No More Learning

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.

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 ([4258]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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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 (Rom. 3:25): "Whom God hath proposed to be a
propitiation, through faith in His blood. "

Reply to Objection 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
([4259]Q[49]).
__________________________________________________________________

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?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether we were delivered from sin through Christ's Passion?

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

On the contrary, It is written (Apoc. 1:5): "He loved us, and washed us
from our sins in His own blood. "

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 (Rom. 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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
([4260]Q[62], A[5]).

Reply to Objection 5: Christ's Passion is applied to us even through
faith, that we may share in its fruits, according to Rom. 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether we were delivered from the devil's power through Christ's Passion?

Objection 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 (Mat. 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

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.

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.

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 [4261](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 [4262](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. "

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether men were freed from the punishment of sin through Christ's Passion?

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 3: Further, death is a punishment of sin, according to Rom.
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.

On the contrary, It is written (Is. 53:4): "Surely He hath borne our
iniquities and carried our sorrows. "

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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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 Rom.
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 Pet. 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.

Reply to Objection 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 [4263](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 (Rom. 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. "
__________________________________________________________________

Whether we were reconciled to God through Christ's Passion?

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom. 5:10): "We are reconciled to
God by the death of His Son. "

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 Kings 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).

Reply to Objection 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. "

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ opened the gate of heaven to us by His Passion?

Objection 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.

Objection 2: Further, Elias was caught up to heaven previous to
Christ's Passion (4 Kings 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.

Objection 3: Further, as it is written (Mat. 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.

Objection 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.

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. "

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.

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'. ]

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 3: As was stated above ([4264]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.

Reply to Objection 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. "
__________________________________________________________________

Whether by His Passion Christ merited to be exalted?

Objection 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.

Objection 2: Further, Christ merited for Himself from the first instant
of His conception, as stated above ([4265]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.

Objection 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.

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. "

I answer that, Merit implies a certain equality of justice: hence the
Apostle says (Rom. 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. "

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. "

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

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?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether it was fitting that Christ should die?

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

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.

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 Pet. 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 (Rom. 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? "

Reply to Objection 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. "

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the Godhead was separated from the flesh when Christ died?

Objection 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.

Objection 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 ([4266]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.

Objection 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.

On the contrary, As stated above ([4267]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.

I answer that, What is bestowed through God's grace is never withdrawn
except through fault. Hence it is written (Rom. 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).

Reply to Objection 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. ).

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether in Christ's death there was a severance between His Godhead and His
soul?

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

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. "

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
([4268]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.

Reply to Objection 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 [4269](A[2]), the Godhead of the Word was not
severed from the flesh in death.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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. "
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ was a man during the three days of His death?

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 3: Further, every priest is a man.