"
And since the Holy Ghost is love drawing us up to heavenly things,
therefore our Lord said to His disciples (Jn.
And since the Holy Ghost is love drawing us up to heavenly things,
therefore our Lord said to His disciples (Jn.
Summa Theologica
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. "
Reply to Objection 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. "
Reply to Objection 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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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. "
__________________________________________________________________
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?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's Resurrection is the cause of the resurrection of our
bodies?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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. "
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 ([4309]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. "
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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 ([4310]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.
Reply to Objection 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 ([4311]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 ([4312]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.
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 Rom. 8:29.
Reply to Objection 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 ([4313]Q[48],
A[1]).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's Resurrection is the cause of the resurrection of souls?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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 Mat. 25:46: "some shall go
into everlasting punishment. " Therefore Christ's Resurrection is not
the cause of the resurrection of souls.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom. 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. "
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 (Rom. 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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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 (Rom. 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;[4314] Q[48], A[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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was fitting for Christ to ascend into heaven?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, Are the words of our Lord (Jn. 20:17): "I ascend to My
Father and to your Father. "
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.
Reply to Objection 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 ([4315]Q[2], A[7];[4316]
Q[16], AA[8],10;[4317] Q[20], A[1] ), it is not unbecoming if some
movement be attributed to it.
Reply to Objection 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. "
Reply to Objection 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 (Mat. 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.
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. '"
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 Mat. 24:28. Hence it is
written likewise (Mic. 2:13): "He shall go up that shall open the way
before them. "
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 (Mat. 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. "
Reply to Objection 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. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's Ascension into heaven belonged to Him according to His
Divine Nature?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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. "
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.
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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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
([4318]Q[58], A[3])
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ ascended by His own power?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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. "
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.
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
[4319]FP, Q[76], A[7], and shall deal with it more fully in treating of
the general resurrection ([4320]XP, Q[84], A[1]).
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 [4321](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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ ascended above all the heavens?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, It is written (Eph. 4:10): "He ascended above all the
heavens that He might fill all things. "
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. "
Reply to Objection 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! "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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).
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's body ascended above every spiritual creature?
Objection 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 [4322]FP, Q[8], A[2], ad 1,2; [4323]FP, Q[52],
A[1]. Therefore it seems that Christ's body cannot be said to have
ascended above every spiritual creature.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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. "
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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's Ascension is the cause of our salvation?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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 ([4324]Q[56], A[1], ad 3,4).
Reply to Objection 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.
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. "
Reply to Objection 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. "
Reply to Objection 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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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. "
__________________________________________________________________
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?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's Resurrection is the cause of the resurrection of our
bodies?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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. "
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 ([4309]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. "
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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 ([4310]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.
Reply to Objection 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 ([4311]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 ([4312]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.
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 Rom. 8:29.
Reply to Objection 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 ([4313]Q[48],
A[1]).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's Resurrection is the cause of the resurrection of souls?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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 Mat. 25:46: "some shall go
into everlasting punishment. " Therefore Christ's Resurrection is not
the cause of the resurrection of souls.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom. 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. "
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 (Rom. 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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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 (Rom. 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;[4314] Q[48], A[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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was fitting for Christ to ascend into heaven?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, Are the words of our Lord (Jn. 20:17): "I ascend to My
Father and to your Father. "
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.
Reply to Objection 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 ([4315]Q[2], A[7];[4316]
Q[16], AA[8],10;[4317] Q[20], A[1] ), it is not unbecoming if some
movement be attributed to it.
Reply to Objection 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. "
Reply to Objection 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 (Mat. 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.
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. '"
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 Mat. 24:28. Hence it is
written likewise (Mic. 2:13): "He shall go up that shall open the way
before them. "
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 (Mat. 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. "
Reply to Objection 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. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's Ascension into heaven belonged to Him according to His
Divine Nature?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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. "
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.
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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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
([4318]Q[58], A[3])
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ ascended by His own power?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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. "
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.
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
[4319]FP, Q[76], A[7], and shall deal with it more fully in treating of
the general resurrection ([4320]XP, Q[84], A[1]).
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 [4321](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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ ascended above all the heavens?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, It is written (Eph. 4:10): "He ascended above all the
heavens that He might fill all things. "
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. "
Reply to Objection 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! "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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).
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's body ascended above every spiritual creature?
Objection 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 [4322]FP, Q[8], A[2], ad 1,2; [4323]FP, Q[52],
A[1]. Therefore it seems that Christ's body cannot be said to have
ascended above every spiritual creature.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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. "
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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's Ascension is the cause of our salvation?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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 ([4324]Q[56], A[1], ad 3,4).
Reply to Objection 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.
