avoided giving offense to the Jews.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, no wise man should do anything that will hinder the
result of his labor. Now through the disturbance which His teaching
occasioned among the Jews, it was deprived of its results; for it is
written (Lk. 11:53,54) that when our Lord reproved the Pharisees and
Scribes, they "began vehemently to urge Him, end to oppress His mouth
about many things; lying in wait for Him, and seeking to catch something
from His mouth, that they might accuse Him." It seems therefore unfitting
that He should have given them offense by His teaching.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the Apostle says (1 Tim. 5:1): "An ancient man rebuke
not; but entreat him as a father." But the priests and princes of the
Jews were the elders of that people. Therefore it seems that they should
not have been rebuked with severity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It was foretold (Is. 8:14) that Christ would be "for a
stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to the two houses of Israel."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The salvation of the multitude is to be preferred to the
peace of any individuals whatsoever. Consequently, when certain ones, by
their perverseness, hinder the salvation of the multitude, the preacher
and the teacher should not fear to offend those men, in order that he may
insure the salvation of the multitude. Now the Scribes and Pharisees and
the princes of the Jews were by their malice a considerable hindrance to
the salvation of the people, both because they opposed themselves to
Christ's doctrine, which was the only way to salvation, and because their
evil ways corrupted the morals of the people. For which reason our Lord,
undeterred by their taking offense, publicly taught the truth which they
hated, and condemned their vices. Hence we read (Mt. 15:12,14) that when
the disciples of our Lord said: "Dost Thou know that the Pharisees, when
they heard this word, were scandalized?" He answered: "Let them alone:
they are blind and leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind,
both fall into the pit."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: A man ought so to avoid giving offense, as neither by wrong
deed or word to be the occasion of anyone's downfall. "But if scandal
arise from truth, the scandal should be borne rather than the truth be
set aside," as Gregory says (Hom. vii in Ezech.).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: By publicly reproving the Scribes and Pharisees, Christ
promoted rather than hindered the effect of His teaching. Because when
the people came to know the vices of those men, they were less inclined
to be prejudiced against Christ by hearing what was said of Him by the
Scribes and Pharisees, who were ever withstanding His doctrine.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This saying of the Apostle is to be understood of those
elders whose years are reckoned not only in age and authority, but also
in probity; according to Num. 11:16: "Gather unto Me seventy men of the
ancients of Israel, whom thou knowest to be ancients . . . of the
people." But if by sinning openly they turn the authority of their years
into an instrument of wickedness, they should be rebuked openly and
severely, as also Daniel says (Dan. 13:52): "O thou that art grown old in
evil days," etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ should have taught all things openly?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should not have taught all things
openly. For we read that He taught many things to His disciples apart: as
is seen clearly in the sermon at the Supper. Wherefore He said: "That
which you heard in the ear in the chambers shall be preached on the
housetops" [*St. Thomas, probably quoting from memory, combines Mt. 10:27
with Lk. 12:3]. Therefore He did not teach all things openly.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the depths of wisdom should not be expounded save to the
perfect, according to 1 Cor. 2:6: "We speak wisdom among the perfect."
Now Christ's doctrine contained the most profound wisdom. Therefore it
should not have been made known to the imperfect crowd.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it comes to the same, to hide the truth, whether by
saying nothing or by making use of a language that is difficult to
understand. Now Christ, by speaking to the multitudes a language they
would not understand, hid from them the truth that He preached; since
"without parables He did not speak to them" (Mt. 13:34). In the same way,
therefore, He could have hidden it from them by saying nothing at all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, He says Himself (Jn. 18:20): "In secret I have spoken
nothing."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Anyone's doctrine may be hidden in three ways. First, on
the part of the intention of the teacher, who does not wish to make his
doctrine known to many, but rather to hide it. And this may happen in two
ways---sometimes through envy on the part of the teacher, who desires to
excel in his knowledge, wherefore he is unwilling to communicate it to
others. But this was not the case with Christ, in whose person the
following words are spoken (Wis. 7:13): "Which I have learned without
guile, and communicate without envy, and her riches I hide not." But
sometimes this happens through the vileness of the things taught; thus
Augustine says on Jn. 16:12: "There are some things so bad that no sort
of human modesty can bear them." Wherefore of heretical doctrine it is
written (Prov. 9:17): "Stolen waters are sweeter." Now, Christ's doctrine
is "not of error nor of uncleanness" (1 Thess. 2:3). Wherefore our Lord
says (Mk. 4:21): "Doth a candle," i.e. true and pure doctrine, "come in
to be put under a bushel?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] Body Para. 2/3
Secondly, doctrine is hidden because it is put before few. And thus,
again, did Christ teach nothing in secret: for He propounded His entire
doctrine either to the whole crowd or to His disciples gathered together.
Hence Augustine says on Jn. 18:20: "How can it be said that He speaks in
secret when He speaks before so many men? . . . especially if what He
says to few He wishes through them to be made known to many?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] Body Para. 3/3
Thirdly, doctrine is hidden, as to the manner in which it is propounded.
And thus Christ spoke certain things in secret to the crowds, by
employing parables in teaching them spiritual mysteries which they were
either unable or unworthy to grasp: and yet it was better for them to be
instructed in the knowledge of spiritual things, albeit hidden under the
garb of parables, than to be deprived of it altogether. Nevertheless our
Lord expounded the open and unveiled truth of these parables to His
disciples, so that they might hand it down to others worthy of it;
according to 2 Tim. 2:2: "The things which thou hast heard of me by many
witnesses, the same command to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach
others." This is foreshadowed, Num. 4, where the sons of Aaron are
commanded to wrap up the sacred vessels that were to be carried by the
Levites.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: As Hilary says, commenting on the passage quoted, "we do
not read that our Lord was wont to preach at night, and expound His
doctrine in the dark: but He says this because His speech is darkness to
the carnal-minded, and His words are night to the unbeliever. His
meaning, therefore, is that whatever He said we also should say in the
midst of unbelievers, by openly believing and professing it."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
Or, according to Jerome, He speaks comparatively---that is to say,
because He was instructing them in Judea, which was a small place
compared with the whole world, where Christ's doctrine was to be
published by the preaching of the apostles.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: By His doctrine our Lord did not make known all the depths
of His wisdom, neither to the multitudes, nor, indeed, to His disciples,
to whom He said (Jn. 16:12): "I have yet many things to say to you, but
you cannot bear them now." Yet whatever things out of His wisdom He
judged it right to make known to others, He expounded, not in secret, but
openly; although He was not understood by all. Hence Augustine says on
Jn. 18:20: "We must understand this, 'I have spoken openly to the world,'
as though our Lord had said, 'Many have heard Me' . . . and, again, it
was not 'openly,' because they did not understand."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above, our Lord spoke to the multitudes in
parables, because they were neither able nor worthy to receive the naked
truth, which He revealed to His disciples.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
And when it is said that "without parables He did not speak to them,"
according to Chrysostom (Hom. xlvii in Matth.), we are to understand this
of that particular sermon, since on other occasions He said many things
to the multitude without parables. Or, as Augustine says (De Qq. Evang.,
qu. xvii), this means, "not that He spoke nothing literally, but that He
scarcely ever spoke without introducing a parable, although He also spoke
some things in the literal sense."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ should have committed His doctrine to writing?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should have committed His doctrine to
writing. For the purpose of writing is to hand down doctrine to
posterity. Now Christ's doctrine was destined to endure for ever,
according to Lk. 21:33: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words
shall not pass away." Therefore it seems that Christ should have
committed His doctrine to writing.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the Old Law was a foreshadowing of Christ, according to
Heb. 10:1: "The Law has [Vulg.: 'having'] a shadow of the good things to
come." Now the Old Law was put into writing by God, according to Ex.
24:12: "I will give thee" two "tables of stone and the law, and the
commandments which I have written." Therefore it seems that Christ also
should have put His doctrine into writing.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, to Christ, who came to enlighten them that sit in
darkness (Lk. 1:79), it belonged to remove occasions of error, and to
open out the road to faith. Now He would have done this by putting His
teaching into writing: for Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. i) that
"some there are who wonder why our Lord wrote nothing, so that we have to
believe what others have written about Him. Especially do those pagans
ask this question who dare not blame or blaspheme Christ, and who ascribe
to Him most excellent, but merely human, wisdom. These say that the
disciples made out the Master to be more than He really was when they
said that He was the Son of God and the Word of God, by whom all things
were made." And farther on he adds: "It seems as though they were
prepared to believe whatever He might have written of Himself, but not
what others at their discretion published about Him." Therefore it seems
that Christ should have Himself committed His doctrine to writing.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, No books written by Him were to be found in the canon
of Scripture.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, It was fitting that Christ should not commit His
doctrine to writing. First, on account of His dignity: for the more
excellent the teacher, the more excellent should be his manner of
teaching. Consequently it was fitting that Christ, as the most excellent
of teachers, should adopt that manner of teaching whereby His doctrine is
imprinted on the hearts of His hearers; wherefore it is written (Mt.
7:29) that "He was teaching them as one having power." And so it was that
among the Gentiles, Pythagoras and Socrates, who were teachers of great
excellence, were unwilling to write anything. For writings are ordained,
as to an end, unto the imprinting of doctrine in the hearts of the
hearers.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] Body Para. 2/4
Secondly, on account of the excellence of Christ's doctrine, which
cannot be expressed in writing; according to Jn. 21:25: "There are also
many other things which Jesus did: which, if they were written everyone,
the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that
should be written." Which Augustine explains by saying: "We are not to
believe that in respect of space the world could not contain them . . .
but that by the capacity of the readers they could not be comprehended."
And if Christ had committed His doctrine to writing, men would have had
no deeper thought of His doctrine than that which appears on the surface
of the writing.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] Body Para. 3/4
Thirdly, that His doctrine might reach all in an orderly manner: Himself
teaching His disciples immediately, and they subsequently teaching
others, by preaching and writing: whereas if He Himself had written, His
doctrine would have reached all immediately.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] Body Para. 4/4
Hence it is said of Wisdom (Prov. 9:3) that "she hath sent her maids to
invite to the tower." It is to be observed, however, that, as Augustine
says (De Consensu Evang. i), some of the Gentiles thought that Christ
wrote certain books treating of the magic art whereby He worked miracles:
which art is condemned by the Christian learning. "And yet they who claim
to have read those books of Christ do none of those things which they
marvel at His doing according to those same books. Moreover, it is by a
Divine judgment that they err so far as to assert that these books were,
as it were, entitled as letters to Peter and Paul, for that they found
them in several places depicted in company with Christ. No wonder that
the inventors were deceived by the painters: for as long as Christ lived
in the mortal flesh with His disciples, Paul was no disciple of His."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says in the same book: "Christ is the head of
all His disciples who are members of His body. Consequently, when they
put into writing what He showed forth and said to them, by no means must
we say that He wrote nothing: since His members put forth that which they
knew under His dictation. For at His command they, being His hands, as it
were, wrote whatever He wished us to read concerning His deeds and words."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Since the old Law was given under the form of sensible
signs, therefore also was it fittingly written with sensible signs. But
Christ's doctrine, which is "the law of the spirit of life" (Rm. 8:2),
had to be "written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God;
not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart," as the
Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:3).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Those who were unwilling to believe what the apostles wrote
of Christ would have refused to believe the writings of Christ, whom they
deemed to work miracles by the magic art.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] Out. Para. 1/2
OF THE MIRACLES WORKED BY CHRIST, IN GENERAL (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the miracles worked by Christ: (1) In general; (2)
Specifically, of each kind of miracle; (3) In particular, of His
transfiguration.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] Out. Para. 2/2
Concerning the first, there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ should have worked miracles?
(2) Whether He worked them by Divine power?
(3) When did He begin to work miracles?
(4) Whether His miracles are a sufficient proof of His Godhead?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ should have worked miracles?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should not have worked miracles. For
Christ's deeds should have been consistent with His words. But He Himself
said (Mt. 16:4): "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a
sign; and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the
prophet." Therefore He should not have worked miracles.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, just as Christ, at His second coming, is to come "with"
great power and majesty, as is written Mt. 24:30, so at His first coming
He came in infirmity, according to Is. 53:3: "A man of sorrows and
acquainted with infirmity." But the working of miracles belongs to power
rather than to infirmity. Therefore it was not fitting that He should
work miracles in His first coming.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Christ came that He might save men by faith; according
to Heb. 12:2: "Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith." But
miracles lessen the merit of faith; hence our Lord says (Jn. 4:48):
"Unless you see signs and wonders you believe not." Therefore it seems
that Christ should not have worked miracles.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It was said in the person of His adversaries (Jn.
11:47): "What do we; for this man doth many miracles?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, God enables man to work miracles for two reasons. First
and principally, in confirmation of the doctrine that a man teaches. For
since those things which are of faith surpass human reason, they cannot
be proved by human arguments, but need to be proved by the argument of
Divine power: so that when a man does works that God alone can do, we
may believe that what he says is from God: just as when a man is the
bearer of letters sealed with the king's ring, it is to be believed that
what they contain expresses the king's will.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] Body Para. 2/3
Secondly, in order to make known God's presence in a man by the grace of
the Holy Ghost: so that when a man does the works of God we may believe
that God dwells in him by His grace. Wherefore it is written (Gal. 3:5):
"He who giveth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] Body Para. 3/3
Now both these things were to be made known to men concerning
Christ---namely, that God dwelt in Him by grace, not of adoption, but of
union: and that His supernatural doctrine was from God. And therefore it
was most fitting that He should work miracles. Wherefore He Himself says
(Jn. 10:38): "Though you will not believe Me, believe the works"; and
(Jn. 5:36): "The works which the Father hath given Me to perfect . . .
themselves . . . give testimony to Me."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: These words, "a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of
Jonas," mean, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xliii in Matth.), that "they did
not receive a sign such as they sought, viz. from heaven": but not that
He gave them no sign at all. Or that "He worked signs not for the sake of
those whom He knew to be hardened, but to amend others." Therefore those
signs were given, not to them, but to others.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although Christ came "in the infirmity" of the flesh, which
is manifested in the passions, yet He came "in the power of God" [*Cf. 2
Cor. 13:4], and this had to be made manifest by miracles.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Miracles lessen the merit of faith in so far as those are
shown to be hard of heart who are unwilling to believe what is proved
from the Scriptures unless (they are convinced) by miracles. Yet it is
better for them to be converted to the faith even by miracles than that
they should remain altogether in their unbelief. For it is written (1
Cor. 14:22) that signs are given "to unbelievers," viz. that they may be
converted to the faith.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ worked miracles by Divine power?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not work miracles by Divine power.
For the Divine power is omnipotent. But it seems that Christ was not
omnipotent in working miracles; for it is written (Mk. 6:5) that "He
could not do any miracles there," i.e. in His own country. Therefore it
seems that He did not work miracles by Divine power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, God does not pray. But Christ sometimes prayed when
working miracles; as may be seen in the raising of Lazarus (Jn.
11:41,42), and in the multiplication of the loaves, as related Mt.
14:19. Therefore it seems that He did not work miracles by Divine power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, what is done by Divine power cannot be done by the power
of any creature. But the things which Christ did could be done also by
the power of a creature: wherefore the Pharisees said (Lk. 11:15) that He
cast out devils "by Beelzebub the prince of devils." Therefore it seems
that Christ did not work miracles by Divine power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 14:10): "The Father who abideth in
Me, He doth the works."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, as stated in the FP, Q[110], A[4], true miracles cannot
be wrought save by Divine power: because God alone can change the order
of nature; and this is what is meant by a miracle. Wherefore Pope Leo
says (Ep. ad Flav. xxviii) that, while there are two natures in Christ,
there is "one," viz. the Divine, which shines forth in miracles; and
"another," viz. the human, "which submits to insults"; yet "each
communicates its actions to the other": in as far as the human nature is
the instrument of the Divine action, and the human action receives power
from the Divine Nature, as stated above (Q[19], A[1]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: When it is said that "He could not do any miracles there,"
it is not to be understood that He could not do them absolutely, but that
it was not fitting for Him to do them: for it was unfitting for Him to
work miracles among unbelievers. Wherefore it is said farther on: "And He
wondered because of their unbelief." In like manner it is said (Gn.
18:17): "Can I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?" and Gn. 19:22:
"I cannot do anything till thou go in thither."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: As Chrysostom says on Mt. 14:19, "He took the five loaves
and the two fishes, and, looking up to heaven, He blessed and brake: It
was to be believed of Him, both that He is of the Father and that He is
equal to Him . . . Therefore that He might prove both, He works miracles
now with authority, now with prayer . . . in the lesser things, indeed,
He looks up to heaven"---for instance, in multiplying the loaves---"but
in the greater, which belong to God alone, He acts with authority; for
example, when He forgave sins and raised the dead."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
When it is said that in raising Lazarus He lifted up His eyes (Jn.
11:41), this was not because He needed to pray, but because He wished to
teach us how to pray. Wherefore He said: "Because of the people who stand
about have I said it: that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ cast out demons otherwise than they are cast out by
the power of demons. For demons are cast out from bodies by the power of
higher demons in such a way that they retain their power over the soul:
since the devil does not work against his own kingdom. On the other hand,
Christ cast out demons, not only from the body, but still more from the
soul. For this reason our Lord rebuked the blasphemy of the Jews, who
said that He cast out demons by the power of the demons: first, by saying
that Satan is not divided against himself; secondly, by quoting the
instance of others who cast out demons by the Spirit of God; thirdly,
because He could not have cast out a demon unless He had overcome Him by
Divine power; fourthly, because there was nothing in common between His
works and their effects and those of Satan; since Satan's purpose was to
"scatter" those whom Christ "gathered" together [*Cf. Mt. 12:24-30; Mk.
3:22; Lk. 11:15-32].
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ began to work miracles when He changed water into wine at
the marriage feast?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not begin to work miracles when He
changed water into wine at the marriage feast. For we read in the book De
Infantia Salvatoris that Christ worked many miracles in His childhood.
But the miracle of changing water into wine at the marriage feast took
place in the thirtieth or thirty-first year of His age. Therefore it
seems that it was not then that He began to work miracles.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ worked miracles by Divine power. Now He was
possessed of Divine power from the first moment of His conception; for
from that instant He was both God and man. Therefore it seems that He
worked miracles from the very first.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Christ began to gather His disciples after His baptism
and temptation, as related Mt. 4:18 and Jn. 1:35. But the disciples
gathered around Him, principally on account of His miracles: thus it is
written (Lk. 5:4) that He called Peter when "he was astonished at" the
miracle which He had worked in "the draught of fishes." Therefore it
seems that He worked other miracles before that of the marriage feast.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 2:11): "This beginning of miracles
did Jesus in Cana of Galilee."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Christ worked miracles in order to confirm His doctrine,
and in order to show forth His Divine power. Therefore, as to the first,
it was unbecoming for Him to work miracles before He began to teach. And
it was unfitting that He should begin to teach until He reached the
perfect age, as we stated above, in speaking of His baptism (Q[39], A[3]
). But as to the second, it was right that He should so manifest His
Godhead by working miracles that men should believe in the reality of His
manhood. And, consequently, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxi in Joan.), "it
was fitting that He should not begin to work wonders from His early
years: for men would have deemed the Incarnation to be imaginary and
would have crucified Him before the proper time."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xvii in Joan.), in regard to the
saying of John the Baptist, "'That He may be made manifest in Israel,
therefore am I come baptizing with water,' it is clear that the wonders
which some pretend to have been worked by Christ in His childhood are
untrue and fictitious. For had Christ worked miracles from His early
years, John would by no means have been unacquainted with Him, nor would
the rest of the people have stood in need of a teacher to point Him out
to them."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: What the Divine power achieved in Christ was in proportion
to the needs of the salvation of mankind, the achievement of which was
the purpose of His taking flesh. Consequently He so worked miracles by
the Divine power as not to prejudice our belief in the reality of His
flesh.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The disciples were to be commended precisely because they
followed Christ "without having seen Him work any miracles," as Gregory
says in a homily (Hom. v in Evang.). And, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxiii
in Joan.), "the need for working miracles arose then, especially when the
disciples were already gathered around and attached to Him, and attentive
to what was going on around them. Hence it is added: 'And His disciples
believed in Him,'" not because they then believed in Him for the first
time, but because then "they believed with greater discernment and
perfection." Or they are called "disciples" because "they were to be
disciples later on," as Augustine observes (De Consensu Evang. ii).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the miracles which Christ worked were a sufficient proof of His
Godhead?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the miracles which Christ worked were not a
sufficient proof of His Godhead. For it is proper to Christ to be both
God and man. But the miracles which Christ worked have been done by
others also. Therefore they were not a sufficient proof of His Godhead.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, no power surpasses that of the Godhead. But some have
worked greater miracles than Christ, for it is written (Jn. 14:12): "He
that believeth in Me, the works that I do, he also shall do, and greater
than these shall he do." Therefore it seems that the miracles which
Christ worked are not sufficient proof of His Godhead.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the particular is not a sufficient proof of the
universal. But any one of Christ's miracles was one particular work.
Therefore none of them was a sufficient proof of His Godhead, by reason
of which He had universal power over all things.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 5:36): "The works which the Father
hath given Me to perfect . . . themselves . . . give testimony of Me."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, The miracles which Christ worked were a sufficient proof
of His Godhead in three respects. First, as to the very nature of the
works, which surpassed the entire capability of created power, and
therefore could not be done save by Divine power. For this reason the
blind man, after his sight had been restored, said (Jn. 9:32,33): "From
the beginning of the world it has not been heard, that any man hath
opened the eyes of one born blind. Unless this man were of God, he could
not do anything."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] Body Para. 2/3
Secondly, as to the way in which He worked miracles---namely, because He
worked miracles as though of His own power, and not by praying, as others
do. Wherefore it is written (Lk. 6:19) that "virtue went out from Him and
healed all." Whereby it is proved, as Cyril says (Comment. in Lucam) that
"He did not receive power from another, but, being God by nature, He
showed His own power over the sick. And this is how He worked countless
miracles." Hence on Mt. 8:16: "He cast out spirits with His word, and all
that were sick He healed," Chrysostom says: "Mark how great a multitude
of persons healed, the Evangelists pass quickly over, not mentioning one
by one . . . but in one word traversing an unspeakable sea of miracles."
And thus it was shown that His power was co-equal with that of God the
Father, according to Jn. 5:19: "What things soever" the Father "doth,
these the Son doth also in like manner"; and, again (Jn. 5:21): "As the
Father raiseth up the dead and giveth life, so the Son also giveth life
to whom He will."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] Body Para. 3/3
Thirdly, from the very fact that He taught that He was God; for unless
this were true it would not be confirmed by miracles worked by Divine
power. Hence it was said (Mk. 1:27): "What is this new doctrine? For with
power He commandeth the unclean spirits, and they obey Him."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: This was the argument of the Gentiles. Wherefore Augustine
says (Ep. ad Volusian. cxxxvii): "No suitable wonders; say they, show
forth the presence of so great majesty, for the ghostly cleansing"
whereby He cast out demons, "the cure of the sick, the raising of the
dead to life, if other miracles be taken into account, are small things
before God." To this Augustine answers thus: "We own that the prophets
did as much . . . But even Moses himself and the other prophets made
Christ the Lord the object of their prophecy, and gave Him great glory .
. He, therefore, chose to do similar things to avoid the inconsistency
of failing to do what He had done through others. Yet still He was bound
to do something which no other had done: to be born of a virgin, to rise
from the dead, and to ascend into heaven. If anyone deem this a slight
thing for God to do, I know not what more he can expect. Having become
man, ought He to have made another world, that we might believe Him to be
Him by whom the world was made? But in this world neither a greater world
could be made nor one equal to it: and if He had made a lesser world in
comparison with this, that too would have been deemed a small thing."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
As to the miracles worked by others, Christ did greater still. Hence on
Jn. 15:24: "If I had not done in [Douay: 'among'] them the works that no
other men hath done," etc., Augustine says: "None of the works of Christ
seem to be greater than the raising of the dead: which thing we know the
ancient prophets also did . . . Yet Christ did some works 'which no other
man hath done.' But we are told in answer that others did works which He
did not, and which none other did . . . But to heal with so great a power
so many defects and ailments and grievances of mortal men, this we read
concerning none soever of the men of old. To say nothing of those, each
of whom by His bidding, as they came in His way, He made whole . . . Mark
saith (6:56): 'Whithersoever He entered, into towns or into villages or
into cities, they laid the sick in the streets, and besought Him that
they might touch but the hem of His garment: and as many as touched Him
were made whole.' These things none other did in them; for when He saith
'In them,' it is not to be understood to mean 'Among them,' or 'In their
presence,' but wholly 'In them,' because He healed them . . . Therefore
whatever works He did in them are works that none ever did; since if ever
any other man did any one of them, by His doing he did it; whereas these
works He did, not by their doing, but by Himself."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: Augustine explains this passage of John as follows (Tract.
lxxi): "What are these 'greater works' which believers in Him would do?
That, as they passed by, their very shadow healed the sick? For it is
greater that a shadow should heal than the hem of a garment . . . When,
however, He said these words, it was the deeds and works of His words
that He spoke of: for when He said . . . 'The Father who abideth in Me,
He doth the works,' what works did He mean, then, but the words He was
speaking? . . . and the fruits of those same words was the faith of those
(who believed): but when the disciples preached the Gospel, not some few
like those, but the very nations believed . . . (Tract. lxxii). Did not
that rich man go away from His presence sorrowful? . . . and yet
afterwards, what one individual, having heard from Him, did not, that
many did when He spake by the mouth of His disciples . . . Behold, He did
greater works when spoken of by men believing than when speaking to men
hearing. But there is yet this difficulty: that He did these 'greater
works' by the apostles: whereas He saith as meaning not only them: . . .
'He that believeth in Me' . . . Listen! . . . 'He that believeth in Me,
the works that I do, he also shall do': first, 'I do,' then 'he also
shall do,' because I do that he may do. What works---but that from
ungodly he should be made righteous? . . . Which thing Christ worketh in
him, truly, but not without him. Yes, I may affirm this to be altogether
greater than to create" [*The words 'to create' are not in the text of
St. Augustine] "heaven and earth . . . for 'heaven and earth shall pass
away'; but the salvation and justification of the predestinate shall
remain . . . But also in the heavens . . . the angels are the works of
Christ: and does that man do greater works than these, who co-operates
with Christ in the work of his justification? . . . let him, who can,
judge whether it be greater to create a righteous being than to justify
an ungodly one. Certainly if both are works of equal power, the latter is
a work of greater mercy."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
"But there is no need for us to understand all the works of Christ,
where He saith 'Greater than these shall he do.' For by 'these' He meant,
perhaps, those which He was doing at that hour: now at that time He was
speaking words of faith: . . . and certainly it is less to preach words
of righteousness, which thing He did without us, than to justify the
ungodly, which thing He so doth in us that we also do it ourselves."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: When some particular work is proper to some agent, then
that particular work is a sufficient proof of the whole power of that
agent: thus, since the act of reasoning is proper to man, the mere fact
that someone reasons about any particular proposition proves him to be a
man. In like manner, since it is proper to God to work miracles by His
own power, any single miracle worked by Christ by His own power is a
sufficient proof that He is God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] Out. Para. 1/1
OF (CHRIST'S) MIRACLES CONSIDERED SPECIFICALLY (FOUR ARTICLES)
We have now to consider each kind of miracle:
(1) The miracles which He worked in spiritual substances;
(2) The miracles which He worked in heavenly bodies;
(3) The miracles which He worked in man;
(4) The miracles which He worked in irrational creatures.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether those miracles were fitting which Christ worked in spiritual
substances?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that those miracles were unfitting which Christ
worked in spiritual substances. For among spiritual substances the holy
angels are above the demons; for, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii): "The
treacherous and sinful rational spirit of life is ruled by the rational,
pious, and just spirit of life." But we read of no miracles worked by
Christ in the good angels. Therefore neither should He have worked
miracles in the demons.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ's miracles were ordained to make known His
Godhead. But Christ's Godhead was not to be made known to the demons:
since this would have hindered the mystery of His Passion, according to 1
Cor. 2:8: "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord
of glory." Therefore He should not have worked miracles in the demons.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Christ's miracles were ordained to the glory of God:
hence it is written (Mt. 9:8) that "the multitudes seeing" that the man
sick of the palsy had been healed by Christ, "feared, and glorified God
that gave such power to men." But the demons have no part in glorifying
God; since "praise is not seemly in the mouth of a sinner" (Ecclus.
15:9). For which reason also "He suffered them not to speak" (Mk. 1:34;
Lk. 4:41) those things which reflected glory on Him. Therefore it seems
that it was unfitting for Him to work miracles in the demons.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, Christ's miracles are ordained to the salvation of
mankind. But sometimes the casting out of demons from men was detrimental
to man, in some cases to the body: thus it is related (Mk. 9:24,25) that
a demon at Christ's command, "crying out and greatly tearing" the man,
"went out of him; and he became as dead, so that many said: He is dead";
sometimes also to things: as when He sent the demons, at their own
request, into the swine, which they cast headlong into the sea; wherefore
the inhabitants of those parts "besought Him that He would depart from
their coasts" (Mt. 8:31-34). Therefore it seems unfitting that He should
have worked such like miracles.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, this was foretold (Zach. 13:2), where it is written: "I
will take away . . . the unclean spirit out of the earth."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The miracles worked by Christ were arguments for the
faith which He taught. Now, by the power of His Godhead He was to rescue
those who would believe in Him, from the power of the demons; according
to Jn. 12:31: "Now shall the prince of this world be cast out."
Consequently it was fitting that, among other miracles, He should also
deliver those who were obsessed by demons.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Just as men were to be delivered by Christ from the power
of the demons, so by Him were they to be brought to the companionship of
the angels, according to Col. 1:20: "Making peace through the blood of
His cross, both as to the things on earth and the things that are in
heaven." Therefore it was not fitting to show forth to men other miracles
as regards the angels, except by angels appearing to men: as happened in
His Nativity, His Resurrection, and His Ascension.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix): "Christ was known to
the demons just as much as He willed; and He willed just as far as there
was need. But He was known to them, not as to the holy angels, by that
which is eternal life, but by certain temporal effects of His power."
First, when they saw that Christ was hungry after fasting they deemed Him
not to be the Son of God. Hence, on Lk. 4:3, "If Thou be the Son of God,"
etc., Ambrose says: "What means this way of addressing Him? save that,
though He knew that the Son of God was to come, yet he did not think that
He had come in the weakness of the flesh?" But afterwards, when he saw
Him work miracles, he had a sort of conjectural suspicion that He was the
Son of God. Hence on Mk. 1:24, "I know who Thou art, the Holy one of
God," Chrysostom [*Victor of Antioch. Cf. Catena Aurea] says that "he had
no certain or firm knowledge of God's coming." Yet he knew that He was
"the Christ promised in the Law," wherefore it is said (Lk. 4:41) that
"they knew that He was Christ." But it was rather from suspicion than
from certainty that they confessed Him to be the Son of God. Hence Bede
says on Lk. 4:41: "The demons confess the Son of God, and, as stated
farther on, 'they knew that He was Christ.' For when the devil saw Him
weakened by His fast, He knew Him to be a real man: but when He failed to
overcome Him by temptation, He doubted lest He should be the Son of God.
And now from the power of His miracles He either knew, or rather
suspected that He was the Son of God. His reason therefore for persuading
the Jews to crucify Him was not that he deemed Him not to be Christ or
the Son of God, but because he did not foresee that he would be the loser
by His death. For the Apostle says of this mystery" (1 Cor. 2:7,8),
"which is hidden from the beginning, that 'none of the princes of this
world knew it,' for if they had known it they would never have crucified
the Lord of glory."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The miracles which Christ worked in expelling demons were
for the benefit, not of the demons, but of men, that they might glorify
Him. Wherefore He forbade them to speak in His praise. First, to give us
an example. For, as Athanasius says, "He restrained his speech, although
he was confessing the truth; to teach us not to care about such things,
although it may seem that what is said is true. For it is wrong to seek
to learn from the devil when we have the Divine Scripture": Besides, it
is dangerous, since the demons frequently mix falsehood with truth. Or,
as Chrysostom [*Cyril of Alexandria, Comment. in Luc.] says: "It was not
meet for them to usurp the prerogative of the apostolic office. Nor was
it fitting that the mystery of Christ should be proclaimed by a corrupt
tongue" because "praise is not seemly in the mouth of a sinner" [*Cf.
Theophylact, Enarr. in Luc.]. Thirdly, because, as Bede says, "He did not
wish the envy of the Jews to be aroused thereby" [*Bede, Expos. in Luc.
iv, 41]. Hence "even the apostles are commanded to be silent about Him,
lest, if His Divine majesty were proclaimed, the gift of His Passion
should be deferred."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 4: Christ came specially to teach and to work miracles for the
good of man, and principally as to the salvation of his soul.
Consequently, He allowed the demons, that He cast out, to do man some
harm, either in his body or in his goods, for the salvation of man's
soul---namely, for man's instruction. Hence Chrysostom says on Mt. 8:32
that Christ let the demons depart into the swine, "not as yielding to the
demons, but first, to show . . . how harmful are the demons who attack
men; secondly, that all might learn that the demons would not dare to
hurt even the swine, except He allow them; thirdly, that they would have
treated those men more grievously than they treated the swine, unless
they had been protected by God's providence."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 2/2
And for the same motives He allowed the man, who was being delivered
from the demons, to suffer grievously for the moment; yet did He release
him at once from that distress. By this, moreover, we are taught, as Bede
says on Mk. 9:25, that "often, when after falling into sin we strive to
return to God, we experience further and more grievous attacks from the
old enemy. This he does, either that he may inspire us with a distaste
for virtue, or that he may avenge the shame of having been cast out." For
the man who was healed "became as dead," says Jerome, "because to those
who are healed it is said, 'You are dead; and your life is hid with
Christ in God'" (Col. 3:3)
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was fitting that Christ should work miracles in the heavenly
bodies?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it was unfitting that Christ should work
miracles in the heavenly bodies. For, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv),
"it beseems Divine providence not to destroy, but to preserve, nature."
Now, the heavenly bodies are by nature incorruptible and unchangeable, as
is proved De Coelo i. Therefore it was unfitting that Christ should cause
any change in the order of the heavenly bodies.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the course of time is marked out by the movement of the
heavenly bodies, according to Gn. 1:14: "Let there be lights made in the
firmament of heaven . . . and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and
for days and years." Consequently if the movement of the heavenly bodies
be changed, the distinction and order of the seasons is changed. But
there is no report of this having been perceived by astronomers, "who
gaze at the stars and observe the months," as it is written (Is. 47:13).
Therefore it seems that Christ did not work any change in the movements
of the heavenly bodies.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it was more fitting that Christ should work miracles in
life and when teaching, than in death: both because, as it is written (2
Cor. 13:4), "He was crucified through weakness, yet He liveth by the
power of God," by which He worked miracles; and because His miracles were
in confirmation of His doctrine. But there is no record of Christ having
worked any miracles in the heavenly bodies during His lifetime: nay,
more; when the Pharisees asked Him to give "a sign from heaven," He
refused, as Matthew relates (12,16). Therefore it seems that neither in
His death should He have worked any miracles in the heavenly bodies.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 23:44,45): "There was darkness over
all the earth until the ninth hour; and the sun was darkened."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[43], A[4]) it behooved Christ's
miracles to be a sufficient proof of His Godhead. Now this is not so
sufficiently proved by changes wrought in the lower bodies, which changes
can be brought about by other causes, as it is by changes wrought in the
course of the heavenly bodies, which have been established by God alone
in an unchangeable order. This is what Dionysius says in his epistle to
Polycarp: "We must recognize that no alteration can take place in the
order end movement of the heavens that is not caused by Him who made all
and changes all by His word." Therefore it was fitting that Christ should
work miracles even in the heavenly bodies.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Just as it is natural to the lower bodies to be moved by
the heavenly bodies, which are higher in the order of nature, so is it
natural to any creature whatsoever to be changed by God, according to His
will. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi; quoted by the gloss on
Rm. 11:24: "Contrary to nature thou wert grafted," etc.): "God, the
Creator and Author of all natures, does nothing contrary to nature: for
whatsoever He does in each thing, that is its nature." Consequently the
nature of a heavenly body is not destroyed when God changes its course:
but it would be if the change were due to any other cause.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/4
Reply OBJ 2: The order of the seasons was not disturbed by the miracle
worked by Christ. For, according to some, this gloom or darkening of the
sun, which occurred at the time of Christ's passion, was caused by the
sun withdrawing its rays, without any change in the movement of the
heavenly bodies, which measures the duration of the seasons. Hence Jerome
says on Mt. 27:45: "It seems as though the 'greater light' withdrew its
rays, lest it should look on its Lord hanging on the Cross, or bestow its
radiancy on the impious blasphemers." And this withdrawal of the rays is
not to be understood as though it were in the sun's power to send forth
or withdraw its rays: for it sheds its light, not from choice, but by
nature, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). But the sun is said to withdraw
its rays in so far as the Divine power caused the sun's rays not to reach
the earth. On the other hand, Origen says this was caused by clouds
coming between (the earth and the sun). Hence on Mt. 27:45 he says: "We
must therefore suppose that many large and very dense clouds were massed
together over Jerusalem and the land of Judea; so that it was exceedingly
dark from the sixth to the ninth hour. Hence I am of opinion that, just
as the other signs which occurred at the time of the Passion"---namely,
"the rending of the veil, the quaking of the earth," etc.---"took place
in Jerusalem only, so this also: . . . or if anyone prefer, it may be
extended to the whole of Judea," since it is said that "'there was
darkness over the whole earth,' which expression refers to the land of
Judea, as may be gathered from 3 Kgs. 18:10, where Abdias says to Elias:
'As the Lord thy God liveth, there is no nation or kingdom whither my
lord hath not sent to seek thee': which shows that they sought him among
the nations in the neighborhood of Judea."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 2/4
On this point, however, credence is to be given rather to Dionysius, who
is an eyewitness as to this having occurred by the moon eclipsing the
sun. For he says (Ep. ad Polycarp): "Without any doubt we saw the moon
encroach on the sun," he being in Egypt at the time, as he says in the
same letter. And in this he points out four miracles. The first is that
the natural eclipse of the sun by interposition of the moon never takes
place except when the sun and moon are in conjunction. But then the sun
and moon were in opposition, it being the fifteenth day, since it was the
Jewish Passover. Wherefore he says: "For it was not the time of
conjunction."---The second miracle is that whereas at the sixth hour the
moon was seen, together with the sun, in the middle of the heavens, in
the evening it was seen to be in its place, i.e. in the east, opposite
the sun. Wherefore he says: "Again we saw it," i.e. the moon, "return
supernaturally into opposition with the sun," so as to be diametrically
opposite, having withdrawn from the sun "at the ninth hour," when the
darkness ceased, "until evening." From this it is clear that the wonted
course of the seasons was not disturbed, because the Divine power caused
the moon both to approach the sun supernaturally at an unwonted season,
and to withdraw from the sun and return to its proper place according to
the season. The third miracle was that the eclipse of the sun naturally
always begins in that part of the sun which is to the west and spreads
towards the east: and this is because the moon's proper movement from
west to east is more rapid than that of the sun, and consequently the
moon, coming up from the west, overtakes the sun and passes it on its
eastward course. But in this case the moon had already passed the sun,
and was distant from it by the length of half the heavenly circle, being
opposite to it: consequently it had to return eastwards towards the sun,
so as to come into apparent contact with it from the east, and continue
in a westerly direction. This is what he refers to when he says:
"Moreover, we saw the eclipse begin to the east and spread towards the
western edge of the sun," for it was a total eclipse, "and afterwards
pass away." The fourth miracle consisted in this, that in a natural
eclipse that part of the sun which is first eclipsed is the first to
reappear (because the moon, coming in front of the sun, by its natural
movement passes on to the east, so as to come away first from the western
portion of the sun, which was the first part to be eclipsed), whereas in
this case the moon, while returning miraculously from the east to the
west, did not pass the sun so as to be to the west of it: but having
reached the western edge of the sun returned towards the east: so that
the last portion of the sun to be eclipsed was the first to reappear.
Consequently the eclipse began towards the east, whereas the sun began to
reappear towards the west. And to this he refers by saying: "Again we
observed that the occultation and emersion did not begin from the same
point," i.e. on the same side of the sun, "but on opposite sides."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 3/4
Chrysostom adds a fifth miracle (Hom. lxxxviii in Matth.), saying that
"the darkness in this case lasted for three hours, whereas an eclipse of
the sun lasts but a short time, for it is soon over, as those know who
have seen one." Hence we are given to understand that the moon was
stationary below the sun, except we prefer to say that the duration of
the darkness was measured from the first moment of occultation of the sun
to the moment when the sun had completely emerged from the eclipse.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 4/4
But, as Origen says (on Mt. 27:45), "against this the children of this
world object: How is it such a phenomenal occurrence is not related by
any writer, whether Greek or barbarian?" And he says that someone of the
name of Phlegon "relates in his chronicles that this took place during
the reign of Tiberius Caesar, but he does not say that it occurred at the
full moon." It may be, therefore, that because it was not the time for an
eclipse, the various astronomers living then throughout the world were
not on the look-out for one, and that they ascribed this darkness to some
disturbance of the atmosphere. But in Egypt, where clouds are few on
account of the tranquillity of the air, Dionysius and his companions were
considerably astonished so as to make the aforesaid observations about
this darkness.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Then, above all, was there need for miraculous proof of
Christ's Godhead, when the weakness of human nature was most apparent in
Him. Hence it was that at His birth a new star appeared in the heavens.
Wherefore Maximus says (Serm. de Nativ. viii): "If thou disdain the
manger, raise thine eyes a little and gaze on the new star in the
heavens, proclaiming to the world the birth of our Lord." But in His
Passion yet greater weakness appeared in His manhood. Therefore there was
need for yet greater miracles in the greater lights of the world. And, as
Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxviii in Matth.): "This is the sign which He
promised to them who sought for one saying: 'An evil and adulterous
generation seeketh a sign; and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign
of Jonas the prophet,' referring to His Cross . . . and Resurrection . .
For it was much more wonderful that this should happen when He was
crucified than when He was walking on earth."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ worked miracles fittingly on men?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ worked miracles unfittingly on men. For
in man the soul is of more import than the body. Now Christ worked many
miracles on bodies, but we do not read of His working any miracles on
souls: for neither did He convert any unbelievers to the faith mightily,
but by persuading and convincing them with outward miracles, nor is it
related of Him that He made wise men out of fools. Therefore it seems
that He worked miracles on men in an unfitting manner.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, as stated above (Q[43], A[2]), Christ worked miracles by
Divine power: to which it is proper to work suddenly, perfectly, and
without any assistance. Now Christ did not always heal men suddenly as to
their bodies: for it is written (Mk. 8:22-25) that, "taking the blind man
by the hand, He led him out of the town; and, spitting upon his eyes,
laying His hands on him, He asked him if he saw anything. And, looking
up, he said: I see men as it were trees walking. After that again He laid
His hands upon his eyes, and he began to see, and was restored, so that
he saw all things clearly." It is clear from this that He did not heal
him suddenly, but at first imperfectly, and by means of His spittle.
Therefore it seems that He worked miracles on men unfittingly.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, there is no need to remove at the same time things which
do not follow from one another. Now bodily ailments are not always the
result of sin, as appears from our Lord's words (Jn. 9:3): "Neither hath
this man sinned, nor his parents, that he should be born blind." It was
unseemly, therefore, for Him to forgive the sins of those who sought the
healing of the body, as He is related to have done in the case of the man
sick of the palsy (Mt. 9:2): the more that the healing of the body, being
of less account than the forgiveness of sins, does not seem a sufficient
argument for the power of forgiving sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, Christ's miracles were worked in order to confirm His
doctrine, and witness to His Godhead, as stated above (Q[43], A[4]). Now
no man should hinder the purpose of his own work. Therefore it seems
unfitting that Christ commanded those who had been healed miraculously
to tell no one, as appears from Mt. 9:30 and Mk. 8:26: the more so, since
He commanded others to proclaim the miracles worked on them; thus it is
related (Mk. 5:19) that, after delivering a man from the demons, He said
to him: "Go into thy house to thy friends, and tell them, how great
things the Lord hath done for thee."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mk. 7:37): "He hath done all things
well: He hath made both the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The means should be proportionate to the end. Now Christ
came into the world and taught in order to save man, according to Jn.
3:17: "For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world, but
that the world may be saved by Him." Therefore it was fitting that
Christ, by miraculously healing men in particular, should prove Himself
to be the universal and spiritual Saviour of all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 1: The means are distinct from the end. Now the end for which
Christ's miracles were worked was the health of the rational part, which
is healed by the light of wisdom, and the gift of righteousness: the
former of which presupposes the latter, since, as it is written (Wis.
1:4): "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body
subject to sins." Now it was unfitting that man should be made righteous
unless he willed: for this would be both against the nature of
righteousness, which implies rectitude of the will, and contrary to the
very nature of man, which requires to be led to good by the free-will,
not by force. Christ, therefore, justified man inwardly by the Divine
power, but not against man's will. Nor did this pertain to His miracles,
but to the end of His miracles. In like manner by the Divine power He
infused wisdom into the simple minds of His disciples: hence He said to
them (Lk. 21:15): "I will give you a mouth and wisdom" which "all your
adversaries will not be able to resist and gainsay." And this, in so far
as the enlightenment was inward, is not to be reckoned as a miracle, but
only as regards the outward action---namely, in so far as men saw that
those who had been unlettered and simple spoke with such wisdom and
constancy. Wherefore it is written (Acts 4:13) that the Jews, "seeing the
constancy of Peter and of John, understanding that they were illiterate
and ignorant men . . . wondered."---And though such like spiritual
effects are different from visible miracles, yet do they testify to
Christ's doctrine and power, according to Heb. 2:4: "God also bearing
them witness by signs and wonders and divers miracles, and distributions
of the Holy Ghost."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 2/3
Nevertheless Christ did work some miracles on the soul of man,
principally by changing its lower powers. Hence Jerome, commenting on Mt.
9:9, "He rose up and followed Him," says: "Such was the splendor and
majesty of His hidden Godhead, which shone forth even in His human
countenance, that those who gazed on it were drawn to Him at first
sight." And on Mt. 21:12, "(Jesus) cast out all them that sold and
bought," the same Jerome says: "Of all the signs worked by our Lord,
this seems to me the most wondrous---that one man, at that time despised,
could, with the blows of one scourge, cast out such a multitude. For a
fiery and heavenly light flashed from His eyes, and the majesty of His
Godhead shone in His countenance." And Origen says on Jn. 2:15 that "this
was a greater miracle than when He changed water into wine, for there He
shows His power over inanimate matter, whereas here He tames the minds of
thousands of men." Again, on Jn. 18:6, "They went backward and fell to
the ground," Augustine says: "Though that crowd was fierce in hate and
terrible with arms, yet did that one word . . . without any weapon, smite
them through, drive them back, lay them prostrate: for God lay hidden in
that flesh." Moreover, to this must be referred what Luke says (4:30)
---namely, that Jesus, "passing through the midst of them, went His way,"
on which Chrysostom observes (Hom. xlviii in Joan.): "That He stood in
the midst of those who were lying in wait for Him, and was not seized by
them, shows the power of His Godhead"; and, again, that which is written
Jn. 8:59, "Jesus hid Himself and went out of the Temple," on which
Theophylact says: "He did not hide Himself in a corner of the Temple, as
if afraid, or take shelter behind a wall or pillar; but by His heavenly
power making Himself invisible to those who were threatening Him, He
passed through the midst of them."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 3/3
From all these instances it is clear that Christ, when He willed,
changed the minds of men by His Divine power, not only by the bestowal of
righteousness and the infusion of wisdom, which pertains to the end of
miracles, but also by outwardly drawing men to Himself, or by terrifying
or stupefying them, which pertains to the miraculous itself.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 2: Christ came to save the world, not only by Divine power,
but also through the mystery of His Incarnation. Consequently in healing
the sick He frequently not only made use of His Divine power, healing by
way of command, but also by applying something pertaining to His human
nature. Hence on Lk. 4:40, "He, laying His hands on every one of them,
healed them," Cyril says: "Although, as God, He might, by one word, have
driven out all diseases, yet He touched them, showing that His own flesh
was endowed with a healing virtue." And on Mk. 8:23, "Spitting upon his
eyes, laying His hands on him," etc., Chrysostom [*Victor of Antioch]
says: "He spat and laid His hands upon the blind man, wishing to show
that His Divine word, accompanied by His operation, works wonders: for
the hand signifies operation; the spittle signifies the word which
proceeds from the mouth." Again, on Jn. 9:6, "He made clay of the
spittle, and spread the clay upon the eyes of the blind man," Augustine
says: "Of His spittle He made clay---because 'the Word was made flesh.'"
Or, again, as Chrysostom says, to signify that it was He who made man of
"the slime of the earth."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 2/3
It is furthermore to be observed concerning Christ's miracles that
generally what He did was most perfect. Hence on Jn. 2:10, "Every man at
first setteth forth good wine," Chrysostom says: "Christ's miracles are
such as to far surpass the works of nature in splendor and usefulness."
Likewise in an instant He conferred perfect health on the sick. Hence on
Mt. 8:15, "She arose and ministered to them," Jerome says: "Health
restored by our Lord returns wholly and instantly."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 3/3
There was, however, special reason for the contrary happening in the
case of the man born blind, and this was his want of faith, as Chrysostom
[*Victor of Antioch] says. Or as Bede observes on Mk. 8:23: "Whom He
might have healed wholly and instantly by a single word, He heals little
by little, to show the extent of human blindness, which hardly, and that
only by degrees, can come back to the light: and to point out that each
step forward in the way of perfection is due to the help of His grace."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[43], A[2]), Christ worked miracles by
Divine power. Now "the works of God are perfect" (Dt. 32:4). But nothing
is perfect except it attain its end. Now the end of the outward healing
worked by Christ is the healing of the soul. Consequently it was not
fitting that Christ should heal a man's body without healing his soul.
Wherefore on Jn. 7:23, "I have healed the whole man on a Sabbath day,"
Augustine says: "Because he was cured, so as to be whole in body; he
believed, so as to be whole in soul." To the man sick of the palsy it is
said specially, "Thy sins are forgiven thee," because, as Jerome observes
on Mt. 9:5,6: "We are hereby given to understand that ailments of the
body are frequently due to sin: for which reason, perhaps, first are his
sins forgiven, that the cause of the ailment being removed, health may
return." Wherefore, also (Jn. 4:14), it is said: "Sin no more, lest some
worse thing happen to thee." Whence, says Chrysostom, "we learn that his
sickness was the result of sin."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
Nevertheless, as Chrysostom says on Mt. 9:5: "By how much a soul is of
more account than a body, by so much is the forgiving of sins a greater
work than healing the body; but because the one is unseen He does the
lesser and more manifest thing in order to prove the greater and more
unseen."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: On Mt. 9:30, "See that no man know this," Chrysostom says:
"If in another place we find Him saying, 'Go and declare the glory of
God' (cf. Mk. 5:19; Lk. 8:39), that is not contrary to this. For He
instructs us to forbid them that would praise us on our own account: but
if the glory be referred to God, then we must not forbid, but command,
that it be done."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ worked miracles fittingly on irrational creatures?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ worked miracles unfittingly on
irrational creatures. For brute animals are more noble than plants. But
Christ worked a miracle on plants as when the fig-tree withered away at
His command (Mt. 21:19). Therefore Christ should have worked miracles
also on brute animals.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, punishment is not justly inflicted save for fault. But
it was not the fault of the fig-tree that Christ found no fruit on it,
when fruit was not in season (Mk. 11:13). Therefore it seems unfitting
that He withered it up.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, air and water are between heaven and earth. But Christ
worked some miracles in the heavens, as stated above (A[2]), and likewise
in the earth, when it quaked at the time of His Passion (Mt. 27:51).
Therefore it seems that He should also have worked miracles in the air
and water, such as to divide the sea, as did Moses (Ex. 14:21); or a
river, as did Josue (Josue 3:16) and Elias (4 Kgs. 2:8); and to cause
thunder to be heard in the air, as occurred on Mount Sinai when the Law
was given (Ex. 19:16), and like to what Elias did (3 Kgs. 18:45).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, miraculous works pertain to the work of Divine
providence in governing the world. But this work presupposes creation. It
seems, therefore, unfitting that in His miracles Christ made use of
creation: when, to wit, He multiplied the loaves. Therefore His miracles
in regard to irrational creatures seem to have been unfitting.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Christ is "the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24), of whom it
is said (Wis. 8:1) that "she ordereth all things sweetly."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above, Christ's miracles were ordained to the
end that He should be recognized as having Divine power, unto the
salvation of mankind. Now it belongs to the Divine power that every
creature be subject thereto. Consequently it behooved Him to work
miracles on every kind of creature, not only on man, but also on
irrational creatures.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Brute animals are akin generically to man, wherefore they
were created on the same day as man. And since He had worked many
miracles on the bodies of men, there was no need for Him to work miracles
on the bodies of brute animals. and so much the less that, as to their
sensible and corporeal nature, the same reason applies to both men and
animals, especially terrestrial. But fish, from living in water, are more
alien from human nature; wherefore they were made on another day. On them
Christ worked a miracle in the plentiful draught of fishes, related Lk. 5
and Jn. 21; and, again, in the fish caught by Peter, who found a stater
in it (Mt. 17:26). As to the swine who were cast headlong into the sea,
this was not the effect of a Divine miracle, but of the action of the
demons, God permitting.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Chrysostom says on Mt. 21:19: "When our Lord does any
such like thing" on plants or brute animals, "ask not how it was just to
wither up the fig-tree, since it was not the fruit season; to ask such a
question is foolish in the extreme," because such things cannot commit a
fault or be punished: "but look at the miracle, and wonder at the
worker." Nor does the Creator "inflict" any hurt on the owner, if He
choose to make use of His own creature for the salvation of others;
rather, as Hilary says on Mt. 21:19, "we should see in this a proof of
God's goodness, for when He wished to afford an example of salvation as
being procured by Him, He exercised His mighty power on the human body:
but when He wished to picture to them His severity towards those who
wilfully disobey Him, He foreshadows their doom by His sentence on the
tree." This is the more noteworthy in a fig-tree which, as Chrysostom
observes (on Mt. 21:19), "being full of moisture, makes the miracle all
the more remarkable."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: Christ also worked miracles befitting to Himself in the air
and water: when, to wit, as related Mt. 8:26, "He commanded the winds,
and the sea, and there came a great calm." But it was not befitting that
He who came to restore all things to a state of peace and calm should
cause either a disturbance in the atmosphere or a division of waters.
Hence the Apostle says (Heb. 12:18): "You are not come to a fire that may
be touched and approached [Vulg.: 'a mountain that might be touched, and
a burning fire'], and a whirlwind, and darkness, and storm."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
At the time of His Passion, however, the "veil was rent," to signify the
unfolding of the mysteries of the Law; "the graves were opened," to
signify that His death gave life to the dead; "the earth quaked and the
rocks were rent," to signify that man's stony heart would be softened,
and the whole world changed for the better by the virtue of His Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The multiplication of the loaves was not effected by way of
creation, but by an addition of extraneous matter transformed into
loaves; hence Augustine says on Jn. 6:1-14: "Whence He multiplieth a few
grains into harvests, thence in His hands He multiplied the five loaves":
and it is clearly by a process of transformation that grains are
multiplied into harvests.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] Out. Para. 1/1
OF CHRIST'S TRANSFIGURATION (FOUR ARTICLES)
We now consider Christ's transfiguration; and here there are four points
of inquiry:
(1) Whether it was fitting that Christ should be transfigured?
(2) Whether the clarity of the transfiguration was the clarity of glory?
(3) Of the witnesses of the transfiguration;
(4) Of the testimony of the Father's voice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was fitting that Christ should be transfigured?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should be
transfigured. For it is not fitting for a true body to be changed into
various shapes [figuras], but only for an imaginary body. Now Christ's
body was not imaginary, but real, as stated above (Q[5], A[1]). Therefore
it seems that it should not have been transfigured.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, figure is in the fourth species of quality, whereas
clarity is in the third, since it is a sensible quality. Therefore
Christ's assuming clarity should not be called a transfiguration.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a glorified body has four gifts, as we shall state
farther on (XP, Q[82]), viz. impassibility, agility, subtlety, and
clarity. Therefore His transfiguration should not have consisted in an
assumption of clarity rather than of the other gifts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 17:2) that Jesus "was transfigured"
in the presence of three of His disciples.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Our Lord, after foretelling His Passion to His disciples,
had exhorted them to follow the path of His sufferings (Mt. 16:21,24).
Now in order that anyone go straight along a road, he must have some
knowledge of the end: thus an archer will not shoot the arrow straight
unless he first see the target. Hence Thomas said (Jn. 14:5): "Lord, we
know not whither Thou goest; and how can we know the way?" Above all is
this necessary when hard and rough is the road, heavy the going, but
delightful the end. Now by His Passion Christ achieved glory, not only of
His soul, not only of His soul, which He had from the first moment of His
conception, but also of His body; according to Luke (24:26): "Christ
ought [Vulg.: 'ought not Christ'] to have suffered these things, and so
to enter into His glory (?)." To which glory He brings those who follow
the footsteps of His Passion, according to Acts 14:21: "Through many
tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God." Therefore it was
fitting that He should show His disciples the glory of His clarity (which
is to be transfigured), to which He will configure those who are His;
according to Phil. 3:21: "(Who) will reform the body of our lowness
configured [Douay: 'made like'] to the body of His glory." Hence Bede
says on Mk. 8:39: "By His loving foresight He allowed them to taste for a
short time the contemplation of eternal joy, so that they might bear
persecution bravely."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Jerome says on Mt. 17:2: "Let no one suppose that
Christ," through being said to be transfigured, "laid aside His natural
shape and countenance, or substituted an imaginary or aerial body for His
real body. The Evangelist describes the manner of His transfiguration
when he says: 'His face did shine as the sun, and His garments became
white as snow.' Brightness of face and whiteness of garments argue not a
change of substance, but a putting on of glory."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Figure is seen in the outline of a body, for it is "that
which is enclosed by one or more boundaries" [*Euclid, bk i, def. xiv].
Therefore whatever has to do with the outline of a body seems to pertain
to the figure. Now the clarity, just as the color, of a non-transparent
body is seen on its surface, and consequently the assumption of clarity
is called transfiguration.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Of those four gifts, clarity alone is a quality of the
very person in himself; whereas the other three are not perceptible, save
in some action or movement, or in some passion. Christ, then, did show in
Himself certain indications of those three gifts---of agility, for
instance, when He walked on the waves of the sea; of subtlety, when He
came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; of impassibility, when He
escaped unhurt from the hands of the Jews who wished to hurl Him down or
to stone Him. And yet He is not said, on account of this, to be
transfigured, but only on account of clarity, which pertains to the
aspect of His Person.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether this clarity was the clarity of glory?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that this clarity was not the clarity of glory. For
a gloss of Bede on Mt. 17:2, "He was transfigured before them," says: "In
His mortal body He shows forth, not the state of immortality, but clarity
like to that of future immortality." But the clarity of glory is the
clarity of immortality. Therefore the clarity which Christ showed to His
disciples was not the clarity of glory.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, on Lk. 9:27 "(That) shall not taste death unless [Vulg.:
'till'] they see the kingdom of God," Bede's gloss says: "That is, the
glorification of the body in an imaginary vision of future beatitude."
But the image of a thing is not the thing itself. Therefore this was not
the clarity of beatitude.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the clarity of glory is only in a human body. But this
clarity of the transfiguration was seen not only in Christ's body, but
also in His garments, and in "the bright cloud" which "overshaded" the
disciples. Therefore it seems that this was not the clarity of glory.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Jerome says on the words "He was transfigured before
them" (Mt. 17:2): "He appeared to the Apostles such as He will appear on
the day of judgment." And on Mt. 16:28, "Till they see the Son of Man
coming in His kingdom," Chrysostom says: "Wishing to show with what kind
of glory He is afterwards to come, so far as it was possible for them to
learn it, He showed it to them in their present life, that they might not
grieve even over the death of their Lord."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The clarity which Christ assumed in His transfiguration
was the clarity of glory as to its essence, but not as to its mode of
being. For the clarity of the glorified body is derived from that of the
soul, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Diosc. cxviii). And in like manner the
clarity of Christ's body in His transfiguration was derived from His God.
head, as Damascene says (Orat. de Transfig.) and from the glory of His
soul. That the glory of His soul did not overflow into His body from the
first moment of Christ's conception was due to a certain Divine
dispensation, that, as stated above (Q[14], A[1], ad 2), He might fulfil
the mysteries of our redemption in a passible body. This did not,
however, deprive Christ of His power of outpouring the glory of His soul
into His body. And this He did, as to clarity, in His transfiguration,
but otherwise than in a glorified body. For the clarity of the soul
overflows into a glorified body, by way of a permanent quality affecting
the body. Hence bodily refulgence is not miraculous in a glorified body.
But in Christ's transfiguration clarity overflowed from His Godhead and
from His soul into His body, not as an immanent quality affecting His
very body, but rather after the manner of a transient passion, as when
the air is lit up by the sun. Consequently the refulgence, which appeared
in Christ's body then, was miraculous: just as was the fact of His
walking on the waves of the sea. Hence Dionysius says (Ep. ad Cai. iv):
"Christ excelled man in doing that which is proper to man: this is shown
in His supernatural conception of a virgin and in the unstable waters
bearing the weight of material and earthly feet."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
Wherefore we must not say, as Hugh of St. Victor [*Innocent III, De
Myst. Miss. iv] said, that Christ assumed the gift of clarity in the
transfiguration, of agility in walking on the sea, and of subtlety in
coming forth from the Virgin's closed womb: because the gifts are
immanent qualities of a glorified body. On the contrary, whatever
pertained to the gifts, that He had miraculously. The same is to be said,
as to the soul, of the vision in which Paul saw God in a rapture, as we
have stated in the SS, Q[175], A[3], ad 2.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The words quoted prove, not that the clarity of Christ was
not that of glory, but that it was not the clarity of a glorified body,
since Christ's body was not as yet immortal. And just as it was by
dispensation that in Christ the glory of the soul should not overflow
into the body so was it possible that by dispensation it might overflow
as to the gift of clarity and not as to that of impassibility.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This clarity is said to have been imaginary, not as though
it were not really the clarity of glory, but because it was a kind of
image representing that perfection of glory, in virtue of which the body
will be glorious.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: Just as the clarity which was in Christ's body was a
representation of His body's future clarity, so the clarity which was in
His garments signified the future clarity of the saints, which will be
surpassed by that of Christ, just as the brightness of the snow is
surpassed by that of the sun. Hence Gregory says (Moral. xxxii) that
Christ's garments became resplendent, "because in the height of heavenly
clarity all the saints will cling to Him in the refulgence of
righteousness. For His garments signify the righteous, because He will
unite them to Himself," according to Is. 49:18: "Thou shalt be clothed
with all these as with an ornament."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
The bright cloud signifies the glory of the Holy Ghost or the "power of
the Father," as Origen says (Tract. iii in Matth.), by which in the glory
to come the saints will be covered. Or, again, it may be said fittingly
that it signifies the clarity of the world redeemed, which clarity will
cover the saints as a tent. Hence when Peter proposed to make tents, "a
bright cloud overshaded" the disciples.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the witnesses of the transfiguration were fittingly chosen?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the witnesses of the transfiguration were
unfittingly chosen. For everyone is a better witness of things that he
knows. But at the time of Christ's transfiguration no one but the angels
had as yet any knowledge from experience of the glory to come. Therefore
the witnesses of the transfiguration should have been angels rather than
men.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, truth, not fiction, is becoming in a witness of the
truth. Now, Moses and Elias were there, not really, but only in
appearance; for a gloss on Lk. 9:30, "They were Moses and Elias," says:
"It must be observed that Moses and Elias were there neither in body nor
in soul"; but that those bodies were formed "of some available matter. It
is also credible that this was the result of the angelic ministries,
through the angels impersonating them." Therefore it seems that they were
unsuitable witnesses.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is said (Acts 10:43) that "all the prophets give
testimony" to Christ. Therefore not only Moses and Elias, but also all
the prophets, should have been present as witnesses.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, Christ's glory is promised as a reward to all the
faithful (2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21), in whom He wished by His
transfiguration to enkindle a desire of that glory. Therefore He should
have taken not only Peter, James, and John, but all His disciples, to be
witnesses of His transfiguration.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary is the authority of the Gospel.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Christ wished to be transfigured in order to show men His
glory, and to arouse men to a desire of it, as stated above (A[1]). Now
men are brought to the glory of eternal beatitude by Christ---not only
those who lived after Him, but also those who preceded Him; therefore,
when He was approaching His Passion, both "the multitude that followed"
and that "which went before, cried saying: 'Hosanna,'" as related Mt.
21:9, beseeching Him, as it were, to save them. Consequently it was
fitting that witnesses should be present from among those who preceded
Him---namely, Moses and Elias---and from those who followed after
Him---namely, Peter, James, and John---that "in the mouth of two or three
witnesses" this word might stand.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: By His transfiguration Christ manifested to His disciples
the glory of His body, which belongs to men only. It was therefore
fitting that He should choose men and not angels as witnesses.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This gloss is said to be taken from a book entitled On the
Marvels of Holy Scripture. It is not an authentic work, but is wrongly
ascribed to St. Augustine; consequently we need not stand by it. For
Jerome says on Mt. 17:3: "Observe that when the Scribes and Pharisees
asked for a sign from heaven, He refused to give one; whereas here in
order to increase the apostles' faith, He gives a sign from heaven, Elias
coming down thence, whither he had ascended, and Moses arising from the
nether world." This is not to be understood as though the soul of Moses
was reunited to his body, but that his soul appeared through some assumed
body, just as the angels do. But Elias appeared in his own body, not that
he was brought down from the empyrean heaven, but from some place on high
whither he was taken up in the fiery chariot.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Chrysostom says on Mt. 17:3: "Moses and Elias are
brought forward for many reasons." And, first of all, "because the
multitude said He was Elias or Jeremias or one of the prophets, He brings
the leaders of the prophets with Him; that hereby at least they might see
the difference between the servants and their Lord." Another reason was "
. . that Moses gave the Law . . . while Elias . . . was jealous for the
glory of God." Therefore by appearing together with Christ, they show how
falsely the Jews "accused Him of transgressing the Law, and of
blasphemously appropriating to Himself the glory of God." A third reason
was "to show that He has power of death and life, and that He is the
judge of the dead and the living; by bringing with Him Moses who had
died, and Elias who still lived." A fourth reason was because, as Luke
says (9:31), "they spoke" with Him "of His decease that He should
accomplish in Jerusalem," i.e. of His Passion and death. Therefore, "in
order to strengthen the hearts of His disciples with a view to this," He
sets before them those who had exposed themselves to death for God's
sake: since Moses braved death in opposing Pharaoh, and Elias in opposing
Achab. A fifth reason was that "He wished His disciples to imitate the
meekness of Moses and the zeal of Elias." Hilary adds a sixth
reason---namely, in order to signify that He had been foretold by the
Law, which Moses gave them, and by the prophets, of whom Elias was the
principal.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Lofty mysteries should not be immediately explained to
everyone, but should be handed down through superiors to others in their
proper turn. Consequently, as Chrysostom says (on Mt. 17:3), "He took
these three as being superior to the rest." For "Peter excelled in the
love" he bore to Christ and in the power bestowed on him; John in the
privilege of Christ's love for him on account of his virginity, and,
again, on account of his being privileged to be an Evangelist; James on
account of the privilege of martyrdom. Nevertheless He did not wish them
to tell others what they had seen before His Resurrection; "lest," as
Jerome says on Mt. 17:19, "such a wonderful thing should seem incredible
to them; and lest, after hearing of so great glory, they should be
scandalized at the Cross" that followed; or, again, "lest [the Cross]
should be entirely hindered by the people" [*Bede, Hom. xviii; cf. Catena
Aurea]; and "in order that they might then be witnesses of spiritual
things when they should be filled with the Holy Ghost" [*Hilary, in
Matth. xvii].
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the testimony of the Father's voice, saying, "This is My beloved
Son," was fittingly added?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the testimony of the Father's voice, saying,
"This is My beloved Son," was not fittingly added; for, as it is written
(Job 33:14), "God speaketh once, and repeateth not the selfsame thing the
second time." But the Father's voice had testified to this at the time of
(Christ's) baptism. Therefore it was not fitting that He should bear
witness to it a second time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, at the baptism the Holy Ghost appeared under the form of
a dove at the same time as the Father's voice was heard. But this did not
happen at the transfiguration. Therefore it seems that the testimony of
the Father was made in an unfitting manner.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Christ began to teach after His baptism. Nevertheless,
the Father's voice did not then command men to hear him. Therefore
neither should it have so commanded at the transfiguration.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, things should not be said to those who cannot bear them,
according to Jn. 16:12: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you
cannot bear them now." But the disciples could not bear the Father's
voice; for it is written (Mt. 17:6) that "the disciples hearing, fell
upon their face, and were very much afraid." Therefore the Father's voice
should not have been addressed to them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary is the authority of the Gospel.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The adoption of the sons of God is through a certain
conformity of image to the natural Son of God. Now this takes place in
two ways: first, by the grace of the wayfarer, which is imperfect
conformity; secondly, by glory, which is perfect conformity, according to
1 Jn. 3:2: "We are now the sons of God, and it hath not yet appeared what
we shall be: we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like to Him,
because we shall see Him as He is." Since, therefore, it is in baptism
that we acquire grace, while the clarity of the glory to come was
foreshadowed in the transfiguration, therefore both in His baptism and in
His transfiguration the natural sonship of Christ was fittingly made
known by the testimony of the Father: because He alone with the Son and
Holy Ghost is perfectly conscious of that perfect generation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The words quoted are to be understood of God's eternal
speaking, by which God the Father uttered the only-begotten and
co-eternal Word. Nevertheless, it can be said that God uttered the same
thing twice in a bodily voice, yet not for the same purpose, but in order
to show the divers modes in which men can be partakers of the likeness of
the eternal Sonship.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Just as in the Baptism, where the mystery of the first
regeneration was proclaimed, the operation of the whole Trinity was made
manifest, because the Son Incarnate was there, the Holy Ghost appeared
under the form of a dove, and the Father made Himself known in the voice;
so also in the transfiguration, which is the mystery of the second
regeneration, the whole Trinity appears---the Father in the voice, the
Son in the man, the Holy Ghost in the bright cloud; for just as in
baptism He confers innocence, signified by the simplicity of the dove, so
in the resurrection will He give His elect the clarity of glory and
refreshment from all sorts of evil, which are signified by the bright
cloud.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ came to give grace actually, and to promise glory by
His words. Therefore it was fitting at the time of His transfiguration,
and not at the time of His baptism, that men should be commanded to hear
Him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: It was fitting that the disciples should be afraid and fall
down on hearing the voice of the Father, to show that the glory which was
then being revealed surpasses in excellence the sense and faculty of all
mortal beings; according to Ex. 33:20: "Man shall not see Me and live."
This is what Jerome says on Mt. 17:6: "Such is human frailty that it
cannot bear to gaze on such great glory." But men are healed of this
frailty by Christ when He brings them into glory. And this is signified
by what He says to them: "Arise, and fear not."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] Out. Para. 1/3
THE PASSION OF CHRIST (TWELVE ARTICLES)
In proper sequence we have now to consider all that relates to Christ's
leaving the world. In the first place, His Passion; secondly, His death;
thirdly, His burial; and, fourthly, His descent into hell.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] Out. Para. 2/3
With regard to the Passion, there arises a threefold consideration: (1)
The Passion itself; (2) the efficient cause of the Passion; (3) the
fruits of the Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] Out. Para. 3/3
Under the first heading there are twelve points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for men's deliverance?
(2) Whether there was any other possible means of delivering men?
(3) Whether this was the more suitable means?
(4) Whether it was fitting for Christ to suffer on the cross?
(5) The extent of His sufferings;
(6) Whether the pain which He endured was the greatest?
(7) Whether His entire soul suffered?
(8) Whether His Passion hindered the joy of fruition?
(9) The time of the Passion;
(10) The place;
(11) Whether it was fitting for Him to be crucified with robbers?
(12) Whether Christ's Passion is to be attributed to the Godhead?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the
human race?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it was not necessary for Christ to suffer for
the deliverance of the human race. For the human race could not be
delivered except by God, according to Is. 45:21: "Am not I the Lord, and
there is no God else besides Me? A just God and a Saviour, there is none
besides Me." But no necessity can compel God, for this would be repugnant
to His omnipotence. Therefore it was not necessary for Christ to suffer.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, what is necessary is opposed to what is voluntary. But
Christ suffered of His own will; for it is written (Is. 53:7): "He was
offered because it was His own will." Therefore it was not necessary for
Him to suffer.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as is written (Ps. 24:10): "All the ways of the Lord are
mercy and truth." But it does not seem necessary that He should suffer on
the part of the Divine mercy, which, as it bestows gifts freely, so it
appears to condone debts without satisfaction: nor, again, on the part of
Divine justice, according to which man had deserved everlasting
condemnation. Therefore it does not seem necessary that Christ should
have suffered for man's deliverance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the angelic nature is more excellent than the human, as
appears from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). But Christ did not suffer to
repair the angelic nature which had sinned. Therefore, apparently,
neither was it necessary for Him to suffer for the salvation of the human
race.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 3:14): "As Moses lifted up the
serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that
whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As the Philosopher teaches (Metaph. v), there are several
acceptations of the word "necessary." In one way it means anything which
of its nature cannot be otherwise; and in this way it is evident that it
was not necessary either on the part of God or on the part of man for
Christ to suffer. In another sense a thing may be necessary from some
cause quite apart from itself; and should this be either an efficient or
a moving cause then it brings about the necessity of compulsion; as, for
instance, when a man cannot get away owing to the violence of someone
else holding him. But if the external factor which induces necessity be
an end, then it will be said to be necessary from presupposing such
end---namely, when some particular end cannot exist at all, or not
conveniently, except such end be presupposed. It was not necessary,
then, for Christ to suffer from necessity of compulsion, either on God's
part, who ruled that Christ should suffer, or on Christ's own part, who
suffered voluntarily. Yet it was necessary from necessity of the end
proposed; and this can be accepted in three ways. First of all, on our
part, who have been delivered by His Passion, according to John (3:14):
"The Son of man must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may
not perish, but may have life everlasting." Secondly, on Christ's part,
who merited the glory of being exalted, through the lowliness of His
Passion: and to this must be referred Lk. 24:26: "Ought not Christ to
have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory?" Thirdly, on
God's part, whose determination regarding the Passion of Christ, foretold
in the Scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the Old Testament,
had to be fulfilled. And this is what St. Luke says (22:22): "The Son of
man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined"; and (Lk.
24:44,46): "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with
you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law
of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me: for it is
thus written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise again
from the dead."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This argument is based on the necessity of compulsion on
God's part.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This argument rests on the necessity of compulsion on the
part of the man Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: That man should be delivered by Christ's Passion was in
keeping with both His mercy and His justice. With His justice, because by
His Passion Christ made satisfaction for the sin of the human race; and
so man was set free by Christ's justice: and with His mercy, for since
man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature, as was
said above (Q[1], A[2]), God gave him His Son to satisfy for him,
according to Rm. 3:24,25: "Being justified freely by His grace, through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath proposed to be a
propitiation, through faith in His blood." And this came of more copious
mercy than if He had forgiven sins without satisfaction. Hence it is said
(Eph. 2:4): "God, who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity
wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us
together in Christ."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The sin of the angels was irreparable; not so the sin of
the first man (FP, Q[64], A[2]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there was any other possible way of human deliverance besides the
Passion of Christ?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that there was no other possible way of human
deliverance besides Christ's Passion. For our Lord says (Jn. 12:24):
"Amen, amen I say to you, unless the grain of wheat falling into the
ground dieth, itself remaineth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth
much fruit." Upon this St. Augustine (Tract. li) observes that "Christ
called Himself the seed." Consequently, unless He suffered death, He
would not otherwise have produced the fruit of our redemption.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, our Lord addresses the Father (Mt. 26:42): "My Father,
if this chalice may not pass away but I must drink it, Thy will be done."
But He spoke there of the chalice of the Passion. Therefore Christ's
Passion could not pass away; hence Hilary says (Comm. 31 in Matth.):
"Therefore the chalice cannot pass except He drink of it, because we
cannot be restored except through His Passion."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, God's justice required that Christ should satisfy by the
Passion in order that man might be delivered from sin. But Christ cannot
let His justice pass; for it is written (2 Tim. 2:13): "If we believe
not, He continueth faithful, He cannot deny Himself." But He would deny
Himself were He to deny His justice, since He is justice itself. It seems
impossible, then, for man to be delivered otherwise than by Christ's
Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, there can be no falsehood underlying faith. But the
Fathers of old believed that Christ would suffer. Consequently, it seems
that it had to be that Christ should suffer.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "We assert that the way
whereby God deigned to deliver us by the man Jesus Christ, who is
mediator between God and man, is both good and befitting the Divine
dignity; but let us also show that other possible means were not lacking
on God's part, to whose power all things are equally subordinate."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, A thing may be said to be possible or impossible in two
ways: first of all, simply and absolutely; or secondly, from supposition.
Therefore, speaking simply and absolutely, it was possible for God to
deliver mankind otherwise than by the Passion of Christ, because "no word
shall be impossible with God" (Lk. 1:37). Yet it was impossible if some
supposition be made. For since it is impossible for God's foreknowledge
to be deceived and His will or ordinance to be frustrated, then,
supposing God's foreknowledge and ordinance regarding Christ's Passion,
it was not possible at the same time for Christ not to suffer, and for
mankind to be delivered otherwise than by Christ's Passion. And the same
holds good of all things foreknown and preordained by God, as was laid
down in the FP, Q[14], A[13].
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Our Lord is speaking there presupposing God's foreknowledge
and predetermination, according to which it was resolved that the fruit
of man's salvation should not follow unless Christ suffered.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In the same way we must understand what is here objected to
in the second instance: "If this chalice may not pass away but I must
drink of it"---that is to say, because Thou hast so ordained it---hence
He adds: "Thy will be done."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Even this justice depends on the Divine will, requiring
satisfaction for sin from the human race. But if He had willed to free
man from sin without any satisfaction, He would not have acted against
justice. For a judge, while preserving justice, cannot pardon fault
without penalty, if he must visit fault committed against another---for
instance, against another man, or against the State, or any Prince in
higher authority. But God has no one higher than Himself, for He is the
sovereign and common good of the whole universe. Consequently, if He
forgive sin, which has the formality of fault in that it is committed
against Himself, He wrongs no one: just as anyone else, overlooking a
personal trespass, without satisfaction, acts mercifully and not
unjustly. And so David exclaimed when he sought mercy: "To Thee only have
I sinned" (Ps. 50:6), as if to say: "Thou canst pardon me without
injustice."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Human faith, and even the Divine Scriptures upon which
faith is based, are both based on the Divine foreknowledge and ordinance.
And the same reason holds good of that necessity which comes of
supposition, and of the necessity which arises of the Divine
foreknowledge and will.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there was any more suitable way of delivering the human race than
by Christ's Passion?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that there was some other more suitable way of
delivering the human race besides Christ's Passion. For nature in its
operation imitates the Divine work, since it is moved and regulated by
God. But nature never employs two agents where one will suffice.
Therefore, since God could have liberated mankind solely by His Divine
will, it does not seem fitting that Christ's Passion should have been
added for the deliverance of the human race.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, natural actions are more suitably performed than deeds
of violence, because violence is "a severance or lapse from what is
according to nature," as is said in De Coelo ii. But Christ's Passion
brought about His death by violence. Therefore it would have been more
appropriate had Christ died a natural death rather than suffer for man's
deliverance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it seems most fitting that whatsoever keeps something
unjustly and by violence, should be deprived of it by some superior
power; hence Isaias says (52:3): "You were sold gratis, and you shall be
redeemed without money." But the devil possessed no right over man, whom
he had deceived by guile, and whom he held subject in servitude by a sort
of violence. Therefore it seems most suitable that Christ should have
despoiled the devil solely by His power and without the Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, St. Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "There was no
other more suitable way of healing our misery" than by the Passion of
Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Among means to an end that one is the more suitable
whereby the various concurring means employed are themselves helpful to
such end. But in this that man was delivered by Christ's Passion, many
other things besides deliverance from sin concurred for man's salvation.
In the first place, man knows thereby how much God loves him, and is
thereby stirred to love Him in return, and herein lies the perfection of
human salvation; hence the Apostle says (Rm. 5:8): "God commendeth His
charity towards us; for when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ died for
us." Secondly, because thereby He set us an example of obedience,
humility, constancy, justice, and the other virtues displayed in the
Passion, which are requisite for man's salvation. Hence it is written (1
Pt. 2:21): "Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you
should follow in His steps." Thirdly, because Christ by His Passion not
only delivered man from sin, but also merited justifying grace for him
and the glory of bliss, as shall be shown later (Q[48], A[1]; Q[49],
AA[1], 5). Fourthly, because by this man is all the more bound to refrain
from sin, according to 1 Cor. 6:20: "You are bought with a great price:
glorify and bear God in your body." Fifthly, because it redounded to
man's greater dignity, that as man was overcome and deceived by the
devil, so also it should be a man that should overthrow the devil; and as
man deserved death, so a man by dying should vanquish death. Hence it is
written (1 Cor. 15:57): "Thanks be to God who hath given us the victory
through our Lord Jesus Christ." It was accordingly more fitting that we
should be delivered by Christ's Passion than simply by God's good-will.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Even nature uses several means to one intent, in order to
do something more fittingly: as two eyes for seeing; and the same can be
observed in other matters.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Chrysostom [*Athanasius, Orat. De Incarn. Verb.] says:
"Christ had come in order to destroy death, not His own, (for since He is
life itself, death could not be His), but men's death. Hence it was not
by reason of His being bound to die that He laid His body aside, but
because the death He endured was inflicted on Him by men. But even if His
body had sickened and dissolved in the sight of all men, it was not
befitting Him who healed the infirmities of others to have his own body
afflicted with the same. And even had He laid His body aside without any
sickness, and had then appeared, men would not have believed Him when He
spoke of His resurrection. For how could Christ's victory over death
appear, unless He endured it in the sight of all men, and so proved that
death was vanquished by the incorruption of His body?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Although the devil assailed man unjustly, nevertheless, on
account of sin, man was justly left by God under the devil's bondage. And
therefore it was fitting that through justice man should be delivered
from the devil's bondage by Christ making satisfaction on his behalf in
the Passion. This was also a fitting means of overthrowing the pride of
the devil, "who is a deserter from justice, and covetous of sway"; in
that Christ "should vanquish him and deliver man, not merely by the power
of His Godhead, but likewise by the justice and lowliness of the
Passion," as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ ought to have suffered on the cross?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ ought not to have suffered on the
cross. For the truth ought to conform to the figure. But in all the
sacrifices of the Old Testament which prefigured Christ the beasts were
slain with a sword and afterwards consumed by fire. Therefore it seems
that Christ ought not to have suffered on a cross, but rather by the
sword or by fire.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that Christ ought not
to assume "dishonoring afflictions." But death on a cross was most
dishonoring and ignominious; hence it is written (Wis. 2:20): "Let us
condemn Him to a most shameful death." Therefore it seems that Christ
ought not to have undergone the death of the cross.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it was said of Christ (Mt. 21:9): "Blessed is He that
cometh in the name of the Lord." But death upon the cross was a death of
malediction, as we read Dt. 21:23: "He is accursed of God that hangeth on
a tree." Therefore it does not seem fitting for Christ to be crucified.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Phil. 2:8): "He became obedient unto
death, even the death of the cross."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Body Para. 1/8
I answer that, It was most fitting that Christ should suffer the death
of the cross.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Body Para. 2/8
First of all, as an example of virtue. For Augustine thus writes (QQ.
lxxxiii, qu. 25): "God's Wisdom became man to give us an example in
righteousness of living. But it is part of righteous living not to stand
in fear of things which ought not to be feared. Now there are some men
who, although they do not fear death in itself, are yet troubled over the
manner of their death. In order, then, that no kind of death should
trouble an upright man, the cross of this Man had to be set before him,
because, among all kinds of death, none was more execrable, more
fear-inspiring, than this."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Body Para. 3/8
Secondly, because this kind of death was especially suitable in order to
atone for the sin of our first parent, which was the plucking of the
apple from the forbidden tree against God's command. And so, to atone for
that sin, it was fitting that Christ should suffer by being fastened to a
tree, as if restoring what Adam had purloined; according to Ps. 68:5:
"Then did I pay that which I took not away." Hence Augustine says in a
sermon on the Passion [*Cf. Serm. ci De Tempore]: "Adam despised the
command, plucking the apple from the tree: but all that Adam lost, Christ
found upon the cross."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Body Para. 4/8
The third reason is because, as Chrysostom says in a sermon on the
Passion (De Cruce et Latrone i, ii): "He suffered upon a high rood and
not under a roof, in order that the nature of the air might be purified:
and the earth felt a like benefit, for it was cleansed by the flowing of
the blood from His side." And on Jn. 3:14: "The Son of man must be lifted
up," Theophylact says: "When you hear that He was lifted up, understand
His hanging on high, that He might sanctify the air who had sanctified
the earth by walking upon it."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Body Para. 5/8
The fourth reason is, because, by dying on it, He prepares for us an
ascent into heaven, as Chrysostom [*Athanasius, vide A, III, ad 2] says.
Hence it is that He says (Jn. 12:32): "If I be lifted up from the earth,
I will draw all things to Myself."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Body Para. 6/8
The fifth reason is because it is befitting the universal salvation of
the entire world. Hence Gregory of Nyssa observes (In Christ. Resurr.,
Orat. i) that "the shape of the cross extending out into four extremes
from their central point of contact denotes the power and the providence
diffused everywhere of Him who hung upon it." Chrysostom [*Athanasius,
vide A. III, ad 2] also says that upon the cross "He dies with
outstretched hands in order to draw with one hand the people of old, and
with the other those who spring from the Gentiles."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Body Para. 7/8
The sixth reason is because of the various virtues denoted by this class
of death. Hence Augustine in his book on the grace of the Old and New
Testament (Ep. cxl) says: "Not without purpose did He choose this class
of death, that He might be a teacher of that breadth, and height, and
length, and depth," of which the Apostle speaks (Eph. 3:18): "For breadth
is in the beam, which is fixed transversely above; this appertains to
good works, since the hands are stretched out upon it. Length is the
tree's extent from the beam to the ground; and there it is planted---that
is, it stands and abides---which is the note of longanimity. Height is in
that portion of the tree which remains over from the transverse beam
upwards to the top, and this is at the head of the Crucified, because He
is the supreme desire of souls of good hope. But that part of the tree
which is hidden from view to hold it fixed, and from which the entire
rood springs, denotes the depth of gratuitous grace." And, as Augustine
says (Tract. cxix in Joan.): "The tree upon which were fixed the members
of Him dying was even the chair of the Master teaching."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Body Para. 8/8
The seventh reason is because this kind of death responds to very many
figures. For, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Passion (Serm. ci De
Tempore), an ark of wood preserved the human race from the waters of the
Deluge; at the exodus of God's people from Egypt, Moses with a rod
divided the sea, overthrew Pharaoh and saved the people of God. the same
Moses dipped his rod into the water, changing it from bitter to sweet;
at the touch of a wooden rod a salutary spring gushed forth from a
spiritual rock; likewise, in order to overcome Amalec, Moses stretched
forth his arms with rod in hand; lastly, God's law is entrusted to the
wooden Ark of the Covenant; all of which are like steps by which we mount
to the wood of the cross.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The altar of holocausts, upon which the sacrifices of
animals were immolated, was constructed of timbers, as is set forth Ex.
27:, and in this respect the truth answers to the figure; but "it is not
necessary for it to be likened in every respect, otherwise it would not
be a likeness," but the reality, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii).
But. in particular, as Chrysostom [*Athanasius, vide A, III, ad 2] says:
"His head is not cut off, as was done to John; nor was He sawn in twain,
like Isaias, in order that His entire and indivisible body might obey
death, and that there might be no excuse for them who want to divide the
Church." While, instead of material fire, there was the spiritual fire of
charity in Christ's holocaust.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ refused to undergo dishonorable sufferings which are
allied with defects of knowledge, or of grace, or even of virtue, but not
those injuries inflicted from without---nay, more, as is written Heb.
12:2: "He endured the cross, despising the shame."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xiv), sin is accursed,
and, consequently, so is death, and mortality, which comes of sin. "But
Christ's flesh was mortal, 'having the resemblance of the flesh of sin'";
and hence Moses calls it "accursed," just as the Apostle calls it "sin,"
saying (2 Cor. 5:21): "Him that knew no sin, for us He hath made
sin"---namely, because of the penalty of sin. "Nor is there greater
ignominy on that account, because he said: 'He is accursed of God.'" For,
"unless God had hated sin, He would never have sent His Son to take upon
Himself our death, and to destroy it. Acknowledge, then, that it was for
us He took the curse upon Himself, whom you confess to have died for us."
Hence it is written (Gal. 3:13): "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse
of the law, being made a curse for us."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ endured all suffering?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did endure all sufferings, because
Hilary (De Trin. x) says: "God's only-begotten Son testifies that He
endured every kind of human sufferings in order to accomplish the
sacrament of His death, when with bowed head He gave up the ghost." It
seems, therefore, that He did endure all human sufferings.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Is. 52:13): "Behold My servant shall
understand, He shall be exalted and extolled, and shall be exceeding
high; as many as have been astonished at Him [Vulg.: 'thee'], so shall
His visage be inglorious among men, and His form among the sons of men."
But Christ was exalted in that He had all grace and all knowledge, at
which many were astonished in admiration thereof. Therefore it seems that
He was "inglorious," by enduring every human suffering.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Christ's Passion was ordained for man's deliverance from
sin, as stated above (A[3]). But Christ came to deliver men from every
kind of sin. Therefore He ought to have endured every kind of suffering.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 19:32): "The soldiers therefore
came: and they broke the legs of the first, and of the other who was
crucified with Him; but after they were come to Jesus, when they saw that
He was already dead, they did not break His legs." Consequently, He did
not endure every human suffering.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Human sufferings may be considered under two aspects.
First of all, specifically, and in this way it was not necessary for
Christ to endure them all, since many are mutually exclusive, as burning
and drowning; for we are dealing now with sufferings inflicted from
without, since it was not beseeming for Him to endure those arising from
within, such as bodily ailments, as already stated (Q[14], A[4]). But,
speaking generically, He did endure every human suffering. This admits of
a threefold acceptance. First of all, on the part of men: for He endured
something from Gentiles and from Jews; from men and from women, as is
clear from the women servants who accused Peter. He suffered from the
rulers, from their servants and from the mob, according to Ps. 2:1,2:
"Why have the Gentiles raged, and the people devised vain things? The
kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the
Lord and against His Christ." He suffered from friends and acquaintances,
as is manifest from Judas betraying and Peter denying Him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] Body Para. 2/3
Secondly, the same is evident on the part of the sufferings which a man
can endure. For Christ suffered from friends abandoning Him; in His
reputation, from the blasphemies hurled at Him; in His honor and glory,
from the mockeries and the insults heaped upon Him; in things, for He was
despoiled of His garments; in His soul, from sadness, weariness, and
fear; in His body, from wounds and scourgings.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] Body Para. 3/3
Thirdly, it may be considered with regard to His bodily members. In His
head He suffered from the crown of piercing thorns; in His hands and
feet, from the fastening of the nails; on His face from the blows and
spittle; and from the lashes over His entire body. Moreover, He suffered
in all His bodily senses: in touch, by being scourged and nailed; in
taste, by being given vinegar and gall to drink; in smell, by being
fastened to the gibbet in a place reeking with the stench of corpses,
"which is called Calvary"; in hearing, by being tormented with the cries
of blasphemers and scorners; in sight, by beholding the tears of His
Mother and of the disciple whom He loved.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Hilary's words are to be understood as to all classes of
sufferings, but not as to their kinds.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The likeness is sustained, not as to the number of the
sufferings and graces, but as to their greatness; for, as He was uplifted
above others in gifts of graces, so was He lowered beneath others by the
ignominy of His sufferings.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The very least one of Christ's sufferings was sufficient of
itself to redeem the human race from all sins; but as to fittingness, it
sufficed that He should endure all classes of sufferings, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the pain of Christ's Passion was greater than all other pains?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the pain of Christ's Passion was not greater
than all other pains. For the sufferer's pain is increased by the
sharpness and the duration of the suffering. But some of the martyrs
endured sharper and more prolonged pains than Christ, as is seen in St.
Lawrence, who was roasted upon a gridiron; and in St. Vincent, whose
flesh was torn with iron pincers. Therefore it seems that the pain of the
suffering Christ was not the greatest.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, strength of soul mitigates pain, so much so that the
Stoics held there was no sadness in the soul of a wise man; and Aristotle
(Ethic. ii) holds that moral virtue fixes the mean in the passions. But
Christ had most perfect strength of soul. Therefore it seems that the
greatest pain did not exist in Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the more sensitive the sufferer is, the more acute will
the pain be. But the soul is more sensitive than the body, since the body
feels in virtue of the soul; also, Adam in the state of innocence seems
to have had a body more sensitive than Christ had, who assumed a human
body with its natural defects. Consequently, it seems that the pain of a
sufferer in purgatory, or in hell, or even Adam's pain, if he suffered at
all, was greater than Christ's in the Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the greater the good lost, the greater the pain. But by
sinning the sinner loses a greater good than Christ did when suffering;
since the life of grace is greater than the life of nature: also, Christ,
who lost His life, but was to rise again after three days, seems to have
lost less than those who lose their lives and abide in death. Therefore
it seems that Christ's pain was not the greatest of all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, the victim's innocence lessens the sting of his
sufferings. But Christ died innocent, according to Jer. 9:19: "I was as a
meek lamb, that is carried to be a victim." Therefore it seems that the
pain of Christ's Passion was not the greatest.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1
OBJ 6: Further, there was nothing superfluous in Christ's conduct. But
the slightest pain would have sufficed to secure man's salvation, because
from His Divine Person it would have had infinite virtue. Therefore it
would have been superfluous to choose the greatest of all pains.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Lam. 1:12) on behalf of Christ's Person:
"O all ye that pass by the way attend, and see if there be any sorrow
like unto My sorrow."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Body Para. 1/5
I answer that, As we have stated, when treating of the defects assumed
by Christ (Q[15], AA[5],6), there was true and sensible pain in the
suffering Christ, which is caused by something hurtful to the body: also,
there was internal pain, which is caused from the apprehension of
something hurtful, and this is termed "sadness." And in Christ each of
these was the greatest in this present life. This arose from four causes.
First of all, from the sources of His pain. For the cause of the
sensitive pain was the wounding of His body; and this wounding had its
bitterness, both from the extent of the suffering already mentioned (A[5]
) and from the kind of suffering, since the death of the crucified is
most bitter, because they are pierced in nervous and highly sensitive
parts---to wit, the hands and feet; moreover, the weight of the suspended
body intensifies the agony. and besides this there is the duration of the
suffering because they do not die at once like those slain by the sword.
The cause of the interior pain was, first of all, all the sins of the
human race, for which He made satisfaction by suffering; hence He
ascribes them, so to speak, to Himself, saying (Ps. 21:2): "The words of
my sins." Secondly, especially the fall of the Jews and of the others who
sinned in His death chiefly of the apostles, who were scandalized at His
Passion. Thirdly, the loss of His bodily life, which is naturally
horrible to human nature.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Body Para. 2/5
The magnitude of His suffering may be considered, secondly, from the
susceptibility of the sufferer as to both soul and body. For His body was
endowed with a most perfect constitution, since it was fashioned
miraculously by the operation of the Holy Ghost; just as some other
things made by miracles are better than others, as Chrysostom says (Hom.
xxii in Joan.) respecting the wine into which Christ changed the water at
the wedding-feast. And, consequently, Christ's sense of touch, the
sensitiveness of which is the reason for our feeling pain, was most
acute. His soul likewise, from its interior powers, apprehended most
vehemently all the causes of sadness.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Body Para. 3/5
Thirdly, the magnitude of Christ's suffering can be estimated from the
singleness of His pain and sadness. In other sufferers the interior
sadness is mitigated, and even the exterior suffering, from some
consideration of reason, by some derivation or redundance from the higher
powers into the lower; but it was not so with the suffering Christ,
because "He permitted each one of His powers to exercise its proper
function," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Body Para. 4/5
Fourthly, the magnitude of the pain of Christ's suffering can be
reckoned by this, that the pain and sorrow were accepted voluntarily, to
the end of men's deliverance from sin; and consequently He embraced the
amount of pain proportionate to the magnitude of the fruit which resulted
therefrom.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Body Para. 5/5
From all these causes weighed together, it follows that Christ's pain
was the very greatest.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This argument follows from only one of the considerations
adduced---namely, from the bodily injury, which is the cause of sensitive
pain; but the torment of the suffering Christ is much more intensified
from other causes, as above stated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Moral virtue lessens interior sadness in one way, and
outward sensitive pain in quite another; for it lessens interior sadness
directly by fixing the mean, as being its proper matter, within limits.
But, as was laid down in the FS, Q[64], A[2], moral virtue fixes the mean
in the passions, not according to mathematical quantity, but according to
quantity of proportion, so that the passion shall not go beyond the rule
of reason. And since the Stoics held all sadness to be unprofitable, they
accordingly believed it to be altogether discordant with reason, and
consequently to be shunned altogether by a wise man. But in very truth
some sadness is praiseworthy, as Augustine proves (De Civ. Dei
xiv)---namely, when it flows from holy love, as, for instance, when a man
is saddened over his own or others' sins. Furthermore, it is employed as
a useful means of satisfying for sins, according to the saying of the
Apostle (2 Cor. 7:10): "The sorrow that is according to God worketh
penance, steadfast unto salvation." And so to atone for the sins of all
men, Christ accepted sadness, the greatest in absolute quantity, yet not
exceeding the rule of reason. But moral virtue does not lessen outward
sensitive pain, because such pain is not subject to reason, but follows
the nature of the body; yet it lessens it indirectly by redundance of the
higher powers into the lower. But this did not happen in Christ's case,
as stated above (cf. Q[14], A[1], ad 2; Q[45], A[2]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The pain of a suffering, separated soul belongs to the
state of future condemnation, which exceeds every evil of this life, just
as the glory of the saints surpasses every good of the present life.
Accordingly, when we say that Christ's pain was the greatest, we make no
comparison between His and the pain of a separated soul. But Adam's body
could not suffer, except he sinned. so that he would become mortal, and
passible. And, though actually suffering, it would have felt less pain
than Christ's body, for the reasons already stated. From all this it is
clear that even if by impassibility Adam had suffered in the state of
innocence, his pain would have been less than Christ's.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Christ grieved not only over the loss of His own bodily
life, but also over the sins of all others. And this grief in Christ
surpassed all grief of every contrite heart, both because it flowed from
a greater wisdom and charity, by which the pang of contrition is
intensified, and because He grieved at the one time for all sins,
according to Is. 53:4: "Surely He hath carried our sorrows." But such was
the dignity of Christ's life in the body, especially on account of the
Godhead united with it, that its loss, even for one hour, would be a
matter of greater grief than the loss of another man's life for howsoever
long a time. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii) that the man of
virtue loves his life all the more in proportion as he knows it to be
better; and yet he exposes it for virtue's sake. And in like fashion
Christ laid down His most beloved life for the good of charity, according
to Jer. 12:7: "I have given My dear soul into the hands of her enemies."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: The sufferer's innocence does lessen numerically the pain
of the suffering, since, when a guilty man suffers, he grieves not merely
on account of the penalty, but also because of the crime. whereas the
innocent man grieves only for the penalty: yet this pain is more
intensified by reason of his innocence, in so far as he deems the hurt
inflicted to be the more undeserved. Hence it is that even others are
more deserving of blame if they do not compassionate him. according to
Is. 57:1: "The just perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 6: Christ willed to deliver the human race from sins not
merely by His power, but also according to justice. And therefore He did
not simply weigh what great virtue His suffering would have from union
with the Godhead, but also how much, according to His human nature, His
pain would avail for so great a satisfaction.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ suffered in His whole soul?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not suffer in His whole soul. For
the soul suffers indirectly when the body suffers, inasmuch as it is the
"act of the body." But the soul is not, as to its every part, the "act of
the body"; because the intellect is the act of no body, as is said De
Anima iii. Therefore it seems that Christ did not suffer in His whole
soul.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, every power of the soul is passive in regard to its
proper object. But the higher part of reason has for its object the
eternal types, "to the consideration and consultation of which it directs
itself," as Augustine says (De Trin. xii). But Christ could suffer no
hurt from the eternal types, since they are nowise opposed to Him.
Therefore it seems that He did not suffer in His whole soul.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a sensitive passion is said to be complete when it comes
into contact with the reason. But there was none such in Christ, but only
"pro-passions"; as Jerome remarks on Mt. 26:37. Hence Dionysius says in a
letter to John the Evangelist that "He endured only mentally the
sufferings inflicted upon Him." Consequently it does not seem that Christ
suffered in His whole soul.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, suffering causes pain: but there is no pain in the
speculative intellect, because, as the Philosopher says (Topic. i),
"there is no sadness in opposition to the pleasure which comes of
consideration." Therefore it seems that Christ did not suffer in His
whole soul.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 87:4) on behalf of Christ: "My soul
is filled with evils": upon which the gloss adds: "Not with vices, but
with woes, whereby the soul suffers with the flesh; or with evils, viz.
of a perishing people, by compassionating them." But His soul would not
have been filled with these evils except He had suffered in His whole
soul. Therefore Christ suffered in His entire soul.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, A whole is so termed with respect to its parts. But the
parts of a soul are its faculties. So, then, the whole soul is said to
suffer in so far as it is afflicted as to its essence, or as to all its
faculties. But it must be borne in mind that a faculty of the soul can
suffer in two ways: first of all, by its own passion; and this comes of
its being afflicted by its proper object; thus, sight may suffer from
superabundance of the visible object. In another way a faculty suffers by
a passion in the subject on which it is based; as sight suffers when the
sense of touch in the eye is affected, upon which the sense of sight
rests, as, for instance, when the eye is pricked, or is disaffected by
heat.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] Body Para. 2/2
So, then, we say that if the soul be considered with respect to its
essence, it is evident that Christ's whole soul suffered. For the soul's
whole essence is allied with the body, so that it is entire in the whole
body and in its every part. Consequently, when the body suffered and was
disposed to separate from the soul, the entire soul suffered. But if we
consider the whole soul according to its faculties, speaking thus of the
proper passions of the faculties, He suffered indeed as to all His lower
powers; because in all the soul's lower powers, whose operations are but
temporal, there was something to be found which was a source of woe to
Christ, as is evident from what was said above (A[6]). But Christ's
higher reason did not suffer thereby on the part of its object, which is
God, who was the cause, not of grief, but rather of delight and joy, to
the soul of Christ. Nevertheless, all the powers of Christ's soul did
suffer according as any faculty is said to be affected as regards its
subject, because all the faculties of Christ's soul were rooted in its
essence, to which suffering extended when the body, whose act it is,
suffered.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Although the intellect as a faculty is not the act of the
body, still the soul's essence is the act of the body, and in it the
intellective faculty is rooted, as was shown in the FP, Q[77], AA[6],8.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This argument proceeds from passion on the part of the
proper object, according to which Christ's higher reason did not suffer.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Grief is then said to be a true passion, by which the soul
is troubled, when the passion in the sensitive part causes reason to
deflect from the rectitude of its act, so that it then follows the
passion, and has no longer free-will with regard to it. In this way
passion of the sensitive part did not extend to reason in Christ, but
merely subjectively, as was stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The speculative intellect can have no pain or sadness on
the part of its object, which is truth considered absolutely, and which
is its perfection: nevertheless, both grief and its cause can reach it in
the way mentioned above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's entire soul enjoyed blessed fruition during the Passion?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's entire soul did not enjoy blessed
fruition during the Passion. For it is not possible to be sad and glad at
the one time, since sadness and gladness are contraries. But Christ's
whole soul suffered grief during the Passion, as was stated above (A[7]).
Therefore His whole soul could not enjoy fruition.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii) that, if sadness be
vehement, it not only checks the contrary delight, but every delight; and
conversely. But the grief of Christ's Passion was the greatest, as shown
above (A[6]); and likewise the enjoyment of fruition is also the
greatest, as was laid down in the first volume of the FS, Q[34], A[3].
Consequently, it was not possible for Christ's whole soul to be suffering
and rejoicing at the one time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, beatific "fruition" comes of the knowledge and love of
Divine things, as Augustine says (Doctr. Christ. i). But all the soul's
powers do not extend to the knowledge and love of God. Therefore Christ's
whole soul did not enjoy fruition.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): Christ's Godhead
"permitted His flesh to do and to suffer what was proper to it." In like
fashion, since it belonged to Christ's soul, inasmuch as it was blessed,
to enjoy fruition, His Passion did not impede fruition.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[7]), the whole soul can be understood
both according to its essence and according to all its faculties. If it
be understood according to its essence, then His whole soul did enjoy
fruition, inasmuch as it is the subject of the higher part of the soul,
to which it belongs, to enjoy the Godhead: so that as passion, by reason
of the essence, is attributed to the higher part of the soul, so, on the
other hand, by reason of the superior part of the soul, fruition is
attributed to the essence. But if we take the whole soul as comprising
all its faculties, thus His entire soul did not enjoy fruition: not
directly, indeed, because fruition is not the act of any one part of the
soul; nor by any overflow of glory, because, since Christ was still upon
earth, there was no overflowing of glory from the higher part into the
lower, nor from the soul into the body. But since, on the contrary, the
soul's higher part was not hindered in its proper acts by the lower, it
follows that the higher part of His soul enjoyed fruition perfectly while
Christ was suffering.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The joy of fruition is not opposed directly to the grief of
the Passion, because they have not the same object. Now nothing prevents
contraries from being in the same subject, but not according to the same.
And so the joy of fruition can appertain to the higher part of reason by
its proper act; but grief of the Passion according to the subject. Grief
of the Passion belongs to the essence of the soul by reason of the body,
whose form the soul is; whereas the joy of fruition (belongs to the soul)
by reason of the faculty in which it is subjected.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The Philosopher's contention is true because of the
overflow which takes place naturally of one faculty of the soul into
another; but it was not so with Christ, as was said above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Such argument holds good of the totality of the soul with
regard to its faculties.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ suffered at a suitable time?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not suffer at a suitable time. For
Christ's Passion was prefigured by the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb:
hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:7): "Christ our Pasch is sacrificed."
But the paschal lamb was slain "on the fourteenth day at eventide," as is
stated in Ex. 12:6. Therefore it seems that Christ ought to have suffered
then; which is manifestly false: for He was then celebrating the Pasch
with His disciples, according to Mark's account (14:12): "On the first
day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Pasch"; whereas it
was on the following day that He suffered.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ's Passion is called His uplifting, according to
Jn. 3:14: "So must the Son of man be lifted up." And Christ is Himself
called the Sun of Justice, as we read Mal. 4:2. Therefore it seems that
He ought to have suffered at the sixth hour, when the sun is at its
highest point, and yet the contrary appears from Mk. 15:25: "It was the
third hour, and they crucified Him."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as the sun is at its highest point in each day at the
sixth hour, so also it reaches its highest point in every year at the
summer solstice. Therefore Christ ought to have suffered about the time
of the summer solstice rather than about the vernal equinox.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the world was enlightened by Christ's presence in it,
according to Jn. 9:5: "As long as I am in the world I am the light of the
world." Consequently it was fitting for man's salvation that Christ
should have lived longer in the world, so that He should have suffered,
not in young, but in old, age.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 13:1): "Jesus, knowing that His hour
was come for Him to pass out of this world to the Father"; and (Jn. 2:4):
"My hour is not yet come." Upon which texts Augustine observes: "When He
had done as much as He deemed sufficient, then came His hour, not of
necessity, but of will, not of condition, but of power." Therefore Christ
died at an opportune time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As was observed above (A[1]), Christ's Passion was
subject to His will. But His will was ruled by the Divine wisdom which
"ordereth all things" conveniently and "sweetly" (Wis. 8:1). Consequently
it must be said that Christ's Passion was enacted at an opportune time.
Hence it is written in De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. lv: "The Saviour
did everything in its proper place and season."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 1/5
Reply OBJ 1: Some hold that Christ did die on the fourteenth day of the
moon, when the Jews sacrificed the Pasch: hence it is stated (Jn. 18:28)
that the Jews "went not into Pilate's hall" on the day of the Passion,
"that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Pasch." Upon
this Chrysostom observes (Hom. lxxxii in Joan.): "The Jews celebrated the
Pasch then; but He celebrated the Pasch on the previous day, reserving
His own slaying until the Friday, when the old Pasch was kept." And this
appears to tally with the statement (Jn. 13:1-5) that "before the
festival day of the Pasch . . . when supper was done" . . . Christ washed
"the feet of the disciples."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 2/5
But Matthew's account (26:17) seems opposed to this; that "on the first
day of the Azymes the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt Thou
that we prepare for Thee to eat the Pasch?" From which, as Jerome says,
"since the fourteenth day of the first month is called the day of the
Azymes, when the lamb was slain, and when it was full moon," it is quite
clear that Christ kept the supper on the fourteenth and died on the
fifteenth. And this comes out more clearly from Mk. 14:12: "On the first
day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Pasch," etc.; and
from Lk. 22:7: "The day of the unleavened bread came, on which it was
necessary that the Pasch should be killed."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 3/5
Consequently, then, others say that Christ ate the Pasch with His
disciples on the proper day---that is, on the fourteenth day of the
moon---"showing thereby that up to the last day He was not opposed to the
law," as Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxi in Matth.): but that the Jews, being
busied in compassing Christ's death against the law, put off celebrating
the Pasch until the following day. And on this account it is said of them
that on the day of Christ's Passion they were unwilling to enter Pilate's
hall, "that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the
Pasch."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 4/5
But even this solution does not tally with Mark, who says: "On the first
day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Pasch."
Consequently Christ and the Jews celebrated the ancient Pasch at the one
time. And as Bede says on Lk. 22:7,8: "Although Christ who is our Pasch
was slain on the following day---that is, on the fifteenth day of the
moon---nevertheless, on the night when the Lamb was sacrificed,
delivering to the disciples to be celebrated, the mysteries of His body
and blood, and being held and bound by the Jews, He hallowed the opening
of His own immolation---that is, of His Passion."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 5/5
But the words (Jn. 13:1) "Before the festival day of the Pasch" are to
be understood to refer to the fourteenth day of the moon, which then fell
upon the Thursday: for the fifteenth day of the moon was the most solemn
day of the Pasch with the Jews: and so the same day which John calls
"before the festival day of the Pasch," on account of the natural
distinction of days, Matthew calls the first day of the unleavened bread,
because, according to the rite of the Jewish festivity, the solemnity
began from the evening of the preceding day. When it is said, then, that
they were going to eat the Pasch on the fifteenth day of the month, it is
to be understood that the Pasch there is not called the Paschal lamb,
which was sacrificed on the fourteenth day, but the Paschal food---that
is, the unleavened bread---which had to be eaten by the clean. Hence
Chrysostom in the same passage gives another explanation, that the Pasch
can be taken as meaning the whole feast of the Jews, which lasted seven
days.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. iii): "'It was about
the sixth hour' when the Lord was delivered up by Pilate to be
crucified," as John relates. For it "was not quite the sixth hour, but
about the sixth---that is, it was after the fifth, and when part of the
sixth had been entered upon until the sixth hour was ended---that the
darkness began, when Christ hung upon the cross. It is understood to have
been the third hour when the Jews clamored for the Lord to be crucified:
and it is most clearly shown that they crucified Him when they clamored
out. Therefore, lest anyone might divert the thought of so great a crime
from the Jews to the soldiers, he says: 'It was the third hour, and they
crucified Him,' that they before all may be found to have crucified Him,
who at the third hour clamored for His crucifixion. Although there are
not wanting some persons who wish the Parasceve to be understood as the
third hour, which John recalls, saying: 'It was the Parasceve, about the
sixth hour.' For 'Parasceve' is interpreted 'preparation.' But the true
Pasch, which was celebrated in the Lord's Passion, began to be prepared
from the ninth hour of the night---namely, when the chief priests said:
'He is deserving of death.'" According to John, then, "the sixth hour of
the Parasceve" lasts from that hour of the night down to Christ's
crucifixion; while, according to Mark, it is the third hour of the day.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
Still, there are some who contend that this discrepancy is due to the
error of a Greek transcriber: since the characters employed by them to
represent 3 and 6 are somewhat alike.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: According to the author of De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu.
lv, "our Lord willed to redeem and reform the world by His Passion, at
the time of year at which He had created it---that is, at the equinox. It
is then that day grows upon night; because by our Saviour's Passion we
are brought from darkness to light." And since the perfect enlightening
will come about at Christ's second coming, therefore the season of His
second coming is compared (Mt. 24:32,33) to the summer in these words:
"When the branch thereof is now tender, and the leaves come forth, you
know that summer is nigh: so you also, when you shall see all these
things, know ye that it is nigh even at the doors." And then also shall
be Christ's greatest exaltation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Christ willed to suffer while yet young, for three reasons.
First of all, to commend the more His love by giving up His life for us
when He was in His most perfect state of life. Secondly, because it was
not becoming for Him to show any decay of nature nor to be subject to
disease, as stated above (Q[14], A[4]). Thirdly, that by dying and rising
at an early age Christ might exhibit beforehand in His own person the
future condition of those who rise again. Hence it is written (Eph.
4:13): "Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge
of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the
fulness of Christ."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ suffered in a suitable place?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not suffer in a suitable place. For
Christ suffered according to His human nature, which was conceived in
Nazareth and born in Bethlehem. Consequently it seems that He ought not
to have suffered in Jerusalem, but in Nazareth or Bethlehem.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the reality ought to correspond with the figure. But
Christ's Passion was prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Law, and
these were offered up in the Temple. Therefore it seems that Christ ought
to have suffered in the Temple, and not outside the city gate.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the medicine should correspond with the disease. But
Christ's Passion was the medicine against Adam's sin: and Adam was not
buried in Jerusalem, but in Hebron; for it is written (Josue 14:15): "The
name of Hebron before was called Cariath-Arbe: Adam the greatest in the
land of [Vulg.: 'among'] the Enacims was laid there."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 13:33): "It cannot be that a prophet
perish out of Jerusalem." Therefore it was fitting that He should die in
Jerusalem.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, According to the author of De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu.
lv, "the Saviour did everything in its proper place and season," because,
as all things are in His hands, so are all places: and consequently,
since Christ suffered at a suitable time, so did He in a suitable place.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 1/4
Reply OBJ 1: Christ died most appropriately in Jerusalem. First of all,
because Jerusalem was God's chosen place for the offering of sacrifices
to Himself: and these figurative sacrifices foreshadowed Christ's
Passion, which is a true sacrifice, according to Eph. 5:2: "He hath
delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor
of sweetness." Hence Bede says in a Homily (xxiii): "When the Passion
drew nigh, our Lord willed to draw nigh to the place of the
Passion"---that is to say, to Jerusalem---whither He came five days
before the Pasch; just as, according to the legal precept, the Paschal
lamb was led to the place of immolation five days before the Pasch, which
is the tenth day of the moon.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 2/4
Secondly, because the virtue of His Passion was to be spread over the
whole world, He wished to suffer in the center of the habitable
world---that is, in Jerusalem. Accordingly it is written (Ps. 73:12):
"But God is our King before ages: He hath wrought salvation in the midst
of the earth"---that is, in Jerusalem, which is called "the navel of the
earth" [*Cf. Jerome's comment on Ezech. 5:5].
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 3/4
Thirdly, because it was specially in keeping with His humility: that, as
He chose the most shameful manner of death, so likewise it was part of
His humility that He did not refuse to suffer in so celebrated a place.
Hence Pope Leo says (Serm. I in Epiph.): "He who had taken upon Himself
the form of a servant chose Bethlehem for His nativity and Jerusalem for
His Passion."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 4/4
Fourthly, He willed to suffer in Jerusalem, where the chief priests
dwelt, to show that the wickedness of His slayers arose from the chiefs
of the Jewish people. Hence it is written (Acts 4:27): "There assembled
together in this city against Thy holy child Jesus whom Thou hast
anointed, Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of
Israel."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 2: For three reasons Christ suffered outside the gate, and not
in the Temple nor in the city. First of all, that the truth might
correspond with the figure. For the calf and the goat which were offered
in most solemn sacrifice for expiation on behalf of the entire multitude
were burnt outside the camp, as commanded in Lev. 16:27. Hence it is
written (Heb. 13:27): "For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is
brought into the holies by the high-priest for sin, are burned without
the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people by His
own blood, suffered without the gate."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 2/3
Secondly, to set us the example of shunning worldly conversation.
Accordingly the passage continues: "Let us go forth therefore to Him
without the camp, bearing His reproach."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 3/3
Thirdly, as Chrysostom says in a sermon on the Passion (Hom. i De Cruce
et Latrone): "The Lord was not willing to suffer under a roof, nor in the
Jewish Temple, lest the Jews might take away the saving sacrifice, and
lest you might think He was offered for that people only. Consequently,
it was beyond the city and outside the walls, that you may learn it was a
universal sacrifice, an oblation for the whole world, a cleansing for
all."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: According to Jerome, in his commentary on Mt. 27:33,
"someone explained 'the place of Calvary' as being the place where Adam
was buried; and that it was so called because the skull of the first man
was buried there. A pleasing interpretation indeed, and one suited to
catch the ear of the people, but, still, not the true one. For the spots
where the condemned are beheaded are outside the city and beyond the
gates, deriving thence the name of Calvary---that is, of the beheaded.
Jesus, accordingly, was crucified there, that the standards of martyrdom
might be uplifted over what was formerly the place of the condemned. But
Adam was buried close by Hebron and Arbe, as we read in the book of Jesus
Ben Nave." But Jesus was to be crucified in the common spot of the
condemned rather than beside Adam's sepulchre, to make it manifest that
Christ's cross was the remedy, not only for Adam's personal sin, but also
for the sin of the entire world.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was fitting for Christ to be crucified with thieves?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem unfitting for Christ to have been crucified with
thieves, because it is written (2 Cor. 6:14): "What participation hath
justice with injustice?" But for our sakes Christ "of God is made unto us
justice" (1 Cor. 1:30); whereas iniquity applies to thieves. Therefore it
was not fitting for Christ to be crucified with thieves.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, on Mt. 26:35, "Though I should die with Thee, I will not
deny Thee," Origen (Tract. xxxv in Matth.) observes: "It was not men's
lot to die with Jesus, since He died for all." Again, on Lk. 22:33, "I am
ready to go with Thee, both into prison and death," Ambrose says: "Our
Lord's Passion has followers, but not equals." It seems, then, much less
fitting for Christ to suffer with thieves.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is written (Mt. 27:44) that "the thieves who were
crucified with Him reproached Him." But in Lk. 22:42 it is stated that
one of them who were crucified with Christ cried out to Him: "Lord,
remember me when Thou shalt come into Thy kingdom." It seems, then, that
besides the blasphemous thieves there was another man who did not
blaspheme Him: and so the Evangelist's account does not seem to be
accurate when it says that Christ was crucified with thieves.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It was foretold by Isaias (53:12): "And He was reputed
with the wicked."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Christ was crucified between thieves from one intention
on the part of the Jews, and from quite another on the part of God's
ordaining. As to the intention of the Jews, Chrysostom remarks (Hom.
lxxxvii in Matth.) that they crucified the two thieves, one on either
side, "that He might be made to share their guilt. But it did not happen
so; because mention is never made of them; whereas His cross is honored
everywhere. Kings lay aside their crowns to take up the cross: on their
purple robes, on their diadems, on their weapons, on the consecrated
table, everywhere the cross shines forth."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] Body Para. 2/2
As to God's ordinance, Christ was crucified with thieves, because, as
Jerome says on Mt. 27:33: "As Christ became accursed of the cross for us,
so for our salvation He was crucified as a guilty one among the guilty."
Secondly, as Pope Leo observes (Serm. iv de Passione): "Two thieves were
crucified, one on His right hand and one on His left, to set forth by the
very appearance of the gibbet that separation of all men which shall be
made in His hour of judgment." And Augustine on Jn. 7:36: "The very
cross, if thou mark it well, was a judgment-seat: for the judge being set
in the midst, the one who believed was delivered, the other who mocked
Him was condemned. Already He has signified what He shall do to the quick
and the dead; some He will set on His right, others on His left hand."
Thirdly, according to Hilary (Comm. xxxiii in Matth.): "Two thieves are
set, one upon His right and one upon His left, to show that all mankind
is called to the sacrament of His Passion. But because of the cleavage
between believers and unbelievers, the multitude is divided into right
and left, those on the right being saved by the justification of faith."
Fourthly, because, as Bede says on Mk. 15:27: "The thieves crucified with
our Lord denote those who, believing in and confessing Christ, either
endure the conflict of martyrdom or keep the institutes of stricter
observance. But those who do the like for the sake of everlasting glory
are denoted by the faith of the thief on the right; while others who do
so for the sake of human applause copy the mind and behavior of the one
on the left."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Just as Christ was not obliged to die, but willingly
submitted to death so as to vanquish death by His power: so neither
deserved He to be classed with thieves; but willed to be reputed with the
ungodly that He might destroy ungodliness by His power. Accordingly,
Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxiv in Joan.) that "to convert the thief upon
the cross, and lead him into paradise, was no less a wonder than to shake
the rocks."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: It was not fitting that anyone else should die with Christ
from the same cause as Christ: hence Origen continues thus in the same
passage: "All had been under sin, and all required that another should
die for them, not they for others."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. iii): We can
understand Matthew "as putting the plural for the singular" when he said
"the thieves reproached Him." Or it may be said, with Jerome, that "at
first both blasphemed Him, but afterwards one believed in Him on
witnessing the wonders."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's Passion is to be attributed to His Godhead?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion is to be attributed to His
Godhead; for it is written (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had known it, they
would never have crucified the Lord of glory." But Christ is the Lord of
glory in respect of His Godhead. Therefore Christ's Passion is attributed
to Him in respect of His Godhead.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the principle of men's salvation is the Godhead Itself,
according to Ps. 36:39: "But the salvation of the just is from the Lord."
Consequently, if Christ's Passion did not appertain to His Godhead, it
would seem that it could not produce fruit in us.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the Jews were punished for slaying Christ as for
murdering God Himself; as is proved by the gravity of the punishment. Now
this would not be so if the Passion were not attributed to the Godhead.
Therefore Christ's Passion should be so attributed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Athanasius says (Ep. ad Epict.): "The Word is
impassible whose Nature is Divine." But what is impassible cannot suffer.
Consequently, Christ's Passion did not concern His Godhead.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[2], AA[1],2,3,6), the union of the
human nature with the Divine was effected in the Person, in the
hypostasis, in the suppositum, yet observing the distinction of natures;
so that it is the same Person and hypostasis of the Divine and human
natures, while each nature retains that which is proper to it. And
therefore, as stated above (Q[16], A[4]), the Passion is to be attributed
to the suppositum of the Divine Nature, not because of the Divine Nature,
which is impassible, but by reason of the human nature. Hence, in a
Synodal Epistle of Cyril [*Act. Conc. Ephes., P. i, cap. 26] we read: "If
any man does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and
was crucified in the flesh, let him be anathema." Therefore Christ's
Passion belongs to the "suppositum" of the Divine Nature by reason of the
passible nature assumed, but not on account of the impassible Divine
Nature.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The Lord of glory is said to be crucified, not as the Lord
of glory, but as a man capable of suffering.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As is said in a sermon of the Council of Ephesus [*P. iii,
cap. 10], "Christ's death being, as it were, God's death"---namely, by
union in Person---"destroyed death"; since He who suffered "was both God
and man. For God's Nature was not wounded, nor did It undergo any change
by those sufferings."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As the passage quoted goes on to say: "The Jews did not
crucify one who was simply a man; they inflicted their presumptions upon
God. For suppose a prince to speak by word of mouth, and that his words
are committed to writing on a parchment and sent out to the cities, and
that some rebel tears up the document, he will be led forth to endure the
death sentence, not for merely tearing up a document, but as destroying
the imperial message. Let not the Jew, then, stand in security, as
crucifying a mere man; since what he saw was as the parchment, but what
was hidden under it was the imperial Word, the Son by nature, not the
mere utterance of a tongue."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF CHRIST'S PASSION (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the efficient cause of Christ's Passion,
concerning which there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ was slain by others, or by Himself?
(2) From what motive did He deliver Himself up to the Passion?
(3) Whether the Father delivered Him up to suffer?
(4) Whether it was fitting that He should suffer at the hands of the
Gentiles, or rather of the Jews?
(5) Whether His slayers knew who He was?
(6) Of the sin of them who slew Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ was slain by another or by Himself?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ was not slain by another, but by
Himself. For He says Himself (Jn. 10:18): "No men taketh My life from Me,
but I lay it down of Myself." But he is said to kill another who takes
away his life. Consequently, Christ was not slain by others, but by
Himself.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, those slain by others sink gradually from exhausted
nature, and this is strikingly apparent in the crucified: for, as
Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "Those who were crucified were tormented
with a lingering death." But this did not happen in Christ's case, since
"crying out, with a loud voice, He yielded up the ghost" (Mt. 27:50).
Therefore Christ was not slain by others, but by Himself.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, those slain by others suffer a violent death, and hence
die unwillingly, because violent is opposed to voluntary. But Augustine
says (De Trin. iv): "Christ's spirit did not quit the flesh unwillingly,
but because He willed it, when He willed it, and as He willed it."
Consequently Christ was not slain by others, but by Himself.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 18:33): "After they have scourged
Him, they will put him to death."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, A thing may cause an effect in two ways: in the first
instance by acting directly so as to produce the effect; and in this
manner Christ's persecutors slew Him because they inflicted on Him what
was a sufficient cause of death, and with the intention of slaying Him,
and the effect followed, since death resulted from that cause. In another
way someone causes an effect indirectly---that is, by not preventing it
when he can do so; just as one person is said to drench another by not
closing the window through which the shower is entering: and in this way
Christ was the cause of His own Passion and death. For He could have
prevented His Passion and death. Firstly, by holding His enemies in
check, so that they would not have been eager to slay Him, or would have
been powerless to do so. Secondly, because His spirit had the power of
preserving His fleshly nature from the infliction of any injury; and
Christ's soul had this power, because it was united in unity of person
with the Divine Word, as Augustine says (De Trin. iv). Therefore, since
Christ's soul did not repel the injury inflicted on His body, but willed
His corporeal nature to succumb to such injury, He is said to have laid
down His life, or to have died voluntarily.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: When we hear the words, "No man taketh away My life from
Me," we must understand "against My will": for that is properly said to
be "taken away" which one takes from someone who is unwilling and unable
to resist.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In order for Christ to show that the Passion inflicted by
violence did not take away His life, He preserved the strength of His
bodily nature, so that at the last moment He was able to cry out with a
loud voice: and hence His death should be computed among His other
miracles. Accordingly it is written (Mk. 15:39): "And the centurion who
stood over against Him, seeing that crying out in this manner, He had
given up the ghost, said: Indeed, this man was the Son of God." It was
also a subject of wonder in Christ's death that He died sooner than the
others who were tormented with the same suffering. Hence John says
(19:32) that "they broke the legs of the first, and of the other that was
crucified with Him," that they might die more speedily; "but after they
were come to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not
break His legs." Mark also states (15:44) that "Pilate wondered that He
should be already dead." For as of His own will His bodily nature kept
its vigor to the end, so likewise, when He willed, He suddenly succumbed
to the injury inflicted.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ at the same time suffered violence in order to die,
and died, nevertheless, voluntarily; because violence was inflicted on
His body, which, however, prevailed over His body only so far as He
willed it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ died out of obedience?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not die out of obedience. For
obedience is referred to a command. But we do not read that Christ was
commanded to suffer. Therefore He did not suffer out of obedience.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a man is said to do from obedience what he does from
necessity of precept. But Christ did not suffer necessarily, but
voluntarily. Therefore He did not suffer out of obedience.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, charity is a more excellent virtue than obedience. But
we read that Christ suffered out of charity, according to Eph. 5:2: "Walk
in love, as Christ also has loved us, and delivered Himself up for us."
Therefore Christ's Passion ought to be ascribed rather to charity than to
obedience.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Phil. 2:8): "He became obedient" to the
Father "unto death."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, It was befitting that Christ should suffer out of
obedience. First of all, because it was in keeping with human
justification, that "as by the disobedience of one man, many were made
sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just," as is
written Rm. 5:19. Secondly, it was suitable for reconciling man with God:
hence it is written (Rm. 5:10): "We are reconciled to God by the death of
His Son," in so far as Christ's death was a most acceptable sacrifice to
God, according to Eph. 5:2: "He delivered Himself for us an oblation and
a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness." Now obedience is preferred
to all sacrifices. according to 1 Kgs. 15:22: "Obedience is better than
sacrifices." Therefore it was fitting that the sacrifice of Christ's
Passion and death should proceed from obedience. Thirdly, it was in
keeping with His victory whereby He triumphed over death and its author;
because a soldier cannot conquer unless he obey his captain. And so the
Man-Christ secured the victory through being obedient to God, according
to Prov. 21:28: "An obedient man shall speak of victory."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ received a command from the Father to suffer. For it
is written (Jn. 10:18): "I have power to lay down My life, and I have
power to take it up again: (and) this commandment have I received of My
Father"---namely, of laying down His life and of resuming it again. "From
which," as Chrysostom says (Hom. lix in Joan.), it is not to be
understood "that at first He awaited the command, and that He had need to
be told, but He showed the proceeding to be a voluntary one, and
destroyed suspicion of opposition" to the Father. Yet because the Old Law
was ended by Christ's death, according to His dying words, "It is
consummated" (Jn. 19:30), it may be understood that by His suffering He
fulfilled all the precepts of the Old Law. He fulfilled those of the
moral order which are founded on the precepts of charity, inasmuch as He
suffered both out of love of the Father, according to Jn. 14:31: "That
the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father hath given
Me commandment, so do I: arise, let us go hence"---namely, to the place
of His Passion: and out of love of His neighbor, according to Gal. 2:20:
"He loved me, and delivered Himself up for me." Christ likewise by His
Passion fulfilled the ceremonial precepts of the Law, which are chiefly
ordained for sacrifices and oblations, in so far as all the ancient
sacrifices were figures of that true sacrifice which the dying Christ
offered for us. Hence it is written (Col. 2:16,17): "Let no man judge
you in meat or drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new
moon, or of the sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the
body is Christ's," for the reason that Christ is compared to them as a
body is to a shadow. Christ also by His Passion fulfilled the judicial
precepts of the Law, which are chiefly ordained for making compensation
to them who have suffered wrong, since, as is written Ps. 68:5: He "paid
that which" He "took not away," suffering Himself to be fastened to a
tree on account of the apple which man had plucked from the tree against
God's command.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although obedience implies necessity with regard to the
thing commanded, nevertheless it implies free-will with regard to the
fulfilling of the precept. And, indeed, such was Christ's obedience, for,
although His Passion and death, considered in themselves, were repugnant
to the natural will, yet Christ resolved to fulfill God's will with
respect to the same, according to Ps. 39:9: "That I should do Thy will: O
my God, I have desired it." Hence He said (Mt. 26:42): "If this chalice
may not pass away, but I must drink it, Thy will be done."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: For the same reason Christ suffered out of charity and out
of obedience; because He fulfilled even the precepts of charity out of
obedience only; and was obedient, out of love, to the Father's command.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether God the Father delivered up Christ to the Passion?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that God the Father did not deliver up Christ to
the Passion. For it is a wicked and cruel act to hand over an innocent
man to torment and death. But, as it is written (Dt. 32:4): "God is
faithful, and without any iniquity." Therefore He did not hand over the
innocent Christ to His Passion and death.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is not likely that a man be given over to death by
himself and by another also. But Christ gave Himself up for us, as it is
written (Is. 53:12): "He hath delivered His soul unto death."
Consequently it does not appear that God the Father delivered Him up.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Judas is held to be guilty because he betrayed Christ to
the Jews, according to Jn. 6:71: "One of you is a devil," alluding to
Judas, who was to betray Him. The Jews are likewise reviled for
delivering Him up to Pilate; as we read in Jn. 18:35: "Thy own nation,
and the chief priests have delivered Thee up to me." Moreover, as is
related in Jn. 19:16: Pilate "delivered Him to them to be crucified"; and
according to 2 Cor. 6:14: there is no "participation of justice with
injustice." It seems, therefore, that God the Father did not deliver up
Christ to His Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Rm. 8:32): "God hath not spared His own
Son, but delivered Him up for us all."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As observed above (A[2]), Christ suffered voluntarily out
of obedience to the Father. Hence in three respects God the Father did
deliver up Christ to the Passion. In the first way, because by His
eternal will He preordained Christ's Passion for the deliverance of the
human race, according to the words of Isaias (53:6): "The Lord hath laid
on Him the iniquities of us all"; and again (Is. 53:10): "The Lord was
pleased to bruise Him in infirmity." Secondly, inasmuch as, by the
infusion of charity, He inspired Him with the will to suffer for us;
hence we read in the same passage: "He was offered because it was His own
will" (Is. 53:7). Thirdly, by not shielding Him from the Passion, but
abandoning Him to His persecutors: thus we read (Mt. 27:46) that Christ,
while hanging upon the cross, cried out: "My God, My God, why hast Thou
forsaken Me?" because, to wit, He left Him to the power of His
persecutors, as Augustine says (Ep. cxl).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It is indeed a wicked and cruel act to hand over an
innocent man to torment and to death against his will. Yet God the Father
did not so deliver up Christ, but inspired Him with the will to suffer
for us. God's "severity" (cf. Rm. 11:22) is thereby shown, for He would
not remit sin without penalty: and the Apostle indicates this when (Rm.
8:32) he says: "God spared not even His own Son." Likewise His "goodness"
(Rm. 11:22) shines forth, since by no penalty endured could man pay Him
enough satisfaction: and the Apostle denotes this when he says: "He
delivered Him up for us all": and, again (Rm. 3:25): "Whom"---that is to
say, Christ---God "hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in
His blood."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ as God delivered Himself up to death by the same
will and action as that by which the Father delivered Him up; but as man
He gave Himself up by a will inspired of the Father. Consequently there
is no contrariety in the Father delivering Him up and in Christ
delivering Himself up.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The same act, for good or evil, is judged differently,
accordingly as it proceeds from a different source. The Father delivered
up Christ, and Christ surrendered Himself, from charity, and consequently
we give praise to both: but Judas betrayed Christ from greed, the Jews
from envy, and Pilate from worldly fear, for he stood in fear of Caesar;
and these accordingly are held guilty.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was fitting for Christ to suffer at the hands of the Gentiles?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should suffer at the hands of
the Gentiles. For since men were to be freed from sin by Christ's death,
it would seem fitting that very few should sin in His death. But the Jews
sinned in His death, on whose behalf it is said (Mt. 21:38): "This is the
heir; come, let us kill him." It seems fitting, therefore, that the
Gentiles should not be implicated in the sin of Christ's slaying.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the truth should respond to the figure. Now it was not
the Gentiles but the Jews who offered the figurative sacrifices of the
Old Law. Therefore neither ought Christ's Passion, which was a true
sacrifice, to be fulfilled at the hands of the Gentiles.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as related Jn. 5:18, "the Jews sought to kill" Christ
because "He did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was His
Father, making Himself equal to God." But these things seemed to be only
against the Law of the Jews: hence they themselves said (Jn. 19:7):
"According to the Law He ought to die because He made Himself the Son of
God." It seems fitting, therefore, that Christ should suffer, at the
hands not of the Gentiles, but of the Jews, and that what they said was
untrue: "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death," since many
sins are punishable with death according to the Law, as is evident from
Lev. 20.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord Himself says (Mt. 20:19): "They shall deliver
Him to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The effect of Christ's Passion was foreshown by the very
manner of His death. For Christ's Passion wrought its effect of salvation
first of all among the Jews, very many of whom were baptized in His
death, as is evident from Acts 2:41 and Acts 4:4. Afterwards, by the
preaching of Jews, Christ's Passion passed on to the Gentiles.
Consequently it was fitting that Christ should begin His sufferings at
the hands of the Jews, and, after they had delivered Him up, finish His
Passion at the hands of the Gentiles.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: In order to demonstrate the fulness of His love, on account
of which He suffered, Christ upon the cross prayed for His persecutors.
Therefore, that the fruits of His petition might accrue to Jews and
Gentiles, Christ willed to suffer from both.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ's Passion was the offering of a sacrifice, inasmuch
as He endured death of His own free-will out of charity: but in so far as
He suffered from His persecutors it was not a sacrifice, but a most
grievous sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says (Tract. cxiv in Joan.): "The Jews said
that 'it is not lawful for us to put any man to death,' because they
understood that it was not lawful for them to put any man to death" owing
to the sacredness of the feast-day, which they had already begun to
celebrate. or, as Chrysostom observes (Hom. lxxxiii in Joan.), because
they wanted Him to be slain, not as a transgressor of the Law, but as a
public enemy, since He had made Himself out to be a king, of which it was
not their place to judge. Or, again, because it was not lawful for them
to crucify Him (as they wanted to), but to stone Him, as they did to
Stephen. Better still is it to say that the power of putting to death was
taken from them by the Romans, whose subjects they were.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's persecutors knew who He was?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's persecutors did know who He was. For
it is written (Mt. 21:38) that the husbandmen seeing the son said within
themselves: "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." On this Jerome
remarks: "Our Lord proves most manifestly by these words that the rulers
of the Jews crucified the Son of God, not from ignorance, but out of
envy: for they understood that it was He to whom the Father says by the
Prophet: 'Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy
inheritance.'" It seems, therefore, that they knew Him to be Christ or
the Son of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, our Lord says (Jn. 15:24): "But now they have both seen
and hated both Me and My Father." Now what is seen is known manifestly.
Therefore the Jews, knowing Christ, inflicted the Passion on Him out of
hatred.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is said in a sermon delivered in the Council of
Ephesus (P. iii, cap. x): "Just as he who tears up the imperial message
is doomed to die, as despising the prince's word; so the Jew, who
crucified Him whom he had seen, will pay the penalty for daring to lay
his hands on God the Word Himself." Now this would not be so had they not
known Him to be the Son of God, because their ignorance would have
excused them. Therefore it seems that the Jews in crucifying Christ knew
Him to be the Son of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had known it, they
would never have crucified the Lord of glory." And (Acts 3:17), Peter,
addressing the Jews, says: "I know that you did it through ignorance, as
did also your rulers." Likewise the Lord hanging upon the cross said:
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Lk. 23:34).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Among the Jews some were elders, and others of lesser
degree. Now according to the author of De Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu.
lxvi, the elders, who were called "rulers, knew," as did also the devils,
"that He was the Christ promised in the Law: for they saw all the signs
in Him which the prophets said would come to pass: but they did not know
the mystery of His Godhead." Consequently the Apostle says: "If they had
known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." It must,
however, be understood that their ignorance did not excuse them from
crime, because it was, as it were, affected ignorance. For they saw
manifest signs of His Godhead; yet they perverted them out of hatred and
envy of Christ; neither would they believe His words, whereby He avowed
that He was the Son of God. Hence He Himself says of them (Jn. 15:22):
"If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now
they have no excuse for their sin." And afterwards He adds (Jn. 15:24):
"If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they
would not have sin." And so the expression employed by Job (21:14) can be
accepted on their behalf: "(Who) said to God: depart from us, we desire
not the knowledge of Thy ways."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] Body Para. 2/2
But those of lesser degree---namely, the common folk---who had not
grasped the mysteries of the Scriptures, did not fully comprehend that He
was the Christ or the Son of God. For although some of them believed in
Him, yet the multitude did not; and if they doubted sometimes whether He
was the Christ, on account of the manifold signs and force of His
teaching, as is stated Jn. 7:31,41, nevertheless they were deceived
afterwards by their rulers, so that they did not believe Him to be the
Son of God or the Christ. Hence Peter said to them: "I know that you did
it through ignorance, as did also your rulers"---namely, because they
were seduced by the rulers.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: Those words are spoken by the husbandmen of the vineyard;
and these signify the rulers of the people, who knew Him to be the heir,
inasmuch as they knew Him to be the Christ promised in the Law, but the
words of Ps. 2:8 seem to militate against this answer: "Ask of Me, and I
will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance"; which are addressed to
Him of whom it is said: "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee."
If, then, they knew Him to be the one to whom the words were addressed:
"Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance," it
follows that they knew Him to be the Son of God. Chrysostom, too, says
upon the same passage that "they knew Him to be the Son of God." Bede
likewise, commenting on the words, "For they know not what they do" (Lk.
23:34), says: "It is to be observed that He does not pray for them who,
understanding Him to be the Son of God, preferred to crucify Him rather
than acknowledge Him." But to this it may be replied that they knew Him
to be the Son of God, not from His Nature, but from the excellence of His
singular grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
Yet we may hold that they are said to have known also that He was verily
the Son of God, in that they had evident signs thereof: yet out of hatred
and envy, they refused credence to these signs, by which they might have
known that He was the Son of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The words quoted are preceded by the following: "If I had
not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not
have sin"; and then follow the words: "But now they have both seen and
hated both Me and My Father." Now all this shows that while they beheld
Christ's marvelous works, it was owing to their hatred that they did not
know Him to be the Son of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Affected ignorance does not excuse from guilt, but seems,
rather, to aggravate it: for it shows that a man is so strongly attached
to sin that he wishes to incur ignorance lest he avoid sinning. The Jews
therefore sinned, as crucifiers not only of the Man-Christ, but also as
of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the sin of those who crucified Christ was most grievous?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the sin of Christ's crucifiers was not the
most grievous. Because the sin which has some excuse cannot be most
grievous. But our Lord Himself excused the sin of His crucifiers when He
said: "Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do" (Lk. 23:34).
Therefore theirs was not the most grievous sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, our Lord said to Pilate (Jn. 19:11): "He that hath
delivered Me to thee hath the greater sin." But it was Pilate who caused
Christ to be crucified by his minions. Therefore the sin of Judas the
traitor seems to be greater than that of those who crucified Him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v): "No one suffers
injustice willingly"; and in the same place he adds: "Where no one
suffers injustice, nobody works injustice." Consequently nobody wreaks
injustice upon a willing subject. But Christ suffered willingly, as was
shown above (AA[1],2). Therefore those who crucified Christ did Him no
injustice; and hence their sin was not the most grievous.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Chrysostom, commenting on the words, "Fill ye up, then,
the measure of your fathers" (Mt. 23:32), says: "In very truth they
exceeded the measure of their fathers; for these latter slew men, but
they crucified God."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[5]), the rulers of the Jews knew that
He was the Christ: and if there was any ignorance in them, it was
affected ignorance, which could not excuse them. Therefore their sin was
the most grievous, both on account of the kind of sin, as well as from
the malice of their will. The Jews also of the common order sinned most
grievously as to the kind of their sin: yet in one respect their crime
was lessened by reason of their ignorance. Hence Bede, commenting on Lk.
23:34, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," says: "He
prays for them who know not what they are doing, as having the zeal of
God, but not according to knowledge." But the sin of the Gentiles, by
whose hands He was crucified, was much more excusable, since they had no
knowledge of the Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated above, the excuse made by our Lord is not to be
referred to the rulers among the Jews, but to the common people.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Judas did not deliver up Christ to Pilate, but to the chief
priests who gave Him up to Pilate, according to Jn. 18:35: "Thy own
nation and the chief priests have delivered Thee up to me." But the sin
of all these was greater than that of Pilate, who slew Christ from fear
of Caesar; and even greater than the sin of the soldiers who crucified
Him at the governor's bidding, not out of cupidity like Judas, nor from
envy and hate like the chief priests.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ, indeed willed His Passion just as the Father willed
it; yet He did not will the unjust action of the Jews. Consequently
Christ's slayers are not excused of their injustice. Nevertheless,
whoever slays a man not only does a wrong to the one slain, but likewise
to God and to the State; just as he who kills himself, as the Philosopher
says (Ethic. v). Hence it was that David condemned to death the man who
"did not fear to lay hands upon the Lord's anointed," even though he
(Saul) had requested it, as related 2 Kgs. 1:5-14.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE EFFICIENCY OF CHRIST'S PASSION (SIX ARTICLES)
We now have to consider Christ's Passion as to its effect; first of all,
as to the manner in which it was brought about; and, secondly, as to the
effect in itself. Under the first heading there are six points for
inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of merit?
(2) Whether it was by way of atonement?
(3) Whether it was by way of sacrifice?
(4) Whether it was by way of redemption?
(5) Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Redeemer?
(6) Whether (the Passion) secured man's salvation efficiently?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of merit?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion did not bring about our
salvation by way of merit. For the sources of our sufferings are not
within us. But no one merits or is praised except for that whose
principle lies within him. Therefore Christ's Passion wrought nothing by
way of merit.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, from the beginning of His conception Christ merited for
Himself and for us, as stated above (Q[9], A[4]; Q[34], A[3]). But it is
superfluous to merit over again what has been merited before. Therefore
by His Passion Christ did not merit our salvation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the source of merit is charity. But Christ's charity was
not made greater by the Passion than it was before. Therefore He did not
merit our salvation by suffering more than He had already.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, on the words of Phil. 2:9, "Therefore God exalted Him,"
etc., Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan.): "The lowliness" of the
Passion "merited glory; glory was the reward of lowliness." But He was
glorified, not merely in Himself, but likewise in His faithful ones, as
He says Himself (Jn. 17:10). Therefore it appears that He merited the
salvation of the faithful.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[7], AA[1],9; Q[8], AA[1],5), grace was
bestowed upon Christ, not only as an individual, but inasmuch as He is
the Head of the Church, so that it might overflow into His members; and
therefore Christ's works are referred to Himself and to His members in
the same way as the works of any other man in a state of grace are
referred to himself. But it is evident that whosoever suffers for
justice's sake, provided that he be in a state of grace, merits his
salvation thereby, according to Mt. 5:10: "Blessed are they that suffer
persecution for justice's sake." Consequently Christ by His Passion
merited salvation, not only for Himself, but likewise for all His members.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Suffering, as such, is caused by an outward principle: but
inasmuch as one bears it willingly, it has an inward principle.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: From the beginning of His conception Christ merited our
eternal salvation; but on our side there were some obstacles, whereby we
were hindered from securing the effect of His preceding merits:
consequently, in order to remove such hindrances, "it was necessary for
Christ to suffer," as stated above (Q[46], A[3]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ's Passion has a special effect, which His preceding
merits did not possess, not on account of greater charity, but because of
the nature of the work, which was suitable for such an effect, as is
clear from the arguments brought forward above all the fittingness of
Christ's Passion (Q[46], AA, 3,4).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of atonement?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion did not bring about our
salvation by way of atonement. For it seems that to make the atonement
devolves on him who commits the sin; as is clear in the other parts of
penance, because he who has done the wrong must grieve over it and
confess it. But Christ never sinned, according to 1 Pt. 2:22: "Who did no
sin." Therefore He made no atonement by His personal suffering.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, no atonement is made to another by committing a graver
offense. But in Christ's Passion the gravest of all offenses was
perpetrated, because those who slew Him sinned most grievously, as stated
above (Q[47], A[6]). Consequently it seems that atonement could not be
made to God by Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, atonement implies equality with the trespass, since it
is an act of justice. But Christ's Passion does not appear equal to all
the sins of the human race, because Christ did not suffer in His Godhead,
but in His flesh, according to 1 Pt. 4:1: "Christ therefore having
suffered in the flesh." Now the soul, which is the subject of sin, is of
greater account than the flesh. Therefore Christ did not atone for our
sins by His Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 68:5) in Christ's person: "Then did
I pay that which I took not away." But he has not paid who has not fully
atoned. Therefore it appears that Christ by His suffering has fully
atoned for our sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, He properly atones for an offense who offers something
which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the
offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to
God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human
race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He
suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid
down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man;
thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of
the grief endured, as stated above (Q[46], A[6]). And therefore Christ's
Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the
sins of the human race; according to 1 Jn. 2:2: "He is the propitiation
for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole
world."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The head and members are as one mystic person; and
therefore Christ's satisfaction belongs to all the faithful as being His
members. Also, in so far as any two men are one in charity, the one can
atone for the other as shall be shown later (XP, Q[13], A[2]). But the
same reason does not hold good of confession and contrition, because
atonement consists in an outward action, for which helps may be used,
among which friends are to be computed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ's love was greater than His slayers' malice: and
therefore the value of His Passion in atoning surpassed the murderous
guilt of those who crucified Him: so much so that Christ's suffering was
sufficient and superabundant atonement for His murderer's crime.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The dignity of Christ's flesh is not to be estimated solely
from the nature of flesh, but also from the Person assuming it---namely,
inasmuch as it was God's flesh, the result of which was that it was of
infinite worth.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's Passion operated by way of sacrifice?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion did not operate by way of
sacrifice. For the truth should correspond with the figure. But human
flesh was never offered up in the sacrifices of the Old Law, which were
figures of Christ: nay, such sacrifices were reputed as impious,
according to Ps. 105:38: "And they shed innocent blood: the blood of
their sons and of their daughters, which they sacrificed to the idols of
Chanaan." It seems therefore that Christ's Passion cannot be called a
sacrifice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x) that "a visible sacrifice
is a sacrament---that is, a sacred sign---of an invisible sacrifice." Now
Christ's Passion is not a sign, but rather the thing signified by other
signs. Therefore it seems that Christ's Passion is not a sacrifice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, whoever offers sacrifice performs some sacred rite, as
the very word "sacrifice" shows. But those men who slew Christ did not
perform any sacred act, but rather wrought a great wrong. Therefore
Christ's Passion was rather a malefice than a sacrifice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Eph. 5:2): "He delivered Himself up
for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, A sacrifice properly so called is something done for that
honor which is properly due to God, in order to appease Him: and hence it
is that Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x): "A true sacrifice is every good
work done in order that we may cling to God in holy fellowship, yet
referred to that consummation of happiness wherein we can be truly
blessed." But, as is added in the same place, "Christ offered Himself up
for us in the Passion": and this voluntary enduring of the Passion was
most acceptable to God, as coming from charity. Therefore it is manifest
that Christ's Passion was a true sacrifice. Moreover, as Augustine says
farther on in the same book, "the primitive sacrifices of the holy
Fathers were many and various signs of this true sacrifice, one being
prefigured by many, in the same way as a single concept of thought is
expressed in many words, in order to commend it without tediousness":
and, as Augustine observe, (De Trin. iv), "since there are four things to
be noted in every sacrifice---to wit, to whom it is offered, by whom it
is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered---that the same
one true Mediator reconciling us with God through the peace-sacrifice
might continue to be one with Him to whom He offered it, might be one
with them for whom He offered it, and might Himself be the offerer and
what He offered."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Although the truth answers to the figure in some respects,
yet it does not in all, since the truth must go beyond the figure.
Therefore the figure of this sacrifice, in which Christ's flesh is
offered, was flesh right fittingly, not the flesh of men, but of animals,
as denoting Christ's. And this is a most perfect sacrifice. First of all,
since being flesh of human nature, it is fittingly offered for men, and
is partaken of by them under the Sacrament. Secondly, because being
passible and mortal, it was fit for immolation. Thirdly, because, being
sinless, it had virtue to cleanse from sins. Fourthly, because, being the
offerer's own flesh, it was acceptable to God on account of His charity
in offering up His own flesh. Hence it is that Augustine says (De Trin.
iv): "What else could be so fittingly partaken of by men, or offered up
for men, as human flesh? What else could be so appropriate for this
immolation as mortal flesh? What else is there so clean for cleansing
mortals as the flesh born in the womb without fleshly concupiscence, and
coming from a virginal womb? What could be so favorably offered and
accepted as the flesh of our sacrifice, which was made the body of our
Priest?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Augustine is speaking there of visible figurative
sacrifices: and even Christ's Passion, although denoted by other
figurative sacrifices, is yet a sign of something to be observed by us,
according to 1 Pt. 4:1: "Christ therefore, having suffered in the flesh,
be you also armed with the same thought: for he that hath suffered in the
flesh hath ceased from sins: that now he may live the rest of his time in
the flesh, not after the desires of men, but according to the will of
God."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ's Passion was indeed a malefice on His slayers'
part; but on His own it was the sacrifice of one suffering out of
charity. Hence it is Christ who is said to have offered this sacrifice,
and not the executioners.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of redemption?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion did not effect our salvation
by way of redemption. For no one purchases or redeems what never ceased
to belong to him. But men never ceased to belong to God according to Ps.
23:1: "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof: the world and all
they that dwell therein." Therefore it seems that Christ did not redeem
us by His Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "The devil had to be
overthrown by Christ's justice." But justice requires that the man who
has treacherously seized another's property shall be deprived of it,
because deceit and cunning should not benefit anyone, as even human laws
declare. Consequently, since the devil by treachery deceived and
subjugated to himself man, who is God's creature, it seems that man ought
not to be rescued from his power by way of redemption.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, whoever buys or redeems an object pays the price to the
holder. But it was not to the devil, who held us in bondage, that Christ
paid His blood as the price of our redemption. Therefore Christ did not
redeem us by His Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (1 Pt. 1:18): "You were not redeemed with
corruptible things as gold or silver from your vain conversation of the
tradition of your fathers: but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a
lamb unspotted and undefiled." And (Gal. 3:13): "Christ hath redeemed us
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." Now He is said to
be a curse for us inasmuch as He suffered upon the tree, as stated above
(Q[46], A[4]). Therefore He did redeem us by His Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Man was held captive on account of sin in two ways: first
of all, by the bondage of sin, because (Jn. 8:34): "Whosoever committeth
sin is the servant of sin"; and (2 Pt. 2:19): "By whom a man is overcome,
of the same also he is the slave." Since, then, the devil had overcome
man by inducing him to sin, man was subject to the devil's bondage.
Secondly, as to the debt of punishment, to the payment of which man was
held fast by God's justice: and this, too, is a kind of bondage, since it
savors of bondage for a man to suffer what he does not wish, just as it
is the free man's condition to apply himself to what he wills.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
Since, then, Christ's Passion was a sufficient and a superabundant
atonement for the sin and the debt of the human race, it was as a price
at the cost of which we were freed from both obligations. For the
atonement by which one satisfies for self or another is called the price,
by which he ransoms himself or someone else from sin and its penalty,
according to Dan. 4:24: "Redeem thou thy sins with alms." Now Christ made
satisfaction, not by giving money or anything of the sort, but by
bestowing what was of greatest price---Himself---for us. And therefore
Christ's Passion is called our redemption.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Man is said to belong to God in two ways. First of all, in
so far as he comes under God's power: in which way he never ceased to
belong to God; according to Dan. 4:22: "The Most High ruleth over the
kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." Secondly, by being
united to Him in charity, according to Rm. 8:9: "If any man have not the
Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." In the first way, then, man never
ceased to belong to God, but in the second way he did cease because of
sin. And therefore in so far as he was delivered from sin by the
satisfaction of Christ's Passion, he is said to be redeemed by the
Passion of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Man by sinning became the bondsman both of God and of the
devil. Through guilt he had offended God, and put himself under the devil
by consenting to him; consequently he did not become God's servant on
account of his guilt, but rather, by withdrawing from God's service, he,
by God's just permission, fell under the devil's servitude on account of
the offense perpetrated. But as to the penalty, man was chiefly bound to
God as his sovereign judge, and to the devil as his torturer, according
to Mt. 5:25: "Lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and
the judge deliver thee to the officer"---that is, "to the relentless
avenging angel," as Chrysostom says (Hom. xi). Consequently, although,
after deceiving man, the devil, so far as in him lay, held him unjustly
in bondage as to both sin and penalty, still it was just that man should
suffer it. God so permitting it as to the sin and ordaining it as to the
penalty. And therefore justice required man's redemption with regard to
God, but not with regard to the devil.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Because, with regard to God, redemption was necessary for
man's deliverance, but not with regard to the devil, the price had to be
paid not to the devil, but to God. And therefore Christ is said to have
paid the price of our redemption---His own precious blood---not to the
devil, but to God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Redeemer?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to be the Redeemer,
because it is written (Ps. 30:6): "Thou hast redeemed me, O Lord, the God
of Truth." But to be the Lord God of Truth belongs to the entire
Trinity. Therefore it is not proper to Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, he is said to redeem who pays the price of redemption.
But God the Father gave His Son in redemption for our sins, as is written
(Ps. 110:9): "The Lord hath sent redemption to His people," upon which
the gloss adds, "that is, Christ, who gives redemption to captives."
Therefore not only Christ, but the Father also, redeemed us.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, not only Christ's Passion, but also that of other saints
conduced to our salvation, according to Col. 1:24: "I now rejoice in my
sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the
sufferings of Christ, in my flesh for His body, which is the Church."
Therefore the title of Redeemer belongs not only to Christ, but also to
the other saints.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Gal. 3:13): "Christ redeemed us from the
curse of the Law, being made a curse for us." But only Christ was made a
curse for us. Therefore only Christ ought to be called our Redeemer.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, For someone to redeem, two things are required---namely,
the act of paying and the price paid. For if in redeeming something a man
pays a price which is not his own, but another's, he is not said to be
the chief redeemer, but rather the other is, whose price it is. Now
Christ's blood or His bodily life, which "is in the blood," is the price
of our redemption (Lev. 17:11,14), and that life He paid. Hence both of
these belong immediately to Christ as man; but to the Trinity as to the
first and remote cause, to whom Christ's life belonged as to its first
author, and from whom Christ received the inspiration of suffering for
us. Consequently it is proper to Christ as man to be the Redeemer
immediately; although the redemption may be ascribed to the whole Trinity
as its first cause.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: A gloss explains the text thus: "Thou, O Lord God of Truth,
hast redeemed me in Christ, crying out, 'Lord, into Thy hands I commend
my spirit.'" And so redemption belongs immediately to the Man-Christ, but
principally to God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The Man-Christ paid the price of our redemption
immediately, but at the command of the Father as the original author.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The sufferings of the saints are beneficial to the Church,
as by way, not of redemption, but of example and exhortation, according
to 2 Cor. 1:6: "Whether we be in tribulation, it is for your exhortation
and salvation."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation efficiently?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion did not bring about our
salvation efficiently. For the efficient cause of our salvation is the
greatness of the Divine power, according to Is. 59:1: "Behold the hand of
the Lord is not shortened that it cannot save." But "Christ was crucified
through weakness," as it is written (2 Cor. 13:4). Therefore, Christ's
Passion did not bring about our salvation efficiently.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, no corporeal agency acts efficiently except by contact:
hence even Christ cleansed the leper by touching him "in order to show
that His flesh had saving power," as Chrysostom [*Theophylact, Enarr. in
Luc.] says. But Christ's Passion could not touch all mankind. Therefore
it could not efficiently bring about the salvation of all men.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it does not seem to be consistent for the same agent to
operate by way of merit and by way of efficiency, since he who merits
awaits the result from someone else. But it was by way of merit that
Christ's Passion accomplished our salvation. Therefore it was not by way
of efficiency.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 1:18) that "the word of the cross
to them that are saved . . . is the power of God." But God's power brings
about our salvation efficiently. Therefore Christ's Passion on the cross
accomplished our salvation efficiently.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, There is a twofold efficient agency---namely, the
principal and the instrumental. Now the principal efficient cause of
man's salvation is God. But since Christ's humanity is the "instrument of
the Godhead," as stated above (Q[43], A[2]), therefore all Christ's
actions and sufferings operate instrumentally in virtue of His Godhead
for the salvation of men. Consequently, then, Christ's Passion
accomplishes man's salvation efficiently.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ's Passion in relation to His flesh is consistent
with the infirmity which He took upon Himself, but in relation to the
Godhead it draws infinite might from It, according to 1 Cor. 1:25: "The
weakness of God is stronger than men"; because Christ's weakness,
inasmuch as He is God, has a might exceeding all human power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ's Passion, although corporeal, has yet a spiritual
effect from the Godhead united: and therefore it secures its efficacy by
spiritual contact---namely, by faith and the sacraments of faith, as the
Apostle says (Rm. 3:25): "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation,
through faith in His blood."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ's Passion, according as it is compared with His
Godhead, operates in an efficient manner: but in so far as it is compared
with the will of Christ's soul it acts in a meritorious manner:
considered as being within Christ's very flesh, it acts by way of
satisfaction, inasmuch as we are liberated by it from the debt of
punishment; while inasmuch as we are freed from the servitude of guilt,
it acts by way of redemption: but in so far as we are reconciled with God
it acts by way of sacrifice, as shall be shown farther on (Q[49]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S PASSION (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider what are the effects of Christ's Passion,
concerning which there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether we were freed from sin by Christ's Passion?
(2) Whether we were thereby delivered from the power of the devil?
(3) Whether we were freed thereby from our debt of punishment?
(4) Whether we were thereby reconciled with God?
(5) Whether heaven's gate was opened to us thereby?
(6) Whether Christ derived exaltation from it?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether we were delivered from sin through Christ's Passion?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that we were not delivered from sin through
Christ's Passion. For to deliver from sin belongs to God alone, according
to Is. 43:25: "I am He who blot out your iniquities for My own sake." But
Christ did not suffer as God, but as man. Therefore Christ's Passion did
not free us from sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, what is corporeal does not act upon what is spiritual.
But Christ's Passion is corporeal, whereas sin exists in the soul, which
is a spiritual creature. Therefore Christ's Passion could not cleanse us
from sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, one cannot be purged from a sin not yet committed, but
which shall be committed hereafter. Since, then, many sins have been
committed since Christ's death, and are being committed daily, it seems
that we were not delivered from sin by Christ's death.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, given an efficient cause, nothing else is required for
producing the effect. But other things besides are required for the
forgiveness of sins, such as baptism and penance. Consequently it seems
that Christ's Passion is not the sufficient cause of the forgiveness of
sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, it is written (Prov. 10:12): "Charity covereth all
sins"; and (Prov. 15:27): "By mercy and faith, sins are purged away." But
there are many other things of which we have faith, and which excite
charity. Therefore Christ's Passion is not the proper cause of the
forgiveness of sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Apoc. 1:5): "He loved us, and washed us
from our sins in His own blood."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Christ's Passion is the proper cause of the forgiveness
of sins in three ways. First of all, by way of exciting our charity,
because, as the Apostle says (Rm. 5:8): "God commendeth His charity
towards us: because when as yet we were sinners, according to the time,
Christ died for us." But it is by charity that we procure pardon of our
sins, according to Lk. 7:47: "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath
loved much." Secondly, Christ's Passion causes forgiveness of sins by way
of redemption. For since He is our head, then, by the Passion which He
endured from love and obedience, He delivered us as His members from our
sins, as by the price of His Passion: in the same way as if a man by the
good industry of his hands were to redeem himself from a sin committed
with his feet. For, just as the natural body is one though made up of
diverse members, so the whole Church, Christ's mystic body, is reckoned
as one person with its head, which is Christ. Thirdly, by way of
efficiency, inasmuch as Christ's flesh, wherein He endured the Passion,
is the instrument of the Godhead, so that His sufferings and actions
operate with Divine power for expelling sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Although Christ did not suffer as God, nevertheless His
flesh is the instrument of the Godhead; and hence it is that His Passion
has a kind of Divine Power of casting out sin, as was said above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although Christ's Passion is corporeal, still it derives a
kind of spiritual energy from the Godhead, to which the flesh is united
as an instrument: and according to this power Christ's Passion is the
cause of the forgiveness of sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ by His Passion delivered us from our sins
causally---that is, by setting up the cause of our deliverance, from
which cause all sins whatsoever, past, present, or to come, could be
forgiven: just as if a doctor were to prepare a medicine by which all
sicknesses can be cured even in future.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: As stated above, since Christ's Passion preceded, as a kind
of universal cause of the forgiveness of sins, it needs to be applied to
each individual for the cleansing of personal sins. Now this is done by
baptism and penance and the other sacraments, which derive their power
from Christ's Passion, as shall be shown later (Q[62], A[5]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: Christ's Passion is applied to us even through faith, that
we may share in its fruits, according to Rm. 3:25: "Whom God hath
proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood." But the faith
through which we are cleansed from sin is not "lifeless faith," which can
exist even with sin, but "faith living" through charity; that thus
Christ's Passion may be applied to us, not only as to our minds, but also
as to our hearts. And even in this way sins are forgiven through the
power of the Passion of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether we were delivered from the devil's power through Christ's Passion?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that we were not delivered from the power of the
devil through Christ's Passion. For he has no power over others, who can
do nothing to them without the sanction of another. But without the
Divine permission the devil could never do hurt to any man, as is evident
in the instance of Job (1,2), where, by power received from God, the
devil first injured him in his possessions, and afterwards in his body.
In like manner it is stated (Mt. 8:31,32) that the devils could not enter
into the swine except with Christ's leave. Therefore the devil never had
power over men: and hence we are not delivered from his power through
Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the devil exercises his power over men by tempting them
and molesting their bodies. But even after the Passion he continues to do
the same to men. Therefore we are not delivered from his power through
Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the might of Christ's Passion endures for ever, as,
according to Heb. 10:14: "By one oblation He hath perfected for ever them
that are sanctified." But deliverance rom the devil's power is not found
everywhere, since there are still idolaters in many regions of the world;
nor will it endure for ever, because in the time of Antichrist he will be
especially active in using his power to the hurt of men; because it is
said of him (2 Thess. 2:9): "Whose coming is according to the working of
Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction
of iniquity." Consequently it seems that Christ's Passion is not the
cause of the human race being delivered from the power of the devil.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 12:31), when His Passion was drawing
nigh: "Now shall the prince of this world be cast out; and I, if I be
lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself." Now He was
lifted up from the earth by His Passion on the cross. Therefore by His
Passion the devil was deprived of his power over man.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, There are three things to be considered regarding the
power which the devil exercised over men previous to Christ's Passion.
The first is on man's own part, who by his sin deserved to be delivered
over to the devil's power, and was overcome by his tempting. Another
point is on God's part, whom man had offended by sinning, and who with
justice left man under the devil's power. The third is on the devil's
part, who out of his most wicked will hindered man from securing his
salvation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
As to the first point, by Christ's Passion man was delivered from the
devil's power, in so far as the Passion is the cause of the forgiveness
of sins, as stated above (A[1]). As to the second, it must be said that
Christ's Passion freed us from the devil's power, inasmuch as it
reconciled us with God, as shall be shown later (A[4]). But as to the
third, Christ's Passion delivered us from the devil, inasmuch as in
Christ's Passion he exceeded the limit of power assigned him by God, by
conspiring to bring about Christ's death, Who, being sinless, did not
deserve to die. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, cap. xiv): "The
devil was vanquished by Christ's justice: because, while discovering in
Him nothing deserving of death, nevertheless he slew Him. And it is
certainly just that the debtors whom he held captive should be set at
liberty since they believed in Him whom the devil slew, though He was no
debtor."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The devil is said to have had such power over men not as
though he were able to injure them without God's sanction, but because he
was justly permitted to injure men whom by tempting he had induced to
give consent.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: God so permitting it, the devil can still tempt men's souls
and harass their bodies: yet there is a remedy provided for man through
Christ's Passion, whereby he can safeguard himself against the enemy's
assaults, so as not to be dragged down into the destruction of
everlasting death. And all who resisted the devil previous to the Passion
were enabled to do so through faith in the Passion, although it was not
yet accomplished. Yet in one respect no one was able to escape the
devil's hands, i.e. so as not to descend into hell. But after Christ's
Passion, men can defend themselves from this by its power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: God permits the devil to deceive men by certain persons,
and in times and places, according to the hidden motive of His judgments;
still, there is always a remedy provided through Christ's Passion, for
defending themselves against the wicked snares of the demons, even in
Antichrist's time. But if any man neglect to make use of this remedy, it
detracts nothing from the efficacy of Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether men were freed from the punishment of sin through Christ's
Passion?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that men were not freed from the punishment of sin
by Christ's Passion. For the chief punishment of sin is eternal
damnation. But those damned in hell for their sins were not set free by
Christ's Passion, because "in hell there is no redemption" [*Office of
the Dead, Resp. vii]. It seems, therefore, that Christ's Passion did not
deliver men from the punishment of sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, no punishment should be imposed upon them who are
delivered from the debt of punishment. But a satisfactory punishment is
imposed upon penitents. Consequently, men were not freed from the debt of
punishment by Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, death is a punishment of sin, according to Rm. 6:23:
"The wages of sin is death." But men still die after Christ's Passion.
Therefore it seems that we have not been delivered from the debt of
punishment.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 53:4): "Surely He hath borne our
iniquities and carried our sorrows."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Through Christ's Passion we have been delivered from the
debt of punishment in two ways. First of all, directly---namely, inasmuch
as Christ's Passion was sufficient and superabundant satisfaction for the
sins of the whole human race: but when sufficient satisfaction has been
paid, then the debt of punishment is abolished. In another
way---indirectly, that is to say---in so far as Christ's Passion is the
cause of the forgiveness of sin, upon which the debt of punishment rests.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ's Passion works its effect in them to whom it is
applied, through faith and charity and the sacraments of faith. And,
consequently, the lost in hell cannot avail themselves of its effects,
since they are not united to Christ in the aforesaid manner.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above (A[1], ad 4,5), in order to secure the
effects of Christ's Passion, we must be likened unto Him. Now we are
likened unto Him sacramentally in Baptism, according to Rm. 6:4: "For we
are buried together with Him by baptism into death." Hence no punishment
of satisfaction is imposed upon men at their baptism, since they are
fully delivered by Christ's satisfaction. But because, as it is written
(1 Pt. 3:18), "Christ died" but "once for our sins," therefore a man
cannot a second time be likened unto Christ's death by the sacrament of
Baptism. Hence it is necessary that those who sin after Baptism be
likened unto Christ suffering by some form of punishment or suffering
which they endure in their own person; yet, by the co-operation of
Christ's satisfaction, much lighter penalty suffices than one that is
proportionate to the sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ's satisfaction works its effect in us inasmuch as we
are incorporated with Him, as the members with their head, as stated
above (A[1]). Now the members must be conformed to their head.
Consequently, as Christ first had grace in His soul with bodily
passibility, and through the Passion attained to the glory of
immortality, so we likewise, who are His members, are freed by His
Passion from all debt of punishment, yet so that we first receive in our
souls "the spirit of adoption of sons," whereby our names are written
down for the inheritance of immortal glory, while we yet have a passible
and mortal body: but afterwards, "being made conformable" to the
sufferings and death of Christ, we are brought into immortal glory,
according to the saying of the Apostle (Rm. 8:17): "And if sons, heirs
also: heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ; yet so if we
suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether we were reconciled to God through Christ's Passion?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that we were not reconciled to God through Christ's
Passion. For there is no need of reconciliation between friends. But God
always loved us, according to Wis. 11:25: "Thou lovest all the things
that are, and hatest none of the things which Thou hast made." Therefore
Christ's Passion did not reconcile us to God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the same thing cannot be cause and effect: hence grace,
which is the cause of meriting, does not come under merit. But God's love
is the cause of Christ's Passion, according to Jn. 3:16: "God so loved
the world, as to give His only-begotten Son." It does not appear, then,
that we were reconciled to God through Christ's Passion, so that He began
to love us anew.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Christ's Passion was completed by men slaying Him; and
thereby they offended God grievously. Therefore Christ's Passion is
rather the cause of wrath than of reconciliation to God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 5:10): "We are reconciled to God
by the death of His Son."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Christ's Passion is in two ways the cause of our
reconciliation to God. In the first way, inasmuch as it takes away sin by
which men became God's enemies, according to Wis. 14:9: "To God the
wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike"; and Ps. 5:7: "Thou hatest
all the workers of iniquity." In another way, inasmuch as it is a most
acceptable sacrifice to God. Now it is the proper effect of sacrifice to
appease God: just as man likewise overlooks an offense committed against
him on account of some pleasing act of homage shown him. Hence it is
written (1 Kgs. 26:19): "If the Lord stir thee up against me, let Him
accept of sacrifice." And in like fashion Christ's voluntary suffering
was such a good act that, because of its being found in human nature, God
was appeased for every offense of the human race with regard to those who
are made one with the crucified Christ in the aforesaid manner (A[1], ad
4).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: God loves all men as to their nature, which He Himself
made; yet He hates them with respect to the crimes they commit against
Him, according to Ecclus. 12:3: "The Highest hateth sinners."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ is not said to have reconciled us with God, as if
God had begun anew to love us, since it is written (Jer. 31:3): "I have
loved thee with an everlasting love"; but because the source of hatred
was taken away by Christ's Passion, both through sin being washed away
and through compensation being made in the shape of a more pleasing
offering.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Christ's slayers were men, so also was the Christ slain.
Now the charity of the suffering Christ surpassed the wickedness of His
slayers. Accordingly Christ's Passion prevailed more in reconciling God
to the whole human race than in provoking Him to wrath.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ opened the gate of heaven to us by His Passion?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not open the gate of heaven to us
by His Passion. For it is written (Prov. 11:18): "To him that soweth
justice, there is a faithful reward." But the reward of justice is the
entering into the kingdom of heaven. It seems, therefore, that the holy
Fathers who wrought works of justice, obtained by faith the entering into
the heavenly kingdom even without Christ's Passion. Consequently Christ's
Passion is not the cause of the opening of the gate of the kingdom of
heaven.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Elias was caught up to heaven previous to Christ's
Passion (4 Kgs. 2). But the effect never precedes the cause. Therefore it
seems that the opening of heaven's gate is not the result of Christ's
Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as it is written (Mt. 3:16), when Christ was baptized
the heavens were opened to Him. But His baptism preceded the Passion.
Consequently the opening of heaven is not the result of Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, it is written (Mic. 2:13): "For He shall go up that
shall open the way before them." But to open the way to heaven seems to
be nothing else than to throw open its gate. Therefore it seems that the
gate of heaven was opened to us, not by Christ's Passion, but by His
Ascension.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, is the saying of the Apostle (Heb. 10:19): "We have
[Vulg.: 'having a'] confidence in the entering into the Holies"---that
is, of the heavenly places---"through the blood of Christ."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The shutting of the gate is the obstacle which hinders
men from entering in. But it is on account of sin that men were prevented
from entering into the heavenly kingdom, since, according to Is. 35:8:
"It shall be called the holy way, and the unclean shall not pass over
it." Now there is a twofold sin which prevents men from entering into the
kingdom of heaven. The first is common to the whole race, for it is our
first parents' sin, and by that sin heaven's entrance is closed to man.
Hence we read in Gn. 3:24 that after our first parents' sin God "placed .
. cherubim and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of
the tree of life." The other is the personal sin of each one of us,
committed by our personal act.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] Body Para. 2/2
Now by Christ's Passion we have been delivered not only from the common
sin of the whole human race, both as to its guilt and as to the debt of
punishment, for which He paid the penalty on our behalf; but,
furthermore, from the personal sins of individuals, who share in His
Passion by faith and charity and the sacraments of faith. Consequently,
then the gate of heaven's kingdom is thrown open to us through Christ's
Passion. This is precisely what the Apostle says (Heb. 9:11,12): "Christ
being come a high-priest of the good things to come . . . by His own
blood entered once into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption."
And this is foreshadowed (Num. 35:25,28), where it is said that the
slayer* "shall abide there"---that is to say, in the city of
refuge---"until the death of the high-priest, that is anointed with the
holy oil: but after he is dead, then shall he return home." [*The
Septuagint has 'slayer', the Vulgate, 'innocent'---i.e. the man who has
slain 'without hatred and enmity'.]
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The holy Fathers, by doing works of justice, merited to
enter into the heavenly kingdom, through faith in Christ's Passion,
according to Heb. 11:33: The saints "by faith conquered kingdoms, wrought
justice," and each of them was thereby cleansed from sin, so far as the
cleansing of the individual is concerned. Nevertheless the faith and
righteousness of no one of them sufficed for removing the barrier arising
from the guilt of the whole human race: but this was removed at the cost
of Christ's blood. Consequently, before Christ's Passion no one could
enter the kingdom of heaven by obtaining everlasting beatitude, which
consists in the full enjoyment of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Elias was taken up into the atmospheric heaven, but not in
to the empyrean heaven, which is the abode of the saints: and likewise
Enoch was translated into the earthly paradise, where he is believed to
live with Elias until the coming of Antichrist.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As was stated above (Q[39], A[5]), the heavens were opened
at Christ's baptism, not for Christ's sake, to whom heaven was ever open,
but in order to signify that heaven is opened to the baptized, through
Christ's baptism, which has its efficacy from His Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Christ by His Passion merited for us the opening of the
kingdom of heaven, and removed the obstacle; but by His ascension He, as
it were, brought us to the possession of the heavenly kingdom. And
consequently it is said that by ascending He "opened the way before them."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether by His Passion Christ merited to be exalted?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ did not merit to be exalted on account of
His Passion. For eminence of rank belongs to God alone, just as knowledge
of truth, according to Ps. 112:4: "The Lord is high above all nations,
and His glory above the heavens." But Christ as man had the knowledge of
all truth, not on account of any preceding merit, but from the very union
of God and man, according to Jn. 1:14: "We saw His glory . . . as it were
of the only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth."
Therefore neither had He exaltation from the merit of the Passion but
from the union alone.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ merited for Himself from the first instant of His
conception, as stated above (Q[34], A[3]). But His love was no greater
during the Passion than before. Therefore, since charity is the principle
of merit, it seems that He did not merit exaltation from the Passion more
than before.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the glory of the body comes from the glory of the soul,
as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor.). But by His Passion Christ did not
merit exaltation as to the glory of His soul, because His soul was
beatified from the first instant of His conception. Therefore neither did
He merit exaltation, as to the glory of His body, from the Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Phil. 2:8): "He became obedient unto
death, even the death of the cross; for which cause God also exalted Him."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Merit implies a certain equality of justice: hence the
Apostle says (Rm. 4:4): "Now to him that worketh, the reward is reckoned
according to debt." But when anyone by reason of his unjust will ascribes
to himself something beyond his due, it is only just that he be deprived
of something else which is his due; thus, "when a man steals a sheep he
shall pay back four" (Ex. 22:1). And he is said to deserve it, inasmuch
as his unjust will is chastised thereby. So likewise when any man through
his just will has stripped himself of what he ought to have, he deserves
that something further be granted to him as the reward of his just will.
And hence it is written (Lk. 14:11): "He that humbleth himself shall be
exalted."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] Body Para. 2/2
Now in His Passion Christ humbled Himself beneath His dignity in four
respects. In the first place as to His Passion and death, to which He was
not bound; secondly, as to the place, since His body was laid in a
sepulchre and His soul in hell; thirdly, as to the shame and mockeries He
endured; fourthly, as to His being delivered up to man's power, as He
Himself said to Pilate (Jn. 19:11): "Thou shouldst not have any power
against Me, unless it were given thee from above." And, consequently, He
merited a four-fold exaltation from His Passion. First of all, as to His
glorious Resurrection: hence it is written (Ps. 138:1): "Thou hast known
my sitting down"---that is, the lowliness of My Passion---"and My rising
up." Secondly, as to His ascension into heaven: hence it is written (Eph.
4:9): "Now that He ascended, what is it, but because He also descended
first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same
also that ascended above all the heavens." Thirdly, as to the sitting on
the right hand of the Father and the showing forth of His Godhead,
according to Is. 52:13: "He shall be exalted and extolled, and shall be
exceeding high: as many have been astonished at him, so shall His visage
be inglorious among men." Moreover (Phil. 2:8) it is written: "He humbled
Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross:
for which cause also God hath exalted Him, and hath given Him a name
which is above all names"---that is to say, so that He shall be hailed as
God by all; and all shall pay Him homage as God. And this is expressed in
what follows: "That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those
that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth." Fourthly, as to His
judiciary power: for it is written (Job 36:17): "Thy cause hath been
judged as that of the wicked cause and judgment Thou shalt recover."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The source of meriting comes of the soul, while the body is
the instrument of the meritorious work. And consequently the perfection
of Christ's soul, which was the source of meriting, ought not to be
acquired in Him by merit, like the perfection of the body, which was the
subject of suffering, and was thereby the instrument of His merit.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ by His previous merits did merit exaltation on
behalf of His soul, whose will was animated with charity and the other
virtues; but in the Passion He merited His exaltation by way of
recompense even on behalf of His body: since it is only just that the
body, which from charity was subjected to the Passion, should receive
recompense in glory.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: It was owing to a special dispensation in Christ that
before the Passion the glory of His soul did not shine out in His body,
in order that He might procure His bodily glory with greater honor, when
He had merited it by His Passion. But it was not beseeming for the glory
of His soul to be postponed, since the soul was united immediately with
the Word; hence it was beseeming that its glory should be filled by the
Word Himself. But the body was united with the Word through the soul.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the death of Christ; concerning which there are
six subjects of inquiry:
(1) Whether it was fitting that Christ should die?
(2) Whether His death severed the union of Godhead and flesh?
(3) Whether His Godhead was separated from His soul?
(4) Whether Christ was a man during the three days of His death?
(5) Whether His was the same body, living and dead?
(6) Whether His death conduced in any way to our salvation?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was fitting that Christ should die?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should die. For
a first principle in any order is not affected by anything contrary to
such order: thus fire, which is the principle of heat, can never become
cold. But the Son of God is the fountain-head and principle of all life,
according to Ps. 35:10: "With Thee is the fountain of life." Therefore it
does not seem fitting for Christ to die.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, death is a greater defect than sickness, because it is
through sickness that one comes to die. But it was not beseeming for
Christ to languish from sickness, as Chrysostom [*Athanasius, Orat. de
Incarn. Verbi] says. Consequently, neither was it becoming for Christ to
die.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, our Lord said (Jn. 10:10): "I am come that they may
have life, and may have it more abundantly." But one opposite does not
lead to another. Therefore it seems that neither was it fitting for
Christ to die.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written, (Jn. 11:50): "It is expedient that one
man should die for the people . . . that the whole nation perish not":
which words were spoken prophetically by Caiphas, as the Evangelist
testifies.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to die. First of all to satisfy
for the whole human race, which was sentenced to die on account of sin,
according to Gn. 2:17: "In what day soever ye shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt']
eat of it ye shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt'] die the death." Now it is a
fitting way of satisfying for another to submit oneself to the penalty
deserved by that other. And so Christ resolved to die, that by dying He
might atone for us, according to 1 Pt. 3:18: "Christ also died once for
our sins." Secondly, in order to show the reality of the flesh assumed.
For, as Eusebius says (Orat. de Laud. Constant. xv), "if, after dwelling
among men Christ were suddenly to disappear from men's sight, as though
shunning death, then by all men He would be likened to a phantom."
Thirdly, that by dying He might deliver us from fearing death: hence it
is written (Heb. 2:14,15) that He communicated "to flesh and blood, that
through death He might destroy him who had the empire of death and might
deliver them who, through the fear of death, were all their lifetime
subject to servitude." Fourthly, that by dying in the body to the
likeness of sin---that is, to its penalty---He might set us the example
of dying to sin spiritually. Hence it is written (Rm. 6:10): "For in that
He died to sin, He died once, but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God:
so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God."
Fifthly, that by rising from the dead, and manifesting His power whereby
He overthrew death, He might instill into us the hope of rising from the
dead. Hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:12): "If Christ be preached that
He rose again from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no
resurrection from the dead?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ is the fountain of life, as God, and not as man: but
He died as man, and not as God. Hence Augustine [*Vigilius Tapsensis]
says against Felician: "Far be it from us to suppose that Christ so felt
death that He lost His life inasmuch as He is life in Himself; for, were
it so, the fountain of life would have run dry. Accordingly, He
experienced death by sharing in our human feeling, which of His own
accord He had taken upon Himself, but He did not lose the power of His
Nature, through which He gives life to all things."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ did not suffer death which comes of sickness, lest
He should seem to die of necessity from exhausted nature: but He endured
death inflicted from without, to which He willingly surrendered Himself,
that His death might be shown to be a voluntary one.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: One opposite does not of itself lead to the other, yet it
does so indirectly at times: thus cold sometimes is the indirect cause of
heat: and in this way Christ by His death brought us back to life, when
by His death He destroyed our death; just as he who bears another's
punishment takes such punishment away.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the Godhead was separated from the flesh when Christ died?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the Godhead was separated from the flesh when
Christ died. For as Matthew relates (27:46), when our Lord was hanging
upon the cross He cried out: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"
which words Ambrose, commenting on Lk. 23:46, explains as follows: "The
man cried out when about to expire by being severed from the Godhead; for
since the Godhead is immune from death, assuredly death could not be
there, except life departed, for the Godhead is life." And so it seems
that when Christ died, the Godhead was separated from His flesh.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, extremes are severed when the mean is removed. But the
soul was the mean through which the Godhead was united with the flesh, as
stated above (Q[6], A[1]). Therefore since the soul was severed from the
flesh by death, it seems that, in consequence, His Godhead was also
separated from it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, God's life-giving power is greater than that of the
soul. But the body could not die unless the soul quitted it. Therefore,
much less could it die unless the Godhead departed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, As stated above (Q[16], AA[4],5), the attributes of
human nature are predicated of the Son of God only by reason of the
union. But what belongs to the body of Christ after death is predicated
of the Son of God---namely, being buried: as is evident from the Creed,
in which it is said that the Son of God "was conceived and born of a
Virgin, suffered, died, and was buried." Therefore Christ's Godhead was
not separated from the flesh when He died.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, What is bestowed through God's grace is never withdrawn
except through fault. Hence it is written (Rm. 11:29): "The gifts and the
calling of God are without repentance." But the grace of union whereby
the Godhead was united to the flesh in Christ's Person, is greater than
the grace of adoption whereby others are sanctified: also it is more
enduring of itself, because this grace is ordained for personal union,
whereas the grace of adoption is referred to a certain affective union.
And yet we see that the grace of adoption is never lost without fault.
Since, then there was no sin in Christ, it was impossible for the union
of the Godhead with the flesh to be dissolved. Consequently, as before
death Christ's flesh was united personally and hypostatically with the
Word of God, it remained so after His death, so that the hypostasis of
the Word of God was not different from that of Christ's flesh after
death, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Such forsaking is not to be referred to the dissolving of
the personal union, but to this, that God the Father gave Him up to the
Passion: hence there "to forsake" means simply not to protect from
persecutors. or else He says there that He is forsaken, with reference to
the prayer He had made: "Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass
away from Me," as Augustine explains it (De Gratia Novi Test.).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The Word of God is said to be united with the flesh through
the medium of the soul, inasmuch as it is through the soul that the flesh
belongs to human nature, which the Son of God intended to assume; but not
as though the soul were the medium linking them together. But it is due
to the soul that the flesh is human even after the soul has been
separated from it---namely, inasmuch as by God's ordinance there remains
in the dead flesh a certain relation to the resurrection. And therefore
the union of the Godhead with the flesh is not taken away.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The soul formally possesses the life-giving energy, and
therefore, while it is present, and united formally, the body must
necessarily be a living one, whereas the Godhead has not the life-giving
energy formally, but effectively; because It cannot be the form of the
body: and therefore it is not necessary for the flesh to be living while
the union of the Godhead with the flesh remains, since God does not act
of necessity, but of His own will.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether in Christ's death there was a severance between His Godhead and
His soul?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that there was a severance in death between
Christ's Godhead and His soul, because our Lord said (Jn. 10:18): "No man
taketh away My soul from Me: but I lay it down of Myself, and I have
power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again." But it does
not appear that the body can set the soul aside, by separating the soul
from itself, because the soul is not subject to the power of the body,
but rather conversely: and so it appears that it belongs to Christ, as
the Word of God, to lay down His soul: but this is to separate it from
Himself. Consequently, by death His soul was severed from the Godhead.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Athanasius [*Vigilius Tapsensis, De Trin. vi;
Bardenhewer assigns it to St. Athanasius: 45, iii. The full title is De
Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto] says that he "is accursed who does not
confess that the entire man, whom the Son of God took to Himself, after
being assumed once more or delivered by Him, rose again from the dead on
the third day." But the entire man could not be assumed again, unless the
entire man was at one time separated from the Word of God: and the entire
man is made of soul and body. Therefore there was a separation made at
one time of the Godhead from both the body and the soul.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the Son of God is truly styled a man because of the
union with the entire man. If then, when the union of the soul with the
body was dissolved by death, the Word of God continued united with the
soul, it would follow that the Son of God could be truly called a soul.
But this is false, because since the soul is the form of the body, it
would result in the Word of God being the form of the body; which is
impossible. Therefore, in death the soul of Christ was separated from the
Word of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the separated soul and body are not one hypostasis, but
two. Therefore, if the Word of God remained united with Christ's soul and
body, then, when they were severed by Christ's death, it seems to follow
that the Word of God was two hypostases during such time as Christ was
dead; which cannot be admitted. Therefore after Christ's death His soul
did not continue to be united with the Word.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "Although Christ
died as man, and His holy soul was separated from His spotless body,
nevertheless His Godhead remained unseparated from both---from the soul,
I mean, and from the body."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The soul is united with the Word of God more immediately
and more primarily than the body is, because it is through the soul that
the body is united with the Word of God, as stated above (Q[6], A[1]).
Since, then, the Word of God was not separated from the body at Christ's
death, much less was He separated from the soul. Accordingly, since what
regards the body severed from the soul is affirmed of the Son of
God---namely, that "it was buried"---so is it said of Him in the Creed
that "He descended into hell," because His soul when separated from the
body did go down into hell.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Augustine (Tract. xlvii in Joan.), in commenting on the
text of John, asks, since Christ is Word and soul and body, "whether He
putteth down His soul, for that He is the Word? Or, for that He is a
soul?" Or, again, "for that He is flesh?" And he says that, "should we
say that the Word of God laid down His soul" . . . it would follow that
"there was a time when that soul was severed from the Word"---which is
untrue. "For death severed the body and soul . . . but that the soul was
severed from the Word I do not affirm . . . But should we say that the
soul laid itself down," it follows "that it is severed from itself: which
is most absurd." It remains, therefore, that "the flesh itself layeth
down its soul and taketh it again, not by its own power, but by the power
of the Word dwelling in the flesh": because, as stated above (A[2]), the
Godhead of the Word was not severed from the flesh in death.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In those words Athanasius never meant to say that the whole
man was reassumed---that is, as to all his parts---as if the Word of God
had laid aside the parts of human nature by His death; but that the
totality of the assumed nature was restored once more in the resurrection
by the resumed union of soul and body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Through being united to human nature, the Word of God is
not on that account called human nature: but He is called a man---that
is, one having human nature. Now the soul and the body are essential
parts of human nature. Hence it does not follow that the Word is a soul
or a body through being united with both, but that He is one possessing a
soul or a body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "In Christ's death
the soul was separated from the flesh: not one hypostasis divided into
two: because both soul and body in the same respect had their existence
from the beginning in the hypostasis of the Word; and in death, though
severed from one another, each one continued to have the one same
hypostasis of the Word. Wherefore the one hypostasis of the Word was the
hypostasis of the Word, of the soul, and of the body. For neither soul
nor body ever had an hypostasis of its own, besides the hypostasis of the
Word: for there was always one hypostasis of the Word, and never two."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ was a man during the three days of His death?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ was a man during the three days of His
death, because Augustine says (De Trin. iii): "Such was the assuming [of
nature] as to make God to be man, and man to be God." But this assuming
[of nature] did not cease at Christ's death. Therefore it seems that He
did not cease to be a man in consequence of death.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix) that "each man is his
intellect"; consequently, when we address the soul of Peter after his
death we say: "Saint Peter, pray for us." But the Son of God after death
was not separated from His intellectual soul. Therefore, during those
three days the Son of God was a man.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, every priest is a man. But during those three days of
death Christ was a priest: otherwise what is said in Ps. 109:4 would not
be true: "Thou art a priest for ever." Therefore Christ was a man during
those three days.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, When the higher [species] is removed, so is the lower.
But the living or animated being is a higher species than animal and man,
because an animal is a sensible animated substance. Now during those
three days of death Christ's body was not living or animated. Therefore
He was not a man.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, It is an article of faith that Christ was truly dead:
hence it is an error against faith to assert anything whereby the truth
of Christ's death is destroyed. Accordingly it is said in the Synodal
epistle of Cyril [*Act. Conc. Ephes. P. I, cap. xxvi]: "If any man does
not acknowledge that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and was
crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh, let him be
anathema." Now it belongs to the truth of the death of man or animal that
by death the subject ceases to be man or animal; because the death of the
man or animal results from the separation of the soul, which is the
formal complement of the man or animal. Consequently, to say that Christ
was a man during the three days of His death simply and without
qualification, is erroneous. Yet it can be said that He was "a dead man"
during those three days.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
However, some writers have contended that Christ was a man during those
three days, uttering words which are indeed erroneous, yet without intent
of error in faith: as Hugh of Saint Victor, who (De Sacram. ii) contended
that Christ, during the three days that followed His death, was a man,
because he held that the soul is a man: but this is false, as was shown
in the FP, Q[75], A[4]. Likewise the Master of the Sentences (iii, D, 22)
held Christ to be a man during the three days of His death for quite
another reason. For he believed the union of soul and flesh not to be
essential to a man, and that for anything to be a man it suffices if it
have a soul and body, whether united or separated: and that this is
likewise false is clear both from what has been said in the FP, Q[75],
A[4], and from what has been said above regarding the mode of union (Q[2]
, A[5]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The Word of God assumed a united soul and body: and the
result of this assumption was that God is man, and man is God. But this
assumption did not cease by the separation of the Word from the soul or
from the flesh; yet the union of soul and flesh ceased.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Man is said to be his own intellect, not because the
intellect is the entire man, but because the intellect is the chief part
of man, in which man's whole disposition lies virtually; just as the
ruler of the city may be called the whole city, since its entire disposal
is vested in him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: That a man is competent to be a priest is by reason of the
soul, which is the subject of the character of order: hence a man does
not lose his priestly order by death, and much less does Christ, who is
the fount of the entire priesthood.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's was identically the same body living and dead?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's was not identically the same body
living and dead. For Christ truly died just as other men do. But the body
of everyone else is not simply identically the same, dead and living,
because there is an essential difference between them. Therefore neither
is the body of Christ identically the same, dead and living.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. v, text. 12),
things specifically diverse are also numerically diverse. But Christ's
body, living and dead, was specifically diverse: because the eye or flesh
of the dead is only called so equivocally, as is evident from the
Philosopher (De Anima ii, text. 9; Metaph. vii). Therefore Christ's body
was not simply identically the same, living and dead.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, death is a kind of corruption. But what is corrupted by
substantial corruption after being corrupted, exists no longer, since
corruption is change from being to non-being. Therefore, Christ's body,
after it was dead, did not remain identically the same, because death is
a substantial corruption.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Athanasius says (Epist. ad Epict.): "In that body which
was circumcised and carried, which ate, and toiled, and was nailed on the
tree, there was the impassible and incorporeal Word of God: the same was
laid in the tomb." But Christ's living body was circumcised and nailed on
the tree; and Christ's dead body was laid in the tomb. Therefore it was
the same body living and dead.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[5] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The expression "simply" can be taken in two senses. In
the first instance by taking "simply" to be the same as "absolutely";
thus "that is said simply which is said without addition," as the
Philosopher put it (Topic. ii): and in this way the dead and living body
of Christ was simply identically the same: since a thing is said to be
"simply" identically the same from the identity of the subject. But
Christ's body living and dead was identical in its suppositum because
alive and dead it had none other besides the Word of God, as was stated
above (A[2]). And it is in this sense that Athanasius is speaking in the
passage quoted.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[5] Body Para. 2/2
In another way "simply" is the same as "altogether" or "totally": in
which sense the body of Christ, dead and alive, was not "simply" the same
identically, because it was not "totally" the same, since life is of the
essence of a living body; for it is an essential and not an accidental
predicate: hence it follows that a body which ceases to be living does
not remain totally the same. Moreover, if it were to be said that
Christ's dead body did continue "totally" the same, it would follow that
it was not corrupted---I mean, by the corruption of death: which is the
heresy of the Gaianites, as Isidore says (Etym. viii), and is to be found
in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. iii). And Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii)
that "the term 'corruption' denotes two things: in one way it is the
separation of the soul from the body and other things of the sort; in
another way, the complete dissolving into elements. Consequently it is
impious to say with Julian and Gaian that the Lord's body was
incorruptible after the first manner of corruption before the
resurrection: because Christ's body would not be consubstantial with us,
nor truly dead, nor would we have been saved in very truth. But in the
second way Christ's body was incorrupt."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The dead body of everyone else does not continue united to
an abiding hypostasis, as Christ's dead body did; consequently the dead
body of everyone else is not the same "simply," but only in some respect:
because it is the same as to its matter, but not the same as to its form.
But Christ's body remains the same simply, on account of the identity of
the suppositum, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Since a thing is said to be the same identically according
to suppositum, but the same specifically according to form: wherever the
suppositum subsists in only one nature, it follows of necessity that when
the unity of species is taken away the unity of identity is also taken
away. But the hypostasis of the Word of God subsists in two natures; and
consequently, although in others the body does not remain the same
according to the species of human nature, still it continues identically
the same in Christ according to the suppositum of the Word of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Corruption and death do not belong to Christ by reason of
the suppositum, from which suppositum follows the unity of identity; but
by reason of the human nature, according to which is found the difference
of death and of life in Christ's body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's death conduced in any way to our salvation?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's death did not conduce in any way to
our salvation. For death is a sort of privation, since it is the
privation of life. But privation has not any power of activity, because
it is nothing positive. Therefore it could not work anything for our
salvation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ's Passion wrought our salvation by way of merit.
But Christ's death could not operate in this way, because in death the
body is separated from the soul, which is the principle of meriting.
Consequently, Christ's death did not accomplish anything towards our
salvation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, what is corporeal is not the cause of what is spiritual.
But Christ's death was corporeal. Therefore it could not be the cause of
our salvation, which is something spiritual.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "The one death of our
Saviour," namely, that of the body, "saved us from our two deaths," that
is, of the soul and the body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, We may speak of Christ's death in two ways, "in becoming"
and "in fact." Death is said to be "in becoming" when anyone from natural
or enforced suffering is tending towards death: and in this way it is the
same thing to speak of Christ's death as of His Passion: so that in this
sense Christ's death is the cause of our salvation, according to what has
been already said of the Passion (Q[48]). But death is considered in
fact, inasmuch as the separation of soul and body has already taken
place: and it is in this sense that we are now speaking of Christ's
death. In this way Christ's death cannot be the cause of our salvation by
way of merit, but only by way of causality, that is to say, inasmuch as
the Godhead was not separated from Christ's flesh by death; and
therefore, whatever befell Christ's flesh, even when the soul was
departed, was conducive to salvation in virtue of the Godhead united. But
the effect of any cause is properly estimated according to its
resemblance to the cause. Consequently, since death is a kind of
privation of one's own life, the effect of Christ's death is considered
in relation to the removal of the obstacles to our salvation: and these
are the death of the soul and of the body. Hence Christ's death is said
to have destroyed in us both the death of the soul, caused by sin,
according to Rm. 4:25: "He was delivered up [namely unto death] for our
sins": and the death of the body, consisting in the separation of the
soul, according to 1 Cor. 15:54: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ's death wrought our salvation from the power of the
Godhead united, and not consisted merely as His death.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Though Christ's death, considered "in fact" did not effect
our salvation by way of merit, yet it did so by way of causality, as
stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ's death was indeed corporeal; but the body was the
instrument of the Godhead united to Him, working by Its power, although
dead.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] Out. Para. 1/1
OF CHRIST'S BURIAL (FOUR ARTICLES)
We have now to consider Christ's burial, concerning which there are four
points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it was fitting for Christ to be buried?
(2) Concerning the manner of His burial;
(3) Whether His body was decomposed in the tomb?
(4) Concerning the length of time He lay in the tomb.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was fitting for Christ to be buried?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem unfitting for Christ to have been buried, because
it is said of Him (Ps. 87:6): "He is [Vulg.: 'I am'] become as a man
without help, free among the dead." But the bodies of the dead are
enclosed in a tomb; which seems contrary to liberty. Therefore it does
not seem fitting for Christ to have been buried.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, nothing should be done to Christ except it was helpful
to our salvation. But Christ's burial seems in no way to be conducive to
our salvation. Therefore, it was not fitting for Him to be buried.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it seems out of place for God who is above the high
heavens to be laid in the earth. But what befalls the dead body of Christ
is attributed to God by reason of the union. Therefore it appears to be
unbecoming for Christ to be buried.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord said (Mt. 26:10) of the woman who anointed
Him: "She has wrought a good work upon Me," and then He added (Mt.
26:12)---"for she, in pouring this ointment upon My body, hath done it
for My burial."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to be buried. First of all, to
establish the truth of His death; for no one is laid in the grave unless
there be certainty of death. Hence we read (Mk. 15:44,45), that Pilate by
diligent inquiry assured himself of Christ's death before granting leave
for His burial. Secondly, because by Christ's rising from the grave, to
them who are in the grave, hope is given of rising again through Him,
according to Jn. 5:25,28: "All that are in their graves shall hear the
voice of the Son of God . . . and they that hear shall live." Thirdly, as
an example to them who dying spiritually to their sins are hidden away
"from the disturbance of men" (Ps. 30:21). Hence it is said (Col. 3:3):
"You are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." Wherefore the
baptized likewise who through Christ's death die to sins, are as it were
buried with Christ by immersion, according to Rm. 6:4: "We are buried
together with Christ by baptism into death."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ was buried in a becoming manner?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, "What things soever were written," especially of Christ,
"were written for our learning," according to Rm. 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 11:10): "And His sepulchre shall be
glorious."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
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"
(Rm. 6:4).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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 Mt.
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 Mt. 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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's body was reduced to dust in the tomb?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as stated above (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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
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 (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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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 (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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ was in the tomb only one day and two nights?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ was not in the tomb during only one day
and two nights; because He said (Mt. 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
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 (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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[51] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] Out. Para. 1/1
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?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was fitting for Christ to descend into hell?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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 (Q[49], AA[1],3). Consequently, it was not
fitting that Christ should descend into hell.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, by Christ's death His soul was separated from His body,
and this was laid in the sepulchre, as stated above (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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
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 Zach. 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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
(Zach. 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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 FP, Q[53], A[1].
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ went down into the hell of the lost?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is written (1 Pt. 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[2] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[2] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the whole Christ was in hell?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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 (Q[50], AA[3],4), and it was
after death that He descended into hell. Therefore the whole (Christ)
could not be in hell.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, It is evident from what was said in the 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ made any stay in hell?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ descending into hell delivered the holy Fathers from
thence?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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 (Q[49], A[1]). Consequently, the holy Fathers
were not delivered on Christ's descent into hell.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
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 Rm. 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
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 Zach.
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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 Rm. 8:10: "The body
indeed is dead, because of sin; but the spirit liveth, because of
justification."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ delivered any of the lost from hell?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, on Zach. 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the children who died in original sin were delivered by Christ?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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 (A[5]).
Therefore the children were similarly delivered from hell by Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rm. 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[7] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (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 Rm. 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ by His descent into hell delivered souls from purgatory?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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 (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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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 (XP, Q[71], A[9]). Therefore much more were souls delivered
from Purgatory by the presence of Christ descending into hell.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[8] Body Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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 (Q[48],
A[2]), but satisfactory in general, since its virtue had to be applied to
each individual by something specially personal (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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[52] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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; Q[49], A[5], ad 1).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] Out. Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was necessary for Christ to rise again?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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 (Q[51], A[3]). Therefore, it does not properly belong to
Him to rise again.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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 (Q[49], A[1],3). Consequently, it was not necessary for Christ to
rise again from the dead.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 24:46): "It behooved Christ to
suffer and to rise again from the dead."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[1] Body Para. 1/5
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[1] Body Para. 2/5
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[1] Body Para. 3/5
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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[1] Body Para. 4/5
Fourthly, to set in order the lives of the faithful: according to Rm.
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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[1] Body Para. 5/5
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 Rm. 4:25: "He was delivered
up for our sins, and rose again for our justification."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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 Micheas 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was fitting for Christ to rise again on the third day?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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 (A[1]) says that "there is no profit in the shedding
of Christ's blood, if He did not rise at once."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 20:19): "They shall deliver Him to
the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified, and the third day
He shall rise again."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[2] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, As stated above (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. 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[2] Body Para. 2/3
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).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[2] Body Para. 3/3
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ was the first to rise from the dead?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, among the other miracles which happened during the
Passion, it is narrated (Mt. 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[3] Body Para. 1/3
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. Such is a true
and perfect resurrection, because so long as a man lives, subject to the
necessity of dying, death has dominion over him in a measure, according
to Rm. 8:10: "The body indeed is dead because of sin." Furthermore, what
has the possibility of existence, is said to exist in some respect, that
is, in potentiality. Thus it is evident that the resurrection, whereby
one is rescued from actual death only, is but an imperfect one.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[3] Body Para. 2/3
Consequently, speaking of perfect resurrection, Christ is the first of
them who rise, because by rising He was the first to attain life utterly
immortal, according to Rm. 6:9: "Christ rising from the dead dieth now no
more." But by an imperfect resurrection, some others have risen before
Christ, so as to be a kind of figure of His Resurrection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[3] Body Para. 3/3
And thus the answer to the first objection is clear: because both those
raised from the dead in the old Testament, and those raised by Christ, so
returned to life that they had to die again.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: There are two opinions regarding them who rose with Christ.
Some hold that they rose to life so as to die no more, because it would
be a greater torment for them to die a second time than not to rise at
all. According to this view, as Jerome observes on Mt. 27:52,53, we must
understand that "they had not risen before our Lord rose." Hence the
Evangelist says that "coming out of the tombs after His Resurrection,
they came into the holy city, and appeared to many." But Augustine (Ep.
ad Evod. clxiv) while giving this opinion, says: "I know that it appears
some, that by the death of Christ the Lord the same resurrection was
bestowed upon the righteous as is promised to us in the end; and if they
slept not again by laying aside their bodies, it remains to be seen how
Christ can be understood to be 'the first-born of the dead,' if so many
preceded Him unto that resurrection. Now if reply be made that this is
said by anticipation, so that the monuments be understood to have been
opened by the earthquake while Christ was still hanging on the cross, but
that the bodies of the just did not rise then but after He had risen, the
difficulty still arises---how is it that Peter asserts that it was
predicted not of David but of Christ, that His body would not see
corruption, since David's tomb was in their midst; and thus he did not
convince them, if David's body was no longer there; for even if he had
risen soon after his death, and his flesh had not seen corruption, his
tomb might nevertheless remain. Now it seems hard that David from whose
seed Christ is descended, was not in that rising of the just, if an
eternal rising was conferred upon them. Also that saying in the Epistle
to the Hebrews (11:40) regarding the ancient just would be hard to
explain, 'that they should not be perfected without us,' if they were
already established in that incorruption of the resurrection which is
promised at the end when we shall be made perfect": so that Augustine
would seem to think that they rose to die again. In this sense Jerome
also in commenting on Matthew (27:52,53) says: "As Lazarus rose, so also
many of the bodies of the saints rose, that they might bear witness to
the risen Christ." Nevertheless in a sermon for the Assumption [*Ep. ix
ad Paul. et Eustoch.; among the supposititious works ascribed to St.
Jerome] he seems to leave the matter doubtful. But Augustine's reasons
seem to be much more cogent.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As everything preceding Christ's coming was preparatory for
Christ, so is grace a disposition for glory. Consequently, it behooved
all things appertaining to glory, whether they regard the soul, as the
perfect fruition of God, or whether they regard the body, as the glorious
resurrection, to be first in Christ as the author of glory: but that
grace should be first in those that were ordained unto Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ was the cause of His own Resurrection?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ was not the cause of His own Resurrection.
For whoever is raised up by another is not the cause of his own rising.
But Christ was raised up by another, according to Acts 2:24: "Whom God
hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell": and Rm. 8:11: "He
that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal
bodies." Therefore Christ is not the cause of His own Resurrection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, no one is said to merit, or ask from another, that of
which he is himself the cause. But Christ by His Passion merited the
Resurrection, as Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan.): "The lowliness of
the Passion is the meritorious cause of the glory of the Resurrection."
Moreover He asked the Father that He might be raised up again, according
to Ps. 40:11: "But thou, O Lord, have mercy on me, and raise me up
again." Therefore He was not the cause of His rising again.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as Damascene proves (De Fide Orth. iv), it is not the
soul that rises again, but the body, which is stricken by death. But the
body could not unite the soul with itself, since the soul is nobler.
Therefore what rose in Christ could not be the cause of His Resurrection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Our Lord says (Jn. 10:18): "No one taketh My soul from
Me, but I lay it down, and I take it up again." But to rise is nothing
else than to take the soul up again. Consequently, it appears that Christ
rose again of His own power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[50], AA[2],3) in consequence of death
Christ's Godhead was not separated from His soul, nor from His flesh.
Consequently, both the soul and the flesh of the dead Christ can be
considered in two respects: first, in respect of His Godhead; secondly,
in respect of His created nature. Therefore, according to the virtue of
the Godhead united to it, the body took back again the soul which it had
laid aside, and the soul took back again the body which it had abandoned:
and thus Christ rose by His own power. And this is precisely what is
written (2 Cor. 13:4): "For although He was crucified through" our
"weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God." But if we consider the
body and soul of the dead Christ according to the power of created
nature, they could not thus be reunited, but it was necessary for Christ
to be raised up by God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The Divine power is the same thing as the operation of the
Father and the Son; accordingly these two things are mutually consequent,
that Christ was raised up by the Divine power of the Father, and by His
own power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ by praying besought and merited His Resurrection, as
man and not as God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[53] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: According to its created nature Christ's body is not more
powerful than His soul; yet according to its Divine power it is more
powerful. Again the soul by reason of the Godhead united to it is more
powerful than the body in respect of its created nature. Consequently, it
was by the Divine power that the body and soul mutually resumed each
other, but not by the power of their created nature.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE QUALITY OF CHRIST RISING AGAIN (FOUR ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the quality of the rising Christ, which presents
four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ had a true body after His Resurrection?
(2) Whether He rose with His complete body?
(3) Whether His was a glorified body?
(4) Of the scars which showed in His body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ had a true body after His Resurrection?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not have a true body after His
Resurrection. For a true body cannot be in the same place at the same
time with another body. But after the Resurrection Christ's body was with
another at the same time in the same place: since He entered among the
disciples "the doors being shut," as is related in Jn. 20:26. Therefore
it seems that Christ did not have a true body after His Resurrection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a true body does not vanish from the beholder's sight
unless perchance it be corrupted. But Christ's body "vanished out of the
sight" of the disciples as they gazed upon Him, as is related in Lk.
24:31. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not have a true body after His
Resurrection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, every true body has its determinate shape. But Christ's
body appeared before the disciples "in another shape," as is evident from
Mk. 15:12. Therefore it seems that Christ did not possess a true body
after His Resurrection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 24:37) that when Christ appeared to
His disciples "they being troubled and frightened, supposed that they saw
a spirit," as if He had not a true but an imaginary body: but to remove
their fears He presently added: "Handle and see, for a spirit hath not
flesh and bones, as you see Me to have." Consequently, He had not an
imaginary but a true body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): that is said to
rise, which fell. But Christ's body fell by death; namely, inasmuch as
the soul which was its formal perfection was separated from it. Hence, in
order for it to be a true resurrection, it was necessary for the same
body of Christ to be once more united with the same soul. And since the
truth of the body's nature is from its form it follows that Christ's body
after His Resurrection was a true body, and of the same nature as it was
before. But had His been an imaginary body, then His Resurrection would
not have been true, but apparent.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ's body after His Resurrection, not by miracle but
from its glorified condition, as some say, entered in among the disciples
while the doors were shut, thus existing with another body in the same
place. But whether a glorified body can have this from some hidden
property, so as to be with another body at the same time in the same
place, will be discussed later (XP, Q[83], A[4]) when the common
resurrection will be dealt with. For the present let it suffice to say
that it was not from any property within the body, but by virtue of the
Godhead united to it, that this body, although a true one, entered in
among the disciples while the doors were shut. Accordingly Augustine says
in a sermon for Easter (ccxlvii) that some men argue in this fashion: "If
it were a body; if what rose from the sepulchre were what hung upon the
tree, how could it enter through closed doors?" And he answers: "If you
understand how, it is no miracle: where reason fails, faith abounds."
And (Tract. cxxi super Joan.) he says: "Closed doors were no obstacle to
the substance of a Body wherein was the Godhead; for truly He could enter
in by doors not open, in whose Birth His Mother's virginity remained
inviolate." And Gregory says the same in a homily for the octave of
Easter (xxvi in Evang.).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above (Q[53], A[3]), Christ rose to the immortal
life of glory. But such is the disposition of a glorified body that it is
spiritual, i.e. subject to the spirit, as the Apostle says (1 Cor.
15:44). Now in order for the body to be entirely subject to the spirit,
it is necessary for the body's every action to be subject to the will of
the spirit. Again, that an object be seen is due to the action of the
visible object upon the sight, as the Philosopher shows (De Anima ii).
Consequently, whoever has a glorified body has it in his power to be seen
when he so wishes, and not to be seen when he does not wish it. Moreover
Christ had this not only from the condition of His glorified body, but
also from the power of His Godhead, by which power it may happen that
even bodies not glorified are miraculously unseen: as was by a miracle
bestowed on the blessed Bartholomew, that "if he wished he could be seen,
and not be seen if he did not wish it" [*Apocryphal Historia Apost. viii,
2]. Christ, then, is said to have vanished from the eyes of the
disciples, not as though He were corrupted or dissolved into invisible
elements; but because He ceased, of His own will, to be seen by them,
either while He was present or while He was departing by the gift of
agility.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Severianus [*Peter Chrysologus: Serm. lxxxii] says in a
sermon for Easter: "Let no one suppose that Christ changed His features
at the Resurrection." This is to be understood of the outline of His
members; since there was nothing out of keeping or deformed in the body
of Christ which was conceived of the Holy Ghost, that had to be righted
at the Resurrection. Nevertheless He received the glory of clarity in the
Resurrection: accordingly the same writer adds: "but the semblance is
changed, when, ceasing to be mortal, it becomes immortal; so that it
acquired the glory of countenance, without losing the substance of the
countenance." Yet He did not come to those disciples in glorified
appearance; but, as it lay in His power for His body to be seen or not,
so it was within His power to present to the eyes of the beholders His
form either glorified or not glorified, or partly glorified and partly
not, or in any fashion whatsoever. Still it requires but a slight
difference for anyone to seem to appear another shape.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's body rose glorified? [*Some editions give this article
as the third, following the order of the introduction to the question.
But this is evident from the first sentence of the body of A[3] (A[2] in
the aforesaid editions), that the order of the Leonine edition is
correct.]
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ's body did not rise glorified. For glorified
bodies shine, according to Mt. 13:43: "Then shall the just shine as the
sun in the kingdom of their Father." But shining bodies are seen under
the aspect of light, but not of color. Therefore, since Christ's body was
beheld under the aspect of color, as it had been hitherto, it seems that
it was not a glorified one.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a glorified body is incorruptible. But Christ's body
seems not to have been incorruptible; because it was palpable, as He
Himself says in Lk. 24:39: "Handle, and see." Now Gregory says (Hom. in
Evang. xxvi) that "what is handled must be corruptible, and that which is
incorruptible cannot be handled." Consequently, Christ's body was not
glorified.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a glorified body is not animal, but spiritual, as is
clear from 1 Cor. 15. But after the Resurrection Christ's body seems to
have been animal, since He ate and drank with His disciples, as we read
in the closing chapters of Luke and John. Therefore, it seems that
Christ's body was not glorified.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Phil. 3:21): "He will reform the body
of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and
this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His
Resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in 1
Cor. 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified
bodies, as is written in the same place: "It is sown in dishonor, it
shall rise in glory." Hence, since the cause is mightier than the effect,
and the exemplar than the exemplate; much more glorious, then, was the
body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because He merited the
glory of His Resurrection by the lowliness of His Passion. Hence He said
(Jn. 12:27): "Now is My soul troubled," which refers to the Passion; and
later He adds: "Father, glorify Thy name," whereby He asks for the glory
of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated above (Q[34], A[4]),
Christ's soul was glorified from the instant of His conception by perfect
fruition of the Godhead. But, as stated above (Q[14], A[1], ad 2), it was
owing to the Divine economy that the glory did not pass from His soul to
His body, in order that by the Passion He might accomplish the mystery of
our redemption. Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion and
death was finished, straightway the soul communicated its glory to the
risen body in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Whatever is received within a subject is received according
to the subject's capacity. Therefore, since glory flows from the soul
into the body, it follows that, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor.
cxviii), the brightness or splendor of a glorified body is after the
manner of natural color in the human body; just as variously colored
glass derives its splendor from the sun's radiance, according to the mode
of the color. But as it lies within the power of a glorified man whether
his body be seen or not, as stated above (A[1], ad 2), so is it in his
power whether its splendor be seen or not. Accordingly it can be seen in
its color without its brightness. And it was in this way that Christ's
body appeared to the disciples after the Resurrection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: We say that a body can be handled not only because of its
resistance, but also on account of its density. But from rarity and
density follow weight and lightness, heat and cold, and similar
contraries, which are the principles of corruption in elementary bodies.
Consequently, a body that can be handled by human touch is naturally
corruptible. But if there be a body that resists touch, and yet is not
disposed according to the qualities mentioned, which are the proper
objects of human touch, such as a heavenly body, then such body cannot be
said to be handled. But Christ's body after the Resurrection was truly
made up of elements, and had tangible qualities such as the nature of a
human body requires, and therefore it could naturally be handled; and if
it had nothing beyond the nature of a human body, it would likewise be
corruptible. But it had something else which made it incorruptible, and
this was not the nature of a heavenly body, as some maintain, and into
which we shall make fuller inquiry later (XP, Q[82], A[1]), but it was
glory flowing from a beatified soul: because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad
Dioscor. cxviii): "God made the soul of such powerful nature, that from
its fullest beatitude the fulness of health overflows into the body, that
is, the vigor of incorruption." And therefore Gregory says (Hom. in
Evang. xxvi): "Christ's body is shown to be of the same nature, but of
different glory, after the Resurrection."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii): "After the
Resurrection, our Saviour in spiritual but true flesh partook of meat
with the disciples, not from need of food, but because it lay in His
power." For as Bede says on Lk. 24:41: "The thirsty earth sucks in the
water, and the sun's burning ray absorbs it; the former from need, the
latter by its power." Hence after the Resurrection He ate, "not as
needing food, but in order thus to show the nature of His risen body."
Nor does it follow that His was an animal body that stands in need of
food.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's body rose again entire?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's body did not rise entire. For flesh
and blood belong to the integrity of the body: whereas Christ seems not
to have had both, for it is written (1 Cor. 15:50): "Flesh and blood can
not possess the kingdom of God." But Christ rose in the glory of the
kingdom of God. Therefore it seems that He did not have flesh and blood.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, blood is one of the four humors. Consequently, if Christ
had blood, with equal reason He also had the other humors, from which
corruption is caused in animal bodies. It would follow, then, that
Christ's body was corruptible, which is unseemly. Therefore Christ did
not have flesh and blood.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the body of Christ which rose, ascended to heaven. But
some of His blood is kept as relics in various churches. Therefore
Christ's body did not rise with the integrity of all its parts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord said (Lk. 24:39) while addressing His
disciples after the Resurrection: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as
you see Me to have."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (A[2]), Christ's body in the Resurrection
was "of the same nature, but differed in glory." Accordingly, whatever
goes with the nature of a human body, was entirely in the body of Christ
when He rose again. Now it is clear that flesh, bones, blood, and other
such things, are of the very nature of the human body. Consequently, all
these things were in Christ's body when He rose again; and this also
integrally, without any diminution; otherwise it would not have been a
complete resurrection, if whatever was lost by death had not been
restored. Hence our Lord assured His faithful ones by saying (Mt. 10:30):
"The very hairs of your head are all numbered": and (Lk. 21:18): "A hair
of your head shall not perish."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
But to say that Christ's body had neither flesh, nor bones, nor the
other natural parts of a human body, belongs to the error of Eutyches,
Bishop of Constantinople, who maintained that "our body in that glory of
the resurrection will be impalpable, and more subtle than wind and air:
and that our Lord, after the hearts of the disciples who handled Him were
confirmed, brought back to subtlety whatever could be handled in Him"
[*St. Gregory, Moral. in Job 14:56]. Now Gregory condemns this in the
same book, because Christ's body was not changed after the Resurrection,
according to Rm. 6:9: "Christ rising from the dead, dieth now no more."
Accordingly, the very man who had said these things, himself retracted
them at his death. For, if it be unbecoming for Christ to take a body of
another nature in His conception, a heavenly one for instance, as
Valentine asserted, it is much more unbecoming for Him at His
Resurrection to resume a body of another nature, because in His
Resurrection He resumed unto an everlasting life, the body which in His
conception He had assumed to a mortal life.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Flesh and blood are not to be taken there for the nature of
flesh and blood, but, either for the guilt of flesh and blood, as Gregory
says [*St. Gregory, Moral. in Job 14:56], or else for the corruption of
flesh and blood: because, as Augustine says (Ad Consent., De Resur.
Carn.), "there will be neither corruption there, nor mortality of flesh
and blood." Therefore flesh according to its substance possesses the
kingdom of God, according to Lk. 24:39: "A spirit hath not flesh and
bones, as you see Me to have." But flesh, if understood as to its
corruption, will not possess it; hence it is straightway added in the
words of the Apostle: "Neither shall corruption possess incorruption."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says in the same book: "Perchance by reason of
the blood some keener critic will press us and say; If the blood was" in
the body of Christ when He rose, "why not the rheum?" that is, the
phlegm; "why not also the yellow gall?" that is, the gall proper; "and
why not the black gall?" that is, the bile, "with which four humors the
body is tempered, as medical science bears witness. But whatever anyone
may add, let him take heed not to add corruption, lest he corrupt the
health and purity of his own faith; because Divine power is equal to
taking away such qualities as it wills from the visible and tractable
body, while allowing others to remain, so that there be no defilement,"
i.e. of corruption, "though the features be there; motion without
weariness, the power to eat, without need of food."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: All the blood which flowed from Christ's body, belonging as
it does to the integrity of human nature, rose again with His body: and
the same reason holds good for all the particles which belong to the
truth and integrity of human nature. But the blood preserved as relics in
some churches did not flow from Christ's side, but is said to have flowed
from some maltreated image of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's body ought to have risen with its scars?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's body ought not to have risen with its
scars. For it is written (1 Cor. 15:52): "The dead shall rise incorrupt."
But scars and wounds imply corruption and defect. Therefore it was not
fitting for Christ, the author of the resurrection, to rise again with
scars.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ's body rose entire, as stated above (A[3]). But
open scars are opposed to bodily integrity, since they interfere with the
continuity of the tissue. It does not therefore seem fitting for the open
wounds to remain in Christ's body; although the traces of the wounds
might remain, which would satisfy the beholder; thus it was that Thomas
believed, to whom it was said: "Because thou hast seen Me, Thomas, thou
hast believed" (Jn. 20:29).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that "some things are
truly said of Christ after the Resurrection, which He did not have from
nature but from special dispensation, such as the scars, in order to make
it sure that it was the body which had suffered that rose again." Now
when the cause ceases, the effect ceases. Therefore it seems that when
the disciples were assured of the Resurrection, He bore the scars no
longer. But it ill became the unchangeableness of His glory that He
should assume anything which was not to remain in Him for ever.
Consequently, it seems that He ought not at His Resurrection to have
resumed a body with scars.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Our Lord said to Thomas (Jn. 20:27): "Put in thy finger
hither, and see My hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into My
side, and be not faithless but believing."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, It was fitting for Christ's soul at His Resurrection to
resume the body with its scars. In the first place, for Christ's own
glory. For Bede says on Lk. 24:40 that He kept His scars not from
inability to heal them, "but to wear them as an everlasting trophy of His
victory." Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii): "Perhaps in that
kingdom we shall see on the bodies of the Martyrs the traces of the
wounds which they bore for Christ's name: because it will not be a
deformity, but a dignity in them; and a certain kind of beauty will shine
in them, in the body, though not of the body." Secondly, to confirm the
hearts of the disciples as to "the faith in His Resurrection" (Bede, on
Lk. 24:40). Thirdly, "that when He pleads for us with the Father, He may
always show the manner of death He endured for us" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40).
Fourthly, "that He may convince those redeemed in His blood, how
mercifully they have been helped, as He exposes before them the traces of
the same death" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40). Lastly, "that in the Judgment-day
He may upbraid them with their just condemnation" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40).
Hence, as Augustine says (De Symb. ii): "Christ knew why He kept the
scars in His body. For, as He showed them to Thomas who would not believe
except he handled and saw them, so will He show His wounds to His
enemies, so that He who is the Truth may convict them, saying: 'Behold
the man whom you crucified; see the wounds you inflicted; recognize the
side you pierced, since it was opened by you and for you, yet you would
not enter.'"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The scars that remained in Christ's body belong neither to
corruption nor defect, but to the greater increase of glory, inasmuch as
they are the trophies of His power; and a special comeliness will appear
in the places scarred by the wounds.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although those openings of the wounds break the continuity
of the tissue, still the greater beauty of glory compensates for all
this, so that the body is not less entire, but more perfected. Thomas,
however, not only saw, but handled the wounds, because as Pope Leo [*Cf.
Append. Opp. August., Serm. clxii] says: "It sufficed for his personal
faith for him to have seen what he saw; but it was on our behalf that he
touched what he beheld."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[54] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ willed the scars of His wounds to remain on His
body, not only to confirm the faith of His disciples, but for other
reasons also. From these it seems that those scars will always remain on
His body; because, as Augustine says (Ad Consent., De Resurr. Carn.): "I
believe our Lord's body to be in heaven, such as it was when He ascended
into heaven." And Gregory (Moral. xiv) says that "if aught could be
changed in Christ's body after His Resurrection, contrary to Paul's
truthful teaching, then the Lord after His Resurrection returned to
death; and what fool would dare to say this, save he that denies the true
resurrection of the flesh?" Accordingly, it is evident that the scars
which Christ showed on His body after His Resurrection, have never since
been removed from His body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE MANIFESTATION OF THE RESURRECTION (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the manifestation of the Resurrection:
concerning which there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all
men or only to some special individuals?
(2) Whether it was fitting that they should see Him rise?
(3) Whether He ought to have lived with the disciples after the
Resurrection?
(4) Whether it was fitting for Him to appeal to the disciples "in
another shape"?
(5) Whether He ought to have demonstrated the Resurrection by proofs?
(6) Of the cogency of those proofs.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's Resurrection ought to have been
manifested to all. For just as a public penalty is due for public sin,
according to 1 Tim. 5:20: "Them that sin reprove before all," so is a
public reward due for public merit. But, as Augustine says (Tract. civ in
Joan.), "the glory of the Resurrection is the reward of the humility of
the Passion." Therefore, since Christ's Passion was manifested to all
while He suffered in public, it seems that the glory of the Resurrection
ought to have been manifested to all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, as Christ's Passion is ordained for our salvation, so
also is His Resurrection, according to Rm. 4:25: "He rose again for our
justification." But what belongs to the public weal ought to be
manifested to all. Therefore Christ's Resurrection ought to have been
manifested to all, and not to some specially.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, they to whom it was manifested were witnesses of the
Resurrection: hence it is said (Acts 3:15): "Whom God hath raised from
the dead, of which we are witnesses." Now they bore witness by preaching
in public: and this is unbecoming in women, according to 1 Cor. 14:34:
"Let women keep silence in the churches": and 1 Tim. 2:12: "I suffer not
a woman to teach." Therefore, it does not seem becoming for Christ's
Resurrection to be manifested first of all to the women and afterwards to
mankind in general.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Acts 10:40): "Him God raised up the
third day, and gave Him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but
to witnesses preordained by God."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Some things come to our knowledge by nature's common law,
others by special favor of grace, as things divinely revealed. Now, as
Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv), the divinely established law of such
things is that they be revealed immediately by God to higher persons,
through whom they are imparted to others, as is evident in the ordering
of the heavenly spirits. But such things as concern future glory are
beyond the common ken of mankind, according to Is. 64:4: "The eye hath
not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them
that wait for Thee." Consequently, such things are not known by man
except through Divine revelation, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 2:10): "God
hath revealed them to us by His spirit." Since, then, Christ rose by a
glorious Resurrection, consequently His Resurrection was not manifested
to everyone, but to some, by whose testimony it could be brought to the
knowledge of others.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: Christ's Passion was consummated in a body that still had a
passible nature, which is known to all by general laws: consequently His
Passion could be directly manifested to all. But the Resurrection was
accomplished "through the glory of the Father," as the Apostle says (Rm.
6:4). Therefore it was manifested directly to some, but not to all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
But that a public penance is imposed upon public sinners, is to be
understood of the punishment of this present life. And in like manner
public merits should be rewarded in public, in order that others may be
stirred to emulation. But the punishments and rewards of the future life
are not publicly manifested to all, but to those specially who are
preordained thereto by God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Just as Christ's Resurrection is for the common salvation
of all, so it came to the knowledge of all; yet not so that it was
directly manifested to all, but only to some, through whose testimony it
could be brought to the knowledge of all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: A woman is not to be allowed to teach publicly in church;
but she may be permitted to give familiar instruction to some privately.
And therefore as Ambrose says on Lk. 24:22, "a woman is sent to them who
are of her household," but not to the people to bear witness to the
Resurrection. But Christ appeared to the woman first, for this reason,
that as a woman was the first to bring the source of death to man, so she
might be the first to announce the dawn of Christ's glorious
Resurrection. Hence Cyril says on Jn. 20:17: "Woman who formerly was the
minister of death, is the first to see and proclaim the adorable mystery
of the Resurrection: thus womankind has procured absolution from
ignominy, and removal of the curse." Hereby, moreover, it is shown, so
far as the state of glory is concerned, that the female sex shall suffer
no hurt; but if women burn with greater charity, they shall also attain
greater glory from the Divine vision: because the women whose love for
our Lord was more persistent---so much so that "when even the disciples
withdrew" from the sepulchre "they did not depart" [*Gregory, Hom. xxv in
Evang.]---were the first to see Him rising in glory.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was fitting that the disciples should see Him rise again?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem fitting that the disciples should have seen Him
rise again, because it was their office to bear witness to the
Resurrection, according to Acts 4:33: "With great power did the apostles
give testimony to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord." But the
surest witness of all is an eye-witness. Therefore it would have been
fitting for them to see the very Resurrection of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in order to have the certainty of faith the disciples
saw Christ ascend into heaven, according to Acts 1:9: "While they looked
on, He was raised up." But it was also necessary for them to have faith
in the Resurrection. Therefore it seems that Christ ought to have risen
in sight of the disciples.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the raising of Lazarus was a sign of Christ's coming
Resurrection. But the Lord raised up Lazarus in sight of the disciples.
Consequently, it seems that Christ ought to have risen in sight of the
disciples.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mk. 16:9): The Lord "rising early the
first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalen." Now Mary
Magdalen did not see Him rise; but, while searching for Him in the
sepulchre, she heard from the angel: "He is risen, He is not here."
Therefore no one saw Him rise again.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rm. 13:1): "Those things that are of
God, are well ordered [Vulg.: 'Those that are, are ordained of God]." Now
the divinely established order is this, that things above men's ken are
revealed to them by angels, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv). But
Christ on rising did not return to the familiar manner of life, but to a
kind of immortal and God-like condition, according to Rm. 6:10: "For in
that He liveth, He liveth unto God." And therefore it was fitting for
Christ's Resurrection not to be witnessed by men directly, but to be
proclaimed to them by angels. Accordingly, Hilary (Comment. Matth. cap.
ult.) says: "An angel is therefore the first herald of the Resurrection,
that it might be declared out of obedience to the Father's will."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The apostles were able to testify to the Resurrection even
by sight, because from the testimony of their own eyes they saw Christ
alive, whom they had known to be dead. But just as man comes from the
hearing of faith to the beatific vision, so did men come to the sight of
the risen Christ through the message already received from angels.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ's Ascension as to its term wherefrom, was not above
men's common knowledge, but only as to its term whereunto. Consequently,
the disciples were able to behold Christ's Ascension as to the term
wherefrom, that is, according as He was uplifted from the earth; but they
did not behold Him as to the term whereunto, because they did not see how
He was received into heaven. But Christ's Resurrection transcended common
knowledge as to the term wherefrom, according as His soul returned from
hell and His body from the closed sepulchre; and likewise as to the term
whereunto, according as He attained to the life of glory. Consequently,
the Resurrection ought not to be accomplished so as to be seen by man.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Lazarus was raised so that he returned to the same life as
before, which life is not beyond man's common ken. Consequently, there is
no parity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ ought to have lived constantly with His disciples after
the Resurrection?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ ought to have lived constantly with His
Disciples, because He appeared to them after His Resurrection in order to
confirm their faith in the Resurrection, and to bring them comfort in
their disturbed state, according to Jn. 20:20: "The disciples were glad
when they saw the Lord." But they would have been more assured and
consoled had He constantly shown them His presence. Therefore it seems
that He ought to have lived constantly with them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ rising from the dead did not at once ascend to
heaven, but after forty days, as is narrated in Acts 1:3. But meanwhile
He could have been in no more suitable place than where the disciples
were met together. Therefore it seems that He ought to have lived with
them continually.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii), we read how
Christ appeared five times on the very day of His Resurrection: first "to
the women at the sepulchre; secondly to the same on the way from the
sepulchre; thirdly to Peter; fourthly to the two disciples going to the
town; fifthly to several of them in Jerusalem when Thomas was not
present." Therefore it also seems that He ought to have appeared several
times on the other days before the Ascension.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, our Lord had said to them before the Passion (Mt.
26:32): "But after I shall be risen again, I will go before you into
Galilee"; moreover an angel and our Lord Himself repeated the same to the
women after the Resurrection: nevertheless He was seen by them in
Jerusalem on the very day of the Resurrection, as stated above (OBJ[3]);
also on the eighth day, as we read in Jn. 20:26. It seems, therefore,
that He did not live with the disciples in a fitting way after the
Resurrection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 20:26) that "after eight days"
Christ appeared to the disciples. Therefore He did not live constantly
with them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Concerning the Resurrection two things had to be
manifested to the disciples, namely, the truth of the Resurrection, and
the glory of Him who rose. Now in order to manifest the truth of the
Resurrection, it sufficed for Him to appear several times before them, to
speak familiarly to them, to eat and drink, and let them touch Him. But
in order to manifest the glory of the risen Christ, He was not desirous
of living with them constantly as He had done before, lest it might seem
that He rose unto the same life as before. Hence (Lk. 24:44) He said to
them: "These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with
you." For He was there with them by His bodily presence, but hitherto He
had been with them not merely by His bodily presence, but also in mortal
semblance. Hence Bede in explaining those words of Luke, "while I was
with you," says: "that is, while I was still in mortal flesh, in which
you are yet: for He had then risen in the same flesh, but was not in the
same state of mortality as they."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ's frequent appearing served to assure the disciples
of the truth of the Resurrection; but continual intercourse might have
led them into the error of believing that He had risen to the same life
as was His before. Yet by His constant presence He promised them comfort
in another life, according to Jn. 16:22: "I will see you again, and your
heart shall rejoice; and your joy no man shall take from you."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: That Christ did not stay continually with the disciples was
not because He deemed it more expedient for Him to be elsewhere: but
because He judged it to be more suitable for the apostles' instruction
that He should not abide continually with them, for the reason given
above. But it is quite unknown in what places He was bodily present in
the meantime, since Scripture is silent, and His dominion is in every
place (Cf. Ps. 102:22).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: He appeared oftener on the first day, because the disciples
were to be admonished by many proofs to accept the faith in His
Resurrection from the very out set: but after they had once accepted it,
they had no further need of being instructed by so many apparitions.
Accordingly one reads in the Gospel that after the first day He appeared
again only five times. For, as Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii),
after the first five apparitions "He came again a sixth time when Thomas
saw Him; a seventh time was by the sea of Tiberias at the capture of the
fishes; the eighth was on the mountain of Galilee, according to Matthew;
the ninth occasion is expressed by Mark, 'at length when they were at
table,' because no more were they going to eat with Him upon earth; the
tenth was on the very day, when no longer upon the earth, but uplifted
into the cloud, He was ascending into heaven. But, as John admits, not
all things were written down. And He visited them frequently before He
went up to heaven," in order to comfort them. Hence it is written (1 Cor.
15:6,7) that "He was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once . .
after that He was seen by James"; of which apparitions no mention is
made in the Gospels.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 4: Chrysostom in explaining Mt. 26:32---"after I shall be
risen again, I will go before you into Galilee," says (Hom. lxxxiii in
Matth.), "He goes not to some far off region in order to appear to them,
but among His own people, and in those very places" in which for the most
part they had lived with Him; "in order that they might thereby believe
that He who was crucified was the same as He who rose again." And on this
account "He said that He would go into Galilee, that they might be
delivered from fear of the Jews."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 2/2
Consequently, as Ambrose says (Expos. in Luc.), "The Lord had sent word
to the disciples that they were to see Him in Galilee; yet He showed
Himself first to them when they were assembled together in the room out
of fear. (Nor is there any breaking of a promise here, but rather a
hastened fulfilling out of kindness)" [*Cf. Catena Aurea in Luc. xxiv,
36]: "afterwards, however, when their minds were comforted, they went
into Galilee. Nor is there any reason to prevent us from supposing that
there were few in the room, and many more on the mountain." For, as
Eusebius [*Of Caesarea; Cf. Migne, P. G., xxii, 1003] says, "Two
Evangelists, Luke and John, write that He appeared in Jerusalem to the
eleven only; but the other two said that an angel and our Saviour
commanded not merely the eleven, but all the disciples and brethren, to
go into Galilee. Paul makes mention of them when he says (1 Cor. 15:6):
'Then He appeared to more then five hundred brethren at once.'" The truer
solution, however, is this, that while they were in hiding in Jerusalem
He appeared to them at first in order to comfort them; but in Galilee it
was not secretly, nor once or twice, that He made Himself known to them
with great power, "showing Himself to them alive after His Passion, by
many proofs," as Luke says (Acts 1:3). Or as Augustine writes (De
Consens. Evang. iii): "What was said by the angel and by our Lord---that
He would 'go before them into Galilee,' must be taken prophetically. For
if we take Galilee as meaning 'a passing,' we must understand that they
were going to pass from the people of Israel to the Gentiles, who would
not believe in the preaching of the apostles unless He prepared the way
for them in men's hearts: and this is signified by the words 'He shall go
before you into Galilee.' But if by Galilee we understand 'revelation,'
we are to understand this as applying to Him not in the form of a
servant, but in that form wherein He is equal to the Father, and which He
has promised to them that love Him. Although He has gone before us in
this sense, He has not abandoned us."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ should have appeared to the disciples "in another shape"?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ ought not to have appeared to the
disciples "in another shape." For a thing cannot appear in very truth
other than it is. But there was only one shape in Christ. Therefore if He
appeared under another, it was not a true but a false apparition. Now
this is not at all fitting, because as Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu.
14): "If He deceives He is not the Truth; yet Christ is the Truth."
Consequently, it seems that Christ ought not to have appeared to the
disciples "in another shape."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, nothing can appear in another shape than the one it has,
except the beholder's eyes be captivated by some illusions. But since
such illusions are brought about by magical arts, they are unbecoming in
Christ, according to what is written (2 Cor. 6:15): "What concord hath
Christ with Belial?" Therefore it seems that Christ ought not to have
appeared in another shape.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, just as our faith receives its surety from Scripture, so
were the disciples assured of their faith in the Resurrection by Christ
appearing to them. But, as Augustine says in an Epistle to Jerome
(xxviii), if but one untruth be admitted into the Sacred Scripture, the
whole authority of the Scriptures is weakened. Consequently, if Christ
appeared to the disciples, in but one apparition, otherwise than He was,
then whatever they saw in Christ after the Resurrection will be of less
import, which is not fitting. Therefore He ought not to have appeared in
another shape.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mk. 16:12): "After that He appeared in
another shape to two of them walking, as they were going into the
country."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (AA[1],2), Christ's Resurrection was to
be manifested to men in the same way as Divine things are revealed. But
Divine things are revealed to men in various ways, according as they are
variously disposed. For, those who have minds well disposed, perceive
Divine things rightly, whereas those not so disposed perceive them with a
certain confusion of doubt or error: "for, the sensual men perceiveth not
those things that are of the Spirit of God," as is said in 1 Cor. 2:14.
Consequently, after His Resurrection Christ appeared in His own shape to
some who were well disposed to belief, while He appeared in another shape
to them who seemed to be already growing tepid in their faith: hence
these said (Lk. 24:21): "We hoped that it was He that should have
redeemed Israel." Hence Gregory says (Hom. xxiii in Evang.), that "He
showed Himself to them in body such as He was in their minds: for,
because He was as yet a stranger to faith in their hearts, He made
pretense of going on farther," that is, as if He were a stranger.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says (De Qq. Evang. ii), "not everything of
which we make pretense is a falsehood; but when what we pretend has no
meaning then is it a falsehood. But when our pretense has some
signification, it is not a lie, but a figure of the truth; otherwise
everything said figuratively by wise and holy men, or even by our Lord
Himself, would be set down as a falsehood, because it is not customary to
take such expressions in the literal sense. And deeds, like words, are
feigned without falsehood, in order to denote something else." And so it
happened here. as has been said.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): "Our Lord could
change His flesh so that His shape really was other than they were
accustomed to behold; for, before His Passion He was transfigured on the
mountain, so that His face shone like the sun. But it did not happen thus
now." For not without reason do we "understand this hindrance in their
eyes to have been of Satan's doing, lest Jesus might be recognized."
Hence Luke says (24:16) that "their eyes were held, that they should not
know Him."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Such an argument would prove, if they had not been brought
back from the sight of a strange shape to that of Christ's true
countenance. For, as Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): "The
permission was granted by Christ," namely, that their eyes should be held
fast in the aforesaid way, "until the Sacrament of the bread; that when
they had shared in the unity of His body, the enemy's hindrance may be
understood to have been taken away, so that Christ might be recognized."
Hence he goes on to say that "'their eyes were opened, and they knew
Him'; not that they were hitherto walking with their eyes shut; but there
was something in them whereby they were not permitted to recognize what
they saw. This could be caused by the darkness or by some kind of humor."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ should have demonstrated the truth of His Resurrection by
proofs?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should not have demonstrated the truth
of His Resurrection by proofs. For Ambrose says (De Fide, ad Gratian. i):
"Let there be no proofs where faith is required." But faith is required
regarding the Resurrection. Therefore proofs are out of place there.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xxvi): "Faith has no merit where
human reason supplies the test." But it was no part of Christ's office to
void the merit of faith. Consequently, it was not for Him to confirm the
Resurrection by proofs.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Christ came into the world in order that men might
attain beatitude through Him, according to Jn. 10:10: "I am come that
they may have life, and may have it more abundantly." But supplying
proofs seems to be a hindrance in the way of man's beatitude; because our
Lord Himself said (Jn. 20:29): "Blessed are they that have not seen, and
have believed." Consequently, it seems that Christ ought not to manifest
His Resurrection by any proofs.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is related in Acts 1:3, that Christ appeared to His
disciples "for forty days by many proofs, speaking of the Kingdom of God."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[5] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The word "proof" is susceptible of a twofold meaning:
sometimes it is employed to designate any sort "of reason in confirmation
of what is a matter of doubt" [*Tully, Topic. ii]: and sometimes it means
a sensible sign employed to manifest the truth; thus also Aristotle
occasionally uses the term in his works [*Cf. Prior. Anal. ii; Rhetor.
i]. Taking "proof" in the first sense, Christ did not demonstrate His
Resurrection to the disciples by proofs, because such argumentative proof
would have to be grounded on some principles: and if these were not known
to the disciples, nothing would thereby be demonstrated to them, because
nothing can be known from the unknown. And if such principles were known
to them, they would not go beyond human reason, and consequently would
not be efficacious for establishing faith in the Resurrection, which is
beyond human reason, since principles must be assumed which are of the
same order, according to 1 Poster. But it was from the authority of the
Sacred Scriptures that He proved to them the truth of His Resurrection,
which authority is the basis of faith, when He said: "All things must
needs be fulfilled which are written in the Law, and in the prophets, and
in the Psalms, concerning Me": as is set forth Lk. 24:44.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[5] Body Para. 2/2
But if the term "proof" be taken in the second sense, then Christ is
said to have demonstrated His Resurrection by proofs, inasmuch as by most
evident signs He showed that He was truly risen. Hence where our version
has "by many proofs," the Greek text, instead of proof has {tekmerion},
i.e. "an evident sign affording positive proof" [*Cf. Prior. Anal. ii].
Now Christ showed these signs of the Resurrection to His disciples, for
two reasons. First, because their hearts were not disposed so as to
accept readily the faith in the Resurrection. Hence He says Himself (Lk.
24:25): "O foolish and slow of heart to believe": and (Mk. 16:14): "He
upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart." Secondly,
that their testimony might be rendered more efficacious through the signs
shown them, according to 1 Jn. 1:1,3: "That which we have seen, and have
heard, and our hands have handled . . . we declare."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Ambrose is speaking there of proofs drawn from human
reason, which are useless for demonstrating things of faith, as was shown
above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The merit of faith arises from this, that at God's bidding
man believes what he does not see. Accordingly, only that reason debars
merit of faith which enables one to see by knowledge what is proposed for
belief: and this is demonstrative argument. But Christ did not make use
of any such argument for demonstrating His Resurrection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated already (ad 2), the merit of beatitude, which
comes of faith, is not entirely excluded except a man refuse to believe
only such things as he can see. But for a man to believe from visible
signs the things he does not see, does not entirely deprive him of faith
nor of the merit of faith: just as Thomas, to whom it was said (Jn.
20:29): "'Because thou hast seen Me, Thomas, thou hast believed,' saw one
thing and believed another" [*Gregory, Hom. xxvi]: the wounds were what
he saw, God was the object of His belief. But his is the more perfect
faith who does not require such helps for belief. Hence, to put to shame
the faith of some men, our Lord said (Jn. 4:48): "Unless you see signs
and wonders, you believe not." From this one can learn how they who are
so ready to believe God, even without beholding signs, are blessed in
comparison with them who do not believe except they see the like.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the proofs which Christ made use of manifested sufficiently the
truth of His Resurrection?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the proofs which Christ made use of did not
sufficiently manifest the truth of His Resurrection. For after the
Resurrection Christ showed nothing to His disciples which angels
appearing to men did not or could not show; because angels have
frequently shown themselves to men under human aspect, have spoken and
lived with them, and eaten with them, just as if they were truly men, as
is evident from Genesis 18, of the angels whom Abraham entertained. and
in the Book of Tobias, of the angel who "conducted" him "and brought" him
back. Nevertheless, angels have not true bodies naturally united to them;
which is required for a resurrection. Consequently, the signs which
Christ showed His disciples were not sufficient for manifesting His
Resurrection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ rose again gloriously, that is, having a human
nature with glory. But some of the things which Christ showed to His
disciples seem contrary to human nature, as for instance, that "He
vanished out of their sight," and entered in among them "when the doors
were shut": and some other things seem contrary to glory, as for
instance, that He ate and drank, and bore the scars of His wounds.
Consequently, it seems that those proofs were neither sufficient nor
fitting for establishing faith in the Resurrection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, after the Resurrection Christ's body was such that it
ought not to be touched by mortal man; hence He said to Magdalen (Jn.
20:17): "Do not touch Me; for I am not yet ascended to My Father."
Consequently, it was not fitting for manifesting the truth of His
Resurrection, that He should permit Himself to be handled by His
disciples.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[6] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, clarity seems to be the principal of the qualities of a
glorified body: yet He gave no sign thereof in His Resurrection.
Therefore it seems that those proofs were insufficient for showing the
quality of Christ's Resurrection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[6] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: [*This objection is wanting in the older codices, and in the text
of the Leonine edition, which, however, gives it in a note as taken from
one of the more recent codices of the Vatican.]
Further, the angels introduced as witnesses for the Resurrection seem
insufficient from the want of agreement on the part of the Evangelists.
Because in Matthew's account the angel is described as sitting upon the
stone rolled back, while Mark states that he was seen after the women had
entered the tomb; and again, whereas these mention one angel, John says
that there were two sitting, and Luke says that there were two standing.
Consequently, the arguments for the Resurrection do not seem to agree.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, "ordereth all things
sweetly" and in a fitting manner, according to Wis. 8:1.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[6] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, Christ manifested His Resurrection in two ways: namely,
by testimony; and by proof or sign: and each manifestation was sufficient
in its own class. For in order to manifest His Resurrection He made use
of a double testimony, neither of which can be rebutted. The first of
these was the angels' testimony, who announced the Resurrection to the
women, as is seen in all the Evangelists: the other was the testimony of
the Scriptures, which He set before them to show the truth of the
Resurrection, as is narrated in the last chapter of Luke.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[6] Body Para. 2/4
Again, the proofs were sufficient for showing that the Resurrection was
both true and glorious. That it was a true Resurrection He shows first on
the part of the body; and this He shows in three respects; first of all,
that it was a true and solid body, and not phantastic or rarefied, like
the air. And He establishes this by offering His body to be handled;
hence He says in the last chapter of Luke (39): "Handle and see; for a
spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have." Secondly, He
shows that it was a human body, by presenting His true features for them
to behold. Thirdly, He shows that it was identically the same body which
He had before, by showing them the scars of the wounds; hence, as we read
in the last chapter of Luke (39) he said to them: "See My hands and feet,
that it is I Myself."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[6] Body Para. 3/4
Secondly, He showed them the truth of His Resurrection on the part of
His soul reunited with His body: and He showed this by the works of the
threefold life. First of all, in the operations of the nutritive life, by
eating and drinking with His disciples, as we read in the last chapter of
Luke. Secondly, in the works of the sensitive life, by replying to His
disciples' questions, and by greeting them when they were in His
presence, showing thereby that He both saw and heard; thirdly, in the
works of the intellective life by their conversing with Him, and
discoursing on the Scriptures. And, in order that nothing might be
wanting to make the manifestation complete, He also showed that He had
the Divine Nature, by working the miracle of the draught of fishes, and
further by ascending into heaven while they were beholding Him: because,
according to Jn. 3:13: "No man hath ascended into heaven, but He that
descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[6] Body Para. 4/4
He also showed His disciples the glory of His Resurrection by entering
in among them when the doors were closed: as Gregory says (Hom. xxvi in
Evang.): "Our Lord allowed them to handle His flesh which He had brought
through closed doors, to show that His body was of the same nature but of
different glory." It likewise was part of the property of glory that "He
vanished suddenly from their eyes," as related in the last chapter of
Luke; because thereby it was shown that it lay in His power to be seen or
not seen; and this belongs to a glorified body, as stated above (Q[54],
A[1], ad 2, A[2], ad 1).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Each separate argument would not suffice of itself for
showing perfectly Christ's Resurrection, yet all taken collectively
establish it completely, especially owing to the testimonies of the
Scriptures, the sayings of the angels, and even Christ's own assertion
supported by miracles. As to the angels who appeared, they did not say
they were men, as Christ asserted that He was truly a man. Moreover, the
manner of eating was different in Christ and the angels: for since the
bodies assumed by the angels were neither living nor animated, there was
no true eating, although the food was really masticated and passed into
the interior of the assumed body: hence the angels said to Tobias
(12:18,19): "When I was with you . . . I seemed indeed to eat and drink
with you; but I use an invisible meat." But since Christ's body was truly
animated, His eating was genuine. For, as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei
xiii), "it is not the power but the need of eating that shall be taken
away from the bodies of them who rise again." Hence Bede says on Lk.
24:41: "Christ ate because He could, not because He needed."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As was observed above, some proofs were employed by Christ
to prove the truth of His human nature, and others to show forth His
glory in rising again. But the condition of human nature, as considered
in itself, namely, as to its present state, is opposite to the condition
of glory, as is said in 1 Cor. 15:43: "It is sown in weakness, it shall
rise in power." Consequently, the proofs brought forward for showing the
condition of glory, seem to be in opposition to nature, not absolutely,
but according to the present state, and conversely. Hence Gregory says
(Hom. xxvi in Evang.): "The Lord manifested two wonders, which are
mutually contrary according to human reason, when after the Resurrection
He showed His body as incorruptible and at the same time palpable."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says (Tract. cxxi super Joan.), "these words
of our Lord, 'Do not touch Me, for I am not yet ascended to My Father,'"
show "that in that woman there is a figure of the Church of the Gentiles,
which did not believe in Christ until He was ascended to the Father. Or
Jesus would have men to believe in Him, i.e. to touch Him spiritually, as
being Himself one with the Father. For to that man's innermost
perceptions He is, in some sort, ascended unto the Father, who has become
so far proficient in Him, as to recognize in Him the equal with the
Father . . . whereas she as yet believed in Him but carnally, since she
wept for Him as for a man." But when one reads elsewhere of Mary having
touched Him, when with the other women, she "'came up and took hold of
His feet,' that matters little," as Severianus says [*Chrysologus, Serm.
lxxvi], "for, the first act relates to figure, the other to sex; the
former is of Divine grace, the latter of human nature." Or as Chrysostom
says (Hom. lxxxvi in Joan.): "This woman wanted to converse with Christ
just as before the Passion, and out of joy was thinking of nothing great,
although Christ's flesh had become much nobler by rising again." And
therefore He said: "I have not yet ascended to My Father"; as if to say:
"Do not suppose I am leading an earthly life; for if you see Me upon
earth, it is because I have not yet ascended to My Father, but I am going
to ascend shortly." Hence He goes on to say: "I ascend to My Father, and
to your Father."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: As Augustine says ad Orosium (Dial. lxv, Qq.): "Our Lord
rose in clarified flesh; yet He did not wish to appear before the
disciples in that condition of clarity, because their eyes could not
gaze upon that brilliancy. For if before He died for us and rose again
the disciples could not look upon Him when He was transfigured upon the
mountain, how much less were they able to gaze upon Him when our Lord's
flesh was glorified." It must also be borne in mind that after His
Resurrection our Lord wished especially to show that He was the same as
had died; which the manifestation of His brightness would have hindered
considerably: because change of features shows more than anything else
the difference in the person seen: and this is because sight specially
judges of the common sensibles, among which is one and many, or the same
and different. But before the Passion, lest His disciples might despise
its weakness, Christ meant to show them the glory of His majesty; and
this the brightness of the body specially indicates. Consequently, before
the Passion He showed the disciples His glory by brightness, but after
the Resurrection by other tokens.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[55] A[6] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: As Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): "We can
understand one angel to have been seen by the women, according to both
Matthew and Mark, if we take them as having entered the sepulchre, that
is, into some sort of walled enclosure, and that there they saw an angel
sitting upon the stone which was rolled back from the monument, as
Matthew says; and that this is Mark's expression---'sitting on the right
side'; afterwards when they scanned the spot where the Lord's body had
lain, they beheld two angels, who were at first seated, as John says, and
who afterwards rose so as to be seen standing, as Luke relates."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE CAUSALITY OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION (TWO ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the causality of Christ's Resurrection,
concerning which there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ's Resurrection is the cause of our resurrection?
(2) Whether it is the cause of our justification?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's Resurrection is the cause of the resurrection of our
bodies?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's Resurrection is not the cause of the
resurrection of our bodies, because, given a sufficient cause, the effect
must follow of necessity. If, then, Christ's Resurrection be the
sufficient cause of the resurrection of our bodies, then all the dead
should have risen again as soon as He rose.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Divine justice is the cause of the resurrection of the
dead, so that the body may be rewarded or punished together with the
soul, since they shared in merit or sin, as Dionysius says (Eccles. Hier.
vii) and Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv). But God's justice must necessarily
be accomplished, even if Christ had not risen. Therefore the dead would
rise again even though Christ did not. Consequently Christ's Resurrection
is not the cause of the resurrection of our bodies.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if Christ's Resurrection be the cause of the
resurrection of our bodies, it would be either the exemplar, or the
efficient, or the meritorious cause. Now it is not the exemplar cause;
because it is God who will bring about the resurrection of our bodies,
according to Jn. 5:21: "The Father raiseth up the dead": and God has no
need to look at any exemplar cause outside Himself. In like manner it is
not the efficient cause; because an efficient cause acts only through
contact, whether spiritual or corporeal. Now it is evident that Christ's
Resurrection has no corporeal contact with the dead who shall rise again,
owing to distance of time and place; and similarly it has no spiritual
contact, which is through faith and charity, because even unbelievers and
sinners shall rise again. Nor again is it the meritorious cause, because
when Christ rose He was no longer a wayfarer, and consequently not in a
state of merit. Therefore, Christ's Resurrection does not appear to be in
any way the cause of ours.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, since death is the privation of life, then to destroy
death seems to be nothing else than to bring life back again; and this is
resurrection. But "by dying, Christ destroyed our death" [*Preface of
Mass in Paschal Time]. Consequently, Christ's death, not His
Resurrection, is the cause of our resurrection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, on 1 Cor. 15:12: "Now if Christ be preached, that He
rose again from the dead," the gloss says: "Who is the efficient cause of
our resurrection."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[1] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated in 2 Metaphysics, text 4: "Whatever is first in
any order, is the cause of all that come after it." But Christ's
Resurrection was the first in the order of our resurrection, as is
evident from what was said above (Q[53], A[3]). Hence Christ's
Resurrection must be the cause of ours: and this is what the Apostle says
(1 Cor. 15:20,21): "Christ is risen from the dead, the first-fruits of
them that sleep; for by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection
of the dead."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[1] Body Para. 2/2
And this is reasonable. Because the principle of human life-giving is
the Word of God, of whom it is said (Ps. 35:10): "With Thee is the
fountain of life": hence He Himself says (Jn. 5:21): "As the Father
raiseth up the dead, and giveth life; so the Son also giveth life to whom
He will." Now the divinely established natural order is that every cause
operates first upon what is nearest to it, and through it upon others
which are more remote; just as fire first heats the nearest air, and
through it it heats bodies that are further off: and God Himself first
enlightens those substances which are closer to Him, and through them
others that are more remote, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. xiii).
Consequently, the Word of God first bestows immortal life upon that body
which is naturally united with Himself, and through it works the
resurrection in all other bodies.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As was stated above, Christ's Resurrection is the cause of
ours through the power of the united Word, who operates according to His
will. And consequently, it is not necessary for the effect to follow at
once, but according as the Word of God disposes, namely, that first of
all we be conformed to the suffering and dying Christ in this suffering
and mortal life; and afterwards may come to share in the likeness of His
Resurrection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: God's justice is the first cause of our resurrection,
whereas Christ's Resurrection is the secondary, and as it were the
instrumental cause. But although the power of the principal cause is not
restricted to one instrument determinately, nevertheless since it works
through this instrument, such instrument causes the effect. So, then, the
Divine justice in itself is not tied down to Christ's Resurrection as a
means of bringing about our resurrection: because God could deliver us in
some other way than through Christ's Passion and Resurrection, as already
stated (Q[46], A[2]). But having once decreed to deliver us in this way,
it is evident that Christ's Resurrection is the cause of ours.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: Properly speaking, Christ's Resurrection is not the
meritorious cause, but the efficient and exemplar cause of our
resurrection. It is the efficient cause, inasmuch as Christ's humanity,
according to which He rose again, is as it were the instrument of His
Godhead, and works by Its power, as stated above (Q[13], AA[2],3). And
therefore, just as all other things which Christ did and endured in His
humanity are profitable to our salvation through the power of the
Godhead, as already stated (Q[48], A[6]), so also is Christ's
Resurrection the efficient cause of ours, through the Divine power whose
office it is to quicken the dead; and this power by its presence is in
touch with all places and times; and such virtual contact suffices for
its efficiency. And since, as was stated above (ad 2), the primary cause
of human resurrection is the Divine justice, from which Christ has "the
power of passing judgment, because He is the Son of Man" (Jn. 5:27); the
efficient power of His Resurrection extends to the good and wicked alike,
who are subject to His judgment.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
But just as the Resurrection of Christ's body, through its personal
union with the Word, is first in point of time, so also is it first in
dignity and perfection; as the gloss says on 1 Cor. 15:20,23. But
whatever is most perfect is always the exemplar, which the less perfect
copies according to its mode; consequently Christ's Resurrection is the
exemplar of ours. And this is necessary, not on the part of Him who rose
again, who needs no exemplar, but on the part of them who are raised up,
who must be likened to that Resurrection, according to Phil. 3:21: "He
will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory."
Now although the efficiency of Christ's Resurrection extends to the
resurrection of the good and wicked alike, still its exemplarity extends
properly only to the just, who are made conformable with His Sonship,
according to Rm. 8:29.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Considered on the part of their efficiency, which is
dependent on the Divine power, both Christ's death and His Resurrection
are the cause both of the destruction of death and of the renewal of
life: but considered as exemplar causes, Christ's death---by which He
withdrew from mortal life---is the cause of the destruction of our death;
while His Resurrection, whereby He inaugurated immortal life, is the
cause of the repairing of our life. But Christ's Passion is furthermore a
meritorious cause, as stated above (Q[48], A[1]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's Resurrection is the cause of the resurrection of souls?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's Resurrection is not the cause of the
resurrection of souls, because Augustine says (Tract. xxiii super Joan.)
that "bodies rise by His human dispensation, but souls rise by the
Substance of God." But Christ's Resurrection does not belong to God's
Substance, but to the dispensation of His humanity. Therefore, although
Christ's Resurrection is the cause of bodies rising, nevertheless it does
not seem to be the cause of the resurrection of souls.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a body does not act upon a spirit. But the Resurrection
belongs to His body, which death laid low. Therefore His Resurrection is
not the cause of the resurrection of souls.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, since Christ's Resurrection is the cause why bodies rise
again, the bodies of all men shall rise again, according to 1 Cor. 15:51:
"We shall all indeed rise again." But the souls of all will not rise
again, because according to Mt. 25:46: "some shall go into everlasting
punishment." Therefore Christ's Resurrection is not the cause of the
resurrection of souls.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the resurrection of souls comes of the forgiveness of
sins. But this was effected by Christ's Passion, according to Apoc. 1:5:
"He washed us from our sins in His own blood." Consequently, Christ's
Passion even more than His Resurrection is the cause of the resurrection
of souls.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 4:25): "He rose again for our
justification," which is nothing else than the resurrection of souls: and
on Ps. 29:6: "In the evening weeping shall have place," the gloss says,
"Christ's Resurrection is the cause of ours, both of the soul at present,
and of the body in the future."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above, Christ's Resurrection works in virtue of
the Godhead; now this virtue extends not only to the resurrection of
bodies, but also to that of souls: for it comes of God that the soul
lives by grace, and that the body lives by the soul. Consequently,
Christ's Resurrection has instrumentally an effective power not only with
regard to the resurrection of bodies, but also with respect to the
resurrection of souls. In like fashion it is an exemplar cause with
regard to the resurrection of souls, because even in our souls we must be
conformed with the rising Christ: as the Apostle says (Rm. 6:4-11)
"Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may
walk in newness of life": and as He, "rising again from the dead, dieth
now no more, so let us reckon that we (Vulg.: 'you')" are dead to sin,
that we may "live together with Him."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Augustine says that the resurrection of souls is wrought by
God's Substance, as to participation, because souls become good and just
by sharing in the Divine goodness, but not by sharing in anything
created. Accordingly, after saying that souls rise by the Divine
Substance, he adds: the soul is beatified by a participation with God,
and not by a participation with a holy soul. But our bodies are made
glorious by sharing in the glory of Christ's body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The efficacy of Christ's Resurrection reaches souls not
from any special virtue of His risen body, but from the virtue of the
Godhead personally united with it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The resurrection of souls pertains to merit, which is the
effect of justification; but the resurrection of bodies is ordained for
punishment or reward, which are the effects of Him who judges. Now it
belongs to Christ, not to justify all men, but to judge them: and
therefore He raises up all as to their bodies, but not as to their souls.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[56] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Two things concur in the justification of souls, namely,
forgiveness of sin and newness of life through grace. Consequently, as to
efficacy, which comes of the Divine power, the Passion as well as the
Resurrection of Christ is the cause of justification as to both the
above. But as to exemplarity, properly speaking Christ's Passion and
death are the cause of the forgiveness of guilt, by which forgiveness we
die unto sin: whereas Christ's Resurrection is the cause of newness of
life, which comes through grace or justice: consequently, the Apostle
says (Rm. 4:25) that "He was delivered up," i.e. to death, "for our
sins," i.e. to take them away, "and rose again for our justification."
But Christ's Passion was also a meritorious cause, as stated above (A[1],
ad 4; Q[48], A[1]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider Christ's Ascension: concerning which there are
six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it belonged for Christ to ascend into heaven?
(2) According to which nature did it become Him to ascend?
(3) Whether He ascended by His own power?
(4) Whether He ascended above all the corporeal heavens?
(5) Whether He ascended above all spiritual creatures?
(6) Of the effect of the Ascension.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it was fitting for Christ to ascend into heaven?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to ascend into
heaven. For the Philosopher says (De Coelo ii) that "things which are in
a state of perfection possess their good without movement." But Christ
was in a state of perfection, since He is the Sovereign Good in respect
of His Divine Nature, and sovereignly glorified in respect of His human
nature. Consequently, He has His good without movement. But ascension is
movement. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to ascend.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, whatever is moved, is moved on account of something
better. But it was no better thing for Christ to be in heaven than upon
earth, because He gained nothing either in soul or in body by being in
heaven. Therefore it seems that Christ should not have ascended into
heaven.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the Son of God took human flesh for our salvation. But
it would have been more beneficial for men if He had tarried always with
us upon earth; thus He said to His disciples (Lk. 17:22): "The days will
come when you shall desire to see one day of the Son of man; and you
shall not see it." Therefore it seems unfitting for Christ to have
ascended into heaven.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, as Gregory says (Moral. xiv), Christ's body was in no
way changed after the Resurrection. But He did not ascend into heaven
immediately after rising again, for He said after the Resurrection (Jn.
20:17): "I am not yet ascended to My Father." Therefore it seems that
neither should He have ascended after forty days.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Are the words of our Lord (Jn. 20:17): "I ascend to My
Father and to your Father."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The place ought to be in keeping with what is contained
therein. Now by His Resurrection Christ entered upon an immortal and
incorruptible life. But whereas our dwelling-place is one of generation
and corruption, the heavenly place is one of incorruption. And
consequently it was not fitting that Christ should remain upon earth
after the Resurrection; but it was fitting that He should ascend to
heaven.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: That which is best and possesses its good without movement
is God Himself, because He is utterly unchangeable, according to Malachi
3:6: "I am the Lord, and I change not." But every creature is changeable
in some respect, as is evident from Augustine (Gen. ad lit. viii). And
since the nature assumed by the Son of God remained a creature, as is
clear from what was said above (Q[2], A[7]; Q[16], AA[8],10; Q[20], A[1]
), it is not unbecoming if some movement be attributed to it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: By ascending into heaven Christ acquired no addition to His
essential glory either in body or in soul: nevertheless He did acquire
something as to the fittingness of place, which pertains to the
well-being of glory: not that His body acquired anything from a heavenly
body by way of perfection or preservation; but merely out of a certain
fittingness. Now this in a measure belonged to His glory; and He had a
certain kind of joy from such fittingness, not indeed that He then began
to derive joy from it when He ascended into heaven, but that He rejoiced
thereat in a new way, as at a thing completed. Hence, on Ps. 15:11: "At
Thy right hand are delights even unto the end," the gloss says: "I shall
delight in sitting nigh to Thee, when I shall be taken away from the
sight of men."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/4
Reply OBJ 3: Although Christ's bodily presence was withdrawn from the
faithful by the Ascension, still the presence of His Godhead is ever with
the faithful, as He Himself says (Mt. 28:20): "Behold, I am with you all
days, even to the consummation of the world." For, "by ascending into
heaven He did not abandon those whom He adopted," as Pope Leo says (De
Resurrec., Serm. ii). But Christ's Ascension into heaven, whereby He
withdrew His bodily presence from us, was more profitable for us than His
bodily presence would have been.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 2/4
First of all, in order to increase our faith, which is of things unseen.
Hence our Lord said (Jn. 26) that the Holy Ghost shall come and "convince
the world . . . of justice," that is, of the justice "of those that
believe," as Augustine says (Tract. xcv super Joan.): "For even to put
the faithful beside the unbeliever is to put the unbeliever to shame";
wherefore he goes on to say (10): "'Because I go to the Father; and you
shall see Me no longer'"---"For 'blessed are they that see not, yet
believe.' Hence it is of our justice that the world is reproved: because
'you will believe in Me whom you shall not see.'"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 3/4
Secondly, to uplift our hope: hence He says (Jn. 14:3): "If I shall go,
and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you to
Myself; that where I am, you also may be." For by placing in heaven the
human nature which He assumed, Christ gave us the hope of going thither;
since "wheresoever the body shall be, there shall the eagles also be
gathered together," as is written in Mt. 24:28. Hence it is written
likewise (Mic. 2:13): "He shall go up that shall open the way before
them."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 4/4
Thirdly, in order to direct the fervor of our charity to heavenly
things. Hence the Apostle says (Col. 3:1,2): "Seek the things that are
above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God. Mind the things
that are above, not the things that are upon the earth": for as is said
(Mt. 6:21): "Where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also." And since
the Holy Ghost is love drawing us up to heavenly things, therefore our
Lord said to His disciples (Jn. 16:7): "It is expedient to you that I go;
for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will
send Him to you." On which words Augustine says (Tract. xciv super
Joan.): "Ye cannot receive the Spirit, so long as ye persist in knowing
Christ according to the flesh. But when Christ withdrew in body, not only
the Holy Ghost, but both Father and Son were present with them
spiritually."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Although a heavenly place befitted Christ when He rose to
immortal life, nevertheless He delayed the Ascension in order to confirm
the truth of His Resurrection. Hence it is written (Acts 1:3), that "He
showed Himself alive after His Passion, by many proofs, for forty days
appearing to them": upon which the gloss says that "because He was dead
for forty hours, during forty days He established the fact of His being
alive again. Or the forty days may be understood as a figure of this
world, wherein Christ dwells in His Church: inasmuch as man is made out
of the four elements, and is cautioned not to transgress the Decalogue."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's Ascension into heaven belonged to Him according to His
Divine Nature?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's Ascension into heaven belonged to Him
according to His Divine Nature. For, it is written (Ps. 46:6): "God is
ascended with jubilee": and (Dt. 33:26): "He that is mounted upon the
heaven is thy helper." But these words were spoken of God even before
Christ's Incarnation. Therefore it belongs to Christ to ascend into
heaven as God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it belongs to the same person to ascend into heaven as
to descend from heaven, according to Jn. 3:13: "No man hath ascended into
heaven, but He that descended from heaven": and Eph. 4:10: "He that
descended is the same also that ascended." But Christ came down from
heaven not as man, but as God: because previously His Nature in heaven
was not human, but Divine. Therefore it seems that Christ ascended into
heaven as God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, by His Ascension Christ ascended to the Father. But it
was not as man that He rose to equality with the Father; for in this
respect He says: "He is greater than I," as is said in Jn. 14:28.
Therefore it seems that Christ ascended as God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, on Eph. 4:10: "That He ascended, what is it, but
because He also descended," a gloss says: "It is clear that He descended
and ascended according to His humanity."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The expression "according to" can denote two things; the
condition of the one who ascends, and the cause of his ascension. When
taken to express the condition of the one ascending, the Ascension in no
wise belongs to Christ according to the condition of His Divine Nature;
both because there is nothing higher than the Divine Nature to which He
can ascend; and because ascension is local motion, a thing not in keeping
with the Divine Nature, which is immovable and outside all place. Yet the
Ascension is in keeping with Christ according to His human nature, which
is limited by place, and can be the subject of motion. In this sense,
then, we can say that Christ ascended into heaven as man, but not as God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
But if the phrase "according to" denote the cause of the Ascension,
since Christ ascended into heaven in virtue of His Godhead, and not in
virtue of His human nature, then it must be said that Christ ascended
into heaven not as man, but as God. Hence Augustine says in a sermon on
the Ascension: "It was our doing that the Son of man hung upon the cross;
but it was His own doing that He ascended."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: These utterances were spoken prophetically of God who was
one day to become incarnate. Still it can be said that although to ascend
does not belong to the Divine Nature properly, yet it can metaphorically;
as, for instance, it is said "to ascend in the heart of man" (cf. Ps.
83:6), when his heart submits and humbles itself before God: and in the
same way God is said to ascend metaphorically with regard to every
creature, since He subjects it to Himself.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: He who ascended is the same as He who descended. For
Augustine says (De Symb. iv): "Who is it that descends? The God-Man. Who
is it that ascends? The self-same God-Man." Nevertheless a twofold
descent is attributed to Christ; one, whereby He is said to have
descended from heaven, which is attributed to the God-Man according as He
is God: for He is not to be understood as having descended by any local
movement, but as having "emptied Himself," since "when He was in the form
of God He took the form of a servant." For just as He is said to be
emptied, not by losing His fulness, but because He took our littleness
upon Himself, so likewise He is said to have descended from heaven, not
that He deserted heaven, but because He assumed human nature in unity of
person.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
And there is another descent whereby He descended "into the lower
regions of the earth," as is written Eph. 4:9; and this is local descent:
hence this belongs to Christ according to the condition of human nature.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ is said to ascend to the Father, inasmuch as He
ascends to sit on the right hand of the Father; and this is befitting
Christ in a measure according to His Divine Nature, and in a measure
according to His human nature, as will be said later (Q[58], A[3])
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ ascended by His own power?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not ascend by His own power,
because it is written (Mk. 16:19) that "the Lord Jesus, after He had
spoken to them, was taken up to heaven"; and (Acts 1:9) that, "while they
looked on, He was raised up, and a cloud received Him out of their
sight." But what is taken up, and lifted up, appears to be moved by
another. Consequently, it was not by His own power, but by another's that
Christ was taken up into heaven.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ's was an earthly body, like to ours. But it is
contrary to the nature of an earthly body to be borne upwards. Moreover,
what is moved contrary to its nature is nowise moved by its own power.
Therefore Christ did not ascend to heaven by His own power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Christ's own power is Divine. But this motion does not
seem to have been Divine, because, whereas the Divine power is infinite,
such motion would be instantaneous; consequently, He would not have been
uplifted to heaven "while" the disciples "looked on," as is stated in
Acts 1:9. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not ascend to heaven by His
own power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 63:1): "This beautiful one in his
robe, walking in the greatness of his strength." Also Gregory says in a
Homily on the Ascension (xxix): "It is to be noted that we read of Elias
having ascended in a chariot, that it might be shown that one who was
mere man needed another's help. But we do not read of our Saviour being
lifted up either in a chariot or by angels, because He who had made all
things was taken up above all things by His own power."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[3] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, There is a twofold nature in Christ, to wit, the Divine
and the human. Hence His own power can be accepted according to both.
Likewise a twofold power can be accepted regarding His human nature: one
is natural, flowing from the principles of nature; and it is quite
evident that Christ did not ascend into heaven by such power as this. The
other is the power of glory, which is in Christ's human nature; and it
was according to this that He ascended to heaven.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[3] Body Para. 2/3
Now there are some who endeavor to assign the cause of this power to the
nature of the fifth essence. This, as they say, is light, which they make
out to be of the composition of the human body, and by which they contend
that contrary elements are reconciled; so that in the state of this
mortality, elemental nature is predominant in human bodies: so that,
according to the nature of this predominating element the human body is
borne downwards by its own power: but in the condition of glory the
heavenly nature will predominate, by whose tendency and power Christ's
body and the bodies of the saints are lifted up to heaven. But we have
already treated of this opinion in the FP, Q[76], A[7], and shall deal
with it more fully in treating of the general resurrection (XP, Q[84],
A[1]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[3] Body Para. 3/3
Setting this opinion aside, others assign as the cause of this power the
glorified soul itself, from whose overflow the body will be glorified, as
Augustine writes to Dioscorus (Ep. cxviii). For the glorified body will
be so submissive to the glorified soul, that, as Augustine says (De Civ.
Dei xxii), "wheresoever the spirit listeth, thither the body will be on
the instant; nor will the spirit desire anything unbecoming to the soul
or the body." Now it is befitting the glorified and immortal body for it
to be in a heavenly place, as stated above (A[1]). Consequently, Christ's
body ascended into heaven by the power of His soul willing it. But as
the body is made glorious by participation with the soul, even so, as
Augustine says (Tract. xxiii in Joan.), "the soul is beatified by
participating in God." Consequently, the Divine power is the first source
of the ascent into heaven. Therefore Christ ascended into heaven by His
own power, first of all by His Divine power, and secondly by the power of
His glorified soul moving His body at will.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Christ is said to have risen by His own power, though He
was raised to life by the power of the Father, since the Father's power
is the same as the Son's; so also Christ ascended into heaven by His own
power, and yet was raised up and taken up to heaven by the Father.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This argument proves that Christ did not ascend into heaven
by His own power, i.e. that which is natural to human nature: yet He did
ascend by His own power, i.e. His Divine power, as well as by His own
power, i.e. the power of His beatified soul. And although to mount
upwards is contrary to the nature of a human body in its present
condition, in which the body is not entirely dominated by the soul, still
it will not be unnatural or forced in a glorified body, whose entire
nature is utterly under the control of the spirit.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Although the Divine power be infinite, and operate
infinitely, so far as the worker is concerned, still the effect thereof
is received in things according to their capacity, and as God disposes.
Now a body is incapable of being moved locally in an instant, because it
must be commensurate with space, according to the division of which time
is reckoned, as is proved in Physics vi. Consequently, it is not
necessary for a body moved by God to be moved instantaneously, but with
such speed as God disposes.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ ascended above all the heavens?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not ascend above all the heavens,
for it is written (Ps. 10:5): "The Lord is in His holy temple, the Lord's
throne is in heaven." But what is in heaven is not above heaven.
Therefore Christ did not ascend above all the heavens.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: [*This objection with its solution is omitted in the Leonine
edition as not being in the original manuscript.]
Further, there is no place above the heavens, as is proved in De Coelo
i. But every body must occupy a place. Therefore Christ's body did not
ascend above all the heavens.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, two bodies cannot occupy the same place. Since, then,
there is no passing from place to place except through the middle space,
it seems that Christ could not have ascended above all the heavens unless
heaven were divided; which is impossible.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, it is narrated (Acts 1:9) that "a cloud received Him out
of their sight." But clouds cannot be uplifted beyond heaven.
Consequently, Christ did not ascend above all the heavens.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[4] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, we believe that Christ will dwell for ever in the place
whither He has ascended. But what is against nature cannot last for ever,
because what is according to nature is more prevalent and of more
frequent occurrence. Therefore, since it is contrary to nature for an
earthly body to be above heaven, it seems that Christ's body did not
ascend above heaven.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Eph. 4:10): "He ascended above all the
heavens that He might fill all things."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The more fully anything corporeal shares in the Divine
goodness, the higher its place in the corporeal order, which is order of
place. Hence we see that the more formal bodies are naturally the higher,
as is clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv; De Coelo ii), since it is by
its form that every body partakes of the Divine Essence, as is shown in
Physics i. But through glory the body derives a greater share in the
Divine goodness than any other natural body does through its natural
form; while among other glorious bodies it is manifest that Christ's body
shines with greater glory. Hence it was most fitting for it to be set
above all bodies. Thus it is that on Eph. 4:8: "Ascending on high," the
gloss says: "in place and dignity."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: God's seat is said to be in heaven, not as though heaven
contained Him, but rather because it is contained by Him. Hence it is not
necessary for any part of heaven to be higher, but for Him to be above
all the heavens; according to Ps. 8:2: "For Thy magnificence is elevated
above the heavens, O God!"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: [*Omitted in Leonine edition; see OBJ[2]]
A place implies the notion of containing; hence the first container has
the formality of first place, and such is the first heaven. Therefore
bodies need in themselves to be in a place, in so far as they are
contained by a heavenly body. But glorified bodies, Christ's especially,
do not stand in need of being so contained, because they draw nothing
from the heavenly bodies, but from God through the soul. So there is
nothing to prevent Christ's body from being beyond the containing radius
of the heavenly bodies, and not in a containing place. Nor is there need
for a vacuum to exist outside heaven, since there is no place there, nor
is there any potentiality susceptive of a body, but the potentiality of
reaching thither lies in Christ. So when Aristotle proves (De Coelo ii)
that there is no body beyond heaven, this must be understood of bodies
which are in a state of pure nature, as is seen from the proofs.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Although it is not of the nature of a body for it to be in
the same place with another body, yet God can bring it about
miraculously that a body be with another in the same place, as Christ did
when He went forth from the Virgin's sealed womb, also when He entered
among the disciples through closed doors, as Gregory says (Hom. xxvi).
Therefore Christ's body can be in the same place with another body, not
through some inherent property in the body, but through the assistance
and operation of the Divine power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: That cloud afforded no support as a vehicle to the
ascending Christ: but it appeared as a sign of the Godhead, just as God's
glory appeared to Israel in a cloud over the Tabernacle (Ex. 40:32; Num.
9:15).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[4] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: A glorified body has the power to be in heaven or above
heaven. not from its natural principles, but from the beatified soul,
from which it derives its glory: and just as the upward motion of a
glorified body is not violent, so neither is its rest violent:
consequently, there is nothing to prevent it from being everlasting.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's body ascended above every spiritual creature?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's body did not ascend above every
spiritual creature. For no fitting comparison can be made between things
which have no common ratio. But place is not predicated in the same ratio
of bodies and of spiritual creatures, as is evident from what was said in
the FP, Q[8], A[2], ad 1,2; FP, Q[52], A[1]. Therefore it seems that
Christ's body cannot be said to have ascended above every spiritual
creature.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Augustine says (De Vera Relig. lv) that a spirit always
takes precedence over a body. But the higher place is due to the higher
things. Therefore it does not seem that Christ ascended above every
spiritual creature.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, in every place a body exists, since there is no such
thing as a vacuum in nature. Therefore if no body obtains a higher place
than a spirit in the order of natural bodies, then there will be no place
above every spiritual creature. Consequently, Christ's body could not
ascend above every spiritual creature.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Eph. 1:21): "God set Him above all
principality, and Power, and every name that is named, not only in this
world, but also in that which is to come."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The more exalted place is due to the nobler subject,
whether it be a place according to bodily contact, as regards bodies, or
whether it be by way of spiritual contact, as regards spiritual
substances; thus a heavenly place which is the highest of places is
becomingly due to spiritual substances, since they are highest in the
order of substances. But although Christ's body is beneath spiritual
substances, if we weigh the conditions of its corporeal nature,
nevertheless it surpasses all spiritual substances in dignity, when we
call to mind its dignity of union whereby it is united personally with
God. Consequently, owing to this very fittingness, a higher place is due
to it above every spiritual creature. Hence Gregory says in a Homily on
the Ascension (xxix in Evang.) that "He who had made all things, was by
His own power raised up above all things."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Although a place is differently attributed to corporeal and
spiritual substances, still in either case this remains in common, that
the higher place is assigned to the worthier.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This argument holds good of Christ's body according to the
conditions of its corporeal nature, but not according to its formality of
union.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This comparison may be considered either on the part of the
places; and thus there is no place so high as to exceed the dignity of a
spiritual substance: in this sense the objection runs. Or it may be
considered on the part of the dignity of the things to which a place is
attributed: and in this way it is due to the body of Christ to be above
spiritual creatures.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's Ascension is the cause of our salvation?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's Ascension is not the cause of our
salvation. For, Christ was the cause of our salvation in so far as He
merited it. But He merited nothing for us by His Ascension, because His
Ascension belongs to the reward of His exaltation: and the same thing is
not both merit and reward, just as neither are a road and its terminus
the same. Therefore it seems that Christ's Ascension is not the cause of
our salvation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, if Christ's Ascension be the cause of our salvation, it
seems that this is principally due to the fact that His Ascension is the
cause of ours. But this was bestowed upon us by His Passion, for it is
written (Heb. 10:19): "We have [Vulg.: 'Having'] confidence in the
entering into the holies by" His "blood." Therefore it seems that
Christ's Ascension was not the cause of our salvation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the salvation which Christ bestows is an everlasting
one, according to Is. 51:6: "My salvation shall be for ever." But Christ
did not ascend into heaven to remain there eternally; for it is written
(Acts 1:11): "He shall so come as you have seen Him going, into heaven."
Besides, we read of Him showing Himself to many holy people on earth
after He went up to heaven. to Paul, for instance (Acts 9). Consequently,
it seems that Christ's Ascension is not the cause of our salvation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, He Himself said (Jn. 16:7): "It is expedient to you
that I go"; i.e. that I should leave you and ascend into heaven.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[6] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Christ's Ascension is the cause of our salvation in two
ways: first of all, on our part; secondly, on His.
On our part, in so far as by the Ascension our souls are uplifted to
Him; because, as stated above (A[1], ad 3), His Ascension fosters, first,
faith; secondly, hope; thirdly, charity. Fourthly, our reverence for Him
is thereby increased, since we no longer deem Him an earthly man, but the
God of heaven; thus the Apostle says (2 Cor. 5:16): "If we have known
Christ according to the flesh---'that is, as mortal, whereby we reputed
Him as a mere man,'" as the gloss interprets the words---"but now we know
Him so no longer."
On His part, in regard to those things which, in ascending, He did for
our salvation. First, He prepared the way for our ascent into heaven,
according to His own saying (Jn. 14:2): "I go to prepare a place for
you," and the words of Micheas (2:13), "He shall go up that shall open
the way before them." For since He is our Head the members must follow
whither the Head has gone: hence He said (Jn. 14:3): "That where I am,
you also may be." In sign whereof He took to heaven the souls of the
saints delivered from hell, according to Ps. 67:19 (Cf. Eph. 4:8):
"Ascending on high, He led captivity captive," because He took with Him
to heaven those who had been held captives by the devil---to heaven, as
to a place strange to human nature. captives in deed of a happy taking,
since they were acquired by His victory.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[6] Body Para. 2/2
Secondly, because as the high-priest under the Old Testament entered the
holy place to stand before God for the people, so also Christ entered
heaven "to make intercession for us," as is said in Heb. 7:25. Because
the very showing of Himself in the human nature which He took with Him to
heaven is a pleading for us. so that for the very reason that God so
exalted human nature in Christ, He may take pity on them for whom the Son
of God took human nature. Thirdly, that being established in His heavenly
seat as God and Lord, He might send down gifts upon men, according to
Eph. 4:10: "He ascended above all the heavens, that He might fill all
things," that is, "with His gifts," according to the gloss.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ's Ascension is the cause of our salvation by way not
of merit, but of efficiency, as was stated above regarding His
Resurrection (Q[56], A[1], ad 3,4).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ's Passion is the cause of our ascending to heaven,
properly speaking, by removing the hindrance which is sin, and also by
way of merit: whereas Christ's Ascension is the direct cause of our
ascension, as by beginning it in Him who is our Head, with whom the
members must be united.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[57] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ by once ascending into heaven acquired for Himself
and for us in perpetuity the right and worthiness of a heavenly
dwelling-place; which worthiness suffers in no way, if, from some special
dispensation, He sometimes comes down in body to earth; either in order
to show Himself to the whole world, as at the judgment; or else to show
Himself particularly to some individual, e.g. in Paul's case, as we read
in Acts 9. And lest any man may think that Christ was not bodily present
when this occurred, the contrary is shown from what the Apostle says in 1
Cor. 14:8, to confirm faith in the Resurrection: "Last of all He was seen
also by me, as by one born out of due time": which vision would not
confirm the truth of the Resurrection except he had beheld Christ's very
body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] Out. Para. 1/1
OF CHRIST'S SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER (FOUR ARTICLES)
WE have now to consider Christ's sitting at the right hand of the
Father, concerning which there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father?
(2) Whether this belongs to Him according to the Divine Nature?
(3) Whether it belongs to Him according to His human nature?
(4) Whether it is something proper to Christ?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is fitting that Christ should sit at the right hand of God the
Father?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should sit at the right hand
of God the Father. For right and left are differences of bodily position.
But nothing corporeal can be applied to God, since "God is a spirit," as
we read in Jn. 4:24. Therefore it seems that Christ does not sit at the
right hand of the Father.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, if anyone sits at another's right hand, then the latter
is seated on his left. Consequently, if Christ sits at the right hand of
the Father, it follows that the Father is seated on the left of the Son;
which is unseemly.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, sitting and standing savor of opposition. But Stephen
(Acts 7:55) said: "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man
standing on the right hand of God." Therefore it seems that Christ does
not sit at the right hand of the Father.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written in the last chapter of Mark (16:19): "The
Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up to heaven, and
sitteth on the right hand of God."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The word "sitting" may have a twofold meaning; namely,
"abiding" as in Lk. 24:49: "Sit [Douay: 'Stay'] you in the city": and
royal or judiciary "power," as in Prov. 20:8: "The king, that sitteth on
the throne of judgment, scattereth away all evil with his look." Now in
either sense it belongs to Christ to sit at the Father's right hand.
First of all inasmuch as He abides eternally unchangeable in the Father's
bliss, which is termed His right hand, according to Ps. 15:11: "At Thy
right hand are delights even to the end." Hence Augustine says (De Symb.
i): "'Sitteth at the right hand of the Father': To sit means to dwell,
just as we say of any man: 'He sat in that country for three years':
Believe, then, that Christ dwells so at the right hand of the Father: for
He is happy, and the Father's right hand is the name for His bliss."
Secondly, Christ is said to sit at the right hand of the Father inasmuch
as He reigns together with the Father, and has judiciary power from Him;
just as he who sits at the king's right hand helps him in ruling and
judging. Hence Augustine says (De Symb. ii): "By the expression 'right
hand,' understand the power which this Man, chosen of God, received, that
He might come to judge, who before had come to be judged."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "We do not speak of
the Father's right hand as of a place, for how can a place be designated
by His right hand, who Himself is beyond all place? Right and left belong
to things definable by limit. But we style, as the Father's right hand,
the glory and honor of the Godhead."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The argument holds good if sitting at the right hand be
taken corporeally. Hence Augustine says (De Symb. i): "If we accept it in
a carnal sense that Christ sits at the Father's right hand, then the
Father will be on the left. But there"---that is, in eternal bliss, "it
is all right hand, since no misery is there."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Gregory says in a Homily on the Ascension (Hom. xxix in
Evang.), "it is the judge's place to sit, while to stand is the place of
the combatant or helper. Consequently, Stephen in his toil of combat saw
Him standing whom He had as his helper. But Mark describes Him as seated
after the Ascension, because after the glory of His Ascension He will at
the end be seen as judge."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it belongs to Christ as God to sit at the right hand of the
Father?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it does not belong to Christ as God to sit at
the right hand of the Father. For, as God, Christ is the Father's right
hand. But it does not appear to be the same thing to be the right hand of
anyone and to sit on his right hand. Therefore, as God, Christ does not
sit at the right hand of the Father.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in the last chapter of Mark (16:19) it is said that "the
Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of
God." But it was not as God that Christ was taken up to heaven. Therefore
neither does He, as God, sit at the right hand of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Christ as God is the equal of the Father and of the Holy
Ghost. Consequently, if Christ sits as God at the right hand of the
Father, with equal reason the Holy Ghost sits at the right hand of the
Father and of the Son, and the Father Himself on the right hand of the
Son; which no one is found to say.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): that "what we style
as the Father's right hand, is the glory and honor of the Godhead,
wherein the Son of God existed before ages as God and as consubstantial
with the Father."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As may be gathered from what has been said (A[1]) three
things can be understood under the expression "right hand." First of all,
as Damascene takes it, "the glory of the Godhead": secondly, according to
Augustine "the beatitude of the Father": thirdly, according to the same
authority, "judiciary power." Now as we observed (A[1]) "sitting denotes"
either abiding, or royal or judiciary dignity. Hence, to sit on the right
hand of the Father is nothing else than to share in the glory of the
Godhead with the Father, and to possess beatitude and judiciary power,
and that unchangeably and royally. But this belongs to the Son as God.
Hence it is manifest that Christ as God sits at the right hand of the
Father; yet so that this preposition "at," which is a transitive one,
implies merely personal distinction and order of origin, but not degree
of nature or dignity, for there is no such thing in the Divine Persons,
as was shown in the FP, Q[42], AA[3],4.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The Son of God is called the Father's "right hand" by
appropriation, just as He is called the "Power" of the Father (1 Cor.
1:24). But "right hand of the Father," in its three meanings given above,
is something common to the three Persons.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ as man is exalted to Divine honor; and this is
signified in the aforesaid sitting; nevertheless such honor belongs to
Him as God, not through any assumption, but through His origin from
eternity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: In no way can it be said that the Father is seated at the
right hand of the Son or of the Holy Ghost; because the Son and the Holy
Ghost derive their origin from the Father, and not conversely. The Holy
Ghost, however, can be said properly to sit at the right hand of the
Father or of the Son, in the aforesaid sense, although by a kind of
appropriation it is attributed to the Son, to whom equality is
appropriated; thus Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i) that "in the
Father there is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Ghost the
connection of unity with equality."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it belongs to Christ as man to sit at the right hand of the
Father?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it does not belong to Christ as man to sit at
the right hand of the Father, because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth.
iv): "What we call the Father's right hand is the glory and honor of the
Godhead." But the glory and honor of the Godhead do not belong to Christ
as man. Consequently, it seems that Christ as man does not sit at the
right hand of the Father.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, to sit on the ruler's right hand seems to exclude
subjection, because one so sitting seems in a measure to be reigning with
him. But Christ as man is "subject unto" the Father, as is said in 1
Cor. 15:28. Therefore it seems that Christ as man does not sit at the
Father's right hand.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, on Rm. 8:34: "Who is at the right hand of God," the
gloss adds: "that is, equal to the Father in that honor, whereby God is
the Father: or, on the right hand of the Father, that is, in the mightier
gifts of God." And on Heb. 1:3: "sitteth on the right hand of the majesty
on high," the gloss adds, "that is, in equality with the Father over all
things, both in place and dignity." But equality with God does not belong
to Christ as man; for in this respect Christ Himself says (Jn. 14:28):
"The Father is greater than I." Consequently, it appears unseemly for
Christ as man to sit on the Father's right hand.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Symb. ii): "By the expression 'right
hand' understand the power which this Man, chosen of God, received, that
He might come as judge, who before had come to be judged."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (A[2]), by the expression "right hand" is
understood either the glory of His Godhead, or His eternal beatitude, or
His judicial and royal power. Now this preposition "at" signifies a kind
of approach to the right hand; thus denoting something in common, and yet
with a distinction, as already observed (De Symb. ii). And this can be in
three ways: first of all, by something common in nature, and a
distinction in person; and thus Christ as the Son of God, sits at the
right hand of the Father, because He has the same Nature as the Father:
hence these things belong to the Son essentially, just as to the Father;
and this is to be in equality with the Father. Secondly, according to the
grace of union, which, on the contrary, implies distinction of nature,
and unity of person. According to this, Christ as man is the Son of God,
and consequently sits at the Father's right hand; yet so that the
expression "as" does not denote condition of nature, but unity of
suppositum, as explained above (Q[16], AA[10],11). Thirdly, the said
approach can be understood according to habitual grace, which is more
fully in Christ than in all other creatures, so much so that human nature
in Christ is more blessed than all other creatures, and possesses over
all other creatures royal and judiciary power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
So, then, if "as" denote condition of nature, then Christ, as God, sits
"at the Father's right hand," that is, "in equality with the Father"; but
as man, He sits "at the right hand of the Father," that is, "in the
Father's mightier gifts beyond all other creatures," that is to say, "in
greater beatitude," and "exercising judiciary power." But if "as" denote
unity of person, thus again as man, He sits at the Father's right hand
"as to equality of honor," inasmuch as with the same honor we venerate
the Son of God with His assumed nature, as was said above (Q[25], A[1]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ's humanity according to the conditions of His nature
has not the glory or honor of the Godhead, which it has nevertheless by
reason of the Person with whom it is united. Hence Damascene adds in the
passage quoted: "In which," that is, in the glory of the Godhead, "the
Son of God existing before ages, as God and consubstantial with the
Father, sits in His conglorified flesh; for, under one adoration the one
hypostasis, together with His flesh, is adored by every creature."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ as man is subject to the Father, if "as" denote the
condition of nature: in which respect it does not belong to Him as man to
sit at the Father's right hand, by reason of their mutual equality. But
it does thus belong to Him to sit at the right hand of the Father,
according as is thereby denoted the excellence of beatitude and His
judiciary power over every creature.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: It does not belong to Christ's human nature to be in
equality with the Father, but only to the Person who assumed it; but it
does belong even to the assumed human nature to share in God's mightier
gifts, in so far as it implies exaltation above other creatures.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is proper to Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to sit at the right
hand of the Father, because the Apostle says (Eph. 2:4,6): "God . . .
hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly
places through Christ Jesus." But to be raised up is not proper to
Christ. Therefore for like reason neither is it proper to Him to sit "on
the right hand" of God "on high" (Heb. 1:3).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, as Augustine says (De Symb. i): "For Christ to sit at
the right hand of the Father, is to dwell in His beatitude." But many
more share in this. Therefore it does not appear to be proper to Christ
to sit at the right hand of the Father.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Christ Himself says (Apoc. 3:21): "To him that shall
overcome, I will give to sit with Me in My throne: as I also have
overcome, and am set down with My Father in His throne." But it is by
sitting on His Father's throne that Christ is seated at His right hand.
Therefore others who overcome likewise, sit at the Father's right hand.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the Lord says (Mt. 20:23): "To sit on My right or left
hand, is not Mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is prepared by
My Father." But no purpose would be served by saying this, unless it was
prepared for some. Consequently, to sit at the right hand is not proper
to Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 1:13): "To which of the angels said
He at any time: Sit thou on My right hand, i.e. 'in My mightier gifts,'"
or "'as my equal in the Godhead'"? [*The comment is from the gloss of
Peter Lombard] as if to answer: "To none." But angels are higher than
other creatures. Therefore, much less does it belong to anyone save
Christ to sit at the Father's right hand.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[3]), Christ is said to sit at the
Father's right hand inasmuch as He is on equality with the Father in
respect of His Divine Nature, while in respect of His humanity, He excels
all creatures in the possession of Divine gifts. But each of these
belongs exclusively to Christ. Consequently, it belongs to no one else,
angel or man, but to Christ alone, to sit at the right hand of the Father.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Since Christ is our Head, then what was bestowed on Christ
is bestowed on us through Him. And on this account, since He is already
raised up, the Apostle says that God has, so to speak, "raised us up
together with Him," still we ourselves are not raised up yet, but are to
be raised up, according to Rm. 8:11: "He who raised up Jesus from the
dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies": and after the same manner
of speech the Apostle adds that "He has made us to sit together with Him,
in the heavenly places"; namely, for the very reason that Christ our Head
sits there.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Since the right hand is the Divine beatitude, then "to sit
on the right hand" does not mean simply to be in beatitude, but to
possess beatitude with a kind of dominative power, as a property and part
of one's nature. This belongs to Christ alone, and to no other creature.
Yet it can be said that every saint in bliss is placed on God's right
hand; hence it is written (Mt. 25:33): "He shall set the sheep on His
right hand."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: By the "throne" is meant the judiciary power which Christ
has from the Father: and in this sense He is said "to sit in the Father's
throne." But other saints have it from Christ; and in this respect they
are said "to sit on Christ's throne"; according to Mt. 19:28: "You also
shall sit upon twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[58] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: As Chrysostom says (Hom. lxv in Matth.), "that place," to
wit, sitting at the right hand, "is closed not only to all men, but
likewise to angels: for, Paul declares it to be the prerogative of
Christ, saying: 'To which of the angels said He at any time: Sit on My
right hand?'" Our Lord therefore "replied not as though some were going
to sit there one day, but condescending to the supplication of the
questioners; since more than others they sought this one thing alone, to
stand nigh to Him." Still it can be said that the sons of Zebedee sought
for higher excellence in sharing His judiciary power; hence they did not
ask to sit on the Father's right hand or left, but on Christ's.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] Out. Para. 1/2
OF CHRIST'S JUDICIARY POWER (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider Christ's judiciary power. Under this head there
are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether judiciary power is to be attributed to Christ?
(2) Whether it belongs to Him as man?
(3) Whether He acquired it by merits?
(4) Whether His judiciary power is universal with regard to all men?
(5) Whether besides the judgment that takes place now in time, we are to
expect Him in the future general judgment?
(6) Whether His judiciary power extends likewise to the angels?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] Out. Para. 2/2
It will be more suitable to consider the execution of the Last Judgment
when we treat of things pertaining to the end of the world [*See XP,
QQ[88], seqq.]. For the present it will be enough to touch on those
points that concern Christ's dignity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether judiciary power is to be specially attributed to Christ?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that judiciary power is not to be specially
attributed to Christ. For judgment of others seems to belong to their
lord; hence it is written (Rm. 14:4): "Who art thou that judgest another
man's servant?" But, it belongs to the entire Trinity to be Lord over
creatures. Therefore judiciary power ought not to be attributed specially
to Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Dan. 7:9): "The Ancient of days sat"; and
further on (Dan. 7:10), "the judgment sat, and the books were opened."
But the Ancient of days is understood to be the Father, because as Hilary
says (De Trin. ii): "Eternity is in the Father." Consequently, judiciary
power ought rather to be attributed to the Father than to Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it seems to belong to the same person to judge as it
does to convince. But it belongs to the Holy Ghost to convince: for our
Lord says (Jn. 16:8): "And when He is come," i.e. the Holy Ghost, "He
will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment."
Therefore judiciary power ought to be attributed to the Holy Ghost rather
than to Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is said of Christ (Acts 10:42): "It is He who was
appointed by God, to be judge of the living end of the dead."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[1] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Three things are required for passing judgment: first,
the power of coercing subjects; hence it is written (Ecclus. 7:6): "Seek
not to be made a judge unless thou have strength enough to extirpate
iniquities." The second thing required is upright zeal, so as to pass
judgment not out of hatred or malice, but from love of justice, according
to Prov. 3:12: "For whom the Lord loveth, He chasteneth: and as a father
in the son He pleaseth Himself." Thirdly, wisdom is needed, upon which
judgment is based, according to Ecclus. 10:1: "A wise judge shall judge
his people." The first two are conditions for judging; but on the third
the very rule of judgment is based, because the standard of judgment is
the law of wisdom or truth, according to which the judgment is passed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[1] Body Para. 2/2
Now because the Son is Wisdom begotten, and Truth proceeding from the
Father, and His perfect Image, consequently, judiciary power is properly
attributed to the Son of God. Accordingly Augustine says (De Vera Relig.
xxxi): "This is that unchangeable Truth, which is rightly styled the law
of all arts, and the art of the Almighty Craftsman. But even as we and
all rational souls judge aright of the things beneath us, so does He who
alone is Truth itself pass judgment on us, when we cling to Him. But the
Father judges Him not, for He is the Truth no less than Himself.
Consequently, whatever the Father judges, He judges through It." Further
on he concludes by saying: "Therefore the Father judges no man, but has
given all judgment to the Son."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This argument proves that judiciary power is common to the
entire Trinity, which is quite true: still by special appropriation such
power is attributed to the Son, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says (De Trin. vi), eternity is attributed to
the Father, because He is the Principle, which is implied in the idea of
eternity. And in the same place Augustine says that the Son is the art of
the Father. So, then, judiciary authority is attributed to the Father,
inasmuch as He is the Principle of the Son, but the very rule of judgment
is attributed to the Son who is the art and wisdom of the Father, so that
as the Father does all things through the Son, inasmuch as the Son is His
art, so He judges all things through the Son, inasmuch as the Son is His
wisdom and truth. And this is implied by Daniel, when he says in the
first passage that "the Ancient of days sat," and when he subsequently
adds that the Son of Man "came even to the Ancient of days, who gave Him
power, and glory, and a kingdom": and thereby we are given to understand
that the authority for judging lies with the Father, from whom the Son
received the power to judge.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says (Tract. xcv in Joan.): "Christ said that
the Holy Ghost shall convince the world of sin, as if to say 'He shall
pour out charity upon your hearts.' For thus, when fear is driven away,
you shall have freedom for convincing." Consequently, then, judgment is
attributed to the Holy Ghost, not as regards the rule of judgment, but as
regards man's desire to judge others aright.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether judiciary power belongs to Christ as man?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that judiciary power does not belong to Christ as
man. For Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi) that judgment is attributed
to the Son inasmuch as He is the law of the first truth. But this is
Christ's attribute as God. Consequently, judiciary power does not belong
to Christ as man but as God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it belongs to judiciary power to reward the good, just
as to punish the wicked. But eternal beatitude, which is the reward of
good works, is bestowed by God alone: thus Augustine says (Tract. xxiii
super Joan.) that "the soul is made blessed by participation of God, and
not by participation of a holy soul." Therefore it seems that judiciary
power does not belong to Christ as man, but as God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it belongs to Christ's judiciary power to judge secrets
of hearts, according to 1 Cor. 4:5: "Judge not before the time; until the
Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness,
and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts." But this belongs
exclusively to the Divine power, according to Jer. 17:9,10: "The heart of
man is perverse and unsearchable, who can know it? I am the Lord who
search the heart, and prove the reins: who give to every one according to
his way." Therefore judiciary power does not belong to Christ as man but
as God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is said (Jn. 5:27): "He hath given Him power to do
judgment, because He is the Son of man."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[2] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Chrysostom (Hom. xxxix in Joan.) seems to think that
judiciary power belongs to Christ not as man, but only as God.
Accordingly he thus explains the passage just quoted from John: "'He gave
Him power to do judgment, because He is the Son of man: wonder not at
this.' For He received judiciary power, not because He is man; but
because He is the Son of the ineffable God, therefore is He judge. But
since the expressions used were greater than those appertaining to man,
He said in explanation: 'Wonder not at this, because He is the Son of
man, for He is likewise the Son of God.'" And he proves this by the
effect of the Resurrection: wherefore He adds: "Because the hour cometh
when the dead in their graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[2] Body Para. 2/3
But it must be observed that although the primary authority of judging
rests with God, nevertheless the power to judge is committed to men with
regard to those subject to their jurisdiction. Hence it is written (Dt.
1:16): "Judge that which is just"; and further on (Dt. 1:17): "Because it
is the judgment of God," that is to say, it is by His authority that you
judge. Now it was said before (Q[8], AA[1],4) that Christ even in His
human nature is Head of the entire Church, and that God has "put all
things under His feet." Consequently, it belongs to Him, even according
to His human nature, to exercise judiciary power. on this account. it
seems that the authority of Scripture quoted above must be interpreted
thus: "He gave Him power to do judgment, because He is the Son of Man";
not on account of the condition of His nature, for thus all men would
have this kind of power, as Chrysostom objects (Hom. xxxix in Joan.); but
because this belongs to the grace of the Head, which Christ received in
His human nature.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[2] Body Para. 3/3
Now judiciary power belongs to Christ in this way according to His human
nature on three accounts. First, because of His likeness and kinship with
men; for, as God works through intermediary causes, as being closer to
the effects, so He judges men through the Man Christ, that His judgment
may be sweeter to men. Hence (Heb. 4:15) the Apostle says: "For we have
not a high-priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities; but one
tempted in all things like as we are, without sin. Let us go therefore
with confidence to the throne of His grace." Secondly, because at the
last judgment, as Augustine says (Tract. xix in Joan.), "there will be a
resurrection of dead bodies, which God will raise up through the Son of
Man"; just as by "the same Christ He raises souls," inasmuch as "He is
the Son of God." Thirdly, because, as Augustine observes (De Verb. Dom.,
Serm. cxxvii): "It was but right that those who were to be judged should
see their judge. But those to be judged were the good and the bad. It
follows that the form of a servant should be shown in the judgment to
both good and wicked, while the form of God should be kept for the good
alone."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Judgment belongs to truth as its standard, while it belongs
to the man imbued with truth, according as he is as it were one with
truth, as a kind of law and "living justice" [*Aristotle, Ethic. v].
Hence Augustine quotes (De Verb. Dom., Serm. cxxvii) the saying of 1 Cor.
2:15: "The spiritual man judgeth all things." But beyond all creatures
Christ's soul was more closely united with truth, and more full of truth;
according to Jn. 1:14: "We saw Him . . . full of grace and truth." And
according to this it belongs principally to the soul of Christ to judge
all things.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: It belongs to God alone to bestow beatitude upon souls by a
participation with Himself; but it is Christ's prerogative to bring them
to such beatitude, inasmuch as He is their Head and the author of their
salvation, according to Heb. 2:10: "Who had brought many children into
glory, to perfect the author of their salvation by His Passion."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: To know and judge the secrets of hearts, of itself belongs
to God alone; but from the overflow of the Godhead into Christ's soul it
belongs to Him also to know and to judge the secrets of hearts, as we
stated above (Q[10], A[2]), when dealing with the knowledge of Christ.
Hence it is written (Rm. 2:16): "In the day when God shall judge the
secrets of men by Jesus Christ."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ acquired His judiciary power by His merits?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not acquire His judiciary power by
His merits. For judiciary power flows from the royal dignity: according
to Prov. 20:8: "The king that sitteth on the throne of judgment,
scattereth away all evil with his look." But it was without merits that
Christ acquired royal power, for it is His due as God's Only-begotten
Son: thus it is written (Lk. 1:32): "The Lord God shall give unto Him the
throne of David His father, and He shall reign in the house of Jacob for
ever." Therefore Christ did not obtain judiciary power by His merits.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, as stated above (A[2]), judiciary power is Christ's due
inasmuch as He is our Head. But the grace of headship does not belong to
Christ by reason of merit, but follows the personal union of the Divine
and human natures: according to Jn. 1:14,16: "We saw His glory . . . as
of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth . . . and of
His fulness we all have received": and this pertains to the notion of
headship. Consequently, it seems that Christ did not have judiciary power
from merits.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 2:15): "The spiritual man
judgeth all things." But a man becomes spiritual through grace, which is
not from merits; otherwise it is "no more grace," as is said in Rm. 11:6.
Therefore it seems that judiciary power belongs neither to Christ nor to
others from any merits, but from grace alone.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Job 36:17): "Thy cause hath been judged
as that of the wicked, cause and judgment thou shalt recover." And
Augustine says (Serm. cxxvii): "The Judge shall sit, who stood before a
judge; He shall condemn the truly wicked, who Himself was falsely reputed
wicked."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, There is nothing to hinder one and the same thing from
being due to some one from various causes: as the glory of the body in
rising was due to Christ not only as befitting His Godhead and His soul's
glory, but likewise "from the merit of the lowliness of His Passion"
[*Cf. Augustine, Tract. civ in Joan.]. And in the same way it must be
said that judiciary power belongs to the Man Christ on account of both
His Divine personality, and the dignity of His headship, and the fulness
of His habitual grace: and yet He obtained it from merit, so that, in
accordance with the Divine justice, He should be judge who fought for
God's justice, and conquered, and was unjustly condemned. Hence He
Himself says (Apoc. 3:21): "I have overcome and am set down in My
Father's throne [Vulg.: 'with My Father in His throne']." Now judiciary
power is understood by "throne," according to Ps. 9:5: "Thou hast sat on
the throne, who judgest justice."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This argument holds good of judiciary power according as it
is due to Christ by reason of the union with the Word of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This argument is based on the ground of His grace as Head.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This argument holds good in regard to habitual grace, which
perfects Christ's soul. But although judiciary power be Christ's due in
these ways, it is not hindered from being His due from merit.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether judiciary power belongs to Christ with respect to all human
affairs?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that judiciary power concerning all human affairs
does not belong to Christ. For as we read in Lk. 12:13,14, when one of
the crowd said to Christ: "Speak to my brother that he divide the
inheritance with me; He said to him: Man, who hath appointed Me judge, or
divider over you?" Consequently, He does not exercise judgment over all
human affairs.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, no one exercises judgment except over his own subjects.
But, according to Heb. 2:8, "we see not as yet all things subject to"
Christ. Therefore it seems that Christ has not judgment over all human
affairs.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xx) that it is part of
Divine judgment for the good to be afflicted sometimes in this world, and
sometimes to prosper, and in like manner the wicked. But the same was the
case also before the Incarnation. Consequently, not all God's judgments
regarding human affairs are included in Christ's judiciary power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is said (Jn. 5:22): "The Father hath given all
judgment to the Son."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[4] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, If we speak of Christ according to His Divine Nature, it
is evident that every judgment of the Father belongs to the Son; for, as
the Father does all things through His Word, so He judges all things
through His Word.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[4] Body Para. 2/4
But if we speak of Christ in His human nature, thus again is it evident
that all things are subject to His judgment. This is made clear if we
consider first of all the relationship subsisting between Christ's soul
and the Word of God; for, if "the spiritual man judgeth all things," as
is said in 1 Cor. 2:15, inasmuch as his soul clings to the Word of God,
how much more Christ's soul, which is filled with the truth of the Word
of God, passes judgment upon all things.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[4] Body Para. 3/4
Secondly, the same appears from the merit of His death; because,
according to Rm. 14:9: "To this end Christ died and rose again; that He
might be Lord both of the dead and of the living." And therefore He has
judgment over all men; and on this account the Apostle adds (Rm. 14:10):
"We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ": and (Dan. 7:14)
it is written that "He gave Him power, and glory, and a kingdom; and all
peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve Him."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[4] Body Para. 4/4
Thirdly, the same thing is evident from comparison of human affairs with
the end of human salvation. For, to whomsoever the substance is
entrusted, the accessory is likewise committed. Now all human affairs are
ordered for the end of beatitude, which is everlasting salvation, to
which men are admitted, or from which they are excluded by Christ's
judgment, as is evident from Mt. 25:31,40. Consequently, it is manifest
that all human affairs are included in Christ's judiciary power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As was said above (A[3], OBJ[1]), judiciary power goes with
royal dignity. Now Christ, although established king by God, did not wish
while living on earth to govern temporarily an earthly kingdom;
consequently He said (Jn. 18:36): "My kingdom is not of this world." In
like fashion He did not wish to exercise judiciary power over temporal
concerns, since He came to raise men to Divine things. Hence Ambrose
observes on this passage in Luke: "It is well that He who came down with
a Divine purpose should hold Himself aloof from temporal concerns; nor
does He deign to be a judge of quarrels and an arbiter of property, since
He is judge of the quick and the dead, and the arbitrator of merits."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: All things are subject to Christ in respect of that power,
which He received from the Father, over all things, according to Mt.
28:18: "All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth." But as to the
exercise of this power, all things are not yet subject to Him: this will
come to pass in the future, when He shall fulfil His will regarding all
things, by saving some and punishing others.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Judgments of this kind were exercised by Christ before His
Incarnation, inasmuch as He is the Word of God: and the soul united with
Him personally became a partaker of this power by the Incarnation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether after the Judgment that takes place in the present time, there
remains yet another General Judgment?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that after the Judgment that takes place in the
present time, there does not remain another General Judgment. For a
judgment serves no purpose after the final allotment of rewards and
punishments. But rewards and punishments are allotted in this present
time: for our Lord said to the thief on the cross (Lk. 23:43): "This day
thou shalt be with Me in paradise": and (Lk. 16:22) it is said that "the
rich man died and was buried in hell." Therefore it is useless to look
forward to a final Judgment.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, according to another (the Septuagint) version of Nahum
1:9, "God shall not judge the same thing a second time." But in the
present time God judges both temporal and spiritual matters. Therefore,
it does not seem that another final judgment is to be expected.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, reward and punishment correspond with merit and demerit.
But merit and demerit bear relation to the body only in so far as it is
the instrument of the soul. Therefore reward or punishment is not due to
the body save as the soul's instrument. Therefore no other Judgment is
called for at the end (of the world) to requite man with reward or
punishment in the body, besides that Judgment in which souls are now
punished or rewarded.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is said in Jn. 12:48: "The word that I have spoken,
the same shall judge you [Vulg.: 'him'] in the last day." Therefore there
will be a Judgment at the last day besides that which takes place in the
present time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[5] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Judgment cannot be passed perfectly upon any changeable
subject before its consummation: just as judgment cannot be given
perfectly regarding the quality of any action before its completion in
itself and in its results: because many actions appear to be profitable,
which in their effects prove to be hurtful. And in the same way perfect
judgment cannot be passed upon any man before the close of his life,
since he can be changed in many respects from good to evil, or
conversely, or from good to better, or from evil to worse. Hence the
Apostle says (Heb. 9:27): "It is appointed unto men once to die, and
after this the Judgment."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[5] Body Para. 2/3
But it must be observed that although man's temporal life in itself ends
with death, still it continues dependent in a measure on what comes after
it in the future. In one way, as it still lives on in men's memories, in
which sometimes, contrary to the truth, good or evil reputations linger
on. In another way in a man's children, who are so to speak something of
their parent, according to Ecclus. 30:4: "His father is dead, and he is
as if he were not dead, for he hath left one behind him that is like
himself." And yet many good men have wicked sons, and conversely.
Thirdly, as to the result of his actions: just as from the deceit of
Arius and other false leaders unbelief continues to flourish down to the
close of the world; and even until then faith will continue to derive its
progress from the preaching of the apostles. In a fourth way, as to the
body, which is sometimes buried with honor and sometimes left unburied,
and finally falls to dust utterly. In a fifth way, as to the things upon
which a man's heart is set, such as temporal concerns, for example, some
of which quickly lapse, while others endure longer.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[5] Body Para. 3/3
Now all these things are submitted to the verdict of the Divine
Judgment; and consequently, a perfect and public Judgment cannot be made
of all these things during the course of this present time. Wherefore,
there must be a final Judgment at the last day, in which everything
concerning every man in every respect shall be perfectly and publicly
judged.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: Some men have held the opinion that the souls of the saints
shall not be rewarded in heaven, nor the souls of the lost punished in
hell, until the Judgment-day. That this is false appears from the
testimony of the Apostle (2 Cor. 5:8), where he says: "We are confident
and have a good will to be absent rather from the body, and to be present
with the Lord": that is, not to "walk by faith" but "by sight," as
appears from the context. But this is to see God in His Essence, wherein
consists "eternal life," as is clear from Jn. 17:3. Hence it is manifest
that the souls separated from bodies are in eternal life.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
Consequently, it must be maintained that after death man enters into an
unchangeable state as to all that concerns the soul: and therefore there
is no need for postponing judgment as to the reward of the soul. But
since there are some other things pertaining to a man which go on
through the whole course of time, and which are not foreign to the Divine
judgment, all these things must be brought to judgment at the end of
time. For although in regard to such things a man neither merits nor
demerits, still in a measure they accompany his reward or punishment.
Consequently all these things must be weighed in the final judgment.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: "God shall not judge twice the same thing," i.e. in the
same respect; but it is not unseemly for God to judge twice according to
different respects.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Although the reward or punishment of the body depends upon
the reward or punishment of the soul, nevertheless, since the soul is
changeable only accidentally, on account of the body, once it is
separated from the body it enters into an unchangeable condition, and
receives its judgment. But the body remains subject to change down to the
close of time: and therefore it must receive its reward or punishment
then, in the last Judgment.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's judiciary power extends to the angels?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's judiciary power does not extend to
the angels, because the good and wicked angels alike were judged in the
beginning of the world, when some fell through sin while others were
confirmed in bliss. But those already judged have no need of being judged
again. Therefore Christ's judiciary power does not extend to the angels.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the same person cannot be both judge and judged. But the
angels will come to judge with Christ, according to Mt. 25:31: "When the
Son of Man shall come in His majesty, and all the angels with Him."
Therefore it seems that the angels will not be judged by Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the angels are higher than other creatures. If Christ,
then, be judge not only of men but likewise of angels, then for the same
reason He will be judge of all creatures; which seems to be false, since
this belongs to God's providence: hence it is written (Job 34:13): "What
other hath He appointed over the earth? or whom hath He set over the
world which He made?" Therefore Christ is not the judge of the angels.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 6:3): "Know you not that we
shall judge angels?" But the saints judge only by Christ's authority.
Therefore, much more does Christ possess judiciary power over the angels.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The angels are subjects of Christ's judiciary power, not
only with regard to His Divine Nature, as He is the Word of God, but also
with regard to His human nature. And this is evident from three
considerations. First of all, from the closeness of His assumed nature to
God; because, according to Heb. 2:16: "For nowhere doth He take hold of
the angels, but of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold." Consequently,
Christ's soul is more filled with the truth of the Word of God than any
angel: for which reason He also enlightens the angels, as Dionysius says
(Coel. Hier. vii), and so He has power to judge them. Secondly, because
by the lowliness of His Passion, human nature in Christ merited to be
exalted above the angels; so that, as is said in Phil. 2:10: "In the name
of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth,
and under the earth." And therefore Christ has judiciary power even over
the good and wicked angels: in token whereof it is said in the Apocalypse
(7:11) that "all the angels stood round about the throne." Thirdly, on
account of what they do for men, of whom Christ is the Head in a special
manner. Hence it is written (Heb. 1:14): "They are [Vulg.: 'Are they
not'] all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them, who shall
receive the inheritance of salvation (?)." But they are submitted to
Christ's judgment, first, as regards the dispensing of those things which
are done through them; which dispensing is likewise done by the Man
Christ, to whom the angels ministered, as related (Mt. 4:11), and from
whom the devils besought that they might be sent into the swine,
according to Mt. 8:31. Secondly, as to other accidental rewards of the
good angels, such as the joy which they have at the salvation of men,
according to Lk. 15:10: "There shall be joy before the angels of God upon
one sinner doing penance": and furthermore as to the accidental
punishments of the devils wherewith they are either tormented here, or
are shut up in hell; and this also belongs to the Man Christ: hence it is
written (Mk. 1:24) that the devil cried out: "What have we to do with
thee, Jesus of Nazareth? art Thou come to destroy us?" Thirdly, as to the
essential reward of the good angels, which is everlasting bliss; and as
to the essential punishment of the wicked angels, which is everlasting
damnation. But this was done by Christ from the beginning of the world,
inasmuch as He is the Word of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers judgment as to the essential reward
and chief punishment.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi): "Although the
spiritual man judgeth all things, still he is judged by Truth Itself."
Consequently, although the angels judge, as being spiritual creatures,
still they are judged by Christ, inasmuch as He is the Truth.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: Christ judges not only the angels, but also the
administration of all creatures. For if, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii)
the lower things are ruled by God through the higher, in a certain order,
it must be said that all things are ruled by Christ's soul, which is
above every creature. Hence the Apostle says (Heb. 2:5): "For God hath
not subjected unto angels the world to come"---subject namely to
Christ---"of whom we speak" [Douay: 'whereof we speak'] [*The words
"subject namely to Christ" are from a gloss]. Nor does it follow that God
set another over the earth; since one and the same Person is God and Man,
our Lord Jesus Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[59] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
Let what has been said of the Mystery of His Incarnation suffice for the
present.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] Out. Para. 1/3
TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENTS (QQ[60]-90)
THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL (QQ[60]-65)
WHAT IS A SACRAMENT? (EIGHT ARTICLES)
After considering those things that concern the mystery of the incarnate
Word, we must consider the sacraments of the Church which derive their
efficacy from the Word incarnate Himself. First we shall consider the
sacraments in general; secondly, we shall consider specially each
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] Out. Para. 2/3
Concerning the first our consideration will be fivefold: (1) What is a
sacrament? (2) Of the necessity of the sacraments; (3) of the effects of
the sacraments; (4) Of their cause; (5) Of their number.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] Out. Para. 3/3
Under the first heading there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether a sacrament is a kind of sign?
(2) Whether every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament?
(3) Whether a sacrament is a sign of one thing only, or of several?
(4) Whether a sacrament is a sign that is something sensible?
(5) Whether some determinate sensible thing is required for a sacrament?
(6) Whether signification expressed by words is necessary for a
sacrament?
(7) Whether determinate words are required?
(8) Whether anything may be added to or subtracted from these words?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a sacrament is a kind of sign?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign. For sacrament
appears to be derived from "sacring" [sacrando]; just as medicament, from
"medicando" [healing]. But this seems to be of the nature of a cause
rather than of a sign. Therefore a sacrament is a kind of cause rather
than a kind of sign.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, sacrament seems to signify something hidden, according
to Tobias 12:7: "It is good to hide the secret [sacramentum] of a king";
and Eph. 3:9: "What is the dispensation of the mystery [sacramenti] which
hath been hidden from eternity in God." But that which is hidden, seems
foreign to the nature of a sign; for "a sign is that which conveys
something else to the mind, besides the species which it impresses on the
senses," as Augustine explains (De Doctr. Christ. ii). Therefore it seems
that a sacrament is not a kind of sign.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, an oath is sometimes called a sacrament: for it is
written in the Decretals (Caus. xxii, qu. 5): "Children who have not
attained the use of reason must not be obliged to swear: and whoever has
foresworn himself once, must no more be a witness, nor be allowed to take
a sacrament," i.e. an oath. But an oath is not a kind of sign, therefore
it seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x): "The visible sacrifice
is the sacrament, i.e. the sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, All things that are ordained to one, even in different
ways, can be denominated from it: thus, from health which is in an
animal, not only is the animal said to be healthy through being the
subject of health: but medicine also is said to be healthy through
producing health; diet through preserving it; and urine, through being a
sign of health. Consequently, a thing may be called a "sacrament," either
from having a certain hidden sanctity, and in this sense a sacrament is a
"sacred secret"; or from having some relationship to this sanctity, which
relationship may be that of a cause, or of a sign or of any other
relation. But now we are speaking of sacraments in a special sense, as
implying the habitude of sign: and in this way a sacrament is a kind of
sign.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Because medicine is an efficient cause of health,
consequently whatever things are denominated from medicine are to be
referred to some first active cause: so that a medicament implies a
certain causality. But sanctity from which a sacrament is denominated, is
not there taken as an efficient cause, but rather as a formal or a final
cause. Therefore it does not follow that a sacrament need always imply
causality.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This argument considers sacrament in the sense of a "sacred
secret." Now not only God's but also the king's, secret, is said to be
sacred and to be a sacrament: because according to the ancients, whatever
it was unlawful to lay violent hands on was said to be holy or
sacrosanct, such as the city walls, and persons of high rank.
Consequently those secrets, whether Divine or human, which it is unlawful
to violate by making them known to anybody whatever, are called "sacred
secrets or sacraments."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Even an oath has a certain relation to sacred things, in so
far as it consists in calling a sacred thing to witness. And in this
sense it is called a sacrament: not in the sense in which we speak of
sacraments now; the word "sacrament" being thus used not equivocally but
analogically, i.e. by reason of a different relation to the one thing,
viz. something sacred.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether every sign of a holy thing is a sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.
For all sensible creatures are signs of sacred things; according to Rm.
1:20: "The invisible things of God are clearly seen being understood by
the things that are made." And yet all sensible things cannot be called
sacraments. Therefore not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, whatever was done under the Old Law was a figure of
Christ Who is the "Holy of Holies" (Dan. 9:24), according to 1 Cor.
10:11: "All (these) things happened to them in figure"; and Col. 2:17:
"Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ's." And yet
not all that was done by the Fathers of the Old Testament, not even all
the ceremonies of the Law, were sacraments, but only in certain special
cases, as stated in the FS, Q[101], A[4]. Therefore it seems that not
every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, even in the New Testament many things are done in sign
of some sacred thing; yet they are not called sacraments; such as
sprinkling with holy water, the consecration of an altar, and such like.
Therefore not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, A definition is convertible with the thing defined. Now
some define a sacrament as being "the sign of a sacred thing"; moreover,
this is clear from the passage quoted above (A[1]) from Augustine.
Therefore it seems that every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Signs are given to men, to whom it is proper to discover
the unknown by means of the known. Consequently a sacrament properly so
called is that which is the sign of some sacred thing pertaining to man;
so that properly speaking a sacrament, as considered by us now, is
defined as being the "sign of a holy thing so far as it makes men holy."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Sensible creatures signify something holy, viz. Divine
wisdom and goodness inasmuch as these are holy in themselves; but not
inasmuch as we are made holy by them. Therefore they cannot be called
sacraments as we understand sacraments now.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Some things pertaining to the Old Testament signified the
holiness of Christ considered as holy in Himself. Others signified His
holiness considered as the cause of our holiness; thus the sacrifice of
the Paschal Lamb signified Christ's Sacrifice whereby we are made holy:
and such like are properly styled sacraments of the Old Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Names are given to things considered in reference to their
end and state of completeness. Now a disposition is not an end, whereas
perfection is. Consequently things that signify disposition to holiness
are not called sacraments, and with regard to these the objection is
verified: only those are called sacraments which signify the perfection
of holiness in man.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a sacrament is a sign of one thing only?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that a sacrament is a sign of one thing only. For that
which signifies many things is an ambiguous sign, and consequently
occasions deception: this is clearly seen in equivocal words. But all
deception should be removed from the Christian religion, according to
Col. 2:8: "Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit."
Therefore it seems that a sacrament is not a sign of several things.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, as stated above (A[2]), a sacrament signifies a holy
thing in so far as it makes man holy. But there is only one cause of
man's holiness, viz. the blood of Christ; according to Heb. 13:12:
"Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered
without the gate." Therefore it seems that a sacrament does not signify
several things.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it has been said above (A[2], ad 3) that a sacrament
signifies properly the very end of sanctification. Now the end of
sanctification is eternal life, according to Rm. 6:22: "You have your
fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting." Therefore it
seems that the sacraments signify one thing only, viz. eternal life.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, In the Sacrament of the Altar, two things are
signified, viz. Christ's true body, and Christ's mystical body; as
Augustine says (Liber Sent. Prosper.).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[2]) a sacrament properly speaking is
that which is ordained to signify our sanctification. In which three
things may be considered; viz. the very cause of our sanctification,
which is Christ's passion; the form of our sanctification, which is grace
and the virtues; and the ultimate end of our sanctification, which is
eternal life. And all these are signified by the sacraments. Consequently
a sacrament is a sign that is both a reminder of the past, i.e. the
passion of Christ; and an indication of that which is effected in us by
Christ's passion, i.e. grace; and a prognostic, that is, a foretelling of
future glory.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Then is a sign ambiguous and the occasion of deception,
when it signifies many things not ordained to one another. But when it
signifies many things inasmuch as, through being mutually ordained, they
form one thing, then the sign is not ambiguous but certain: thus this
word "man" signifies the soul and body inasmuch as together they form the
human nature. In this way a sacrament signifies the three things
aforesaid, inasmuch as by being in a certain order they are one thing.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Since a sacrament signifies that which sanctifies, it must
needs signify the effect, which is implied in the sanctifying cause as
such.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: It is enough for a sacrament that it signify that
perfection which consists in the form, nor is it necessary that it should
signify only that perfection which is the end.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a sacrament is always something sensible?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that a sacrament is not always something sensible.
Because, according to the Philosopher (Prior. Anal. ii), every effect is
a sign of its cause. But just as there are some sensible effects, so are
there some intelligible effects; thus science is the effect of a
demonstration. Therefore not every sign is sensible. Now all that is
required for a sacrament is something that is a sign of some sacred
thing, inasmuch as thereby man is sanctified, as stated above (A[2]).
Therefore something sensible is not required for a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, sacraments belong to the kingdom of God and the Divine
worship. But sensible things do not seem to belong to the Divine worship:
for we are told (Jn. 4:24) that "God is a spirit; and they that adore
Him, must adore Him in spirit and in truth"; and (Rm. 14:17) that "the
kingdom of God is not meat and drink." Therefore sensible things are not
required for the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further. Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii) that "sensible things
are goods of least account, since without them man can live aright." But
the sacraments are necessary for man's salvation, as we shall show
farther on (Q[61], A[1]): so that man cannot live aright without them.
Therefore sensible things are not required for the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): "The word is
added to the element and this becomes a sacrament"; and he is speaking
there of water which is a sensible element. Therefore sensible things are
required for the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Divine wisdom provides for each thing according to its
mode; hence it is written (Wis. 8:1) that "she . . . ordereth all things
sweetly": wherefore also we are told (Mt. 25:15) that she "gave to
everyone according to his proper ability." Now it is part of man's nature
to acquire knowledge of the intelligible from the sensible. But a sign is
that by means of which one attains to the knowledge of something else.
Consequently, since the sacred things which are signified by the
sacraments, are the spiritual and intelligible goods by means of which
man is sanctified, it follows that the sacramental signs consist in
sensible things: just as in the Divine Scriptures spiritual things are
set before us under the guise of things sensible. And hence it is that
sensible things are required for the sacraments; as Dionysius also proves
in his book on the heavenly hierarchy (Coel. Hier. i).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The name and definition of a thing is taken principally
from that which belongs to a thing primarily and essentially: and not
from that which belongs to it through something else. Now a sensible
effect being the primary and direct object of man's knowledge (since all
our knowledge springs from the senses) by its very nature leads to the
knowledge of something else: whereas intelligible effects are not such as
to be able to lead us to the knowledge of something else, except in so
far as they are manifested by some other thing, i.e. by certain
sensibles. It is for this reason that the name sign is given primarily
and principally to things which are offered to the senses; hence
Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) that a sign "is that which conveys
something else to the mind, besides the species which it impresses on the
senses." But intelligible effects do not partake of the nature of a sign
except in so far as they are pointed out by certain signs. And in this
way, too, certain things which are not sensible are termed sacraments as
it were, in so far as they are signified by certain sensible things, of
which we shall treat further on (Q[63], A[1], ad 2; A[3], ad 2; Q[73],
A[6]; Q[74], A[1], ad 3).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Sensible things considered in their own nature do not
belong to the worship or kingdom of God: but considered only as signs of
spiritual things in which the kingdom of God consists.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Augustine speaks there of sensible things, considered in
their nature; but not as employed to signify spiritual things, which are
the highest goods.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether determinate things are required for a sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that determinate things are not required for a
sacrament. For sensible things are required in sacraments for the purpose
of signification, as stated above (A[4]). But nothing hinders the same
thing being signified by divers sensible things: thus in Holy Scripture
God is signified metaphorically, sometimes by a stone (2 Kgs. 22:2; Zach.
3:9; 1 Cor. 10:4; Apoc. 4:3); sometimes by a lion (Is. 31:4; Apoc. 5:5);
sometimes by the sun (Is. 60:19,20; Mal. 4:2), or by something similar.
Therefore it seems that divers things can be suitable to the same
sacrament. Therefore determinate things are not required for the
sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the health of the soul is more necessary than that of
the body. But in bodily medicines, which are ordained to the health of
the body, one thing can be substituted for another which happens to be
wanting. Therefore much more in the sacraments, which are spiritual
remedies ordained to the health of the soul, can one thing be substituted
for another when this happens to be lacking.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is not fitting that the salvation of men be
restricted by the Divine Law: still less by the Law of Christ, Who came
to save all. But in the state of the Law of nature determinate things
were not required in the sacraments, but were put to that use through a
vow, as appears from Gn. 28, where Jacob vowed that he would offer to God
tithes and peace-offerings. Therefore it seems that man should not have
been restricted, especially under the New Law, to the use of any
determinate thing in the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of
water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, In the use of the sacraments two things may be
considered, namely, the worship of God, and the sanctification of man:
the former of which pertains to man as referred to God, and the latter
pertains to God in reference to man. Now it is not for anyone to
determine that which is in the power of another, but only that which is
in his own power. Since, therefore, the sanctification of man is in the
power of God Who sanctifies, it is not for man to decide what things
should be used for his sanctification, but this should be determined by
Divine institution. Therefore in the sacraments of the New Law, by which
man is sanctified according to 1 Cor. 6:11, "You are washed, you are
sanctified," we must use those things which are determined by Divine
institution.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Though the same thing can be signified by divers signs, yet
to determine which sign must be used belongs to the signifier. Now it is
God Who signifies spiritual things to us by means of the sensible things
in the sacraments, and of similitudes in the Scriptures. And
consequently, just as the Holy Ghost decides by what similitudes
spiritual things are to be signified in certain passages of Scripture, so
also must it be determined by Divine institution what things are to be
employed for the purpose of signification in this or that sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Sensible things are endowed with natural powers conducive
to the health of the body: and therefore if two of them have the same
virtue, it matters not which we use. Yet they are ordained unto
sanctification not through any power that they possess naturally, but
only in virtue of the Divine institution. And therefore it was necessary
that God should determine the sensible things to be employed in the
sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), diverse sacraments
suit different times; just as different times are signified by different
parts of the verb, viz. present, past, and future. Consequently, just as
under the state of the Law of nature man was moved by inward instinct and
without any outward law, to worship God, so also the sensible things to
be employed in the worship of God were determined by inward instinct. But
later on it became necessary for a law to be given (to man) from without:
both because the Law of nature had become obscured by man's sins; and in
order to signify more expressly the grace of Christ, by which the human
race is sanctified. And hence the need for those things to be
determinate, of which men have to make use in the sacraments. Nor is the
way of salvation narrowed thereby: because the things which need to be
used in the sacraments, are either in everyone's possession or can be had
with little trouble.
�Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether words are required for the signification of the sacraments?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that words are not required for the signification of the
sacraments. For Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "What else is a
corporeal sacrament but a kind of visible word?" Wherefore to add words
to the sensible things in the sacraments seems to be the same as to add
words to words. But this is superfluous. Therefore words are not required
besides the sensible things in the sacraments .
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a sacrament is some one thing, but it does not seem
possible to make one thing of those that belong to different genera.
Since, therefore, sensible things and words are of different genera, for
sensible things are the product of nature, but words, of reason; it seems
that in the sacraments, words are not required besides sensible things.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the sacraments of the New Law succeed those of the Old
Law: since "the former were instituted when the latter were abolished,"
as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix). But no form of words was required
in the sacraments of the Old Law. Therefore neither is it required in
those of the New Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Eph. 5:25,26): "Christ loved the
Church, and delivered Himself up for it; that He might sanctify it,
cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life." And Augustine
says (Tract. xxx in Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this
becomes a sacrament."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[6] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, The sacraments, as stated above (AA[2],3), are employed
as signs for man's sanctification. Consequently they can be considered in
three ways: and in each way it is fitting for words to be added to the
sensible signs. For in the first place they can be considered in regard
to the cause of sanctification, which is the Word incarnate: to Whom the
sacraments have a certain conformity, in that the word is joined to the
sensible sign, just as in the mystery of the Incarnation the Word of God
is united to sensible flesh.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[6] Body Para. 2/3
Secondly, sacraments may be considered on the part of man who is
sanctified, and who is composed of soul and body: to whom the sacramental
remedy is adjusted, since it touches the body through the sensible
element, and the soul through faith in the words. Hence Augustine says
(Tract. lxxx in Joan.) on Jn. 15:3, "Now you are clean by reason of the
word," etc.: "Whence hath water this so great virtue, to touch the body
and wash the heart, but by the word doing it, not because it is spoken,
but because it is believed?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[6] Body Para. 3/3
Thirdly, a sacrament may be considered on the part of the sacramental
signification. Now Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) that "words are
the principal signs used by men"; because words can be formed in various
ways for the purpose of signifying various mental concepts, so that we
are able to express our thoughts with greater distinctness by means of
words. And therefore in order to insure the perfection of sacramental
signification it was necessary to determine the signification of the
sensible things by means of certain words. For water may signify both a
cleansing by reason of its humidity, and refreshment by reason of its
being cool: but when we say, "I baptize thee," it is clear that we use
water in baptism in order to signify a spiritual cleansing.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The sensible elements of the sacraments are called words by
way of a certain likeness, in so far as they partake of a certain
significative power, which resides principally in the very words, as
stated above. Consequently it is not a superfluous repetition to add
words to the visible element in the sacraments; because one determines
the other, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although words and other sensible things are not in the
same genus, considered in their natures, yet have they something in
common as to the thing signified by them: which is more perfectly done in
words than in other things. Wherefore in the sacraments, words and
things, like form and matter, combine in the formation of one thing, in
so far as the signification of things is completed by means of words, as
above stated. And under words are comprised also sensible actions, such
as cleansing and anointing and such like: because they have a like
signification with the things.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), the sacraments of
things present should be different from sacraments of things to come. Now
the sacraments of the Old Law foretold the coming of Christ. Consequently
they did not signify Christ so clearly as the sacraments of the New Law,
which flow from Christ Himself, and have a certain likeness to Him, as
stated above. Nevertheless in the Old Law, certain words were used in
things pertaining to the worship of God, both by the priests, who were
the ministers of those sacraments, according to Num. 6:23,24: "Thus shall
you bless the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: The Lord
bless thee," etc.; and by those who made use of those sacraments,
according to Dt. 26:3: "I profess this day before the Lord thy God," etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether determinate words are required in the sacraments?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that determinate words are not required in the
sacraments. For as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm. i), "words are not
the same for all." But salvation, which is sought through the sacraments,
is the same for all. Therefore determinate words are not required in the
sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, words are required in the sacraments forasmuch as they
are the principal means of signification, as stated above (A[6]). But it
happens that various words mean the same. Therefore determinate words are
not required in the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, corruption of anything changes its species. But some
corrupt the pronunciation of words, and yet it is not credible that the
sacramental effect is hindered thereby; else unlettered men and
stammerers, in conferring sacraments, would frequently do so invalidly.
Therefore it seems that determinate words are not required in the
sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord used determinate words in consecrating the
sacrament of the Eucharist, when He said (Mt. 26:26): "This is My Body."
Likewise He commanded His disciples to baptize under a form of
determinate words, saying (Mt. 28:19): "Go ye and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[7] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[6], ad 2), in the sacraments the words
are as the form, and sensible things are as the matter. Now in all things
composed of matter and form, the determining principle is on the part of
the form, which is as it were the end and terminus of the matter.
Consequently for the being of a thing the need of a determinate form is
prior to the need of determinate matter: for determinate matter is needed
that it may be adapted to the determinate form. Since, therefore, in the
sacraments determinate sensible things are required, which are as the
sacramental matter, much more is there need in them of a determinate form
of words.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.), the word
operates in the sacraments "not because it is spoken," i.e. not by the
outward sound of the voice, "but because it is believed" in accordance
with the sense of the words which is held by faith. And this sense is
indeed the same for all, though the same words as to their sound be not
used by all. Consequently no matter in what language this sense is
expressed, the sacrament is complete.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although it happens in every language that various words
signify the same thing, yet one of those words is that which those who
speak that language use principally and more commonly to signify that
particular thing: and this is the word which should be used for the
sacramental signification. So also among sensible things, that one is
used for the sacramental signification which is most commonly employed
for the action by which the sacramental effect is signified: thus water
is most commonly used by men for bodily cleansing, by which the spiritual
cleansing is signified: and therefore water is employed as the matter of
baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 3: If he who corrupts the pronunciation of the sacramental
words---does so on purpose, he does not seem to intend to do what the
Church intends: and thus the sacrament seems to be defective. But if he
do this through error or a slip of the tongue, and if he so far
mispronounce the words as to deprive them of sense, the sacrament seems
to be defective. This would be the case especially if the
mispronunciation be in the beginning of a word, for instance, if one were
to say "in nomine matris" instead of "in nomine Patris." If, however,
the sense of the words be not entirely lost by this mispronunciation, the
sacrament is complete. This would be the case principally if the end of a
word be mispronounced; for instance, if one were to say "patrias et
filias." For although the words thus mispronounced have no appointed
meaning, yet we allow them an accommodated meaning corresponding to the
usual forms of speech. And so, although the sensible sound is changed,
yet the sense remains the same.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 2/3
What has been said about the various mispronunciations of words, either
at the beginning or at the end, holds forasmuch as with us a change at
the beginning of a word changes the meaning, whereas a change at the end
generally speaking does not effect such a change: whereas with the Greeks
the sense is changed also in the beginning of words in the conjugation of
verbs.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 3/3
Nevertheless the principle point to observe is the extent of the
corruption entailed by mispronunciation: for in either case it may be so
little that it does not alter the sense of the words; or so great that it
destroys it. But it is easier for the one to happen on the part of the
beginning of the words, and the other at the end.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is lawful to add anything to the words in which the
sacramental form consists?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that it is not lawful to add anything to the words in
which the sacramental form consists. For these sacramental words are not
of less importance than are the words of Holy Scripture. But it is not
lawful to add anything to, or to take anything from, the words of Holy
Scripture: for it is written (Dt. 4:2): "You shall not add to the word
that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it"; and (Apoc.
22:18,19): "I testify to everyone that heareth the words of the prophecy
of this book: if any man shall add to these things, God shall add to him
the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away . . .
God shall take away his part out of the book of life." Therefore it seems
that neither is it lawful to add anything to, or to take anything from,
the sacramental forms.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in the sacraments words are by way of form, as stated
above (A[6], ad 2; A[7]). But any addition or subtraction in forms
changes the species, as also in numbers (Metaph. viii). Therefore it
seems that if anything be added to or subtracted from a sacramental form,
it will not be the same sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, just as the sacramental form demands a certain number of
words, so does it require that these words should be pronounced in a
certain order and without interruption. If therefore, the sacrament is
not rendered invalid by addition or subtraction of words, in like manner
it seems that neither is it, if the words be pronounced in a different
order or with interruptions.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Certain words are inserted by some in the sacramental
forms, which are not inserted by others: thus the Latins baptize under
this form: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost"; whereas the Greeks use the following form: "The
servant of God, N . . . is baptized in the name of the Father," etc. Yet
both confer the sacrament validly. Therefore it is lawful to add
something to, or to take something from, the sacramental forms.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[8] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, With regard to all the variations that may occur in the
sacramental forms, two points seem to call for our attention. one is on
the part of the person who says the words, and whose intention is
essential to the sacrament, as will be explained further on (Q[64], A[8]
). Wherefore if he intends by such addition or suppression to perform a
rite other from that which is recognized by the Church, it seems that the
sacrament is invalid: because he seems not to intend to do what the
Church does.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[8] Body Para. 2/4
The other point to be considered is the meaning of the words. For since
in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense
which they convey, as stated above (A[7], ad 1), we must see whether the
change of words destroys the essential sense of the words: because then
the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it is clear, if any
substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the
essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the sacrament
is invalid. Wherefore Didymus says (De Spir. Sanct. ii): "If anyone
attempt to baptize in such a way as to omit one of the aforesaid names,"
i.e. of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, "his baptism will be invalid."
But if that which is omitted be not a substantial part of the form, such
an omission does not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor
consequently the validity of the sacrament. Thus in the form of the
Eucharist---"For this is My Body," the omission of the word "for" does
not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently cause the
sacrament to be invalid; although perhaps he who makes the omission may
sin from negligence or contempt.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[8] Body Para. 3/4
Again, it is possible to add something that destroys the essential sense
of the words: for instance, if one were to say: "I baptize thee in the
name of the Father Who is greater, and of the Son Who is less," with
which form the Arians baptized: and consequently such an addition makes
the sacrament invalid. But if the addition be such as not to destroy the
essential sense, the sacrament is not rendered invalid. Nor does it
matter whether this addition be made at the beginning, in the middle, or
at the end: For instance, if one were to say, "I baptize thee in the name
of the Father Almighty, and of the only Begotten Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, the Paraclete," the baptism would be valid; and in like manner if
one were to say, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; and may the Blessed Virgin succour thee, the
baptism would be valid.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[8] Body Para. 4/4
Perhaps, however, if one were to say, "I baptize thee in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and of the Blessed
Virgin Mary," the baptism would be void; because it is written (1 Cor.
1:13): "Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of
Paul?" But this is true if the intention be to baptize in the name of the
Blessed Virgin as in the name of the Trinity, by which baptism is
consecrated: for such a sense would be contrary to faith, and would
therefore render the sacrament invalid: whereas if the addition, "and in
the name of the Blessed Virgin" be understood, not as if the name of the
Blessed Virgin effected anything in baptism, but as intimating that her
intercession may help the person baptized to preserve the baptismal
grace, then the sacrament is not rendered void.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It is not lawful to add anything to the words of Holy
Scripture as regards the sense; but many words are added by Doctors by
way of explanation of the Holy Scriptures. Nevertheless, it is not lawful
to add even words to Holy Scripture as though such words were a part
thereof, for this would amount to forgery. It would amount to the same if
anyone were to pretend that something is essential to a sacramental form,
which is not so.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Words belong to a sacramental form by reason of the sense
signified by them. Consequently any addition or suppression of words
which does not add to or take from the essential sense, does not destroy
the essence of the sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: If the words are interrupted to such an extent that the
intention of the speaker is interrupted, the sacramental sense is
destroyed, and consequently, the validity of the sacrament. But this is
not the case if the interruption of the speaker is so slight, that his
intention and the sense of the words is not interrupted.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[60] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
The same is to be said of a change in the order of the words. Because if
this destroys the sense of the words, the sacrament is invalidated: as
happens when a negation is made to precede or follow a word. But if the
order is so changed that the sense of the words does not vary, the
sacrament is not invalidated, according to the Philosopher's dictum:
"Nouns and verbs mean the same though they be transposed" (Peri Herm. x).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the necessity of the sacraments; concerning which
there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation?
(2) Whether they were necessary in the state that preceded sin?
(3) Whether they were necessary in the state after sin and before Christ?
(4) Whether they were necessary after Christ's coming?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation.
For the Apostle says (1 Tim. 4:8): "Bodily exercise is profitable to
little." But the use of sacraments pertains to bodily exercise; because
sacraments are perfected in the signification of sensible things and
words, as stated above (Q[60], A[6]). Therefore sacraments are not
necessary for the salvation of man.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the Apostle was told (2 Cor. 12:9): "My grace is
sufficient for thee." But it would not suffice if sacraments were
necessary for salvation. Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man's
salvation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, given a sufficient cause, nothing more seems to be
required for the effect. But Christ's Passion is the sufficient cause of
our salvation; for the Apostle says (Rm. 5:10): "If, when we were
enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son: much more,
being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life." Therefore sacraments
are not necessary for man's salvation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "It is impossible
to keep men together in one religious denomination, whether true or
false, except they be united by means of visible signs or sacraments."
But it is necessary for salvation that men be united together in the name
of the one true religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for man's
salvation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[1] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, Sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for three
reasons. The first is taken from the condition of human nature which is
such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to things
spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine providence to
provide for each one according as its condition requires. Divine wisdom,
therefore, fittingly provides man with means of salvation, in the shape
of corporeal and sensible signs that are called sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[1] Body Para. 2/4
The second reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning
subjected himself by his affections to corporeal things. Now the healing
remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part affected by
disease. Consequently it was fitting that God should provide man with a
spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal signs; for if man were
offered spiritual things without a veil, his mind being taken up with the
material world would be unable to apply itself to them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[1] Body Para. 3/4
The third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct his
activity chiefly towards material things. Lest, therefore, it should be
too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily actions, bodily
exercise was offered to him in the sacraments, by which he might be
trained to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship of
demons, and all manner of harmful action, consisting in sinful deeds.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[1] Body Para. 4/4
It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the sacraments
man, consistently with his nature, is instructed through sensible things;
he is humbled, through confessing that he is subject to corporeal things,
seeing that he receives assistance through them: and he is even preserved
from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Bodily exercise, as such, is not very profitable: but
exercise taken in the use of the sacraments is not merely bodily, but to
a certain extent spiritual, viz. in its signification and in its
causality.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: God's grace is a sufficient cause of man's salvation. But
God gives grace to man in a way which is suitable to him. Hence it is
that man needs the sacraments that he may obtain grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ's Passion is a sufficient cause of man's salvation.
But it does not follow that the sacraments are not also necessary for
that purpose: because they obtain their effect through the power of
Christ's Passion; and Christ's Passion is, so to say, applied to man
through the sacraments according to the Apostle (Rm. 6:3): "All we who
are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether before sin sacraments were necessary to man?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that before sin sacraments were necessary to man. For,
as stated above (A[1], ad 2) man needs sacraments that he may obtain
grace. But man needed grace even in the state of innocence, as we stated
in the FP, Q[95], A[4] (cf. FS, Q[109], A[2]; FS, Q[114], A[2]).
Therefore sacraments were necessary in that state also.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, sacraments are suitable to man by reason of the
conditions of human nature, as stated above (A[1]). But man's nature is
the same before and after sin. Therefore it seems that before sin, man
needed the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, matrimony is a sacrament, according to Eph. 5:32: "This
is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church." But
matrimony was instituted before sin, as may be seen in Gn. 2. Therefore
sacraments were necessary to man before sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, None but the sick need remedies, according to Mt. 9:12:
"They that are in health need not a physician." Now the sacraments are
spiritual remedies for the healing of wounds inflicted by sin. Therefore
they were not necessary before sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Sacraments were not necessary in the state of innocence.
This can be proved from the rectitude of that state, in which the higher
(parts of man) ruled the lower, and nowise depended on them: for just as
the mind was subject to God, so were the lower powers of the soul subject
to the mind, and the body to the soul. And it would be contrary to this
order if the soul were perfected either in knowledge or in grace, by
anything corporeal; which happens in the sacraments. Therefore in the
state of innocence man needed no sacraments, whether as remedies against
sin or as means of perfecting the soul.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: In the state of innocence man needed grace: not so that he
needed to obtain grace by means of sensible signs, but in a spiritual and
invisible manner.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Man's nature is the same before and after sin, but the
state of his nature is not the same. Because after sin, the soul, even in
its higher part, needs to receive something from corporeal things in
order that it may be perfected: whereas man had no need of this in that
state.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Matrimony was instituted in the state of innocence, not as
a sacrament, but as a function of nature. Consequently, however, it
foreshadowed something in relation to Christ and the Church: just as
everything else foreshadowed Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there should have been sacraments after sin, before Christ?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that there should have been no sacraments after sin,
before Christ. For it has been stated that the Passion of Christ is
applied to men through the sacraments: so that Christ's Passion is
compared to the sacraments as cause to effect. But effect does not
precede cause. Therefore there should have been no sacraments before
Christ's coming.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, sacraments should be suitable to the state of the human
race, as Augustine declares (Contra Faust. xix). But the state of the
human race underwent no change after sin until it was repaired by Christ.
Neither, therefore, should the sacraments have been changed, so that
besides the sacraments of the natural law, others should be instituted in
the law of Moses.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the nearer a thing approaches to that which is perfect,
the more like it should it be. Now the perfection of human salvation was
accomplished by Christ; to Whom the sacraments of the Old Law were nearer
than those that preceded the Law. Therefore they should have borne a
greater likeness to the sacraments of Christ. And yet the contrary is the
case, since it was foretold that the priesthood of Christ would be
"according to the order of Melchisedech, and not . . . according to the
order of Aaron" (Heb. 7:11). Therefore sacraments were unsuitably
instituted before Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that "the first
sacraments which the Law commanded to be solemnized and observed were
announcements of Christ's future coming." But it was necessary for man's
salvation that Christ's coming should be announced beforehand. Therefore
it was necessary that some sacraments should be instituted before Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Sacraments are necessary for man's salvation, in so far
as they are sensible signs of invisible things whereby man is made holy.
Now after sin no man can be made holy save through Christ, "Whom God hath
proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood, to the showing
of His justice . . . that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of
him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ" (Rm. 3:25,26). Therefore before
Christ's coming there was need for some visible signs whereby man might
testify to his faith in the future coming of a Saviour. And these signs
are called sacraments. It is therefore clear that some sacraments were
necessary before Christ's coming.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ's Passion is the final cause of the old sacraments:
for they were instituted in order to foreshadow it. Now the final cause
precedes not in time, but in the intention of the agent. Consequently,
there is no reason against the existence of sacraments before Christ's
Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The state of the human race after sin and before Christ can
be considered from two points of view. First, from that of faith: and
thus it was always one and the same: since men were made righteous,
through faith in the future coming of Christ. Secondly, according as sin
was more or less intense, and knowledge concerning Christ more or less
explicit. For as time went on sin gained a greater hold on man, so much
so that it clouded man's reason, the consequence being that the precepts
of the natural law were insufficient to make man live aright, and it
became necessary to have a written code of fixed laws, and together with
these certain sacraments of faith. For it was necessary, as time went on,
that the knowledge of faith should be more and more unfolded, since, as
Gregory says (Hom. vi in Ezech.): "With the advance of time there was an
advance in the knowledge of Divine things." Consequently in the old Law
there was also a need for certain fixed sacraments significative of man's
faith in the future coming of Christ: which sacraments are compared to
those that preceded the Law, as something determinate to that which is
indeterminate: inasmuch as before the Law it was not laid down precisely
of what sacraments men were to make use: whereas this was prescribed by
the Law; and this was necessary both on account of the overclouding of
the natural law, and for the clearer signification of faith.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The sacrament of Melchisedech which preceded the Law is
more like the Sacrament of the New Law in its matter: in so far as "he
offered bread and wine" (Gn. 14:18), just as bread and wine are offered
in the sacrifice of the New Testament. Nevertheless the sacraments of the
Mosaic Law are more like the thing signified by the sacrament, i.e. the
Passion of Christ: as clearly appears in the Paschal Lamb and such like.
The reason of this was lest, if the sacraments retained the same
appearance, it might seem to be the continuation of one and the same
sacrament, where there was no interruption of time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there was need for any sacraments after Christ came?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that there was no need for any sacraments after Christ
came. For the figure should cease with the advent of the truth. But
"grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (Jn. 1:17). Since, therefore, the
sacraments are signs or figures of the truth, it seems that there was no
need for any sacraments after Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the sacraments consist in certain elements, as stated
above (Q[60], A[4]). But the Apostle says (Gal. 4:3,4) that "when we were
children we were serving under the elements of the world": but that now
"when the fulness of time" has "come," we are no longer children.
Therefore it seems that we should not serve God under the elements of
this world, by making use of corporeal sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, according to James 1:17 with God "there is no change,
nor shadow of alteration." But it seems to argue some change in the
Divine will that God should give man certain sacraments for his
sanctification now during the time of grace, and other sacraments before
Christ's coming. Therefore it seems that other sacraments should not have
been instituted after Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that the sacraments
of the Old Law "were abolished because they were fulfilled; and others
were instituted, fewer in number, but more efficacious, more profitable,
and of easier accomplishment."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As the ancient Fathers were saved through faith in
Christ's future coming, so are we saved through faith in Christ's past
birth and Passion. Now the sacraments are signs in protestation of the
faith whereby man is justified; and signs should vary according as they
signify the future, the past, or the present; for as Augustine says
(Contra Faust. xix), "the same thing is variously pronounced as to be
done and as having been done: for instance the word 'passurus' [going to
suffer] differs from 'passus' [having suffered]." Therefore the
sacraments of the New Law, that signify Christ in relation to the past,
must needs differ from those of the Old Law, that foreshadowed the future.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v), the state of the New
Law. is between the state of the Old Law, whose figures are fulfilled in
the New, and the state of glory, in which all truth will be openly and
perfectly revealed. Wherefore then there will be no sacraments. But now,
so long as we know "through a glass in a dark manner," (1 Cor. 13:12) we
need sensible signs in order to reach spiritual things: and this is the
province of the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The Apostle calls the sacraments of the Old Law "weak and
needy elements" (Gal. 4:9) because they neither contained nor caused
grace. Hence the Apostle says that those who used these sacraments served
God "under the elements of this world": for the very reason that these
sacraments were nothing else than the elements of this world. But our
sacraments both contain and cause grace: consequently the comparison does
not hold.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[61] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Just as the head of the house is not proved to have a
changeable mind, through issuing various commands to his household at
various seasons, ordering things differently in winter and summer; so it
does not follow that there is any change in God, because He instituted
sacraments of one kind after Christ's coming, and of another kind at the
time of the Law. because the latter were suitable as foreshadowing grace;
the former as signifying the presence of grace,
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE SACRAMENTS' PRINCIPAL EFFECT, WHICH IS GRACE (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the effect of the sacraments. First of their
principal effect, which is grace; secondly, of their secondary effect,
which is a character. Concerning the first there are six points of
inquiry:
(1) Whether the sacraments of the New Law are the cause of grace?
(2) Whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace
of the virtues and gifts?
(3) Whether the sacraments contain grace?
(4) Whether there is any power in them for the causing of grace?
(5) Whether the sacraments derive this power from Christ's Passion?
(6) Whether the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the sacraments are the cause of grace?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sacraments are not the cause of grace. For it
seems that the same thing is not both sign and cause: since the nature of
sign appears to be more in keeping with an effect. But a sacrament is a
sign of grace. Therefore it is not its cause.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, nothing corporeal can act on a spiritual thing: since
"the agent is more excellent than the patient," as Augustine says (Gen.
ad lit. xii). But the subject of grace is the human mind, which is
something spiritual. Therefore the sacraments cannot cause grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, what is proper to God should not be ascribed to a
creature. But it is proper to God to cause grace, according to Ps. 83:12:
"The Lord will give grace and glory." Since, therefore, the sacraments
consist in certain words and created things, it seems that they cannot
cause grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.) that the
baptismal water "touches the body and cleanses the heart." But the heart
is not cleansed save through grace. Therefore it causes grace: and for
like reason so do the other sacraments of the Church.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[1] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, We must needs say that in some way the sacraments of the
New Law cause grace. For it is evident that through the sacraments of the
New Law man is incorporated with Christ: thus the Apostle says of Baptism
(Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on
Christ." And man is made a member of Christ through grace alone.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[1] Body Para. 2/3
Some, however, say that they are the cause of grace not by their own
operation, but in so far as God causes grace in the soul when the
sacraments are employed. And they give as an example a man who on
presenting a leaden coin, receives, by the king's command, a hundred
pounds: not as though the leaden coin, by any operation of its own,
caused him to be given that sum of money; this being the effect of the
mere will of the king. Hence Bernard says in a sermon on the Lord's
Supper: "Just as a canon is invested by means of a book, an abbot by
means of a crozier, a bishop by means of a ring, so by the various
sacraments various kinds of grace are conferred." But if we examine the
question properly, we shall see that according to the above mode the
sacraments are mere signs. For the leaden coin is nothing but a sign of
the king's command that this man should receive money. In like manner the
book is a sign of the conferring of a canonry. Hence, according to this
opinion the sacraments of the New Law would be mere signs of grace;
whereas we have it on the authority of many saints that the sacraments of
the New Law not only signify, but also cause grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[1] Body Para. 3/3
We must therefore say otherwise, that an efficient cause is twofold,
principal and instrumental. The principal cause works by the power of its
form, to which form the effect is likened; just as fire by its own heat
makes something hot. In this way none but God can cause grace: since
grace is nothing else than a participated likeness of the Divine Nature,
according to 2 Pt. 1:4: "He hath given us most great and precious
promises; that we may be [Vulg.: 'you may be made'] partakers of the
Divine Nature." But the instrumental cause works not by the power of its
form, but only by the motion whereby it is moved by the principal agent:
so that the effect is not likened to the instrument but to the principal
agent: for instance, the couch is not like the axe, but like the art
which is in the craftsman's mind. And it is thus that the sacraments of
the New Law cause grace: for they are instituted by God to be employed
for the purpose of conferring grace. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust.
xix): "All these things," viz. pertaining to the sacraments, "are done
and pass away, but the power," viz. of God, "which works by them, remains
ever." Now that is, properly speaking, an instrument by which someone
works: wherefore it is written (Titus 3:5): "He saved us by the laver of
regeneration."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The principal cause cannot properly be called a sign of its
effect, even though the latter be hidden and the cause itself sensible
and manifest. But an instrumental cause, if manifest, can be called a
sign of a hidden effect, for this reason, that it is not merely a cause
but also in a measure an effect in so far as it is moved by the
principal agent. And in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are both
cause and signs. Hence, too, is it that, to use the common expression,
"they effect what they signify." From this it is clear that they
perfectly fulfil the conditions of a sacrament; being ordained to
something sacred, not only as a sign, but also as a cause.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: An instrument has a twofold action; one is instrumental, in
respect of which it works not by its own power but by the power of the
principal agent: the other is its proper action, which belongs to it in
respect of its proper form: thus it belongs to an axe to cut asunder by
reason of its sharpness, but to make a couch, in so far as it is the
instrument of an art. But it does not accomplish the instrumental action
save by exercising its proper action: for it is by cutting that it makes
a couch. In like manner the corporeal sacraments by their operation,
which they exercise on the body that they touch, accomplish through the
Divine institution an instrumental operation on the soul; for example,
the water of baptism, in respect of its proper power, cleanses the body,
and thereby, inasmuch as it is the instrument of the Divine power,
cleanses the soul: since from soul and body one thing is made. And thus
it is that Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii) that it "touches the body
and cleanses the heart."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This argument considers that which causes grace as
principal agent; for this belongs to God alone, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace of
the virtues and gifts?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that sacramental grace confers nothing in addition to
the grace of the virtues and gifts. For the grace of the virtues and
gifts perfects the soul sufficiently, both in its essence and in its
powers; as is clear from what was said in the FS, Q[110], AA[3],4. But
grace is ordained to the perfecting of the soul. Therefore sacramental
grace cannot confer anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and
gifts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the soul's defects are caused by sin. But all sins are
sufficiently removed by the grace of the virtues and gifts: because there
is no sin that is not contrary to some virtue. Since, therefore,
sacramental grace is ordained to the removal of the soul's defects, it
cannot confer anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, every addition or subtraction of form varies the species
(Metaph. viii). If, therefore, sacramental grace confers anything in
addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts, it follows that it is
called grace equivocally: and so we are none the wiser when it is said
that the sacraments cause grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, If sacramental grace confers nothing in addition to the
grace of the virtues and gifts, it is useless to confer the sacraments
on those who have the virtues and gifts. But there is nothing useless in
God's works. Therefore it seems that sacramental grace confers something
in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated in the FS, Q[110], AA[3],4, grace, considered
in itself, perfects the essence of the soul, in so far as it is a certain
participated likeness of the Divine Nature. And just as the soul's powers
flow from its essence, so from grace there flow certain perfections into
the powers of the soul, which are called virtues and gifts, whereby the
powers are perfected in reference to their actions. Now the sacraments
are ordained unto certain special effects which are necessary in the
Christian life: thus Baptism is ordained unto a certain spiritual
regeneration, by which man dies to vice and becomes a member of Christ:
which effect is something special in addition to the actions of the
soul's powers: and the same holds true of the other sacraments.
Consequently just as the virtues and gifts confer, in addition to grace
commonly so called, a certain special perfection ordained to the powers'
proper actions, so does sacramental grace confer, over and above grace
commonly so called, and in addition to the virtues and gifts, a certain
Divine assistance in obtaining the end of the sacrament. It is thus that
sacramental grace confers something in addition to the grace of the
virtues and gifts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The grace of the virtues and gifts perfects the essence and
powers of the soul sufficiently as regards ordinary conduct: but as
regards certain special effects which are necessary in a Christian life,
sacramental grace is needed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Vices and sins are sufficiently removed by virtues and
gifts, as to present and future time. in so far as they prevent man from
sinning. But in regard to past sins, the acts of which are transitory
whereas their guilt remains, man is provided with a special remedy in the
sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Sacramental grace is compared to grace commonly so called,
as species to genus. Wherefore just as it is not equivocal to use the
term "animal" in its generic sense, and as applied to a man, so neither
is it equivocal to speak of grace commonly so called and of sacramental
grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the sacraments of the New Law contain grace?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain grace.
For it seems that what is contained is in the container. But grace is not
in the sacraments; neither as in a subject, because the subject of grace
is not a body but a spirit; nor as in a vessel, for according to Phys.
iv, "a vessel is a movable place," and an accident cannot be in a place.
Therefore it seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain
grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, sacraments are instituted as means whereby men may
obtain grace. But since grace is an accident it cannot pass from one
subject to another. Therefore it would be of no account if grace were in
the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a spiritual thing is not contained by a corporeal, even
if it be therein; for the soul is not contained by the body; rather does
it contain the body. Since, therefore, grace is something spiritual, it
seems that it cannot be contained in a corporeal sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Hugh of S. Victor says (De Sacram. i) that "a
sacrament, through its being sanctified, contains an invisible grace."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, A thing is said to be in another in various ways; in two
of which grace is said to be in the sacraments. First, as in its sign;
for a sacrament is a sign of grace. Secondly, as in its cause; for, as
stated above (A[1]) a sacrament of the New Law is an instrumental cause
of grace. Wherefore grace is in a sacrament of the New Law, not as to its
specific likeness, as an effect in its univocal cause; nor as to some
proper and permanent form proportioned to such an effect, as effects in
non-univocal causes, for instance, as things generated are in the sun;
but as to a certain instrumental power transient and incomplete in its
natural being, as will be explained later on (A[4]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Grace is said to be in a sacrament not as in its subject;
nor as in a vessel considered as a place, but understood as the
instrument of some work to be done, according to Ezech. 9:1: "Everyone
hath a destroying vessel [Douay: 'weapon'] in his hand."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although an accident does not pass from one subject to
another, nevertheless in a fashion it does pass from its cause into its
subject through the instrument; not so that it be in each of these in the
same way, but in each according to its respective nature.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: If a spiritual thing exist perfectly in something, it
contains it and is not contained by it. But, in a sacrament, grace has a
passing and incomplete mode of being: and consequently it is not
unfitting to say that the sacraments contain grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there be in the sacraments a power of causing grace?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that there is not in the sacraments a power of causing
grace. For the power of causing grace is a spiritual power. But a
spiritual power cannot be in a body; neither as proper to it, because
power flows from a thing's essence and consequently cannot transcend it;
nor as derived from something else, because that which is received into
anything follows the mode of the recipient. Therefore in the sacraments
there is no power of causing grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, whatever exists is reducible to some kind of being and
some degree of good. But there is no assignable kind of being to which
such a power can belong; as anyone may see by running. through them all.
Nor is it reducible to some degree of good; for neither is it one of the
goods of least account, since sacraments are necessary for salvation: nor
is it an intermediate good, such as are the powers of the soul, which are
natural powers; nor is it one of the greater goods, for it is neither
grace nor a virtue of the mind. Therefore it seems that in the sacraments
there is no power of causing grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if there be such a power in the sacraments, its presence
there must be due to nothing less than a creative act of God. But it
seems unbecoming that so excellent a being created by God should cease to
exist as soon as the sacrament is complete. Therefore it seems that in
the sacraments there is no power for causing grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the same thing cannot be in several. But several things
concur in the completion of a sacrament, namely, words and things: while
in one sacrament there can be but one power. Therefore it seems that
there is no power of causing grace in the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): "Whence hath
water so great power, that it touches the body and cleanses the heart?"
And Bede says that "Our Lord conferred a power of regeneration on the
waters by the contact of His most pure body."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Those who hold that the sacraments do not cause grace
save by a certain coincidence, deny the sacraments any power that is
itself productive of the sacramental effect, and hold that the Divine
power assists the sacraments and produces their effect. But if we hold
that a sacrament is an instrumental cause of grace, we must needs allow
that there is in the sacraments a certain instrumental power of bringing
about the sacramental effects. Now such power is proportionate to the
instrument: and consequently it stands in comparison to the complete and
perfect power of anything, as the instrument to the principal agent. For
an instrument, as stated above (A[1]), does not work save as moved by the
principal agent, which works of itself. And therefore the power of the
principal agent exists in nature completely and perfectly: whereas the
instrumental power has a being that passes from one thing into another,
and is incomplete; just as motion is an imperfect act passing from agent
to patient.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: A spiritual power cannot be in a corporeal subject, after
the manner of a permanent and complete power, as the argument proves. But
there is nothing to hinder an instrumental spiritual power from being in
a body; in so far as a body can be moved by a particular spiritual
substance so as to produce a particular spiritual effect; thus in the
very voice which is perceived by the senses there is a certain spiritual
power, inasmuch as it proceeds from a mental concept, of arousing the
mind of the hearer. It is in this way that a spiritual power is in the
sacraments, inasmuch as they are ordained by God unto the production of a
spiritual effect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Just as motion, through being an imperfect act, is not
properly in a genus, but is reducible to a genus of perfect act, for
instance, alteration to the genus of quality: so, instrumental power,
properly speaking, is not in any genus, but is reducible to a genus and
species of perfect act.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Just as an instrumental power accrues to an instrument
through its being moved by the principal agent, so does a sacrament
receive spiritual power from Christ's blessing and from the action of the
minister in applying it to a sacramental use. Hence Augustine says in a
sermon on the Epiphany (St. Maximus of Turin, Serm. xii): "Nor should you
marvel, if we say that water, a corporeal substance, achieves the
cleansing of the soul. It does indeed, and penetrates every secret
hiding-place of the conscience. For subtle and clear as it is, the
blessing of Christ makes it yet more subtle, so that it permeates into
the very principles of life and searches the inner-most recesses of the
heart."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Just as the one same power of the principal agent is
instrumentally in all the instruments that are ordained unto the
production of an effect, forasmuch as they are one as being so ordained:
so also the one same sacramental power is in both words and things,
forasmuch as words and things combine to form one sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the sacraments of the New Law derive their power from Christ's
Passion?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not derive their
power from Christ's Passion. For the power of the sacraments is in the
causing of grace which is the principle of spiritual life in the soul.
But as Augustine says (Tract. xix in Joan.): "The Word, as He was in the
beginning with God, quickens souls; as He was made flesh, quickens
bodies." Since, therefore, Christ's Passion pertains to the Word as made
flesh, it seems that it cannot cause the power of the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the power of the sacraments seems to depend on faith.
for as Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.), the Divine Word perfects
the sacrament "not because it is spoken, but because it is believed." But
our faith regards not only Christ's Passion, but also the other mysteries
of His humanity, and in a yet higher measure, His Godhead. Therefore it
seems that the power of the sacraments is not due specially to Christ's
Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the sacraments are ordained unto man's justification,
according to 1 Cor. 6:11: "You are washed . . . you are justified." Now
justification is ascribed to the Resurrection, according to Rm. 4:25:
"(Who) rose again for our justification." Therefore it seems that the
sacraments derive their power from Christ's Resurrection rather than from
His Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, on Rm. 5:14: "After the similitude of the transgression
of Adam," etc., the gloss says: "From the side of Christ asleep on the
Cross flowed the sacraments which brought salvation to the Church."
Consequently, it seems that the sacraments derive their power from
Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[5] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]) a sacrament in causing grace works
after the manner of an instrument. Now an instrument is twofold. the one,
separate, as a stick, for instance; the other, united, as a hand.
Moreover, the separate instrument is moved by means of the united
instrument, as a stick by the hand. Now the principal efficient cause of
grace is God Himself, in comparison with Whom Christ's humanity is as a
united instrument, whereas the sacrament is as a separate instrument.
Consequently, the saving power must needs be derived by the sacraments
from Christ's Godhead through His humanity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[5] Body Para. 2/2
Now sacramental grace seems to be ordained principally to two things:
namely, to take away the defects consequent on past sins, in so far as
they are transitory in act, but endure in guilt; and, further, to perfect
the soul in things pertaining to Divine Worship in regard to the
Christian Religion. But it is manifest from what has been stated above
(Q[48], AA[1],2,6; Q[49], AA[1],3) that Christ delivered us from our sins
principally through His Passion, not only by way of efficiency and merit,
but also by way of satisfaction. Likewise by His Passion He inaugurated
the Rites of the Christian Religion by offering "Himself---an oblation
and a sacrifice to God" (Eph. 5:2). Wherefore it is manifest that the
sacraments of the Church derive their power specially from Christ's
Passion, the virtue of which is in a manner united to us by our receiving
the sacraments. It was in sign of this that from the side of Christ
hanging on the Cross there flowed water and blood, the former of which
belongs to Baptism, the latter to the Eucharist, which are the principal
sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The Word, forasmuch as He was in the beginning with God,
quickens souls as principal agent; but His flesh, and the mysteries
accomplished therein, are as instrumental causes in the process of giving
life to the soul: while in giving life to the body they act not only as
instrumental causes, but also to a certain extent as exemplars, as we
stated above (Q[56], A[1], ad 3).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ dwells in us "by faith" (Eph. 3:17). Consequently,
by faith Christ's power is united to us. Now the power of blotting out
sin belongs in a special way to His Passion. And therefore men are
delivered from sin especially by faith in His Passion, according to Rm.
3:25: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in His
Blood." Therefore the power of the sacraments which is ordained unto the
remission of sins is derived principally from faith in Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Justification is ascribed to the Resurrection by reason of
the term "whither," which is newness of life through grace. But it is
ascribed to the Passion by reason of the term "whence," i.e. in regard to
the forgiveness of sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace. For, as
stated above (A[5], ad 2) the sacraments of the New Law derive their
efficacy from faith in Christ's Passion. But there was faith in Christ's
Passion under the Old Law, as well as under the New, since we have "the
same spirit of faith" (2 Cor. 4:13). Therefore just as the sacraments of
the New Law confer grace, so did the sacraments of the Old Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, there is no sanctification save by grace. But men were
sanctified by the sacraments of the Old Law: for it is written (Lev.
8:31): "And when he," i.e. Moses, "had sanctified them," i.e. Aaron and
his sons, "in their vestments," etc. Therefore it seems that the
sacraments of the Old Law conferred grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Bede says in a homily on the Circumcision: "Under the
Law circumcision provided the same health-giving balm against the wound
of original sin, as baptism in the time of revealed grace." But Baptism
confers grace now. Therefore circumcision conferred grace; and in like
manner, the other sacraments of the Law; for just as Baptism is the door
of the sacraments of the New Law, so was circumcision the door of the
sacraments of the Old Law: hence the Apostle says (Gal. 5:3): "I testify
to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to the whole law."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Gal. 4:9): "Turn you again to the weak
and needy elements?" i.e. "to the Law," says the gloss, "which is called
weak, because it does not justify perfectly." But grace justifies
perfectly. Therefore the sacraments of the old Law did not confer grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[6] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, It cannot be said that the sacraments of the Old Law
conferred sanctifying grace of themselves, i.e. by their own power: since
thus Christ's Passion would not have been necessary, according to Gal.
2:21: "If justice be by the Law, then Christ died in vain."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[6] Body Para. 2/3
But neither can it be said that they derived the power of conferring
sanctifying grace from Christ's Passion. For as it was stated above (A[5]
), the power of Christ's Passion is united to us by faith and the
sacraments, but in different ways; because the link that comes from faith
is produced by an act of the soul; whereas the link that comes from the
sacraments, is produced by making use of exterior things. Now nothing
hinders that which is subsequent in point of time, from causing
movement, even before it exists in reality, in so far as it pre-exists in
an act of the soul: thus the end, which is subsequent in point of time,
moves the agent in so far as it is apprehended and desired by him. On the
other hand, what does not yet actually exist, does not cause movement if
we consider the use of exterior things. Consequently, the efficient cause
cannot in point of time come into existence after causing movement, as
does the final cause. It is therefore clear that the sacraments of the
New Law do reasonably derive the power of justification from Christ's
Passion, which is the cause of man's righteousness; whereas the
sacraments of the Old Law did not.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[6] Body Para. 3/3
Nevertheless the Fathers of old were justified by faith in Christ's
Passion, just as we are. And the sacraments of the old Law were a kind of
protestation of that faith, inasmuch as they signified Christ's Passion
and its effects. It is therefore manifest that the sacraments of the Old
Law were not endowed with any power by which they conduced to the
bestowal of justifying grace: and they merely signified faith by which
men were justified.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The Fathers of old had faith in the future Passion of
Christ, which, inasmuch as it was apprehended by the mind, was able to
justify them. But we have faith in the past Passion of Christ, which is
able to justify, also by the real use of sacramental things as stated
above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: That sanctification was but a figure: for they were said to
be sanctified forasmuch as they gave themselves up to the Divine worship
according to the rite of the Old Law, which was wholly ordained to the
foreshadowing of Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/4
Reply OBJ 3: There have been many opinions about Circumcision. For,
according to some, Circumcision conferred no grace, but only remitted
sin. But this is impossible; because man is not justified from sin save
by grace, according to Rm. 3:24: "Being justified freely by His grace."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 2/4
Wherefore others said that by Circumcision grace is conferred, as to the
privative effects of sin, but not as to its positive effects. But this
also appears to be false, because by Circumcision, children received the
faculty of obtaining glory, which is the ultimate positive effect of
grace. Moreover, as regards the order of the formal cause, positive
effects are naturally prior to privative effects, though according to the
order of the material cause, the reverse is the case: for a form does not
exclude privation save by informing the subject.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 3/4
Hence others say that Circumcision conferred grace also as regards a
certain positive effect, i.e. by making man worthy of eternal life, but
not so as to repress concupiscence which makes man prone to sin. And so
at one time it seemed to me. But if the matter be considered carefully,
this too appears to be untrue; because the very least grace is sufficient
to resist any degree of concupiscence, and to merit eternal life.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[62] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 4/4
And therefore it seems better to say that Circumcision was a sign of
justifying faith: wherefore the Apostle says (Rm. 4:11) that Abraham
"received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the justice of faith."
Consequently grace was conferred in Circumcision in so far as it was a
sign of Christ's future Passion, as will be made clear further on (Q[70],
A[4]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE OTHER EFFECT OF THE SACRAMENTS, WHICH IS A CHARACTER (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the other effect of the sacraments, which is a
character: and concerning this there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether by the sacraments a character is produced in the soul?
(2) What is this character?
(3) Of whom is this character?
(4) What is its subject?
(5) Is it indelible?
(6) Whether every sacrament imprints a character?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a sacrament imprints a character on the soul?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that a sacrament does not imprint a character on the
soul. For the word "character" seems to signify some kind of distinctive
sign. But Christ's members are distinguished from others by eternal
predestination, which does not imply anything in the predestined, but
only in God predestinating, as we have stated in the FP, Q[23], A[2]. For
it is written (2 Tim. 2:19): "The sure foundation of God standeth firm,
having this seal: The Lord knoweth who are His." Therefore the sacraments
do not imprint a character on the soul.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a character is a distinctive sign. Now a sign, as
Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) "is that which conveys something
else to the mind, besides the species which it impresses on the senses."
But nothing in the soul can impress a species on the senses. Therefore it
seems that no character is imprinted on the soul by the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, just as the believer is distinguished from the
unbeliever by the sacraments of the New Law, so was it under the Old Law.
But the sacraments of the Old Law did not imprint a character; whence
they are called "justices of the flesh" (Heb. 9:10) by the Apostle.
Therefore neither seemingly do the sacraments of the New Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (2 Cor. 1:21,22): "He . . . that hath
anointed us is God; Who also hath sealed us, and given the pledge of the
spirit in our hearts." But a character means nothing else than a kind of
sealing. Therefore it seems that by the sacraments God imprints His
character on us.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As is clear from what has been already stated (Q[62],
A[5]) the sacraments of the New Law are ordained for a twofold purpose;
namely, for a remedy against sins; and for the perfecting of the soul in
things pertaining to the Divine worship according to the rite of the
Christian life. Now whenever anyone is deputed to some definite purpose
he is wont to receive some outward sign thereof; thus in olden times
soldiers who enlisted in the ranks used to be marked with certain
characters on the body, through being deputed to a bodily service. Since,
therefore, by the sacraments men are deputed to a spiritual service
pertaining to the worship of God, it follows that by their means the
faithful receive a certain spiritual character. Wherefore Augustine says
(Contra Parmen. ii): "If a deserter from the battle, through dread of the
mark of enlistment on his body, throws himself on the emperor's clemency,
and having besought and received mercy, return to the fight; is that
character renewed, when the man has been set free and reprimanded? is it
not rather acknowledged and approved? Are the Christian sacraments, by
any chance, of a nature less lasting than this bodily mark?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The faithful of Christ are destined to the reward of the
glory that is to come, by the seal of Divine Predestination. But they are
deputed to acts becoming the Church that is now, by a certain spiritual
seal that is set on them, and is called a character.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The character imprinted on the soul is a kind of sign in so
far as it is imprinted by a sensible sacrament: since we know that a
certain one has received the baptismal character, through his being
cleansed by the sensible water. Nevertheless from a kind of likeness,
anything that assimilates one thing to another, or discriminates one
thing from another, even though it be not sensible, can be called a
character or a seal; thus the Apostle calls Christ "the figure" or
{charakter} "of the substance of the Father" (Heb. 1:3).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[62], A[6]) the sacraments of the Old Law
had not in themselves any spiritual power of producing a spiritual
effect. Consequently in those sacraments there was no need of a spiritual
character, and bodily circumcision sufficed, which the Apostle calls "a
seal" (Rm. 4:11).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a character is a spiritual power?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that a character is not a spiritual power. For
"character" seems to be the same thing as "figure"; hence (Heb. 1:3),
where we read "figure of His substance, "for "figure" the Greek has
{charakter}. Now "figure" is in the fourth species of quality, and thus
differs from power which is in the second species. Therefore character is
not a spiritual power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii): "The Divine Beatitude
admits him that seeks happiness to a share in Itself, and grants this
share to him by conferring on him Its light as a kind of seal."
Consequently, it seems that a character is a kind of light. Now light
belongs rather to the third species of quality. Therefore a character is
not a power, since this seems to belong to the second species.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, character is defined by some thus: "A character is a
holy sign of the communion of faith and of the holy ordination conferred
by a hierarch." Now a sign is in the genus of "relation," not of "power."
Therefore a character is not a spiritual power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, a power is in the nature of a cause and principle
(Metaph. v). But a "sign" which is set down in the definition of a
character is rather in the nature of an effect. Therefore a character is
not a spiritual power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii): "There are three
things in the soul, power, habit, and passion." Now a character is not a
passion: since a passion passes quickly, whereas a character is
indelible, as will be made clear further on (A[5]). In like manner it is
not a habit: because no habit is indifferent to acting well or ill:
whereas a character is indifferent to either, since some use it well,
some ill. Now this cannot occur with a habit: because no one abuses a
habit of virtue, or uses well an evil habit. It remains, therefore, that
a character is a power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), the sacraments of the New Law
produce a character, in so far as by them we are deputed to the worship
of God according to the rite of the Christian religion. Wherefore
Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii), after saying that God "by a kind of sign
grants a share of Himself to those that approach Him," adds "by making
them Godlike and communicators of Divine gifts." Now the worship of God
consists either in receiving Divine gifts, or in bestowing them on
others. And for both these purposes some power is needed; for to bestow
something on others, active power is necessary; and in order to receive,
we need a passive power. Consequently, a character signifies a certain
spiritual power ordained unto things pertaining to the Divine worship.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
But it must be observed that this spiritual power is instrumental: as we
have stated above (Q[62], A[4]) of the virtue which is in the sacraments.
For to have a sacramental character belongs to God's ministers: and a
minister is a kind of instrument, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i).
Consequently, just as the virtue which is in the sacraments is not of
itself in a genus, but is reducible to a genus, for the reason that it is
of a transitory and incomplete nature: so also a character is not
properly in a genus or species, but is reducible to the second species of
quality.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Configuration is a certain boundary of quantity. Wherefore,
properly speaking, it is only in corporeal things; and of spiritual
things is said metaphorically. Now that which decides the genus or
species of a thing must needs be predicated of it properly. Consequently,
a character cannot be in the fourth species of quality, although some
have held this to be the case.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The third species of quality contains only sensible
passions or sensible qualities. Now a character is not a sensible light.
Consequently, it is not in the third species of quality as some have
maintained.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The relation signified by the word "sign" must needs have
some foundation. Now the relation signified by this sign which is a
character, cannot be founded immediately on the essence of the soul:
because then it would belong to every soul naturally. Consequently, there
must be something in the soul on which such a relation is founded. And it
is in this that a character essentially consists. Therefore it need not
be in the genus "relation" as some have held.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: A character is in the nature of a sign in comparison to the
sensible sacrament by which it is imprinted. But considered in itself, it
is in the nature of a principle, in the way already explained.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the sacramental character is the character of Christ?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sacramental character is not the character of
Christ. For it is written (Eph. 4:30): "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of
God, whereby you are sealed." But a character consists essentially in
some. thing that seals. Therefore the sacramental character should be
attributed to the Holy Ghost rather than to Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a character has the nature of a sign. And it is a sign
of the grace that is conferred by the sacrament. Now grace is poured
forth into the soul by the whole Trinity; wherefore it is written (Ps.
83:12): "The Lord will give grace and glory." Therefore it seems that the
sacramental character should not be attributed specially to Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a man is marked with a character that he may be
distinguishable from others. But the saints are distinguishable from
others by charity, which, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv), "alone
separates the children of the Kingdom from the children of perdition":
wherefore also the children of perdition are said to have "the character
of the beast" (Apoc. 13:16,17). But charity is not attributed to Christ,
but rather to the Holy Ghost according to Rm. 5:5: "The charity of God is
poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, Who is given to us"; or
even to the Father, according to 2 Cor. 13:13: "The grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ and the charity of God." Therefore it seems that the
sacramental character should not be attributed to Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Some define character thus: "A character is a
distinctive mark printed in a man's rational soul by the eternal
Character, whereby the created trinity is sealed with the likeness of the
creating and re-creating Trinity, and distinguishing him from those who
are not so enlikened, according to the state of faith." But the eternal
Character is Christ Himself, according to Heb. 1:3: "Who being the
brightness of His glory and the figure," or character, "of His
substance." It seems, therefore, that the character should properly be
attributed to Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As has been made clear above (A[1]), a character is
properly a kind of seal, whereby something is marked, as being ordained
to some particular end: thus a coin is marked for use in exchange of
goods, and soldiers are marked with a character as being deputed to
military service. Now the faithful are deputed to a twofold end. First
and principally to the enjoyment of glory. And for this purpose they are
marked with the seal of grace according to Ezech. 9:4: "Mark Thou upon
the foreheads of the men that sigh and mourn"; and Apoc. 7:3: "Hurt not
the earth, nor the sea, nor the trees, till we sign the servants of our
God in their foreheads."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
Secondly, each of the faithful is deputed to receive, or to bestow on
others, things pertaining to the worship of God. And this, properly
speaking, is the purpose of the sacramental character. Now the whole rite
of the Christian religion is derived from Christ's priesthood.
Consequently, it is clear that the sacramental character is specially the
character of Christ, to Whose character the faithful are likened by
reason of the sacramental characters, which are nothing else than certain
participations of Christ's Priesthood, flowing from Christ Himself.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The Apostle speaks there of that sealing by which a man is
assigned to future glory, and which is effected by grace. Now grace is
attributed to the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as it is through love that God
gives us something gratis, which is the very nature of grace: while the
Holy Ghost is love. Wherefore it is written (1 Cor. 12:4): "There are
diversities of graces, but the same Spirit."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The sacramental character is a thing as regards the
exterior sacrament, and a sacrament in regard to the ultimate effect.
Consequently, something can be attributed to a character in two ways.
First, if the character be considered as a sacrament: and thus it is a
sign of the invisible grace which is conferred in the sacrament.
Secondly, if it be considered as a character. And thus it is a sign
conferring on a man a likeness to some principal person in whom is vested
the authority over that to which he is assigned: thus soldiers who are
assigned to military service, are marked with their leader's sign, by
which they are, in a fashion, likened to him. And in this way those who
are deputed to the Christian worship, of which Christ is the author,
receive a character by which they are likened to Christ. Consequently,
properly speaking, this is Christ's character.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: A character distinguishes one from another, in relation to
some particular end, to which he, who receives the character is ordained:
as has been stated concerning the military character (A[1]) by which a
soldier of the king is distinguished from the enemy's soldier in relation
to the battle. In like manner the character of the faithful is that by
which the faithful of Christ are distinguished from the servants of the
devil, either in relation to eternal life, or in relation to the worship
of the Church that now is. Of these the former is the result of charity
and grace, as the objection runs; while the latter results from the
sacramental character. Wherefore the "character of the beast" may be
understood by opposition, to mean either the obstinate malice for which
some are assigned to eternal punishment, or the profession of an unlawful
form of worship.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the character be subjected in the powers of the soul?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the character is not subjected in the powers of the
soul. For a character is said to be a disposition to grace. But grace is
subjected in the essence of the soul as we have stated in the FS, Q[110],
A[4]. Therefore it seems that the character is in the essence of the soul
and not in the powers.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a power of the soul does not seem to be the subject of
anything save habit and disposition. But a character, as stated above
(A[2]), is neither habit nor disposition, but rather a power: the subject
of which is nothing else than the essence of the soul. Therefore it seems
that the character is not subjected in a power of the soul, but rather in
its essence.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the powers of the soul are divided into those of
knowledge and those of appetite. But it cannot be said that a character
is only in a cognitive power, nor, again, only in an appetitive power:
since it is neither ordained to knowledge only, nor to desire only.
Likewise, neither can it be said to be in both, because the same accident
cannot be in several subjects. Therefore it seems that a character is not
subjected in a power of the soul, but rather in the essence.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, A character, according to its definition given above
(A[3]), is imprinted in the rational soul "by way of an image." But the
image of the Trinity in the soul is seen in the powers. Therefore a
character is in the powers of the soul.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[3]), a character is a kind of seal by
which the soul is marked, so that it may receive, or bestow on others,
things pertaining to Divine worship. Now the Divine worship consists in
certain actions: and the powers of the soul are properly ordained to
actions, just as the essence is ordained to existence. Therefore a
character is subjected not in the essence of the soul, but in its power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The subject is ascribed to an. accident in respect of that
to which the accident disposes it proximately, but not in respect of that
to which it disposes it remotely or indirectly. Now a character disposes
the soul directly and proximately to the fulfilling of things pertaining
to Divine worship: and because such cannot be accomplished suitably
without the help of grace, since, according to Jn. 4:24, "they that
adore" God "must adore Him in spirit and in truth," consequently, the
Divine bounty bestows grace on those who receive the character, so that
they may accomplish worthily the service to which they are deputed.
Therefore the subject should be ascribed to a character in respect of
those actions that pertain to the Divine worship, rather than in respect
of grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The subject of the natural power, which flows from the
principles of the essence. Now a character is not a power of this kind.
but a spiritual power coming from without. Wherefore, just as the essence
of the soul, from which man has his natural life, is perfected by grace
from which the soul derives spiritual life; so the natural power of the
soul is perfected by a spiritual power, which is a character. For habit
and disposition belong to a power of the soul, since they are ordained to
actions of which the powers are the principles. And in like manner
whatever is ordained to action, should be attributed to a power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above, a character is ordained unto things
pertaining to the Divine worship; which is a protestation of faith
expressed by exterior signs. Consequently, a character needs to be in the
soul's cognitive power, where also is faith.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a character can be blotted out from the soul?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that a character can be blotted out from the soul.
Because the more perfect an accident is, the more firmly does it adhere
to its subject. But grace is more perfect than a character; because a
character is ordained unto grace as to a further end. Now grace is lost
through sin. Much more, therefore, is a character so lost.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, by a character a man is deputed to the Divine worship,
as stated above (AA[3],4). But some pass from the worship of God to a
contrary worship by apostasy from the faith. It seems, therefore, that
such lose the sacramental character.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, when the end ceases, the means to the end should cease
also: thus after the resurrection there will be no marriage, because
begetting will cease, which is the purpose of marriage. Now the exterior
worship to which a character is ordained, will not endure in heaven,
where there will be no shadows, but all will be truth without a veil.
Therefore the sacramental character does not last in the soul for ever:
and consequently it can be blotted out.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "The Christian
sacraments are not less lasting than the bodily mark" of military
service. But the character of military service is not repeated, but is
"recognized and approved" in the man who obtains the emperor's
forgiveness after offending him. Therefore neither can the sacramental
character be blotted out.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[3]), in a sacramental character
Christ's faithful have a share in His Priesthood; in the sense that as
Christ has the full power of a spiritual priesthood, so His faithful are
likened to Him by sharing a certain spiritual power with regard to the
sacraments and to things pertaining to the Divine worship. For this
reason it is unbecoming that Christ should have a character: but His
Priesthood is compared to a character, as that which is complete and
perfect is compared to some participation of itself. Now Christ's
Priesthood is eternal, according to Ps. 109:4: "Thou art a priest for
ever, according to the order of Melchisedech." Consequently, every
sanctification wrought by His Priesthood, is perpetual, enduring as long
as the thing sanctified endures. This is clear even in inanimate things;
for the consecration of a church or an altar lasts for ever unless they
be destroyed. Since, therefore, the subject of a character is the soul as
to its intellective part, where faith resides, as stated above (A[4], ad
3); it is clear that, the intellect being perpetual and incorruptible, a
character cannot be blotted out from the soul.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Both grace and character are in the soul, but in different
ways. For grace is in the soul, as a form having complete existence
therein: whereas a character is in the soul, as an instrumental power, as
stated above (A[2]). Now a complete form is in its subject according to
the condition of the subject. And since the soul as long as it is a
wayfarer is changeable in respect of the free-will, it results that grace
is in the soul in a changeable manner. But an instrumental power follows
rather the condition of the principal agent: and consequently a character
exists in the soul in an indelible manner, not from any perfection of its
own, but from the perfection of Christ's Priesthood, from which the
character flows like an instrumental power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), "even apostates are
not deprived of their baptism, for when they repent and return to the
fold they do not receive it again; whence we conclude that it cannot be
lost." The reason of this is that a character is an instrumental power,
as stated above (ad 1), and the nature of an instrument as such is to be
moved by another, but not to move itself; this belongs to the will.
Consequently, however much the will be moved in the contrary direction,
the character is not removed, by reason of the immobility of the
principal mover.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Although external worship does not last after this life,
yet its end remains. Consequently, after this life the character remains,
both in the good as adding to their glory, and in the wicked as
increasing their shame: just as the character of the military service
remains in the soldiers after the victory, as the boast of the
conquerors, and the disgrace of the conquered.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a character is imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that a character is imprinted by all the sacraments of
the New Law: because each sacrament of the New Law makes man a
participator in Christ's Priesthood. But the sacramental character is
nothing but a participation in Christ's Priesthood, as already stated
(AA[3],5). Therefore it seems that a character is imprinted by each
sacrament of the New Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a character may be compared to the soul in which it is,
as a consecration to that which is consecrated. But by each sacrament of
the New Law man becomes the recipient of sanctifying grace, as stated
above (Q[62], A[1]). Therefore it seems that a character is imprinted by
each sacrament of the New Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a character is both a reality and a sacrament. But in
each sacrament of the New Law, there is something which is only a
reality, and something which is only a sacrament, and something which is
both reality and sacrament. Therefore a character is imprinted by each
sacrament of the New Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Those sacraments in which a character is imprinted, are
not reiterated, because a character is indelible, as stated above (A[5]):
whereas some sacraments are reiterated, for instance, penance and
matrimony. Therefore not all the sacraments imprint a character.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[6] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, As stated above (Q[62], AA[1],5), the sacraments of the
New Law are ordained for a twofold purpose, namely, as a remedy for sin,
and for the Divine worship. Now all the sacraments, from the fact that
they confer grace, have this in common, that they afford a remedy against
sin: whereas not all the sacraments are directly ordained to the Divine
worship. Thus it is clear that penance, whereby man is delivered from
sin, does not afford man any advance in the Divine worship, but restores
him to his former state.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[6] Body Para. 2/3
Now a sacrament may belong to the Divine worship in three ways: first in
regard to the thing done; secondly, in regard to the agent; thirdly, in
regard to the recipient. In regard to the thing done, the Eucharist
belongs to the Divine worship, for the Divine worship consists
principally therein, so far as it is the sacrifice of the Church. And by
this same sacrament a character is not imprinted on man; because it does
not ordain man to any further sacramental action or benefit received,
since rather is it "the end and consummation of all the sacraments," as
Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). But it contains within itself Christ,
in Whom there is not the character, but the very plenitude of the
Priesthood.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[6] Body Para. 3/3
But it is the sacrament of order that pertains to the sacramental
agents: for it is by this sacrament that men are deputed to confer
sacraments on others: while the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the
recipients, since it confers on man the power to receive the other
sacraments of the Church; whence it is called the "door of the
sacraments." In a way Confirmation also is ordained for the same purpose,
as we shall explain in its proper place (Q[65], A[3]). Consequently,
these three sacraments imprint a character, namely, Baptism,
Confirmation, and order.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Every sacrament makes man of the a participator in Christ's
Priesthood, from the fact that it confers on him some effect thereof. But
every sacrament does not depute a man to do or receive something
pertaining to the worship of the priesthood of Christ: while it is just
this that is required for a sacrament to imprint a character.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Man is sanctified by each of the sacraments, since sanctity
means immunity from sin, which is the effect of grace. But in a special
way some sacraments, which imprint a character, bestow on man a certain
consecration, thus deputing him to the Divine worship: just as inanimate
things are said to be consecrated forasmuch as they are deputed to Divine
worship.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[63] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Although a character is a reality and a sacrament, it does
not follow that whatever is a reality and a sacrament, is also a
character. With regard to the other sacraments we shall explain further
on what is the reality and what is the sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS (TEN ARTICLES)
In the next place we have to consider the causes of the sacraments, both
as to authorship and as to ministration. Concerning which there are ten
points of inquiry:
(1) Whether God alone works inwardly in the sacraments?
(2) Whether the institution of the sacraments is from God alone?
(3) Of the power which Christ exercised over the sacraments;
(4) Whether He could transmit that power to others?
(5) Whether the wicked can have the power of administering the
sacraments?
(6) Whether the wicked sin in administering the sacraments?
(7) Whether the angels can be ministers of the sacraments?
(8) Whether the minister's intention is necessary in the sacraments?
(9) Whether right faith is required therein; so that it be impossible
for an unbeliever to confer a sacrament?
(10) Whether a right intention is required therein?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether God alone, or the minister also, works inwardly unto the
sacramental effect?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that not God alone, but also the minister, works
inwardly unto the sacramental effect. For the inward sacramental effect
is to cleanse man from sin and enlighten him by grace. But it belongs to
the ministers of the Church "to cleanse, enlighten and perfect," as
Dionysius explains (Coel. Hier. v). Therefore it seems that the
sacramental effect is the work not only of God, but also of the ministers
of the Church.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, certain prayers are offered up in conferring the
sacraments. But the prayers of the righteous are more acceptable to God
than those of any other, according to Jn. 9:31: "If a man be a server of
God, and doth His will, him He heareth." Therefore it stems that a man
obtains a greater sacramental effect if he receive it from a good
minister. Consequently, the interior effect is partly the work of the
minister and not of God alone.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, man is of greater account than an inanimate thing. But
an inanimate thing contributes something to the interior effect: since
"water touches the body and cleanses the soul," as Augustine says (Tract.
lxxx in Joan.). Therefore the interior sacramental effect is partly the
work of man and not of God alone.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Rm. 8:33): "God that justifieth." Since,
then, the inward effect of all the sacraments is justification, it seems
that God alone works the interior sacramental effect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, There are two ways of producing an effect; first, as a
principal agent; secondly, as an instrument. In the former way the
interior sacramental effect is the work of God alone: first, because God
alone can enter the soul wherein the sacramental effect takes place; and
no agent can operate immediately where it is not: secondly, because grace
which is an interior sacramental effect is from God alone, as we have
established in the FS, Q[112], A[1]; while the character which is the
interior effect of certain sacraments, is an instrumental power which
flows from the principal agent, which is God. In the second way, however,
the interior sacramental effect can be the work of man, in so far as he
works as a minister. For a minister is of the nature of an instrument,
since the action of both is applied to something extrinsic, while the
interior effect is produced through the power of the principal agent,
which is God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Cleansing in so far as it is attributed to the ministers of
the Church is not a washing from sin: deacons are said to "cleanse,"
inasmuch as they remove the unclean from the body of the faithful, or
prepare them by their pious admonitions for the reception of the
sacraments. In like manner also priests are said to "enlighten" God's
people, not indeed by giving them grace, but by conferring on them the
sacraments of grace; as Dionysius explains (Coel. Hier. v).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The prayers which are said in giving the sacraments, are
offered to God, not on the part of the individual, but on the part of the
whole Church, whose prayers are acceptable to God, according to Mt.
18:19: "If two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything
whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by My Father." Nor is
there any reason why the devotion of a just man should not contribute to
this effect. But that which is the sacramental effect is not impetrated
by the prayer of the Church or of the minister, but through the merit of
Christ's Passion, the power of which operates in the sacraments, as
stated above (Q[62], A[5]). Wherefore the sacramental effect is made no
better by a better minister. And yet something in addition may be
impetrated for the receiver of the sacrament through the devotion of the
minister: but this is not the work of the minister, but the work of God
Who hears the minister's prayer.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Inanimate things do not produce the sacramental effect,
except instrumentally, as stated above. In like manner neither do men
produce the sacramental effect, except ministerially, as also stated
above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the sacraments are instituted by God alone?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sacraments are not instituted by God alone. For
those things which God has instituted are delivered to us in Holy
Scripture. But in the sacraments certain things are done which are
nowhere mentioned in Holy Scripture; for instance, the chrism with which
men are confirmed, the oil with which priests are anointed, and many
others, both words and actions, which we employ in the sacraments.
Therefore the sacraments were not instituted by God alone.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a sacrament is a kind of sign. Now sensible things have
their own natural signification. Nor can it be said that God takes
pleasure in certain significations and not in others; because He approves
of all that He made. Moreover, it seems to be peculiar to the demons to
be enticed to something by means of signs; for Augustine says (De Civ.
Dei xxi): "The demons are enticed . . . by means of creatures, which were
created not by them but by God, by various means of attraction according
to their various natures, not as an animal is enticed by food, but as a
spirit is drawn by a sign." It seems, therefore, that there is no need
for the sacraments to be instituted by God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the apostles were God's vicegerents on earth: hence the
Apostle says (2 Cor. 2:10): "For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned
anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ," i.e. as
though Christ Himself had pardoned. Therefore it seems that the apostles
and their successors can institute new sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The institutor of anything is he who gives it strength
and power: as in the case of those who institute laws. But the power of a
sacrament is from God alone, as we have shown above (A[1]; Q[62], A[1]).
Therefore God alone can institute a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As appears from what has been said above (A[1]; Q[62],
A[1]), the sacraments are instrumental causes of spiritual effects. Now
an instrument has its power from the principal agent. But an agent in
respect of a sacrament is twofold; viz. he who institutes the sacraments,
and he who makes use of the sacrament instituted, by applying it for the
production of the effect. Now the power of a sacrament cannot be from him
who makes use of the sacrament: because he works but as a minister.
Consequently, it follows that the power of the sacrament is from the
institutor of the sacrament. Since, therefore, the power of the sacrament
is from God alone, it follows that God alone can institute the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Human institutions observed in the sacraments are not
essential to the sacrament; but belong to the solemnity which is added to
the sacraments in order to arouse devotion and reverence in the
recipients. But those things that are essential to the sacrament, are
instituted by Christ Himself, Who is God and man. And though they are not
all handed down by the Scriptures, yet the Church holds them from the
intimate tradition of the apostles, according to the saying of the
Apostle (1 Cor. 11:34): "The rest I will set in order when I come."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: From their very nature sensible things have a certain
aptitude for the signifying of spiritual effects: but this aptitude is
fixed by the Divine institution to some special signification. This is
what Hugh of St. Victor means by saying (De Sacram. i) that "a sacrament
owes its signification to its institution." Yet God chooses certain
things rather than others for sacramental signification, not as though
His choice were restricted to them, but in order that their signification
be more suitable to them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The apostles and their successors are God's vicars in
governing the Church which is built on faith and the sacraments of faith.
Wherefore, just as they may not institute another Church, so neither may
they deliver another faith, nor institute other sacraments: on the
contrary, the Church is said to be built up with the sacraments "which
flowed from the side of Christ while hanging on the Cross."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ as man had the power of producing the inward sacramental
effect?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ as man had the power of producing the
interior sacramental effect. For John the Baptist said (Jn. 1:33): "He,
Who sent me to baptize in water, said to me: He upon Whom thou shalt see
the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth
with the Holy Ghost." But to baptize with the Holy Ghost is to confer
inwardly the grace of the Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost descended upon
Christ as man, not as God: for thus He Himself gives the Holy Ghost.
Therefore it seems that Christ, as man, had the power of producing the
inward sacramental effect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, our Lord said (Mt. 9:6): "That you may know that the Son
of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins." But forgiveness of sins is
an inward sacramental effect. Therefore it seems that Christ as man
produces the inward sacramental effect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the institution of the sacraments belongs to him who
acts as principal agent in producing the inward sacramental effect. Now
it is clear that Christ instituted the sacraments. Therefore it is He
that produces the inward sacramental effect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, no one can confer the sacramental effect without
conferring the sacrament, except he produce the sacramental effect by his
own power. But Christ conferred the sacramental effect without conferring
the sacrament; as in the case of Magdalen to whom He said: "Thy sins are
forgiven Thee" (Lk. 7:48). Therefore it seems that Christ, as man,
produces the inward sacramental effect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[3] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, the principal agent in causing the inward effect is that
in virtue of which the sacrament operates. But the sacraments derive
their power from Christ's Passion and through the invocation of His Name;
according to 1 Cor. 1:13: "Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you
baptized in the name of Paul?" Therefore Christ, as man, produces the
inward sacramental effect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine (Isidore, Etym. vi) says: "The Divine power
in the sacraments works inwardly in producing their salutary effect." Now
the Divine power is Christ's as God, not as man. Therefore Christ
produces the inward sacramental effect, not as man but as God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Christ produces the inward sacramental effect, both as
God and as man, but not in the same way. For, as God, He works in the
sacraments by authority: but, as man, His operation conduces to the
inward sacramental effects meritoriously and efficiently, but
instrumentally. For it has been stated (Q[48], AA[1],6; Q[49], A[1]) that
Christ's Passion which belongs to Him in respect of His human nature, is
the cause of justification, both meritoriously and efficiently, not as
the principal cause thereof, or by His own authority, but as an
instrument, in so far as His humanity is the instrument of His Godhead,
as stated above (Q[13], AA[2],3; Q[19], A[1]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
Nevertheless, since it is an instrument united to the Godhead in unity
of Person, it has a certain headship and efficiency in regard to
extrinsic instruments, which are the ministers of the Church and the
sacraments themselves, as has been explained above (A[1]). Consequently,
just as Christ, as God, has power of "authority" over the sacraments, so,
as man, He has the power of ministry in chief, or power of "excellence."
And this consists in four things. First in this, that the merit and power
of His Passion operates in the sacraments, as stated above (Q[62], A[5]).
And because the power of the Passion is communicated to us by faith,
according to Rm. 3:25: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation
through faith in His blood," which faith we proclaim by calling on the
name of Christ: therefore, secondly, Christ's power of excellence over
the sacraments consists in this, that they are sanctified by the
invocation of His name. And because the sacraments derive their power
from their institution, hence, thirdly, the excellence of Christ's power
consists in this, that He, Who gave them their power, could institute the
sacraments. And since cause does not depend on effect, but rather
conversely, it belongs to the excellence of Christ's power, that He could
bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the exterior sacrament.
Thus it is clear how to solve the objections; for the arguments on either
side are true to a certain extent, as explained above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ could communicate to ministers the power which He had in
the sacraments?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ could not communicate to ministers the power
which He had in the sacraments. For as Augustine argues against Maximin,
"if He could, but would not, He was jealous of His power." But jealousy
was far from Christ Who had the fulness of charity. Since, therefore,
Christ did not communicate His power to ministers, it seems that He could
not.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, on Jn. 14:12: "Greater than these shall he do,"
Augustine says (Tract. lxxii): "I affirm this to be altogether greater,"
namely, for a man from being ungodly to be made righteous, "than to
create heaven and earth." But Christ could not communicate to His
disciples the power of creating heaven and earth: neither, therefore,
could He give them the power of making the ungodly to be righteous.
Since, therefore, the justification of the ungodly is effected by the
power that Christ has in the sacraments, it seems that He could not
communicate that power to ministers.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it belongs to Christ as Head of the Church that grace
should flow from Him to others, according to Jn. 1:16: "Of His fulness we
all have received." But this could not be communicated to others; since
then the Church would be deformed, having many heads. Therefore it seems
that Christ could not communicate His power to ministers.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, on Jn. 1:31: "I knew Him not," Augustine says (Tract.
v) that "he did not know that our Lord having the authority of baptizing
. . would keep it to Himself." But John would not have been in
ignorance of this, if such a power were incommunicable. Therefore Christ
could communicate His power to ministers.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[3]), Christ had a twofold power in the
sacraments. one was the power of "authority," which belongs to Him as
God: and this power He could not communicate to any creature; just as
neither could He communicate the Divine Essence. The other was the power
of "excellence," which belongs to Him as man. This power He could
communicate to ministers; namely, by giving them such a fulness of
grace---that their merits would conduce to the sacramental effect---that
by the invocation of their names, the sacraments would be
sanctified---and that they themselves might institute sacraments, and by
their mere will confer the sacramental effect without observing the
sacramental rite. For a united instrument, the more powerful it is, is
all the more able to lend its power to the separated instrument; as the
hand can to a stick.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It was not through jealousy that Christ refrained from
communicating to ministers His power of excellence, but for the good of
the faithful; lest they should put their trust in men, and lest there
should be various kinds of sacraments, giving rise to division in the
Church; as may be seen in those who said: "I am of Paul, I am of Apollo,
and I of Cephas" (1 Cor. 1:12).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This objection is true of the power of authority, which
belongs to Christ as God. At the same time the power of excellence can be
called authority in comparison to other ministers. Whence on 1 Cor. 1:13:
"Is Christ divided?" the gloss says that "He could give power of
authority in baptizing, to those to whom He gave the power of
administering it."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: It was in order to avoid the incongruity of many heads in
the Church, that Christ was unwilling to communicate to ministers His
power of excellence. If, however, He had done so, He would have been Head
in chief; the others in subjection to Him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the sacraments can be conferred by evil ministers?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sacraments cannot be conferred by evil
ministers. For the sacraments of the New Law are ordained for the purpose
of cleansing from sin and for the bestowal of grace. Now evil men, being
themselves unclean, cannot cleanse others from sin, according to Ecclus.
34:4: "Who [Vulg.: 'What'] can be made clean by the unclean?" Moreover,
since they have not grace, it seems that they cannot give grace, for "no
one gives what he has not." It seems, therefore, that the sacraments
cannot be conferred by wicked men.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, all the power of the sacraments is derived from Christ,
as stated above (A[3]; Q[62], A[5]). But evil men are cut off from
Christ: because they have not charity, by which the members are united to
their Head, according to 1 Jn. 4:16: "He that abideth in charity, abideth
in God, and God in him." Therefore it seems that the sacraments cannot be
conferred by evil men.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if anything is wanting that is required for the
sacraments, the sacrament is invalid; for instance, if the required
matter or form be wanting. But the minister required for a sacrament is
one who is without the stain of sin, according to Lev. 21:17,18:
"Whosoever of thy seed throughout their families, hath a blemish, he
shall not offer bread to his God, neither shall he approach to minister
to Him." Therefore it seems that if the minister be wicked, the sacrament
has no effect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says on Jn. 1:33: "He upon Whom thou shalt
see the Spirit," etc. (Tract. v in Joan.), that "John did not know that
our Lord, having the authority of baptizing, would keep it to Himself,
but that the ministry would certainly pass to both good and evil men . .
What is a bad minister to thee, where the Lord is good?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), the ministers of the Church work
instrumentally in the sacraments, because, in a way, a minister is of the
nature of an instrument. But, as stated above (Q[62], AA[1],4), an
instrument acts not by reason of its own form, but by the power of the
one who moves it. Consequently, whatever form or power an instrument has
in addition to that which it has as an instrument, is accidental to it:
for instance, that a physician's body, which is the instrument of his
soul, wherein is his medical art, be healthy or sickly; or that a pipe,
through which water passes, be of silver or lead. Therefore the ministers
of the Church can confer the sacraments, though they be wicked.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The ministers of the Church do not by their own power
cleanse from sin those who approach the sacraments, nor do they confer
grace on them: it is Christ Who does this by His own power while He
employs them as instruments. Consequently, those who approach the
sacraments receive an effect whereby they are enlikened not to the
ministers but to Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ's members are united to their Head by charity, so
that they may receive life from Him; for as it is written (1 Jn. 3:14):
"He that loveth not abideth in death." Now it is possible for a man to
work with a lifeless instrument, and separated from him as to bodily
union, provided it be united to him by some sort of motion: for a workman
works in one way with his hand, in another with his axe. Consequently, it
is thus that Christ works in the sacraments, both by wicked men as
lifeless instruments, and by good men as living instruments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: A thing is required in a sacrament in two ways. First, as
being essential to it: and if this be wanting, the sacrament is invalid;
for instance, if the due form or matter be wanting. Secondly, a thing is
required for a sacrament, by reason of a certain fitness. And in this way
good ministers are required for a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether wicked men sin in administering the sacraments?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that wicked men do not sin in administering the
sacraments. For just as men serve God in the sacraments, so do they serve
Him in works of charity; whence it is written (Heb. 13:16): "Do not
forget to do good and to impart, for by such sacrifices God's favor is
obtained." But the wicked do not sin in serving God by works of charity:
indeed, they should be persuaded to do so, according to Dan. 4:24: "Let
my counsel be acceptable" to the king; "Redeem thou thy sins with alms."
Therefore it seems that wicked men do not sin in administering the
sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, whoever co-operates with another in his sin, is also
guilty of sin, according to Rm. 1:32: "He is [Vulg.: 'They are'] worthy
of death; not only he that commits the sin, but also he who consents to
them that do them." But if wicked ministers sin in administering
sacraments, those who receive sacraments from them, co-operate in their
sin. Therefore they would sin also; which seems unreasonable.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it seems that no one should act when in doubt, for thus
man would be driven to despair, as being unable to avoid sin. But if the
wicked were to sin in administering sacraments, they would be in a state
of perplexity: since sometimes they would sin also if they did not
administer sacraments; for instance, when by reason of their office it is
their bounden duty to do so; for it is written (1 Cor. 9:16): "For a
necessity lieth upon me: Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel."
Sometimes also on account of some danger; for instance, if a child in
danger of death be brought to a sinner for baptism. Therefore it seems
that the wicked do not sin in administering the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. i) that "it is wrong for
the wicked even to touch the symbols," i.e. the sacramental signs. And he
says in the epistle to Demophilus: "It seems presumptuous for such a
man," i.e. a sinner, "to lay hands on priestly things; he is neither
afraid nor ashamed, all unworthy that he is, to take part in Divine
things, with the thought that God does not see what he sees in himself:
he thinks, by false pretenses, to cheat Him Whom he calls his Father; he
dares to utter, in the person of Christ, words polluted by his infamy, I
will not call them prayers, over the Divine symbols."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, A sinful action consists in this, that a man "fails to
act as he ought to," as the Philosopher explains (Ethic. ii). Now it has
been said (A[5], ad 3) that it is fitting for the ministers of sacraments
to be righteous; because ministers should be like unto their Lord,
according to Lev. 19:2: "Be ye holy, because I . . . am holy"; and
Ecclus. 10:2: "As the judge of the people is himself, so also are his
ministers." Consequently, there can be no doubt that the wicked sin by
exercising the ministry of God and the Church, by conferring the
sacraments. And since this sin pertains to irreverence towards God and
the contamination of holy things, as far as the man who sins is
concerned, although holy things in themselves cannot be contaminated; it
follows that such a sin is mortal in its genus.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Works of charity are not made holy by some process of
consecration, but they belong to the holiness of righteousness, as being
in a way parts of righteousness. Consequently, when a man shows himself
as a minister of God, by doing works of charity, if he be righteous, he
will be made yet holier; but if he be a sinner, he is thereby disposed to
holiness. On the other hand, the sacraments are holy in themselves owing
to their mystical consecration. Wherefore the holiness of righteousness
is required in the minister, that he may be suitable for his ministry:
for which reason he acts unbecomingly and sins, if while in a state of
sin he attempts to fulfil that ministry.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: He who approaches a sacrament, receives it from a minister
of the Church, not because he is such and such a man, but because he is a
minister of the Church. Consequently, as long as the latter is tolerated
in the ministry, he that receives a sacrament from him, does not
communicate in his sin, but communicates with the Church from. whom he
has his ministry. But if the Church, by degrading, excommunicating, or
suspending him, does not tolerate him in the ministry, he that receives a
sacrament from him sins, because he communicates in his sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: A man who is in mortal sin is not perplexed simply, if by
reason of his office it be his bounden duty to minister sacraments;
because he can repent of his sin and so minister lawfully. But there is
nothing unreasonable in his being perplexed, if we suppose that he wishes
to remain in sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
However, in a case of necessity when even a lay person might baptize, he
would not sin in baptizing. For it is clear that then he does not
exercise the ministry of the Church, but comes to the aid of one who is
in need of his services. It is not so with the other sacraments, which
are not so necessary as baptism, as we shall show further on (Q[65],
AA[3],4; Q[62], A[3]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether angels can administer sacraments?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that angels can administer sacraments. Because a higher
minister can do whatever the lower can; thus a priest can do whatever a
deacon can: but not conversely. But angels are higher ministers in the
hierarchical order than any men whatsoever, as Dionysius says (Coel.
Hier. ix). Therefore, since men can be ministers of sacraments, it seems
that much more can angels be.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in heaven holy men are likened to the angels (Mt.
22:30). But some holy men, when in heaven, can be ministers of the
sacraments; since the sacramental character is indelible, as stated above
(Q[63], A[5]). Therefore it seems that angels too can be ministers of
sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as stated above (Q[8], A[7]), the devil is head of the
wicked, and the wicked are his members. But sacraments can be
administered by the wicked. Therefore it seems that they can be
administered even by demons.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 5:1): "Every high priest taken
from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God."
But angels whether good or bad are not taken from among men. Therefore
they are not ordained ministers in the things that appertain to God, i.e.
in the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[7] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (A[3]; Q[62], A[5]), the whole power of
the sacraments flows from Christ's Passion, which belongs to Him as man.
And Him in their very nature men, not angels, resemble; indeed, in
respect of His Passion, He is described as being "a little lower than the
angels" (Heb. 2:9). Consequently, it belongs to men, but not to angels,
to dispense the sacraments and to take part in their administration.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[7] Body Para. 2/2
But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the
sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without
conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to the
ministers of the Church so as to be unable to give angels power to
administer the sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of truth;
if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, it should be
considered valid, because it ought to be evident that this is being done
by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are said to have been
consecrated by the ministry of the angels [*See Acta S.S., September 29].
But if demons, who are "lying spirits," were to perform a sacramental
rite, it should be pronounced as invalid.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: What men do in a less perfect manner, i.e. by sensible
sacraments, which are proportionate to their nature, angels also do, as
ministers of a higher degree, in a more perfect manner, i.e.
invisibly---by cleansing, enlightening, and perfecting.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The saints in heaven resemble the angels as to their share
of glory, but not as to the conditions of their nature: and consequently
not in regard to the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Wicked men do not owe their power of conferring sacraments
to their being members of the devil. Consequently, it does not follow
that "a fortiori" the devil, their head, can do so.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the minister's intention is required for the validity of a
sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the minister's intention is not required for the
validity of a sacrament. For the minister of a sacrament works
instrumentally. But the perfection of an action does not depend on the
intention of the instrument, but on that of the principal agent.
Therefore the minister's intention is not necessary for the perfecting of
a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, one man's intention cannot be known to another.
Therefore if the minister's intention were required for the validity of a
sacrament, he who approaches a sacrament could not know whether he has
received the sacrament. Consequently he could have no certainty in regard
to salvation; the more that some sacraments are necessary for salvation,
as we shall state further on (Q[65], A[4]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a man's intention cannot bear on that to which he does
not attend. But sometimes ministers of sacraments do not attend to what
they say or do, through thinking of something else. Therefore in this
respect the sacrament would be invalid through want of intention.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, What is unintentional happens by chance. But this
cannot be said of the sacramental operation. Therefore the sacraments
require the intention of the minister.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[8] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, When a thing is indifferent to many uses, it must needs
be determined to one, if that one has to be effected. Now those things
which are done in the sacraments, can be done with various intent; for
instance, washing with water, which is done in baptism, may be ordained
to bodily cleanliness, to the health of the body, to amusement, and many
other similar things. Consequently, it needs to be determined to one
purpose, i.e. the sacramental effect, by the intention of him who washes.
And this intention is expressed by the words which are pronounced in the
sacraments; for instance the words, "I baptize thee in the name of the
Father," etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: An inanimate instrument has no intention regarding the
effect; but instead of the intention there is the motion whereby it is
moved by the principal agent. But an animate instrument, such as a
minister, is not only moved, but in a sense moves itself, in so far as by
his will he moves his bodily members to act. Consequently, his intention
is required, whereby he subjects himself to the principal agent; that is,
it is necessary that he intend to do that which Christ and the Church do.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 2: On this point there are two opinions. For some hold that
the mental intention of the minister is necessary; in the absence of
which the sacrament is invalid: and that this defect in the case of
children who have not the intention of approaching the sacrament, is made
good by Christ, Who baptizes inwardly: whereas in adults, who have that
intention, this defect is made good by their faith and devotion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 2/3
This might be true enough of the ultimate effect, i.e. justification
from sins; but as to that effect which is both real and sacramental, viz.
the character, it does not appear possible for it to be made good by the
devotion of the recipient, since a character is never imprinted save by a
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 3/3
Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a
sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is;
while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is
expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament,
except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of
the recipient of the sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Although he who thinks of something else, has no actual
intention, yet he has habitual intention, which suffices for the validity
of the sacrament; for instance if, when a priest goes to baptize someone,
he intends to do to him what the Church does. Wherefore if subsequently
during the exercise of the act his mind be distracted by other matters,
the sacrament is valid in virtue of his original intention. Nevertheless,
the minister of a sacrament should take great care to have actual
intention. But this is not entirely in man's power, because when a man
wishes to be very intent on something, he begins unintentionally to think
of other things, according to Ps. 39:18: "My heart hath forsaken me."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[9] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[9] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that faith is required of necessity in the minister of a
sacrament. For, as stated above (A[8]), the intention of the minister is
necessary for the validity of a sacrament. But "faith directs in
intention" as Augustine says against Julian (In Psalm xxxi, cf. Contra
Julian iv). Therefore, if the minister is without the true faith, the
sacrament is invalid.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[9] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, if a minister of the Church has not the true faith, it
seems that he is a heretic. But heretics, seemingly, cannot confer
sacraments. For Cyprian says in an epistle against heretics (lxxiii):
"Everything whatsoever heretics do, is carnal, void and counterfeit, so
that nothing that they do should receive our approval." And Pope Leo says
in his epistle to Leo Augustus (clvi): "It is a matter of notoriety that
the light of all the heavenly sacraments is extinguished in the see of
Alexandria, by an act of dire and senseless cruelty. The sacrifice is no
longer offered, the chrism is no longer consecrated, all the mysteries of
religion have fled at the touch of the parricide hands of ungodly men."
Therefore a sacrament requires of necessity that the minister should have
the true faith.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[9] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, those who have not the true faith seem to be separated
from the Church by excommunication: for it is written in the second
canonical epistle of John (10): "If any man come to you, and bring not
this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him; God speed
you": and (Titus 3:10): "A man that is a heretic, after the first and
second admonition avoid." But it seems that an excommunicate cannot
confer a sacrament of the Church: since he is separated from the Church,
to whose ministry the dispensation of the sacraments belongs. Therefore a
sacrament requires of necessity that the minister should have the true
faith.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[9] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says against the Donatist Petilian: "Remember
that the evil lives of wicked men are not prejudicial to God's
sacraments, by rendering them either invalid or less holy."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[9] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[5]), since the minister works
instrumentally in the sacraments, he acts not by his own but by Christ's
power. Now just as charity belongs to a man's own power so also does
faith. Wherefore, just as the validity of a sacrament does not require
that the minister should have charity, and even sinners can confer
sacraments, as stated above (A[5]); so neither is it necessary that he
should have faith, and even an unbeliever can confer a true sacrament,
provided that the other essentials be there.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It may happen that a man's faith is defective in regard to
something else, and not in regard to the reality of the sacrament which
he confers: for instance, he may believe that it is unlawful to swear in
any case whatever, and yet he may believe that baptism is an efficient
cause of salvation. And thus such unbelief does not hinder the intention
of conferring the sacrament. But if his faith be defective in regard to
the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward
effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the
Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly
done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what
the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention
suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above (A[8], ad 2) the
minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith
any defect in the minister's faith is made good.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: Some heretics in conferring sacraments do not observe the
form prescribed by the Church: and these confer neither the sacrament nor
the reality of the sacrament. But some do observe the form prescribed by
the Church: and these confer indeed the sacrament but not the reality. I
say this in the supposition that they are outwardly cut off from the
Church; because from the very fact that anyone receives the sacraments
from them, he sins; and consequently is hindered from receiving the
effect of the sacrament. Wherefore Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad
Pet.) says: "Be well assured and have no doubt whatever that those who
are baptized outside the Church, unless they come back to the Church,
will reap disaster from their Baptism." In this sense Pope Leo says that
"the light of the sacraments was extinguished in the Church of
Alexandria"; viz. in regard to the reality of the sacrament, not as to
the sacrament itself.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
Cyprian, however, thought that heretics do not confer even the
sacrament: but in this respect we do not follow his opinion. Hence
Augustine says (De unico Baptismo xiii): "Though the martyr Cyprian
refused to recognize Baptism conferred by heretics or schismatics, yet so
great are his merits, culminating in the crown of martyrdom, that the
light of his charity dispels the darkness of his fault, and if anything
needed pruning, the sickle of his passion cut it off."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[9] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The power of administering the sacraments belongs to the
spiritual character which is indelible, as explained above (Q[63], A[3]
). Consequently, if a man be suspended by the Church, or excommunicated
or degraded, he does not lose the power of conferring sacraments, but the
permission to use this power. Wherefore he does indeed confer the
sacrament, but he sins in so doing. He also sins that receives a
sacrament from such a man: so that he does not receive the reality of the
sacrament, unless ignorance excuses him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[10] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the validity of a sacrament requires a good intention in the
minister?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[10] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the validity of a sacrament requires a good
intention in the minister. For the minister's intention should be in
conformity with the Church's intention, as explained above (A[8], ad 1).
But the intention of the Church is always good. Therefore the validity of
a sacrament requires of necessity a good intention in the minister.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[10] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a perverse intention seems worse than a playful one. But
a playful intention destroys a sacrament: for instance, if someone were
to baptize anybody not seriously but in fun. Much more, therefore, does a
perverse intention destroy a sacrament: for instance, if somebody were to
baptize a man in order to kill him afterwards.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[10] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a perverse intention vitiates the whole work, according
to Lk. 11:34: "If thy eye be evil, thy" whole "body will be darksome."
But the sacraments of Christ cannot be contaminated by evil men; as
Augustine says against Petilian (Cont. Litt. Petil ii). Therefore it
seems that, if the minister's intention is perverse, the sacrament is
invalid.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[10] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, A perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of the
minister. But the wickedness of the minister does not annul the
sacrament: neither, therefore, does his perverse intention.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[10] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The minister's intention may be perverted in two ways.
First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man does not
intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a
perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament, especially if
it be manifested outwardly.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[10] Body Para. 2/2
Secondly, the minister's intention may be perverted as to something that
follows the sacrament: for instance, a priest may intend to baptize a
woman so as to be able to abuse her; or to consecrate the Body of Christ,
so as to use it for sorcery. And because that which comes first does not
depend on that which follows, consequently such a perverse intention does
not annul the sacrament; but the minister himself sins grievously in
having such an intention.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The Church has a good intention both as to the validity of
the sacrament and as to the use thereof: but it is the former intention
that perfects the sacrament, while the latter conduces to the meritorious
effect. Consequently, the minister who conforms his intention to the
Church as to the former rectitude, but not as to the latter, perfects the
sacrament indeed, but gains no merit for himself.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The intention of mimicry or fun excludes the first kind of
right intention, necessary for the validity of a sacrament. Consequently,
there is no comparison.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[64] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: A perverse intention perverts the action of the one who has
such an intention, not the action of another. Consequently, the perverse
intention of the minister perverts the sacrament in so far as it is his
action: not in so far as it is the action of Christ, Whose minister he
is. It is just as if the servant [minister] of some man were to carry
alms to the poor with a wicked intention, whereas his master had
commanded him with a good intention to do so.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS (FOUR ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the number of the sacraments: and concerning
this there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether there are seven sacraments?
(2) The order of the sacraments among themselves;
(3) Their mutual comparison;
(4) Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there should be seven sacraments?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that there ought not to be seven sacraments. For the
sacraments derive their efficacy from the Divine power, and the power of
Christ's Passion. But the Divine power is one, and Christ's Passion is
one; since "by one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are
sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). Therefore there should be but one sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a sacrament is intended as a remedy for the defect
caused by sin. Now this is twofold, punishment and guilt. Therefore two
sacraments would be enough.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, sacraments belong to the actions of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy, as Dionysius explains (Eccl. Hier. v). But, as he says, there
are three actions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, namely, "to cleanse,
to enlighten, to perfect." Therefore there should be no more than three
sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that the "sacraments"
of the New Law are "less numerous" than those of the Old Law. But in the
Old Law there was no sacrament corresponding to Confirmation and Extreme
Unction. Therefore these should not be counted among the sacraments of
the New Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, lust is not more grievous than other sins, as we have
made clear in the FS, Q[74], A[5]; SS, Q[154], A[3]. But there is no
sacrament instituted as a remedy for other sins. Therefore neither should
matrimony be instituted as a remedy for lust.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1
OBJ 6: On the other hand, It seems that there should be more than seven
sacraments. For sacraments are a kind of sacred sign. But in the Church
there are many sanctifications by sensible signs, such as Holy Water the
Consecration of Altars, and such like. Therefore there are more than
seven sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] Obj. 7 Para. 1/1
OBJ 7: Further, Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacram. i) says that the
sacraments of the Old Law were oblations, tithes and sacrifices. But the
Sacrifice of the Church is one sacrament, called the Eucharist. Therefore
oblations also and tithes should be called sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] Obj. 8 Para. 1/1
OBJ 8: Further, there are three kinds of sin, original, mortal and
venial. Now Baptism is intended as a remedy against original sin, and
Penance against mortal sin. Therefore besides the seven sacraments, there
should be another against venial sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] Body Para. 1/6
I answer that, As stated above (Q[62], A[5]; Q[63], A[1]), the
sacraments of the Church were instituted for a twofold purpose: namely,
in order to perfect man in things pertaining to the worship of God
according to the religion of Christian life, and to be a remedy against
the defects caused by sin. And in either way it is becoming that there
should be seven sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] Body Para. 2/6
For spiritual life has a certain conformity with the life of the body:
just as other corporeal things have a certain likeness to things
spiritual. Now a man attains perfection in the corporeal life in two
ways: first, in regard to his own person; secondly, in regard to the
whole community of the society in which he lives, for man is by nature a
social animal. With regard to himself man is perfected in the life of the
body, in two ways; first, directly [per se], i.e. by acquiring some vital
perfection; secondly, indirectly [per accidens], i.e. by the removal of
hindrances to life, such as ailments, or the like. Now the life of the
body is perfected "directly," in three ways. First, by generation whereby
a man begins to be and to live: and corresponding to this in the
spiritual life there is Baptism, which is a spiritual regeneration,
according to Titus 3:5: "By the laver of regeneration," etc. Secondly, by
growth whereby a man is brought to perfect size and strength: and
corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Confirmation, in
which the Holy Ghost is given to strengthen us. Wherefore the disciples
who were already baptized were bidden thus: "Stay you in the city till
you be endued with power from on high" (Lk. 24:49). Thirdly, by
nourishment, whereby life and strength are preserved to man; and
corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is the Eucharist.
Wherefore it is said (Jn. 6:54): "Except you eat of the flesh of the Son
of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] Body Para. 3/6
And this would be enough for man if he had an impassible life, both
corporally and spiritually; but since man is liable at times to both
corporal and spiritual infirmity, i.e. sin, hence man needs a cure from
his infirmity; which cure is twofold. one is the healing, that restores
health: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Penance,
according to Ps. 40:5: "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee."
The other is the restoration of former vigor by means of suitable diet
and exercise: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is
Extreme Unction, which removes the remainder of sin, and prepares man for
final glory. Wherefore it is written (James 5:15): "And if he be in sins
they shall be forgiven him."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] Body Para. 4/6
In regard to the whole community, man is perfected in two ways. First,
by receiving power to rule the community and to exercise public acts: and
corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is the sacrament of
order, according to the saying of Heb. 7:27, that priests offer
sacrifices not for themselves only, but also for the people. Secondly in
regard to natural propagation. This is accomplished by Matrimony both in
the corporal and in the spiritual life: since it is not only a sacrament
but also a function of nature.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] Body Para. 5/6
We may likewise gather the number of the sacraments from their being
instituted as a remedy against the defect caused by sin. For Baptism is
intended as a remedy against the absence of spiritual life; Confirmation,
against the infirmity of soul found in those of recent birth; the
Eucharist, against the soul's proneness to sin; Penance, against actual
sin committed after baptism; Extreme Unction, against the remainders of
sins---of those sins, namely, which are not sufficiently removed by
Penance, whether through negligence or through ignorance; order, against
divisions in the community; Matrimony, as a remedy against concupiscence
in the individual, and against the decrease in numbers that results from
death.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] Body Para. 6/6
Some, again, gather the number of sacraments from a certain adaptation
to the virtues and to the defects and penal effects resulting from sin.
They say that Baptism corresponds to Faith, and is ordained as a remedy
against original sin; Extreme Unction, to Hope, being ordained against
venial sin; the Eucharist, to Charity, being ordained against the penal
effect which is malice. order, to Prudence, being ordained against
ignorance; Penance to Justice, being ordained against mortal sin;
Matrimony, to Temperance, being ordained against concupiscence;
Confirmation, to Fortitude, being ordained against infirmity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The same principal agent uses various instruments unto
various effects, in accordance with the thing to be done. In the same way
the Divine power and the Passion of Christ work in us through the various
sacraments as through various instruments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Guilt and punishment are diversified both according to
species, inasmuch as there are various species of guilt and punishment,
and according to men's various states and habitudes. And in this respect
it was necessary to have a number of sacraments, as explained above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: In hierarchical actions we must consider the agents, the
recipients and the actions. The agents are the ministers of the Church;
and to these the sacrament of order belongs. The recipients are those who
approach the sacraments: and these are brought into being by Matrimony.
The actions are "cleansing," "enlightening," and "perfecting." Mere
cleansing, however, cannot be a sacrament of the New Law, which confers
grace: yet it belongs to certain sacramentals, i.e. catechism and
exorcism. But cleansing coupled with enlightening, according to
Dionysius, belongs to Baptism; and, for him who falls back into sin, they
belong secondarily to Penance and Extreme Unction. And perfecting, as
regards power, which is, as it were, a formal perfection, belongs to
Confirmation: while, as regards the attainment of the end, it belongs to
the Eucharist.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: In the sacrament of Confirmation we receive the fulness of
the Holy Ghost in order to be strengthened; while in Extreme Unction man
is prepared for the immediate attainment of glory; and neither of these
two purposes was becoming to the Old Testament. Consequently, nothing in
the old Law could correspond to these sacraments. Nevertheless, the
sacraments of the old Law were more numerous, on account of the various
kinds of sacrifices and ceremonies.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: There was need for a special sacrament to be applied as a
remedy against venereal concupiscence: first because by this
concupiscence, not only the person but also the nature is defiled:
secondly, by reason of its vehemence whereby it clouds the reason.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 6: Holy Water and other consecrated things are not called
sacraments, because they do not produce the sacramental effect, which is
the receiving of grace. They are, however, a kind of disposition to the
sacraments: either by removing obstacles. thus holy water is ordained
against the snares of the demons, and against venial sins: or by making
things suitable for the conferring of a sacrament; thus the altar and
vessels are consecrated through reverence for the Eucharist.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] R.O. 7 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 7: Oblations and tithes, both the Law of nature and in the Law
of Moses, ere ordained not only for the sustenance of the ministers and
the poor, but also figuratively; and consequently they were sacraments.
But now they remain no longer as figures, and therefore they are not
sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[1] R.O. 8 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 8: The infusion of grace is not necessary for the blotting out
of venial sin. Wherefore, since grace is infused in each of the
sacraments of the New Law, none of them was instituted directly against
venial sin. This is taken away by certain sacramentals, for instance,
Holy Water and such like. Some, however, hold that Extreme Unction is
ordained against venial sin. But of this we shall speak in its proper
place (XP, Q[30], A[1]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the order of the sacraments, as given above, is becoming?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the order of the sacraments as given above is
unbecoming. For according to the Apostle (1 Cor. 15:46), "that was . . .
first . . . which is natural, afterwards that which is spiritual." But
man is begotten through Matrimony by a first and natural generation;
while in Baptism he is regenerated as by a second and spiritual
generation. Therefore Matrimony should precede Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, through the sacrament of order man receives the power of
agent in sacramental actions. But the agent precedes his action.
Therefore order should precede Baptism and the other sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the Eucharist is a spiritual food; while Confirmation is
compared to growth. But food causes, and consequently precedes, growth.
Therefore the Eucharist precedes Confirmation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, Penance prepares man for the Eucharist. But a
disposition precedes perfection. Therefore Penance should precede the
Eucharist.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[2] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, that which is nearer the last end comes after other
things. But, of all the sacraments, Extreme Unction is nearest to the
last end which is Happiness. Therefore it should be placed last among the
sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The order of the sacraments, as given above, is
commonly adopted by all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The reason of the order among the sacraments appears from
what has been said above (A[1]). For just as unity precedes multitude, so
those sacraments which are intended for the perfection of the individual,
naturally precede those which are intended for the perfection of the
multitude; and consequently the last place among the sacraments is given
to order and Matrimony, which are intended for the perfection of the
multitude: while Matrimony is placed after order, because it has less
participation in the nature of the spiritual life, to which the
sacraments are ordained. Moreover, among things ordained to the
perfection of the individual, those naturally come first which are
ordained directly to the perfection of the spiritual life, and
afterwards, those which are ordained thereto indirectly, viz. by removing
some supervening accidental cause of harm; such are Penance and Extreme
Unction: while, of these, Extreme Unction is naturally placed last, for
it preserves the healing which was begun by Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
Of the remaining three, it is clear that Baptism which is a spiritual
regeneration, comes first; then Confirmation, which is ordained to the
formal perfection of power; and after these the Eucharist which is
ordained to final perfection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Matrimony as ordained to natural life is a function of
nature. But in so far as it has something spiritual it is a sacrament.
And because it has the least amount of spirituality it is placed last.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: For a thing to be an agent it must first of all be perfect
in itself. Wherefore those sacraments by which a man is perfected in
himself, are placed before the sacrament of order, in which a man is made
a perfecter of others.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Nourishment both precedes growth, as its cause; and follows
it, as maintaining the perfection of size and power in man. Consequently,
the Eucharist can be placed before Confirmation, as Dionysius places it
(Eccl. Hier. iii, iv), and can be placed after it, as the Master does
(iv, 2,8).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: This argument would hold if Penance were required of
necessity as a preparation to the Eucharist. But this is not true: for if
anyone be without mortal sin, he does not need Penance in order to
receive the Eucharist. Thus it is clear that Penance is an accidental
preparation to the Eucharist, that is to say, sin being supposed.
Wherefore it is written in the last chapter of the second Book of
Paralipomenon (cf. 2 Paral 33:18): "Thou, O Lord of the righteous, didst
not impose penance on righteous men." [*The words quoted are from the
apocryphal Prayer of Manasses, which, before the Council of Trent, was to
be found inserted in some Latin copies of the Bible.]
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[2] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: Extreme Unction, for this very reason, is given the last
place among those sacraments which are ordained to the perfection of the
individual.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the Eucharist is the greatest of the sacraments?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the Eucharist is not the principal of the
sacraments. For the common good is of more account than the good of the
individual (1 Ethic. ii). But Matrimony is ordained to the common good of
the human race by means of generation: whereas the sacrament of the
Eucharist is ordained to the private good of the recipient. Therefore it
is not the greatest of the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, those sacraments, seemingly, are greater, which are
conferred by a greater minister. But the sacraments of Confirmation and
order are conferred by a bishop only, who is a greater minister than a
mere minister such as a priest, by whom the sacraments of the Eucharist
is conferred. Therefore those sacraments are greater.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, those sacraments are greater that have the greater
power. But some of the sacraments imprint a character, viz. Baptism,
Confirmation and order; whereas the Eucharist does not. Therefore those
sacraments are greater.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, that seems to be greater, on which others depend without
its depending on them. But the Eucharist depends on Baptism: since no one
can receive the Eucharist except he has been baptized. Therefore Baptism
is greater than the Eucharist.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii) that "No one receives
hierarchical perfection save by the most God-like Eucharist." Therefore
this sacrament is greater than all the others and perfects them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[3] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, Absolutely speaking, the sacrament of the Eucharist is
the greatest of all the sacraments: and this may be shown in three ways.
First of all because it contains Christ Himself substantially: whereas
the other sacraments contain a certain instrumental power which is a
share of Christ's power, as we have shown above (Q[62], A[4], ad 3, A[5]
). Now that which is essentially such is always of more account than that
which is such by participation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[3] Body Para. 2/4
Secondly, this is made clear by considering the relation of the
sacraments to one another. For all the other sacraments seem to be
ordained to this one as to their end. For it is manifest that the
sacrament of order is ordained to the consecration of the Eucharist: and
the sacrament of Baptism to the reception of the Eucharist: while a man
is perfected by Confirmation, so as not to fear to abstain from this
sacrament. By Penance and Extreme Unction man is prepared to receive the
Body of Christ worthily. And Matrimony at least in its signification,
touches this sacrament; in so far as it signifies the union of Christ
with the Church, of which union the Eucharist is a figure: hence the
Apostle says (Eph. 5:32): "This is a great sacrament: but I speak in
Christ and in the Church."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[3] Body Para. 3/4
Thirdly, this is made clear by considering the rites of the sacraments.
For nearly all the sacraments terminate in the Eucharist, as Dionysius
says (Eccl. Hier. iii): thus those who have been ordained receive Holy
Communion, as also do those who have been baptized, if they be adults.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[3] Body Para. 4/4
The remaining sacraments may be compared to one another in several ways.
For on the ground of necessity, Baptism is the greatest of the
sacraments; while from the point of view of perfection, order comes
first; while Confirmation holds a middle place. The sacraments of Penance
and Extreme Unction are on a degree inferior to those mentioned above;
because, as stated above (A[2]), they are ordained to the Christian life,
not directly, but accidentally, as it were, that is to say, as remedies
against supervening defects. And among these, Extreme Unction is compared
to Penance, as Confirmation to Baptism; in such a way, that Penance is
more necessary, whereas Extreme Unction is more perfect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Matrimony is ordained to the common good as regards the
body. But the common spiritual good of the whole Church is contained
substantially in the sacrament itself of the Eucharist.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: By order and Confirmation the faithful of Christ are
deputed to certain special duties; and this can be done by the prince
alone. Consequently the conferring of these sacraments belongs
exclusively to a bishop, who is, as it were, a prince in the Church. But
a man is not deputed to any duty by the sacrament of the Eucharist,
rather is this sacrament the end of all duties, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The sacramental character, as stated above (Q[63], A[3]),
is a kind of participation in Christ's priesthood. Wherefore the
sacrament that unites man to Christ Himself, is greater than a sacrament
that imprints Christ's character.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: This argument proceeds on the ground of necessity. For thus
Baptism, being of the greatest necessity, is the greatest of the
sacraments, just as order and Confirmation have a certain excellence
considered in their administration; and Matrimony by reason of its
signification. For there is no reason why a thing should not be greater
from a certain point of view which is not greater absolutely speaking.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that all the sacraments are necessary for salvation. For
what is not necessary seems to be superfluous. But no sacrament is
superfluous, because "God does nothing without a purpose" (De Coelo et
Mundo i). Therefore all the sacraments are necessary for salvation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, just as it is said of Baptism (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man
be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter in to the
kingdom of God," so of the Eucharist is it said (Jn. 6:54): "Except you
eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink of His blood, you shall not
have life in you." Therefore, just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament,
so is the Eucharist.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a man can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism,
provided that some unavoidable obstacle, and not his contempt for
religion, debar him from the sacrament, as we shall state further on
(Q[68], A[2]). But contempt of religion in any sacrament is a hindrance
to salvation. Therefore, in like manner, all the sacraments are necessary
for salvation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Children are saved by Baptism alone without the other
sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[4] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Necessity of end, of which we speak now, is twofold.
First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be
attained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple
necessity of end. Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary, if, without
it, the end cannot be attained so becomingly: thus a horse is necessary
for a journey. But this is not simple necessity of end.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[4] Body Para. 2/3
In the first way, three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two of
them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and absolutely;
Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the
sacrament of order is necessary to the Church, since "where there is no
governor the people shall fall" (Prov. 11:14).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[4] Body Para. 3/3
But in the second way the other sacraments are necessary. For in a sense
Confirmation perfects Baptism; Extreme Unction perfects Penance; while
Matrimony, by multiplying them, preserves the numbers in the Church.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: For a thing not to be superfluous it is enough if it be
necessary either in the first or the second way. It is thus that the
sacraments are necessary, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: These words of our Lord are to be understood of spiritual,
and not of merely sacramental, eating, as Augustine explains (Tract. xxvi
super Joan.).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[65] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Although contempt of any of the sacraments is a hindrance
to salvation, yet it does not amount to contempt of the sacrament, if
anyone does not trouble to receive a sacrament that is not necessary for
salvation. Else those who do not receive orders, and those who do not
contract Matrimony, would be guilty of contempt of those sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] Out. Para. 1/4
BAPTISM (QQ[66]-71)
OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM (TWELVE ARTICLES)
We have now to consider each sacrament specially: (1) Baptism; (2)
Confirmation; (3) the Eucharist; (4) Penance; (5) Extreme Unction; (6)
Order; (7) Matrimony.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] Out. Para. 2/4
Concerning the first, our consideration will be twofold: (1) of Baptism
itself; (2) of things preparatory to Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] Out. Para. 3/4
Concerning the first, four points arise for our consideration: (1)
Things pertaining to the sacrament of Baptism; (2) The minister of this
sacrament; (3) The recipients of this sacrament; (4) The effect of this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] Out. Para. 4/4
Concerning the first there are twelve points of inquiry:
(1) What is Baptism? Is it a washing?
(2) Of the institution of this sacrament;
(3) Whether water be the proper matter of this sacrament?
(4) Whether plain water be required?
(5) Whether this be a suitable form of this sacrament: "I baptize thee
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?
(6) Whether one could baptize with this form: "I baptize thee in the
name of Christ?"
(7) Whether immersion is necessary for Baptism?
(8) Whether trine immersion is necessary?
(9) Whether Baptism can be reiterated?
(10) Of the Baptismal rite;
(11) Of the various kinds of Baptism;
(12) Of the comparison between various Baptisms.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Baptism is the mere washing?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Baptism is not the mere washing. For the washing of
the body is something transitory: but Baptism is something permanent.
Therefore Baptism is not the mere washing; but rather is it "the
regeneration, the seal, the safeguarding, the enlightenment," as
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii) that "Baptism is
water sanctified by God's word for the blotting out of sins." But the
washing itself is not water, but a certain use of water.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): "The word is
added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament." Now, the element is
the water. Therefore Baptism is the water and not the washing.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 34:30): "He that washeth himself
[baptizatur] after touching the dead, if he touch him again, what does
his washing avail?" It seems, therefore, that Baptism is the washing or
bathing.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[1] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism, three things may be
considered: namely, that which is "sacrament only"; that which is
"reality and sacrament"; and that which is "reality only." That which is
sacrament only, is something visible and outward; the sign, namely, of
the inward effect: for such is the very nature of a sacrament. And this
outward something that can be perceived by the sense is both the water
itself and its use, which is the washing. Hence some have thought that
the water itself is the sacrament: which seems to be the meaning of the
passage quoted from Hugh of St. Victor. For in the general definition of
a sacrament he says that it is "a material element": and in defining
Baptism he says it is "water."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[1] Body Para. 2/3
But this is not true. For since the sacraments of the New Law effect a
certain sanctification, there the sacrament is completed where the
sanctification is completed. Now, the sanctification is not completed in
water; but a certain sanctifying instrumental virtue, not permanent but
transient, passes from the water, in which it is, into man who is the
subject of true sanctification. Consequently the sacrament is not
completed in the very water, but in applying the water to man, i.e. in
the washing. Hence the Master (iv, 3) says that "Baptism is the outward
washing of the body done together with the prescribed form of words."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[1] Body Para. 3/3
The Baptismal character is both reality and sacrament: because it is
something real signified by the outward washing; and a sacramental sign
of the inward justification: and this last is the reality only, in this
sacrament---namely, the reality signified and not signifying.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: That which is both sacrament and reality---i.e. the
character---and that which is reality only---i.e. the inward
justification---remain: the character remains and is indelible, as stated
above (Q[63], A[5]); the justification remains, but can be lost.
Consequently Damascene defined Baptism, not as to that which is done
outwardly, and is the sacrament only; but as to that which is inward.
Hence he sets down two things as pertaining to the character---namely,
"seal" and "safeguarding"; inasmuch as the character which is called a
seal, so far as itself is concerned, safeguards the soul in good. He also
sets down two things as pertaining to the ultimate reality of the
sacrament---namely, "regeneration" which refers to the fact that man by
being baptized begins the new life of righteousness; and "enlightenment,"
which refers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life,
according to Habac 2 (Heb. 10:38; cf. Habac 2:4): "But (My) just man
liveth by faith"; and Baptism is a sort of protestation of faith; whence
it is called the "Sacrament of Faith." Likewise Dionysius defined Baptism
by its relation to the other sacraments, saying (Eccl. Hier. ii) that it
is "the principle that forms the habits of the soul for the reception of
those most holy words and sacraments"; and again by its relation to
heavenly glory, which is the universal end of all the sacraments, when he
adds, "preparing the way for us, whereby we mount to the repose of the
heavenly kingdom"; and again as to the beginning of spiritual life, when
he adds, "the conferring of our most sacred and Godlike regeneration."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As already stated, the opinion of Hugh of St. Victor on
this question is not to be followed. Nevertheless the saying that
"Baptism is water" may be verified in so far as water is the material
principle of Baptism: and thus there would be "causal predication."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: When the words are added, the element becomes a sacrament,
not in the element itself, but in man, to whom the element is applied, by
being used in washing him. Indeed, this is signified by those very words
which are added to the element, when we say: "I baptize thee," etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Baptism was instituted after Christ's Passion?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Baptism was instituted after Christ's Passion. For
the cause precedes the effect. Now Christ's Passion operates in the
sacraments of the New Law. Therefore Christ's Passion precedes the
institution of the sacraments of the New Law: especially the sacrament of
Baptism since the Apostle says (Rm. 6:3): "All we, who are baptized in
Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death," etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the sacraments of the New Law derive their efficacy from
the mandate of Christ. But Christ gave the disciples the mandate of
Baptism after His Passion and Resurrection, when He said: "Going, teach
ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father," etc. (Mt.
28:19). Therefore it seems that Baptism was instituted after Christ's
Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Baptism is a necessary sacrament, as stated above (Q[65]
, A[4]): wherefore, seemingly, it must have been binding on man as soon
as it was instituted. But before Christ's Passion men were not bound to
be baptized: for Circumcision was still in force, which was supplanted by
Baptism. Therefore it seems that Baptism was not instituted before
Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append.
Serm., clxxxv): "As soon as Christ was plunged into the waters, the
waters washed away the sins of all." But this was before Christ's
Passion. Therefore Baptism was instituted before Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[62], A[1]), sacraments derive from
their institution the power of conferring grace. Wherefore it seems that
a sacrament is then instituted, when it receives the power of producing
its effect. Now Baptism received this power when Christ was baptized.
Consequently Baptism was truly instituted then, if we consider it as a
sacrament. But the obligation of receiving this sacrament was proclaimed
to mankind after the Passion and Resurrection. First, because Christ's
Passion put an end to the figurative sacraments, which were supplanted by
Baptism and the other sacraments of the New Law. Secondly, because by
Baptism man is "made conformable" to Christ's Passion and Resurrection,
in so far as he dies to sin and begins to live anew unto righteousness.
Consequently it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise again, before
proclaiming to man his obligation of conforming himself to Christ's Death
and Resurrection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Even before Christ's Passion, Baptism, inasmuch as it
foreshadowed it, derived its efficacy therefrom; but not in the same way
as the sacraments of the Old Law. For these were mere figures: whereas
Baptism derived the power of justifying from Christ Himself, to Whose
power the Passion itself owed its saving virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: It was not meet that men should be restricted to a number
of figures by Christ, Who came to fulfil and replace the figure by His
reality. Therefore before His Passion He did not make Baptism obligatory
as soon as it was instituted; but wished men to become accustomed to its
use; especially in regard to the Jews, to whom all things were
figurative, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. iv). But after His Passion
and Resurrection He made Baptism obligatory, not only on the Jews, but
also on the Gentiles, when He gave the commandment: "Going, teach ye all
nations."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Sacraments are not obligatory except when we are commanded
to receive them. And this was not before the Passion, as stated above.
For our Lord's words to Nicodemus (Jn. 3:5), "Unless a man be born again
of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,
seem to refer to the future rather than to the present."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether water is the proper matter of Baptism?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that water is not the proper matter of Baptism. For
Baptism, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) and Damascene (De Fide
Orth. iv), has a power of enlightening. But enlightenment is a special
characteristic of fire. Therefore Baptism should be conferred with fire
rather than with water: and all the more since John the Baptist said when
foretelling Christ's Baptism (Mt. 3:11): "He shall baptize you in the
Holy Ghost and fire."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the washing away of sins is signified in Baptism. But
many other things besides water are employed in washing, such as wine,
oil, and such like. Therefore Baptism can be conferred with these also;
and consequently water is not the proper matter of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the sacraments of the Church flowed from the side of
Christ hanging on the cross, as stated above (Q[62], A[5]). But not only
water flowed therefrom, but also blood. Therefore it seems that Baptism
can also be conferred with blood. And this seems to be more in keeping
with the effect of Baptism, because it is written (Apoc. 1:5): "(Who)
washed us from our sins in His own blood."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, as Augustine (cf. Master of the Sentences, iv, 3) and
Bede (Exposit. in Luc. iii, 21) say, Christ, by "the touch of His most
pure flesh, endowed the waters with a regenerating and cleansing virtue."
But all waters are not connected with the waters of the Jordan which
Christ touched with His flesh. Consequently it seems that Baptism cannot
be conferred with any water; and therefore water, as such, is not the
proper matter of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[3] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, if water, as such, were the proper matter of Baptism,
there would be no need to do anything to the water before using it for
Baptism. But in solemn Baptism the water which is used for baptizing, is
exorcized and blessed. Therefore it seems that water, as such, is not the
proper matter of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of
water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[3] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, By Divine institution water is the proper matter of
Baptism; and with reason. First, by reason of the very nature of Baptism,
which is a regeneration unto spiritual life. And this answers to the
nature of water in a special degree; wherefore seeds, from which all
living things, viz. plants and animals are generated, are moist and akin
to water. For this reason certain philosophers held that water is the
first principle of all things.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[3] Body Para. 2/4
Secondly, in regard to the effects of Baptism, to which the properties
of water correspond. For by reason of its moistness it cleanses; and
hence it fittingly signifies and causes the cleansing from sins. By
reason of its coolness it tempers superfluous heat: wherefore it
fittingly mitigates the concupiscence of the fomes. By reason of its
transparency, it is susceptive of light; hence its adaptability to
Baptism as the "sacrament of Faith."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[3] Body Para. 3/4
Thirdly, because it is suitable for the signification of the mysteries
of Christ, by which we are justified. For, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxv
in Joan.) on Jn. 3:5, "Unless a man be born again," etc., "When we dip
our heads under the water as in a kind of tomb our old man is buried, and
being submerged is hidden below, and thence he rises again renewed."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[3] Body Para. 4/4
Fourthly, because by being so universal and abundant, it is a matter
suitable to our need of this sacrament: for it can easily be obtained
everywhere.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: Fire enlightens actively. But he who is baptized does not
become an enlightener, but is enlightened by faith, which "cometh by
hearing" (Rm. 10:17). Consequently water is more suitable, than fire, for
Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
But when we find it said: "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and
fire," we may understand fire, as Jerome says (In Matth. ii), to mean the
Holy Ghost, Who appeared above the disciples under the form of fiery
tongues (Acts 2:3). Or we may understand it to mean tribulation, as
Chrysostom says (Hom. iii in Matth.): because tribulation washes away
sin, and tempers concupiscence. Or again, as Hilary says (Super Matth.
ii) that "when we have been baptized in the Holy Ghost," we still have to
be "perfected by the fire of the judgment."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Wine and oil are not so commonly used for washing, as
water. Neither do they wash so efficiently: for whatever is washed with
them, contracts a certain smell therefrom; which is not the case if water
be used. Moreover, they are not so universal or so abundant as water.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Water flowed from Christ's side to wash us; blood, to
redeem us. Wherefore blood belongs to the sacrament of the Eucharist,
while water belongs to the sacrament of Baptism. Yet this latter
sacrament derives its cleansing virtue from the power of Christ's blood.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Christ's power flowed into all waters, by reason of, not
connection of place, but likeness of species, as Augustine says in a
sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm. cxxxv): "The blessing that flowed
from the Saviour's Baptism, like a mystic river, swelled the course of
every stream, and filled the channels of every spring."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[3] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: The blessing of the water is not essential to Baptism, but
belongs to a certain solemnity, whereby the devotion of the faithful is
aroused, and the cunning of the devil hindered from impeding the
baptismal effect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether plain water is necessary for Baptism?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism. For the
water which we have is not plain water; as appears especially in
sea-water, in which there is a considerable proportion of the earthly
element, as the Philosopher shows (Meteor. ii). Yet this water may be
used for Baptism. Therefore plain and pure water is not necessary for
Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in the solemn celebration of Baptism, chrism is poured
into the water. But this seems to take away the purity and plainness of
the water. Therefore pure and plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the water that flowed from the side of Christ hanging on
the cross was a figure of Baptism, as stated above (A[3], ad 3). But that
water, seemingly, was not pure, because the elements do not exist
actually in a mixed body, such as Christ's. Therefore it seems that pure
or plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, lye does not seem to be pure water, for it has the
properties of heating and drying, which are contrary to those of water.
Nevertheless it seems that lye can be used for Baptism; for the water of
the Baths can be so used, which has filtered through a sulphurous vein,
just as lye percolates through ashes. Therefore it seems that plain water
is not necessary for Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[4] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, rose-water is distilled from roses, just as chemical
waters are distilled from certain bodies. But seemingly, such like waters
may be used in Baptism; just as rain-water, which is distilled from
vapors. Since, therefore, such waters are not pure and plain water, it
seems that pure and plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The proper matter of Baptism is water, as stated above
(A[3]). But plain water alone has the nature of water. Therefore pure
plain water is necessary for Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[4] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, Water may cease to be pure or plain water in two ways:
first, by being mixed with another body; secondly, by alteration. And
each of these may happen in a twofold manner; artificially and naturally.
Now art fails in the operation of nature: because nature gives the
substantial form, which art cannot give; for whatever form is given by
art is accidental; except perchance when art applies a proper agent to
its proper matter, as fire to a combustible; in which manner animals are
produced from certain things by way of putrefaction.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[4] Body Para. 2/4
Whatever artificial change, then, takes place in the water, whether by
mixture or by alteration, the water's nature is not changed. Consequently
such water can be used for Baptism: unless perhaps such a small quantity
of water be mixed artificially with a body that the compound is something
other than water; thus mud is earth rather than water, and diluted wine
is wine rather than water.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[4] Body Para. 3/4
But if the change be natural, sometimes it destroys the nature of the
water; and this is when by a natural process water enters into the
substance of a mixed body: thus water changed into the juice of the grape
is wine, wherefore it has not the nature of water. Sometimes, however,
there may be a natural change of the water, without destruction of
species: and this, both by alteration, as we may see in the case of water
heated by the sun; and by mixture, as when the water of a river has
become muddy by being mixed with particles of earth.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[4] Body Para. 4/4
We must therefore say that any water may be used for Baptism, no matter
how much it may be changed, as long as the species of water is not
destroyed; but if the species of water be destroyed, it cannot be used
for Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The change in sea-water and in other waters which we have
to hand, is not so great as to destroy the species of water. And
therefore such waters may be used for Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Chrism does not destroy the nature of the water by being
mixed with it: just as neither is water changed wherein meat and the like
are boiled: except the substance boiled be so dissolved that the liquor
be of a nature foreign to water; in this we may be guided by the specific
gravity [spissitudine]. If, however, from the liquor thus thickened plain
water be strained, it can be used for Baptism: just as water strained
from mud, although mud cannot be used for baptizing.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The water which flowed from the side of Christ hanging on
the cross, was not the phlegmatic humor, as some have supposed. For a
liquid of this kind cannot be used for Baptism, as neither can the blood
of an animal, or wine, or any liquid extracted from plants. It was pure
water gushing forth miraculously like the blood from a dead body, to
prove the reality of our Lord's body, and confute the error of the
Manichees: water, which is one of the four elements, showing Christ's
body to be composed of the four elements; blood, proving that it was
composed of the four humors.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Baptism may be conferred with lye and the waters of Sulphur
Baths: because such like waters are not incorporated, artificially or
naturally, with certain mixed bodies, and suffer only a certain
alteration by passing through certain bodies.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[4] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: Rose-water is a liquid distilled from roses: consequently
it cannot be used for Baptism. For the same reason chemical waters cannot
be used, as neither can wine. Nor does the comparison hold with
rain-water, which for the most part is formed by the condensing of
vapors, themselves formed from water, and contains a minimum of the
liquid matter from mixed bodies; which liquid matter by the force of
nature, which is stronger than art, is transformed in this process of
condensation into real water, a result which cannot be produced
artificially. Consequently rain-water retains no properties of any mixed
body; which cannot be said of rose-water or chemical waters.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether this be a suitable form of Baptism: "I baptize thee in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that this is not a suitable form of Baptism: "I baptize
thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
For action should be ascribed to the principal agent rather than to the
minister. Now the minister of a sacrament acts as an instrument, as
stated above (Q[64], A[1]); while the principal agent in Baptism is
Christ, according to Jn. 1:33, "He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit
descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth." It is
therefore unbecoming for the minister to say, "I baptize thee": the more
so that "Ego" [I] is understood in the word "baptizo" [I baptize], so
that it seems redundant.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, there is no need for a man who does an action, to make
mention of the action done; thus he who teaches, need not say, "I teach
you." Now our Lord gave at the same time the precepts both of baptizing
and of teaching, when He said (Mt. 28:19): "Going, teach ye all nations,"
etc. Therefore there is no need in the form of Baptism to mention the
action of baptizing.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the person baptized sometimes does not understand the
words; for instance, if he be deaf, or a child. But it is useless to
address such a one; according to Ecclus. 32:6: "Where there is no
hearing, pour not out words." Therefore it is unfitting to address the
person baptized with these words: "I baptize thee."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, it may happen that several are baptized by several at
the same time; thus the apostles on one day baptized three thousand, and
on another, five thousand (Acts 2,4). Therefore the form of Baptism
should not be limited to the singular number in the words, "I baptize
thee": but one should be able to say, "We baptize you."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, Baptism derives its power from Christ's Passion. But
Baptism is sanctified by the form. Therefore it seems that Christ's
Passion should be mentioned in the form of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1
OBJ 6: Further, a name signifies a thing's property. But there are three
Personal Properties of the Divine Persons, as stated in the FP, Q[32],
A[3]. Therefore we should not say, "in the name," but "in the names of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] Obj. 7 Para. 1/1
OBJ 7: Further, the Person of the Father is designated not only by the
name Father, but also by that of "Unbegotten and Begetter"; and the Son
by those of "Word," "Image," and "Begotten"; and the Holy Ghost by those
of "Gift," "Love," and the "Proceeding One." Therefore it seems that
Baptism is valid if conferred in these names.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord said (Mt. 28:19): "Going . . . teach ye all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Baptism receives its consecration from its form,
according to Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word
of life." And Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo iv) that "Baptism is
consecrated by the words of the Gospel." Consequently the cause of
Baptism needs to be expressed in the baptismal form. Now this cause is
twofold; the principal cause from which it derives its virtue, and this
is the Blessed Trinity; and the instrumental cause, viz. the minister who
confers the sacrament outwardly. Wherefore both causes should be
expressed in the form of Baptism. Now the minister is designated by the
words, "I baptize thee"; and the principal cause in the words, "in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Therefore
this is the suitable form of Baptism: "I baptize thee in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: Action is attributed to an instrument as to the immediate
agent; but to the principal agent inasmuch as the instrument acts in
virtue thereof. Consequently it is fitting that in the baptismal form the
minister should be mentioned as performing the act of baptizing, in the
words, "I baptize thee"; indeed, our Lord attributed to the ministers the
act of baptizing, when He said: "Baptizing them," etc. But the principal
cause is indicated as conferring the sacrament by His own power, in the
words, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost": for Christ does not baptize without the Father and the Holy Ghost.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
The Greeks, however, do not attribute the act of baptizing to the
minister, in order to avoid the error of those who in the past ascribed
the baptismal power to the baptizers, saying (1 Cor. 1:12): "I am of Paul
. . and I of Cephas." Wherefore they use the form: "May the servant of
Christ, N . . ., be baptized, in the name of the Father," etc. And since
the action performed by the minister is expressed with the invocation of
the Trinity, the sacrament is validly conferred. As to the addition of
"Ego" in our form, it is not essential; but it is added in order to lay
greater stress on the intention.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Since a man may be washed with water for several reasons,
the purpose for which it is done must be expressed by the words of the
form. And this is not done by saying: "In the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; because we are bound to do all things in
that Name (Col. 3:17). Wherefore unless the act of baptizing be
expressed, either as we do, or as the Greeks do, the sacrament is not
valid; according to the decretal of Alexander III: "If anyone dip a child
thrice in the water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost, Amen, without saying, I baptize thee in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen, the child is not
baptized."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The words which are uttered in the sacramental forms, are
said not merely for the purpose of signification, but also for the
purpose of efficiency, inasmuch as they derive efficacy from that Word,
by Whom "all things were made." Consequently they are becomingly
addressed not only to men, but also to insensible creatures; for
instance, when we say: "I exorcize thee, creature salt" (Roman Ritual).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 4: Several cannot baptize one at the same time: because an
action is multiplied according to the number of the agents, if it be done
perfectly by each. So that if two were to combine, of whom one were mute,
and unable to utter the words, and the other were without hands, and
unable to perform the action, they could not both baptize at the same
time, one saying the words and the other performing the action.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 2/3
On the other hand, in a case of necessity, several could be baptized at
the same time; for no single one of them would receive more than one
baptism. But it would be necessary, in that case, to say: "I baptize ye."
Nor would this be a change of form, because "ye" is the same as "thee and
thee." Whereas "we" does not mean "I and I," but "I and thou"; so that
this would be a change of form.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 3/3
Likewise it would be a change of form to say, "I baptize myself":
consequently no one can baptize himself. For this reason did Christ
choose to be baptized by John (Extra, De Baptismo et ejus effectu, cap.
Debitum).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: Although Christ's Passion is the principal cause as
compared to the minister, yet it is an instrumental cause as compared to
the Blessed Trinity. For this reason the Trinity is mentioned rather than
Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 6: Although there are three personal names of the three
Persons, there is but one essential name. Now the Divine power which
works in Baptism, pertains to the Essence; and therefore we say, "in the
name," and not, "in the names."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[5] R.O. 7 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 7: Just as water is used in Baptism, because it is more
commonly employed in washing, so for the purpose of designating the three
Persons, in the form of Baptism, those names are chosen, which are
generally used, in a particular language, to signify the Persons. Nor is
the sacrament valid if conferred in any other names.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Baptism can be conferred in the name of Christ?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Baptism can be conferred in the name of Christ. For
just as there is "one Faith," so is there "one Baptism" (Eph. 4:5). But
it is related (Acts 8:12) that "in the name of Jesus Christ they were
baptized, both men and women." Therefore now also can Baptism be
conferred in the name of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. i): "If you mention
Christ, you designate both the Father by Whom He was anointed, and the
Son Himself, Who was anointed, and the Holy Ghost with Whom He was
anointed." But Baptism can be conferred in the name of the Trinity:
therefore also in the name of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Pope Nicholas I, answering questions put to him by the
Bulgars, said: "Those who have been baptized in the name of the Trinity,
or only in the name of Christ, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (it
is all the same, as Blessed Ambrose saith), must not be rebaptized." But
they would be baptized again if they had not been validly baptized with
that form. Therefore Baptism can be celebrated in the name of Christ by
using this form: "I baptize thee in the name of Christ."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Pope Pelagius II wrote to the Bishop Gaudentius: "If
any people living in your Worship's neighborhood, avow that they have
been baptized in the name of the Lord only, without any hesitation
baptize them again in the name of the Blessed Trinity, when they come in
quest of the Catholic Faith." Didymus, too, says (De Spir. Sanct.): "If
indeed there be such a one with a mind so foreign to faith as to baptize
while omitting one of the aforesaid names," viz. of the three Persons,
"he baptizes invalidly."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[6] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (Q[64], A[3]), the sacraments derive
their efficacy from Christ's institution. Consequently, if any of those
things be omitted which Christ instituted in regard to a sacrament, it is
invalid; save by special dispensation of Him Who did not bind His power
to the sacraments. Now Christ commanded the sacrament of Baptism to be
given with the invocation of the Trinity. And consequently whatever is
lacking to the full invocation of the Trinity, destroys the integrity of
Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[6] Body Para. 2/2
Nor does it matter that in the name of one Person another is implied, as
the name of the Son is implied in that of the Father, or that he who
mentions the name of only one Person may believe aright in the Three;
because just as a sacrament requires sensible matter, so does it require
a sensible form. Hence, for the validity of the sacrament it is not
enough to imply or to believe in the Trinity, unless the Trinity be
expressed in sensible words. For this reason at Christ's Baptism, wherein
was the source of the sanctification of our Baptism, the Trinity was
present in sensible signs: viz. the Father in the voice, the Son in the
human nature, the Holy Ghost in the dove.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It was by a special revelation from Christ that in the
primitive Church the apostles baptized in the name of Christ; in order
that the name of Christ, which was hateful to Jews and Gentiles, might
become an object of veneration, in that the Holy Ghost was given in
Baptism at the invocation of that Name.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Ambrose here gives this reason why exception could, without
inconsistency, be allowed in the primitive Church; namely, because the
whole Trinity is implied in the name of Christ, and therefore the form
prescribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed in its integrity, at
least implicitly.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Pope Nicolas confirms his words by quoting the two
authorities given in the preceding objections: wherefore the answer to
this is clear from the two solutions given above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether immersion in water is necessary for Baptism?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that immersion in water is necessary for Baptism.
Because it is written (Eph. 4:5): "One faith, one baptism." But in many
parts of the world the ordinary way of baptizing is by immersion.
Therefore it seems that there can be no Baptism without immersion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rm. 6:3,4): "All we who are baptized
in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death: for we are buried together
with Him, by Baptism into death." But this is done by immersion: for
Chrysostom says on Jn. 3:5: "Unless a man be born again of water and the
Holy Ghost," etc.: "When we dip our heads under the water as in a kind of
tomb, our old man is buried, and being submerged, is hidden below, and
thence he rises again renewed." Therefore it seems that immersion is
essential to Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if Baptism is valid without total immersion of the body,
it would follow that it would be equally sufficient to pour water over
any part of the body. But this seems unreasonable; since original sin, to
remedy which is the principal purpose of Baptism, is not in only one part
of the body. Therefore it seems that immersion is necessary for Baptism,
and that mere sprinkling is not enough.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 10:22): "Let us draw near with a
true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil
conscience, and our bodies washed with clean water."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[7] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism water is put to the use of a
washing of the body, whereby to signify the inward washing away of sins.
Now washing may be done with water not only by immersion, but also by
sprinkling or pouring. And, therefore, although it is safer to baptize by
immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion, yet Baptism can be
conferred by sprinkling or also by pouring, according to Ezech. 36:25: "I
will pour upon you clean water," as also the Blessed Lawrence is related
to have baptized. And this especially in cases of urgency: either because
there is a great number to be baptized, as was clearly the case in Acts 2
and 4, where we read that on one day three thousand believed, and on
another five thousand: or through there being but a small supply of
water, or through feebleness of the minister, who cannot hold up the
candidate for Baptism; or through feebleness of the candidate, whose life
might be endangered by immersion. We must therefore conclude that
immersion is not necessary for Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: What is accidental to a thing does not diversify its
essence. Now bodily washing with water is essential to Baptism: wherefore
Baptism is called a "laver," according to Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing it by the
laver of water in the word of life." But that the washing be done this or
that way, is accidental to Baptism. And consequently such diversity does
not destroy the oneness of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ's burial is more clearly represented by immersion:
wherefore this manner of baptizing is more frequently in use and more
commendable. Yet in the other ways of baptizing it is represented after a
fashion, albeit not so clearly; for no matter how the washing is done,
the body of a man, or some part thereof, is put under water, just as
Christ's body was put under the earth.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 3: The principal part of the body, especially in relation to
the exterior members, is the head, wherein all the senses, both interior
and exterior, flourish. And therefore, if the whole body cannot be
covered with water, because of the scarcity of water, or because of some
other reason, it is necessary to pour water over the head, in which the
principle of animal life is made manifest.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 2/3
And although original sin is transmitted through the members that serve
for procreation, yet those members are not to be sprinkled in preference
to the head, because by Baptism the transmission of original sin to the
offspring by the act of procreation is not deleted, but the soul is freed
from the stain and debt of sin which it has contracted. Consequently that
part of the body should be washed in preference, in which the works of
the soul are made manifest.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 3/3
Nevertheless in the Old Law the remedy against original sin was affixed
to the member of procreation; because He through Whom original sin was to
be removed, was yet to be born of the seed of Abraham, whose faith was
signified by circumcision according to Rm. 4:11.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether trine immersion is essential to Baptism?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that trine immersion is essential to Baptism. For
Augustine says in a sermon on the Symbol, addressed to the Neophytes:
"Rightly were you dipped three times, since you were baptized in the name
of the Trinity. Rightly were you dipped three times, because you were
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Who on the third day rose again
from the dead. For that thrice repeated immersion reproduces the burial
of the Lord by which you were buried with Christ in Baptism." Now both
seem to be essential to Baptism, namely, that in Baptism the Trinity of
Persons should be signified, and that we should be conformed to Christ's
burial. Therefore it seems that trine immersion is essential to Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ's
mandate. But trine immersion was commanded by Christ: for Pope Pelagius
II wrote to Bishop Gaudentius: "The Gospel precept given by our Lord God
Himself, our Saviour Jesus Christ, admonishes us to confer the sacrament
of Baptism to each one in the name of the Trinity and also with trine
immersion." Therefore, just as it is essential to Baptism to call on the
name of the Trinity, so is it essential to baptize by trine immersion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if trine immersion be not essential to Baptism, it
follows that the sacrament of Baptism is conferred at the first
immersion; so that if a second or third immersion be added, it seems that
Baptism is conferred a second or third time. which is absurd. Therefore
one immersion does not suffice for the sacrament of Baptism, and trine
immersion is essential thereto.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory wrote to the Bishop Leander: "It cannot be in
any way reprehensible to baptize an infant with either a trine or a
single immersion: since the Trinity can be represented in the three
immersions, and the unity of the Godhead in one immersion."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[8] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that As stated above (A[7], ad 1), washing with water is of
itself required for Baptism, being essential to the sacrament: whereas
the mode of washing is accidental to the sacrament. Consequently, as
Gregory in the words above quoted explains, both single and trine
immersion are lawful considered in themselves; since one immersion
signifies the oneness of Christ's death and of the Godhead; while trine
immersion signifies the three days of Christ's burial, and also the
Trinity of Persons.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[8] Body Para. 2/4
But for various reasons, according as the Church has ordained, one mode
has been in practice, at one time, the other at another time. For since
from the very earliest days of the Church some have had false notions
concerning the Trinity, holding that Christ is a mere man, and that He is
not called the "Son of God" or "God" except by reason of His merit, which
was chiefly in His death; for this reason they did not baptize in the
name of the Trinity, but in memory of Christ's death, and with one
immersion. And this was condemned in the early Church. Wherefore in the
Apostolic Canons (xlix) we read: "If any priest or bishop confer baptism
not with the trine immersion in the one administration, but with one
immersion, which baptism is said to be conferred by some in the death of
the Lord, let him be deposed": for our Lord did not say, "Baptize ye in
My death," but "In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[8] Body Para. 3/4
Later on, however, there arose the error of certain schismatics and
heretics who rebaptized: as Augustine (Super. Joan., cf. De Haeres. lxix)
relates of the Donatists. Wherefore, in detestation of their error, only
one immersion was ordered to be made, by the (fourth) council of Toledo,
in the acts of which we read: "In order to avoid the scandal of schism or
the practice of heretical teaching let us hold to the single baptismal
immersion."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[8] Body Para. 4/4
But now that this motive has ceased, trine immersion is universally
observed in Baptism: and consequently anyone baptizing otherwise would
sin gravely, through not following the ritual of the Church. It would,
however, be valid Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: The Trinity acts as principal agent in Baptism. Now the
likeness of the agent enters into the effect, in regard to the form and
not in regard to the matter. Wherefore the Trinity is signified in
Baptism by the words of the form. Nor is it essential for the Trinity to
be signified by the manner in which the matter is used; although this is
done to make the signification clearer.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
In like manner Christ's death is sufficiently represented in the one
immersion. And the three days of His burial were not necessary for our
salvation, because even if He had been buried or dead for one day, this
would have been enough to consummate our redemption: yet those three days
were ordained unto the manifestation of the reality of His death, as
stated above (Q[53], A[2]). It is therefore clear that neither on the
part of the Trinity, nor on the part of Christ's Passion, is the trine
immersion essential to the sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Pope Pelagius understood the trine immersion to be ordained
by Christ in its equivalent; in the sense that Christ commanded Baptism
to be conferred "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost." Nor can we argue from the form to the use of the matter, as
stated above (ad 1).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[64], A[8]), the intention is essential
to Baptism. Consequently, one Baptism results from the intention of the
Church's minister, who intends to confer one Baptism by a trine
immersion. Wherefore Jerome says on Eph. 4:5,6: "Though the Baptism,"
i.e. the immersion, "be thrice repeated, on account of the mystery of the
Trinity, yet it is reputed as one Baptism."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
If, however, the intention were to confer one Baptism at each immersion
together with the repetition of the words of the form, it would be a sin,
in itself, because it would be a repetition of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[9] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Baptism may be reiterated?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[9] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Baptism may be reiterated. For Baptism was
instituted, seemingly, in order to wash away sins. But sins are
reiterated. Therefore much more should Baptism be reiterated: because
Christ's mercy surpasses man's guilt.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[9] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, John the Baptist received special commendation from
Christ, Who said of him (Mt. 11:11): "There hath not risen among them
that are born of women, a greater than John the Baptist." But those whom
John had baptized were baptized again, according to Acts 19:1-7, where it
is stated that Paul rebaptized those who had received the Baptism of
John. Much more, therefore, should those be rebaptized, who have been
baptized by heretics or sinners.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[9] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it was decreed in the Council of Nicaea (Can. xix) that
if "any of the Paulianists or Cataphrygians should be converted to the
Catholic Church, they were to be baptized": and this seemingly should be
said in regard to other heretics. Therefore those whom the heretics have
baptized, should be baptized again.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[9] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, Baptism is necessary for salvation. But sometimes there
is a doubt about the baptism of those who really have been baptized.
Therefore it seems that they should be baptized again.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[9] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, the Eucharist is a more perfect sacrament than Baptism,
as stated above (Q[65], A[3]). But the sacrament of the Eucharist is
reiterated. Much more reason, therefore, is there for Baptism to be
reiterated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[9] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written, (Eph. 4:5): "One faith, one Baptism."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[9] Body Para. 1/5
I answer that, Baptism cannot be reiterated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[9] Body Para. 2/5
First, because Baptism is a spiritual regeneration; inasmuch as a man
dies to the old life, and begins to lead the new life. Whence it is
written (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, He cannot see [Vulg.: 'enter into'] the kingdom of God." Now one
man can be begotten but once. Wherefore Baptism cannot be reiterated,
just as neither can carnal generation. Hence Augustine says on Jn. 3:4:
"'Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again':
So thou," says he, "must understand the birth of the Spirit, as Nicodemus
understood the birth of the flesh . . . . As there is no return to the
womb, so neither is there to Baptism."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[9] Body Para. 3/5
Secondly, because "we are baptized in Christ's death," by which we die
unto sin and rise again unto "newness of life" (cf. Rm. 6:3,4). Now
"Christ died" but "once" (Rm. 6:10). Wherefore neither should Baptism be
reiterated. For this reason (Heb. 6:6) is it said against some who wished
to be baptized again: "Crucifying again to themselves the Son of God"; on
which the gloss observes: "Christ's one death hallowed the one Baptism."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[9] Body Para. 4/5
Thirdly, because Baptism imprints a character, which is indelible, and
is conferred with a certain consecration. Wherefore, just as other
consecrations are not reiterated in the Church, so neither is Baptism.
This is the view expressed by Augustine, who says (Contra Epist. Parmen.
ii) that "the military character is not renewed": and that "the sacrament
of Christ is not less enduring than this bodily mark, since we see that
not even apostates are deprived of Baptism, since when they repent and
return they are not baptized anew."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[9] Body Para. 5/5
Fourthly, because Baptism is conferred principally as a remedy against
original sin. Wherefore, just as original sin is not renewed, so neither
is Baptism reiterated, for as it is written (Rm. 5:18), "as by the
offense of one, unto all men to condemnation, so also by the justice of
one, unto all men to justification of life."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Baptism derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion, as
stated above (A[2], ad 1). Wherefore, just as subsequent sins do not
cancel the virtue of Christ's Passion, so neither do they cancel Baptism,
so as to call for its repetition. on the other hand the sin which
hindered the effect of Baptism is blotted out on being submitted to
Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says on Jn. 1:33: "'And I knew Him not':
Behold; after John had baptized, Baptism was administered; after a
murderer has baptized, it is not administered: because John gave his own
Baptism; the murderer, Christ's; for that sacrament is so sacred, that
not even a murderer's administration contaminates it."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[9] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The Paulianists and Cataphrygians used not to baptize in
the name of the Trinity. Wherefore Gregory, writing to the Bishop
Quiricus, says: "Those heretics who are not baptized in the name of the
Trinity, such as the Bonosians and Cataphrygians" (who were of the same
mind as the Paulianists), "since the former believe not that Christ is
God" (holding Him to be a mere man), "while the latter," i.e. the
Cataphrygians, "are so perverse as to deem a mere man," viz. Montanus,
"to be the Holy Ghost: all these are baptized when they come to holy
Church, for the baptism which they received while in that state of error
was no Baptism at all, not being conferred in the name of the Trinity."
On the other hand, as set down in De Eccles. Dogm. xxii: "Those heretics
who have been baptized in the confession of the name of the Trinity are
to be received as already baptized when they come to the Catholic Faith."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[9] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: According to the Decretal of Alexander III: "Those about
whose Baptism there is a doubt are to be baptized with these words
prefixed to the form: 'If thou art baptized, I do not rebaptize thee; but
if thou art not baptized, I baptize thee,' etc.: for that does not appear
to be repeated, which is not known to have been done."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[9] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: Both sacraments, viz. Baptism and the Eucharist, are a
representation of our Lord's death and Passion, but not in the same way.
For Baptism is a commemoration of Christ's death in so far as man dies
with Christ, that he may be born again into a new life. But the Eucharist
is a commemoration of Christ's death, in so far as the suffering Christ
Himself is offered to us as the Paschal banquet, according to 1 Cor.
5:7,8: "Christ our pasch is sacrificed; therefore let us feast." And
forasmuch as man is born once, whereas he eats many times, so is Baptism
given once, but the Eucharist frequently.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[10] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the Church observes a suitable rite in baptizing?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[10] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the Church observes an unsuitable rite in
baptizing. For as Chrysostom (Chromatius, in Matth. 3:15) says: "The
waters of Baptism would never avail to purge the sins of them that
believe, had they not been hallowed by the touch of our Lord's body." Now
this took place at Christ's Baptism, which is commemorated in the Feast
of the Epiphany. Therefore solemn Baptism should be celebrated at the
Feast of the Epiphany rather than on the eves of Easter and Whitsunday.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[10] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it seems that several matters should not be used in the
same sacrament. But water is used for washing in Baptism. Therefore it is
unfitting that the person baptized should be anointed thrice with holy
oil first on the breast, and then between the shoulders, and a third time
with chrism on the top of the head.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[10] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, "in Christ Jesus . . . there is neither male nor female"
(Gal. 3:23) . . . "neither Barbarian nor Scythian" (Col. 3:11), nor, in
like manner, any other such like distinctions. Much less, therefore can a
difference of clothing have any efficacy in the Faith of Christ. It is
consequently unfitting to bestow a white garment on those who have been
baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[10] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, Baptism can be celebrated without such like ceremonies.
Therefore it seems that those mentioned above are superfluous; and
consequently that they are unsuitably inserted by the Church in the
baptismal rite.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[10] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Church is ruled by the Holy Ghost, Who does nothing
inordinate.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[10] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism something is done which is
essential to the sacrament, and something which belongs to a certain
solemnity of the sacrament. Essential indeed, to the sacrament are both
the form which designates the principal cause of the sacrament; and the
minister who is the instrumental cause; and the use of the matter,
namely, washing with water, which designates the principal sacramental
effect. But all the other things which the Church observes in the
baptismal rite, belong rather to a certain solemnity of the sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[10] Body Para. 2/4
And these, indeed, are used in conjunction with the sacrament for three
reasons. First, in order to arouse the devotion of the faithful, and
their reverence for the sacrament. For if there were nothing done but a
mere washing with water, without any solemnity, some might easily think
it to be an ordinary washing.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[10] Body Para. 3/4
Secondly, for the instruction of the faithful. Because simple and
unlettered folk need to be taught by some sensible signs, for instance,
pictures and the like. And in this way by means of the sacramental
ceremonies they are either instructed, or urged to seek the signification
of such like sensible signs. And consequently, since, besides the
principal sacramental effect, other things should be known about Baptism,
it was fitting that these also should be represented by some outward
signs.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[10] Body Para. 4/4
Thirdly, because the power of the devil is restrained, by prayers,
blessings, and the like, from hindering the sacramental effect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ was baptized on the Epiphany with the Baptism of
John, as stated above (Q[39], A[2]), with which baptism, indeed, the
faithful are not baptized, rather are they baptized with Christ's
Baptism. This has its efficacy from the Passion of Christ, according to
Rm. 6:3: "We who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His
death"; and in the Holy Ghost, according to Jn. 3:5: "Unless a man be
born again of water and the Holy Ghost." Therefore it is that solemn
Baptism is held in the Church, both on Easter Eve, when we commemorate
our Lord's burial and resurrection; for which reason our Lord gave His
disciples the commandment concerning Baptism as related by Matthew
(28:19): and on Whitsun-eve, when the celebration of the Feast of the
Holy Ghost begins; for which reason the apostles are said to have
baptized three thousand on the very day of Pentecost when they had
received the Holy Ghost.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The use of water in Baptism is part of the substance of the
sacrament; but the use of oil or chrism is part of the solemnity. For the
candidate is first of all anointed with Holy oil on the breast and
between the shoulders, as "one who wrestles for God," to use Ambrose's
expression (De Sacram. i): thus are prize-fighters wont to besmear
themselves with oil. Or, as Innocent III says in a decretal on the Holy
Unction: "The candidate is anointed on the breast, in order to receive
the gift of the Holy Ghost, to cast off error and ignorance, and to
acknowledge the true faith, since 'the just man liveth by faith'; while
he is anointed between the shoulders, that he may be clothed with the
grace of the Holy Ghost, lay aside indifference and sloth, and become
active in good works; so that the sacrament of faith may purify the
thoughts of his heart, and strengthen his shoulders for the burden of
labor." But after Baptism, as Rabanus says (De Sacram. iii), "he is
forthwith anointed on the head by the priest with Holy Chrism, who
proceeds at once to offer up a prayer that the neophyte may have a share
in Christ's kingdom, and be called a Christian after Christ." Or, as
Ambrose says (De Sacram. iii), his head is anointed, because "the senses
of a wise man are in his head" (Eccl 2:14): to wit, that he may "be ready
to satisfy everyone that asketh" him to give "a reason of his faith" (cf.
1 Pt. 3:15; Innocent III, Decretal on Holy Unction).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This white garment is given, not as though it were unlawful
for the neophyte to use others: but as a sign of the glorious
resurrection, unto which men are born again by Baptism; and in order to
designate the purity of life, to which he will be bound after being
baptized, according to Rm. 6:4: "That we may walk in newness of life."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[10] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Although those things that belong to the solemnity of a
sacrament are not essential to it, yet are they not superfluous, since
they pertain to the sacrament's wellbeing, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[11] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described---viz. Baptism of
Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[11] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly
described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the
Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Eph. 4:5): "One Faith, one
Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three
Baptisms.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[11] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above
(Q[65], A[1]). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we
should not reckon two other Baptisms.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[11] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other
kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[11] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, on Heb. 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss
says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of
Repentance, and of Blood."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[11] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[62], A[5]), Baptism of Water has its
efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism,
and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect
depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does
it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water,
receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is
conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apoc.
7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have
washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In
like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy
Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of
Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in
and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called
Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Is. 4:4): "If the Lord
shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away
the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of
judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these
other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of
Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The
Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom,
though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in
Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed
this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering
for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even
faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of
the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[11] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of
Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from
the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not
destroyed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[11] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above (Q[60], A[1]), a sacrament is a kind of
sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed,
in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are
not sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[11] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For
instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the
salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls
were saved in the ark [Vulg.: 'by water']," according to 1 Pt. 3:20. He
also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our
Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and
in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were
customary under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to
the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared the
way for our Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[12] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the Baptism of Blood is the most excellent of these?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[12] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent of
these three. For the Baptism of Water impresses a character; which the
Baptism of Blood cannot do. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not more
excellent than the Baptism of Water.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[12] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the Baptism of Blood is of no avail without the Baptism
of the Spirit, which is by charity; for it is written (1 Cor. 13:3): "If
I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth
me nothing." But the Baptism of the Spirit avails without the Baptism of
Blood; for not only the martyrs are saved. Therefore the Baptism of Blood
is not the most excellent.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[12] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, just as the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from
Christ's Passion, to which, as stated above (A[11]), the Baptism of Blood
corresponds, so Christ's Passion derives its efficacy from the Holy
Ghost, according to Heb. 9:14: "The Blood of Christ, Who by the Holy
Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our conscience
from dead works," etc. Therefore the Baptism of the Spirit is more
excellent than the Baptism of Blood. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is
not the most excellent.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[12] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine (Ad Fortunatum) speaking of the comparison
between Baptisms says: "The newly baptized confesses his faith in the
presence of the priest: the martyr in the presence of the persecutor. The
former is sprinkled with water, after he has confessed; the latter with
his blood. The former receives the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the
bishop's hands; the latter is made the temple of the Holy Ghost."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[12] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[11]), the shedding of blood for
Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called
baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water.
Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and
from the Holy Ghost, as already stated (A[11]). These two causes act in
each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the Baptism
of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a
figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance,
by way of desire. but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the
(Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in
the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power. in the Baptism of
Repentance by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the
highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to Jn. 15:13:
"Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his
friends."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[12] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: A character is both reality and a sacrament. And we do not
say that the Baptism of Blood is more excellent, considering the nature
of a sacrament; but considering the sacramental effect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[12] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The shedding of blood is not in the nature of a Baptism if
it be without charity. Hence it is clear that the Baptism of Blood
includes the Baptism of the Spirit, but not conversely. And from this it
is proved to be more perfect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[66] A[12] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The Baptism owes its pre-eminence not only to Christ's
Passion, but also to the Holy Ghost, as stated above.
