No More Learning

Reply to Objection 1: When Christ descended into hell He delivered the
saints who were there, not by leading them out at once from the
confines of hell, but by enlightening them with the light of glory in
hell itself. Nevertheless it was fitting that His soul should abide in
hell as long as His body remained in the tomb.

Reply to Objection 2: By the expression "bars of hell" are understood
the obstacles which kept the holy Fathers from quitting hell, through
the guilt of our first parent's sin; and these bars Christ burst
asunder by the power of His Passion on descending into hell:
nevertheless He chose to remain in hell for some time, for the reason
stated above.

Reply to Objection 3: Our Lord's expression is not to be understood of
the earthly corporeal paradise, but of a spiritual one, in which all
are said to be who enjoy the Divine glory. Accordingly, the thief
descended locally into hell with Christ, because it was said to him:
"This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise"; still as to reward he was
in paradise, because he enjoyed Christ's Godhead just as the other
saints did.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ descending into hell delivered the holy Fathers from thence?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ descending into hell did not
deliver the holy Fathers from thence. For Augustine (Epist. ad Evod.
clxiv) says: "I have not yet discovered what Christ descending into
hell bestowed upon those righteous ones who were in Abraham's bosom,
from whom I fail to see that He ever departed according to the beatific
presence of His Godhead. " But had He delivered them, He would have
bestowed much upon them. Therefore it does not appear that Christ
delivered the holy Fathers from hell.

Objection 2: Further, no one is detained in hell except on account of
sin. But during life the holy Fathers were justified from sin through
faith in Christ. Consequently they did not need to be delivered from
hell on Christ's descent thither.

Objection 3: Further, if you remove the cause, you remove the effect.
But that Christ went down into hell was due to sin which was taken away
by the Passion, as stated above ([4283]Q[49], A[1]). Consequently, the
holy Fathers were not delivered on Christ's descent into hell.

On the contrary, Augustine says in the sermon on the Passion already
quoted that when Christ descended into hell "He broke down the gate and
'iron bars' of hell, setting at liberty all the righteous who were held
fast through original sin. "

I answer that, As stated above (A[4], ad 2), when Christ descended into
hell He worked through the power of His Passion. But through Christ's
Passion the human race was delivered not only from sin, but also from
the debt of its penalty, as stated above (Q[49], AA[1],3). Now men were
held fast by the debt of punishment in two ways: first of all for
actual sin which each had committed personally: secondly, for the sin
of the whole human race, which each one in his origin contracts from
our first parent, as stated in Rom. 5 of which sin the penalty is the
death of the body as well as exclusion from glory, as is evident from
Gn. 2 and 3: because God cast out man from paradise after sin, having
beforehand threatened him with death should he sin. Consequently, when
Christ descended into hell, by the power of His Passion He delivered
the saints from the penalty whereby they were excluded from the life of
glory, so as to be unable to see God in His Essence, wherein man's
beatitude lies, as stated in the [4284]FS, Q[3], A[8]. But the holy
Fathers were detained in hell for the reason, that, owing to our first
parent's sin, the approach to the life of glory was not opened. And so
when Christ descended into hell He delivered the holy Fathers from
thence. And this is what is written Zech. 9:11: "Thou also by the blood
of Thy testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein
is no water. " And (Col. 2:15) it is written that "despoiling the
principalities and powers," i. e. "of hell, by taking out Isaac and
Jacob, and the other just souls," "He led them," i. e. "He brought them
far from this kingdom of darkness into heaven," as the gloss explains.

Reply to Objection 1: Augustine is speaking there against such as
maintained that the righteous of old were subject to penal sufferings
before Christ's descent into hell. Hence shortly before the passage
quoted he says: "Some add that this benefit was also bestowed upon the
saints of old, that on the Lord's coming into hell they were freed from
their sufferings. But I fail to see how Abraham, into whose bosom the
poor man was received, was ever in such sufferings. " Consequently, when
he afterwards adds that "he had not yet discovered what Christ's
descent into hell had brought to the righteous of old," this must be
understood as to their being freed from penal sufferings. Yet Christ
bestowed something upon them as to their attaining glory: and in
consequence He dispelled the suffering which they endured through their
glory being delayed: still they had great joy from the very hope
thereof, according to Jn. 8:56: "Abraham your father rejoiced that he
might see my day. " And therefore he adds: "I fail to see that He ever
departed, according to the beatific presence of His Godhead," that is,
inasmuch as even before Christ's coming they were happy in hope,
although not yet fully happy in fact.

Reply to Objection 2: The holy Fathers while yet living were delivered
from original as well as actual sin through faith in Christ; also from
the penalty of actual sins, but not from the penalty of original sin,
whereby they were excluded from glory, since the price of man's
redemption was not yet paid: just as the faithful are now delivered by
baptism from the penalty of actual sins, and from the penalty of
original sin as to exclusion from glory, yet still remain bound by the
penalty of original sin as to the necessity of dying in the body
because they are renewed in the spirit, but not yet in the flesh,
according to Rom. 8:10: "The body indeed is dead, because of sin; but
the spirit liveth, because of justification. "

Reply to Objection 3: Directly Christ died His soul went down into
hell, and bestowed the fruits of His Passion on the saints detained
there; although they did not go out as long as Christ remained in hell,
because His presence was part of the fulness of their glory.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ delivered any of the lost from hell?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did deliver some of the lost
from hell, because it is written (Is. 24:22): "And they shall be
gathered together as in the gathering of one bundle into the pit, end
they shall be shut up there in prison: and after many days they shall
be visited. " But there he is speaking of the lost, who "had adored the
host of heaven," according to Jerome's commentary. Consequently it
seems that even the lost were visited at Christ's descent into hell;
and this seems to imply their deliverance.

Objection 2: Further, on Zech. 9:11: "Thou also by the blood of Thy
testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no
water," the gloss observes: "Thou hast delivered them who were held
bound in prisons, where no mercy refreshed them, which that rich man
prayed for. " But only the lost are shut up in merciless prisons.
Therefore Christ did deliver some from the hell of the lost.

Objection 3: Further, Christ's power was not less in hell than in this
world, because He worked in every place by the power of His Godhead.
But in this world He delivered some persons of every state. Therefore,
in hell also, He delivered some from the state of the lost.

On the contrary, It is written (Osee 13:14): "O death, I will be thy
death; O hell, I will be thy bite": upon which the gloss says: "By
leading forth the elect, and leaving there the reprobate. " But only the
reprobate are in the hell of the lost. Therefore, by Christ's descent
into hell none were delivered from the hell of the lost.

I answer that, As stated above [4285](A[5]), when Christ descended into
hell He worked by the power of His Passion. Consequently, His descent
into hell brought the fruits of deliverance to them only who were
united to His Passion through faith quickened by charity, whereby sins
are taken away. Now those detained in the hell of the lost either had
no faith in Christ's Passion, as infidels; or if they had faith, they
had no conformity with the charity of the suffering Christ: hence they
could not be cleansed from their sins. And on this account Christ's
descent into hell brought them no deliverance from the debt of
punishment in hell.

Reply to Objection 1: When Christ descended into hell, all who were in
any part of hell were visited in some respect: some to their
consolation and deliverance, others, namely, the lost, to their shame
and confusion. Accordingly the passage continues: "And the moon shall
blush, and the sun be put to shame," etc.

This can also be referred to the visitation which will come upon them
in the Day of Judgment, not for their deliverance, but for their yet
greater confusion, according to Sophon. i, 12: "I will visit upon the
men that are settled on their lees. "

Reply to Objection 2: When the gloss says "where no mercy refreshed
them," this is to be understood of the refreshing of full deliverance,
because the holy Fathers could not be delivered from this prison of
hell before Christ's coming.

Reply to Objection 3: It was not due to any lack of power on Christ's
part that some were not delivered from every state in hell, as out of
every state among men in this world; but it was owing to the very
different condition of each state. For, so long as men live here below,
they can be converted to faith and charity, because in this life men
are not confirmed either in good or in evil, as they are after quitting
this life.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the children who died in original sin were delivered by Christ?

Objection 1: It would seem that the children who died in original sin
were delivered from hell by Christ's descending thither. For, like the
holy Fathers, the children were kept in hell simply because of original
sin. But the holy Fathers were delivered from hell, as stated above
[4286](A[5]). Therefore the children were similarly delivered from hell
by Christ.

Objection 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 5:15): "If by the offense
of one, many died; much more the grace of God and the gift, by the
grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. " But the
children who die with none but original sin are detained in hell owing
to their first parent's sin. Therefore, much more were they delivered
from hell through the grace of Christ.

Objection 3: Further, as Baptism works in virtue of Christ's Passion,
so also does Christ's descent into hell, as is clear from what has been
said (A[4], ad 2, AA[5],6). But through Baptism children are delivered
from original sin and hell. Therefore, they were similarly delivered by
Christ's descent into hell.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom. 3:25): "God hath proposed
Christ to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood. " But the
children who had died with only original sin were in no wise sharers of
faith in Christ. Therefore, they did not receive the fruits of Christ's
propitiation, so as to be delivered by Him from hell.

I answer that, As stated above [4287](A[6]), Christ's descent into hell
had its effect of deliverance on them only who through faith and
charity were united to Christ's Passion, in virtue whereof Christ's
descent into hell was one of deliverance. But the children who had died
in original sin were in no way united to Christ's Passion by faith and
love: for, not having the use of free will, they could have no faith of
their own; nor were they cleansed from original sin either by their
parents' faith or by any sacrament of faith. Consequently, Christ's
descent into hell did not deliver the children from thence. And
furthermore, the holy Fathers were delivered from hell by being
admitted to the glory of the vision of God, to which no one can come
except through grace; according to Rom. 6:23: "The grace of God is life
everlasting. " Therefore, since children dying in original sin had no
grace, they were not delivered from hell.

Reply to Objection 1: The holy Fathers, although still held bound by
the debt of original sin, in so far as it touches human nature, were
nevertheless delivered from all stain of sin by faith in Christ:
consequently, they were capable of that deliverance which Christ
brought by descending into hell. But the same cannot be said of the
children, as is evident from what was said above.

Reply to Objection 2: When the Apostle says that the grace of God "hath
abounded unto many," the word "many" [*The Vulgate reads 'plures,' i. e.
'many more'] is to be taken, not comparatively, as if more were saved
by Christ's grace than lost by Adam's sin: but absolutely, as if he
said that the grace of the one Christ abounded unto many, just as
Adam's sin was contracted by many. But as Adam's sin was contracted by
those only who descended seminally from him according to the flesh, so
Christ's grace reached those only who became His members by spiritual
regeneration: which does not apply to children dying in original sin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION (FOUR ARTICLES)

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

(1) The necessity of His Resurrection;

(2) The time of the Resurrection;

(3) Its order;

(4) Its cause.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether it was necessary for Christ to rise again?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether Christ was the first to rise from the dead?

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

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

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

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

I answer that, Resurrection is a restoring from death to life. Now a
man is snatched from death in two ways: first of all, from actual
death, so that he begins in any way to live anew after being actually
dead: in another way, so that he is not only rescued from death, but
from the necessity, nay more, from the possibility of dying again. Such
is a true and perfect resurrection, because so long as a man lives,
subject to the necessity of dying, death has dominion over him in a
measure, according to Rom. 8:10: "The body indeed is dead because of
sin. " Furthermore, what has the possibility of existence, is said to
exist in some respect, that is, in potentiality. Thus it is evident
that the resurrection, whereby one is rescued from actual death only,
is but an imperfect one.

Consequently, speaking of perfect resurrection, Christ is the first of
them who rise, because by rising He was the first to attain life
utterly immortal, according to Rom. 6:9: "Christ rising from the dead
dieth now no more. " But by an imperfect resurrection, some others have
risen before Christ, so as to be a kind of figure of His Resurrection.

And thus the answer to the first objection is clear: because both those
raised from the dead in the old Testament, and those raised by Christ,
so returned to life that they had to die again.

Reply to Objection 2: There are two opinions regarding them who rose
with Christ. Some hold that they rose to life so as to die no more,
because it would be a greater torment for them to die a second time
than not to rise at all. According to this view, as Jerome observes on
Mat. 27:52,53, we must understand that "they had not risen before our
Lord rose. " Hence the Evangelist says that "coming out of the tombs
after His Resurrection, they came into the holy city, and appeared to
many. " But Augustine (Ep. ad Evod. clxiv) while giving this opinion,
says: "I know that it appears some, that by the death of Christ the
Lord the same resurrection was bestowed upon the righteous as is
promised to us in the end; and if they slept not again by laying aside
their bodies, it remains to be seen how Christ can be understood to be
'the first-born of the dead,' if so many preceded Him unto that
resurrection. Now if reply be made that this is said by anticipation,
so that the monuments be understood to have been opened by the
earthquake while Christ was still hanging on the cross, but that the
bodies of the just did not rise then but after He had risen, the
difficulty still arises---how is it that Peter asserts that it was
predicted not of David but of Christ, that His body would not see
corruption, since David's tomb was in their midst; and thus he did not
convince them, if David's body was no longer there; for even if he had
risen soon after his death, and his flesh had not seen corruption, his
tomb might nevertheless remain. Now it seems hard that David from whose
seed Christ is descended, was not in that rising of the just, if an
eternal rising was conferred upon them. Also that saying in the Epistle
to the Hebrews (11:40) regarding the ancient just would be hard to
explain, 'that they should not be perfected without us,' if they were
already established in that incorruption of the resurrection which is
promised at the end when we shall be made perfect": so that Augustine
would seem to think that they rose to die again. In this sense Jerome
also in commenting on Matthew (27:52,53) says: "As Lazarus rose, so
also many of the bodies of the saints rose, that they might bear
witness to the risen Christ. " Nevertheless in a sermon for the
Assumption [*Ep. ix ad Paul. et Eustoch. ; among the supposititious
works ascribed to St. Jerome] he seems to leave the matter doubtful.
But Augustine's reasons seem to be much more cogent.

Reply to Objection 3: As everything preceding Christ's coming was
preparatory for Christ, so is grace a disposition for glory.
Consequently, it behooved all things appertaining to glory, whether
they regard the soul, as the perfect fruition of God, or whether they
regard the body, as the glorious resurrection, to be first in Christ as
the author of glory: but that grace should be first in those that were
ordained unto Christ.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ was the cause of His own Resurrection?

Objection 1: It seems that Christ was not the cause of His own
Resurrection. For whoever is raised up by another is not the cause of
his own rising. But Christ was raised up by another, according to Acts
2:24: "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell": and
Rom. 8:11: "He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken
also your mortal bodies. " Therefore Christ is not the cause of His own
Resurrection.

Objection 2: Further, no one is said to merit, or ask from another,
that of which he is himself the cause. But Christ by His Passion
merited the Resurrection, as Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan. ): "The
lowliness of the Passion is the meritorious cause of the glory of the
Resurrection. " Moreover He asked the Father that He might be raised up
again, according to Ps. 40:11: "But thou, O Lord, have mercy on me, and
raise me up again. " Therefore He was not the cause of His rising again.

Objection 3: Further, as Damascene proves (De Fide Orth. iv), it is not
the soul that rises again, but the body, which is stricken by death.
But the body could not unite the soul with itself, since the soul is
nobler. Therefore what rose in Christ could not be the cause of His
Resurrection.

On the contrary, Our Lord says (Jn. 10:18): "No one taketh My soul from
Me, but I lay it down, and I take it up again. " But to rise is nothing
else than to take the soul up again. Consequently, it appears that
Christ rose again of His own power.

I answer that, As stated above ([4299]Q[50], AA[2],3) in consequence of
death Christ's Godhead was not separated from His soul, nor from His
flesh. Consequently, both the soul and the flesh of the dead Christ can
be considered in two respects: first, in respect of His Godhead;
secondly, in respect of His created nature. Therefore, according to the
virtue of the Godhead united to it, the body took back again the soul
which it had laid aside, and the soul took back again the body which it
had abandoned: and thus Christ rose by His own power. And this is
precisely what is written (2 Cor. 13:4): "For although He was crucified
through" our "weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God. " But if we
consider the body and soul of the dead Christ according to the power of
created nature, they could not thus be reunited, but it was necessary
for Christ to be raised up by God.

Reply to Objection 1: The Divine power is the same thing as the
operation of the Father and the Son; accordingly these two things are
mutually consequent, that Christ was raised up by the Divine power of
the Father, and by His own power.

Reply to Objection 2: Christ by praying besought and merited His
Resurrection, as man and not as God.

Reply to Objection 3: According to its created nature Christ's body is
not more powerful than His soul; yet according to its Divine power it
is more powerful. Again the soul by reason of the Godhead united to it
is more powerful than the body in respect of its created nature.
Consequently, it was by the Divine power that the body and soul
mutually resumed each other, but not by the power of their created
nature.
__________________________________________________________________

OF THE QUALITY OF CHRIST RISING AGAIN (FOUR ARTICLES)

We have now to consider the quality of the rising Christ, which
presents four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether Christ had a true body after His Resurrection?

(2) Whether He rose with His complete body?

(3) Whether His was a glorified body?

(4) Of the scars which showed in His body.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ had a true body after His Resurrection?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not have a true body after
His Resurrection. For a true body cannot be in the same place at the
same time with another body. But after the Resurrection Christ's body
was with another at the same time in the same place: since He entered
among the disciples "the doors being shut," as is related in Jn. 20:26.
Therefore it seems that Christ did not have a true body after His
Resurrection.

Objection 2: Further, a true body does not vanish from the beholder's
sight unless perchance it be corrupted. But Christ's body "vanished out
of the sight" of the disciples as they gazed upon Him, as is related in
Lk. 24:31. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not have a true body
after His Resurrection.

Objection 3: Further, every true body has its determinate shape. But
Christ's body appeared before the disciples "in another shape," as is
evident from Mk. 15:12. Therefore it seems that Christ did not possess
a true body after His Resurrection.

On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 24:37) that when Christ appeared to
His disciples "they being troubled and frightened, supposed that they
saw a spirit," as if He had not a true but an imaginary body: but to
remove their fears He presently added: "Handle and see, for a spirit
hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have. " Consequently, He had
not an imaginary but a true body.

I answer that, As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): that is said to
rise, which fell. But Christ's body fell by death; namely, inasmuch as
the soul which was its formal perfection was separated from it. Hence,
in order for it to be a true resurrection, it was necessary for the
same body of Christ to be once more united with the same soul. And
since the truth of the body's nature is from its form it follows that
Christ's body after His Resurrection was a true body, and of the same
nature as it was before. But had His been an imaginary body, then His
Resurrection would not have been true, but apparent.

Reply to Objection 1: Christ's body after His Resurrection, not by
miracle but from its glorified condition, as some say, entered in among
the disciples while the doors were shut, thus existing with another
body in the same place. But whether a glorified body can have this from
some hidden property, so as to be with another body at the same time in
the same place, will be discussed later ([4300]XP, Q[83], A[4]) when
the common resurrection will be dealt with. For the present let it
suffice to say that it was not from any property within the body, but
by virtue of the Godhead united to it, that this body, although a true
one, entered in among the disciples while the doors were shut.
Accordingly Augustine says in a sermon for Easter (ccxlvii) that some
men argue in this fashion: "If it were a body; if what rose from the
sepulchre were what hung upon the tree, how could it enter through
closed doors? " And he answers: "If you understand how, it is no
miracle: where reason fails, faith abounds. " And (Tract. cxxi super
Joan. ) he says: "Closed doors were no obstacle to the substance of a
Body wherein was the Godhead; for truly He could enter in by doors not
open, in whose Birth His Mother's virginity remained inviolate. " And
Gregory says the same in a homily for the octave of Easter (xxvi in
Evang. ).

Reply to Objection 2: As stated above ([4301]Q[53], A[3]), Christ rose
to the immortal life of glory. But such is the disposition of a
glorified body that it is spiritual, i. e. subject to the spirit, as the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:44). Now in order for the body to be entirely
subject to the spirit, it is necessary for the body's every action to
be subject to the will of the spirit. Again, that an object be seen is
due to the action of the visible object upon the sight, as the
Philosopher shows (De Anima ii). Consequently, whoever has a glorified
body has it in his power to be seen when he so wishes, and not to be
seen when he does not wish it. Moreover Christ had this not only from
the condition of His glorified body, but also from the power of His
Godhead, by which power it may happen that even bodies not glorified
are miraculously unseen: as was by a miracle bestowed on the blessed
Bartholomew, that "if he wished he could be seen, and not be seen if he
did not wish it" [*Apocryphal Historia Apost. viii, 2]. Christ, then,
is said to have vanished from the eyes of the disciples, not as though
He were corrupted or dissolved into invisible elements; but because He
ceased, of His own will, to be seen by them, either while He was
present or while He was departing by the gift of agility.

Reply to Objection 3: As Severianus [*Peter Chrysologus: Serm. lxxxii]
says in a sermon for Easter: "Let no one suppose that Christ changed
His features at the Resurrection. " This is to be understood of the
outline of His members; since there was nothing out of keeping or
deformed in the body of Christ which was conceived of the Holy Ghost,
that had to be righted at the Resurrection. Nevertheless He received
the glory of clarity in the Resurrection: accordingly the same writer
adds: "but the semblance is changed, when, ceasing to be mortal, it
becomes immortal; so that it acquired the glory of countenance, without
losing the substance of the countenance. " Yet He did not come to those
disciples in glorified appearance; but, as it lay in His power for His
body to be seen or not, so it was within His power to present to the
eyes of the beholders His form either glorified or not glorified, or
partly glorified and partly not, or in any fashion whatsoever. Still it
requires but a slight difference for anyone to seem to appear another
shape.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ's body rose glorified? [*Some editions give this article as
the third, following the order of the introduction to the question. But this
is evident from the first sentence of the body of A[3] (A[2] in the
aforesaid editions), that the order of the Leonine edition is correct. ]

Objection 1: It seems that Christ's body did not rise glorified. For
glorified bodies shine, according to Mat. 13:43: "Then shall the just
shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. " But shining bodies
are seen under the aspect of light, but not of color. Therefore, since
Christ's body was beheld under the aspect of color, as it had been
hitherto, it seems that it was not a glorified one.

Objection 2: Further, a glorified body is incorruptible. But Christ's
body seems not to have been incorruptible; because it was palpable, as
He Himself says in Lk. 24:39: "Handle, and see. " Now Gregory says (Hom.
in Evang. xxvi) that "what is handled must be corruptible, and that
which is incorruptible cannot be handled. " Consequently, Christ's body
was not glorified.

Objection 3: Further, a glorified body is not animal, but spiritual, as
is clear from 1 Cor. 15. But after the Resurrection Christ's body seems
to have been animal, since He ate and drank with His disciples, as we
read in the closing chapters of Luke and John. Therefore, it seems that
Christ's body was not glorified.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Phil. 3:21): "He will reform the
body of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory. "

I answer that, Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and
this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His
Resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in 1
Cor. 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified
bodies, as is written in the same place: "It is sown in dishonor, it
shall rise in glory. " Hence, since the cause is mightier than the
effect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much more glorious, then,
was the body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because He
merited the glory of His Resurrection by the lowliness of His Passion.
Hence He said (Jn. 12:27): "Now is My soul troubled," which refers to
the Passion; and later He adds: "Father, glorify Thy name," whereby He
asks for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated
above ([4302]Q[34], A[4]), Christ's soul was glorified from the instant
of His conception by perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as stated
above ([4303]Q[14], A[1], ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy
that the glory did not pass from His soul to His body, in order that by
the Passion He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption.
Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion and death was
finished, straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen body
in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious.

Reply to Objection 1: Whatever is received within a subject is received
according to the subject's capacity. Therefore, since glory flows from
the soul into the body, it follows that, as Augustine says (Ep. ad
Dioscor.