No More Learning

__________________________________________________________________

OF CHRIST'S TRANSFIGURATION (FOUR ARTICLES)

We now consider Christ's transfiguration; and here there are four
points of inquiry:

(1) Whether it was fitting that Christ should be transfigured?

(2) Whether the clarity of the transfiguration was the clarity of
glory?

(3) Of the witnesses of the transfiguration;

(4) Of the testimony of the Father's voice.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether it was fitting that Christ should be transfigured?

Objection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should
be transfigured. For it is not fitting for a true body to be changed
into various shapes [figuras], but only for an imaginary body. Now
Christ's body was not imaginary, but real, as stated above ([4222]Q[5],
A[1]). Therefore it seems that it should not have been transfigured.

Objection 2: Further, figure is in the fourth species of quality,
whereas clarity is in the third, since it is a sensible quality.
Therefore Christ's assuming clarity should not be called a
transfiguration.

Objection 3: Further, a glorified body has four gifts, as we shall
state farther on ([4223]XP, Q[82]), viz. impassibility, agility,
subtlety, and clarity. Therefore His transfiguration should not have
consisted in an assumption of clarity rather than of the other gifts.

On the contrary, It is written (Mat. 17:2) that Jesus "was
transfigured" in the presence of three of His disciples.

I answer that, Our Lord, after foretelling His Passion to His
disciples, had exhorted them to follow the path of His sufferings (Mat.
16:21, 24). Now in order that anyone go straight along a road, he must
have some knowledge of the end: thus an archer will not shoot the arrow
straight unless he first see the target. Hence Thomas said (Jn. 14:5):
"Lord, we know not whither Thou goest; and how can we know the way? "
Above all is this necessary when hard and rough is the road, heavy the
going, but delightful the end. Now by His Passion Christ achieved
glory, not only of His soul, not only of His soul, which He had from
the first moment of His conception, but also of His body; according to
Luke (24:26): "Christ ought [Vulg. : 'ought not Christ'] to have
suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory (? ). " To which
glory He brings those who follow the footsteps of His Passion,
according to Acts 14:21: "Through many tribulations we must enter into
the kingdom of God. " Therefore it was fitting that He should show His
disciples the glory of His clarity (which is to be transfigured), to
which He will configure those who are His; according to Phil. 3:21:
"(Who) will reform the body of our lowness configured [Douay: 'made
like'] to the body of His glory. " Hence Bede says on Mk. 8:39: "By His
loving foresight He allowed them to taste for a short time the
contemplation of eternal joy, so that they might bear persecution
bravely. "

Reply to Objection 1: As Jerome says on Mat. 17:2: "Let no one suppose
that Christ," through being said to be transfigured, "laid aside His
natural shape and countenance, or substituted an imaginary or aerial
body for His real body. The Evangelist describes the manner of His
transfiguration when he says: 'His face did shine as the sun, and His
garments became white as snow. ' Brightness of face and whiteness of
garments argue not a change of substance, but a putting on of glory. "

Reply to Objection 2: Figure is seen in the outline of a body, for it
is "that which is enclosed by one or more boundaries" [*Euclid, bk i,
def. xiv]. Therefore whatever has to do with the outline of a body
seems to pertain to the figure. Now the clarity, just as the color, of
a non-transparent body is seen on its surface, and consequently the
assumption of clarity is called transfiguration.

Reply to Objection 3: Of those four gifts, clarity alone is a quality
of the very person in himself; whereas the other three are not
perceptible, save in some action or movement, or in some passion.
Christ, then, did show in Himself certain indications of those three
gifts---of agility, for instance, when He walked on the waves of the
sea; of subtlety, when He came forth from the closed womb of the
Virgin; of impassibility, when He escaped unhurt from the hands of the
Jews who wished to hurl Him down or to stone Him. And yet He is not
said, on account of this, to be transfigured, but only on account of
clarity, which pertains to the aspect of His Person.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether this clarity was the clarity of glory?

Objection 1: It would seem that this clarity was not the clarity of
glory. For a gloss of Bede on Mat. 17:2, "He was transfigured before
them," says: "In His mortal body He shows forth, not the state of
immortality, but clarity like to that of future immortality. " But the
clarity of glory is the clarity of immortality. Therefore the clarity
which Christ showed to His disciples was not the clarity of glory.

Objection 2: Further, on Lk. 9:27 "(That) shall not taste death unless
[Vulg. : 'till'] they see the kingdom of God," Bede's gloss says: "That
is, the glorification of the body in an imaginary vision of future
beatitude. " But the image of a thing is not the thing itself. Therefore
this was not the clarity of beatitude.

Objection 3: Further, the clarity of glory is only in a human body. But
this clarity of the transfiguration was seen not only in Christ's body,
but also in His garments, and in "the bright cloud" which "overshaded"
the disciples. Therefore it seems that this was not the clarity of
glory.

On the contrary, Jerome says on the words "He was transfigured before
them" (Mat. 17:2): "He appeared to the Apostles such as He will appear
on the day of judgment. " And on Mat. 16:28, "Till they see the Son of
Man coming in His kingdom," Chrysostom says: "Wishing to show with what
kind of glory He is afterwards to come, so far as it was possible for
them to learn it, He showed it to them in their present life, that they
might not grieve even over the death of their Lord. "

I answer that, The clarity which Christ assumed in His transfiguration
was the clarity of glory as to its essence, but not as to its mode of
being. For the clarity of the glorified body is derived from that of
the soul, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Diosc. cxviii). And in like manner
the clarity of Christ's body in His transfiguration was derived from
His God. head, as Damascene says (Orat. de Transfig. ) and from the
glory of His soul. That the glory of His soul did not overflow into His
body from the first moment of Christ's conception was due to a certain
Divine dispensation, that, as stated above ([4224]Q[14], A[1], ad 2),
He might fulfil the mysteries of our redemption in a passible body.
This did not, however, deprive Christ of His power of outpouring the
glory of His soul into His body. And this He did, as to clarity, in His
transfiguration, but otherwise than in a glorified body. For the
clarity of the soul overflows into a glorified body, by way of a
permanent quality affecting the body. Hence bodily refulgence is not
miraculous in a glorified body. But in Christ's transfiguration clarity
overflowed from His Godhead and from His soul into His body, not as an
immanent quality affecting His very body, but rather after the manner
of a transient passion, as when the air is lit up by the sun.
Consequently the refulgence, which appeared in Christ's body then, was
miraculous: just as was the fact of His walking on the waves of the
sea. Hence Dionysius says (Ep. ad Cai. iv): "Christ excelled man in
doing that which is proper to man: this is shown in His supernatural
conception of a virgin and in the unstable waters bearing the weight of
material and earthly feet. "

Wherefore we must not say, as Hugh of St. Victor [*Innocent III, De
Myst. Miss. iv] said, that Christ assumed the gift of clarity in the
transfiguration, of agility in walking on the sea, and of subtlety in
coming forth from the Virgin's closed womb: because the gifts are
immanent qualities of a glorified body. On the contrary, whatever
pertained to the gifts, that He had miraculously. The same is to be
said, as to the soul, of the vision in which Paul saw God in a rapture,
as we have stated in the [4225]SS, Q[175], A[3], ad 2.

Reply to Objection 1: The words quoted prove, not that the clarity of
Christ was not that of glory, but that it was not the clarity of a
glorified body, since Christ's body was not as yet immortal. And just
as it was by dispensation that in Christ the glory of the soul should
not overflow into the body so was it possible that by dispensation it
might overflow as to the gift of clarity and not as to that of
impassibility.

Reply to Objection 2: This clarity is said to have been imaginary, not
as though it were not really the clarity of glory, but because it was a
kind of image representing that perfection of glory, in virtue of which
the body will be glorious.

Reply to Objection 3: Just as the clarity which was in Christ's body
was a representation of His body's future clarity, so the clarity which
was in His garments signified the future clarity of the saints, which
will be surpassed by that of Christ, just as the brightness of the snow
is surpassed by that of the sun. Hence Gregory says (Moral. xxxii) that
Christ's garments became resplendent, "because in the height of
heavenly clarity all the saints will cling to Him in the refulgence of
righteousness. For His garments signify the righteous, because He will
unite them to Himself," according to Is. 49:18: "Thou shalt be clothed
with all these as with an ornament. "

The bright cloud signifies the glory of the Holy Ghost or the "power of
the Father," as Origen says (Tract. iii in Matth. ), by which in the
glory to come the saints will be covered. Or, again, it may be said
fittingly that it signifies the clarity of the world redeemed, which
clarity will cover the saints as a tent. Hence when Peter proposed to
make tents, "a bright cloud overshaded" the disciples.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the witnesses of the transfiguration were fittingly chosen?

Objection 1: It would seem that the witnesses of the transfiguration
were unfittingly chosen. For everyone is a better witness of things
that he knows. But at the time of Christ's transfiguration no one but
the angels had as yet any knowledge from experience of the glory to
come. Therefore the witnesses of the transfiguration should have been
angels rather than men.

Objection 2: Further, truth, not fiction, is becoming in a witness of
the truth. Now, Moses and Elias were there, not really, but only in
appearance; for a gloss on Lk. 9:30, "They were Moses and Elias," says:
"It must be observed that Moses and Elias were there neither in body
nor in soul"; but that those bodies were formed "of some available
matter. It is also credible that this was the result of the angelic
ministries, through the angels impersonating them. " Therefore it seems
that they were unsuitable witnesses.

Objection 3: Further, it is said (Acts 10:43) that "all the prophets
give testimony" to Christ. Therefore not only Moses and Elias, but also
all the prophets, should have been present as witnesses.

Objection 4: Further, Christ's glory is promised as a reward to all the
faithful (2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21), in whom He wished by His
transfiguration to enkindle a desire of that glory. Therefore He should
have taken not only Peter, James, and John, but all His disciples, to
be witnesses of His transfiguration.

On the contrary is the authority of the Gospel.

I answer that, Christ wished to be transfigured in order to show men
His glory, and to arouse men to a desire of it, as stated above
[4226](A[1]). Now men are brought to the glory of eternal beatitude by
Christ---not only those who lived after Him, but also those who
preceded Him; therefore, when He was approaching His Passion, both "the
multitude that followed" and that "which went before, cried saying:
'Hosanna,'" as related Mat. 21:9, beseeching Him, as it were, to save
them. Consequently it was fitting that witnesses should be present from
among those who preceded Him---namely, Moses and Elias---and from those
who followed after Him---namely, Peter, James, and John---that "in the
mouth of two or three witnesses" this word might stand.

Reply to Objection 1: By His transfiguration Christ manifested to His
disciples the glory of His body, which belongs to men only. It was
therefore fitting that He should choose men and not angels as
witnesses.

Reply to Objection 2: This gloss is said to be taken from a book
entitled On the Marvels of Holy Scripture. It is not an authentic work,
but is wrongly ascribed to St. Augustine; consequently we need not
stand by it. For Jerome says on Mat. 17:3: "Observe that when the
Scribes and Pharisees asked for a sign from heaven, He refused to give
one; whereas here in order to increase the apostles' faith, He gives a
sign from heaven, Elias coming down thence, whither he had ascended,
and Moses arising from the nether world. " This is not to be understood
as though the soul of Moses was reunited to his body, but that his soul
appeared through some assumed body, just as the angels do. But Elias
appeared in his own body, not that he was brought down from the
empyrean heaven, but from some place on high whither he was taken up in
the fiery chariot.

Reply to Objection 3: As Chrysostom says on Mat. 17:3: "Moses and Elias
are brought forward for many reasons. " And, first of all, "because the
multitude said He was Elias or Jeremias or one of the prophets, He
brings the leaders of the prophets with Him; that hereby at least they
might see the difference between the servants and their Lord. " Another
reason was " . . . that Moses gave the Law . . . while Elias . . . was
jealous for the glory of God. " Therefore by appearing together with
Christ, they show how falsely the Jews "accused Him of transgressing
the Law, and of blasphemously appropriating to Himself the glory of
God. " A third reason was "to show that He has power of death and life,
and that He is the judge of the dead and the living; by bringing with
Him Moses who had died, and Elias who still lived. " A fourth reason was
because, as Luke says (9:31), "they spoke" with Him "of His decease
that He should accomplish in Jerusalem," i. e. of His Passion and death.
Therefore, "in order to strengthen the hearts of His disciples with a
view to this," He sets before them those who had exposed themselves to
death for God's sake: since Moses braved death in opposing Pharaoh, and
Elias in opposing Achab. A fifth reason was that "He wished His
disciples to imitate the meekness of Moses and the zeal of Elias. "
Hilary adds a sixth reason---namely, in order to signify that He had
been foretold by the Law, which Moses gave them, and by the prophets,
of whom Elias was the principal.

Reply to Objection 4: Lofty mysteries should not be immediately
explained to everyone, but should be handed down through superiors to
others in their proper turn. Consequently, as Chrysostom says (on Mat.
17:3), "He took these three as being superior to the rest. " For "Peter
excelled in the love" he bore to Christ and in the power bestowed on
him; John in the privilege of Christ's love for him on account of his
virginity, and, again, on account of his being privileged to be an
Evangelist; James on account of the privilege of martyrdom.
Nevertheless He did not wish them to tell others what they had seen
before His Resurrection; "lest," as Jerome says on Mat. 17:19, "such a
wonderful thing should seem incredible to them; and lest, after hearing
of so great glory, they should be scandalized at the Cross" that
followed; or, again, "lest [the Cross] should be entirely hindered by
the people" [*Bede, Hom. xviii; cf. Catena Aurea]; and "in order that
they might then be witnesses of spiritual things when they should be
filled with the Holy Ghost" [*Hilary, in Matth. xvii].
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the testimony of the Father's voice, saying, "This is My beloved
Son," was fittingly added?

Objection 1: It would seem that the testimony of the Father's voice,
saying, "This is My beloved Son," was not fittingly added; for, as it
is written (Job 33:14), "God speaketh once, and repeateth not the
selfsame thing the second time. " But the Father's voice had testified
to this at the time of (Christ's) baptism. Therefore it was not fitting
that He should bear witness to it a second time.

Objection 2: Further, at the baptism the Holy Ghost appeared under the
form of a dove at the same time as the Father's voice was heard. But
this did not happen at the transfiguration. Therefore it seems that the
testimony of the Father was made in an unfitting manner.

Objection 3: Further, Christ began to teach after His baptism.
Nevertheless, the Father's voice did not then command men to hear him.
Therefore neither should it have so commanded at the transfiguration.

Objection 4: Further, things should not be said to those who cannot
bear them, according to Jn. 16:12: "I have yet many things to say to
you, but you cannot bear them now. " But the disciples could not bear
the Father's voice; for it is written (Mat. 17:6) that "the disciples
hearing, fell upon their face, and were very much afraid. " Therefore
the Father's voice should not have been addressed to them.

On the contrary is the authority of the Gospel.

I answer that, The adoption of the sons of God is through a certain
conformity of image to the natural Son of God. Now this takes place in
two ways: first, by the grace of the wayfarer, which is imperfect
conformity; secondly, by glory, which is perfect conformity, according
to 1 Jn. 3:2: "We are now the sons of God, and it hath not yet appeared
what we shall be: we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like
to Him, because we shall see Him as He is. " Since, therefore, it is in
baptism that we acquire grace, while the clarity of the glory to come
was foreshadowed in the transfiguration, therefore both in His baptism
and in His transfiguration the natural sonship of Christ was fittingly
made known by the testimony of the Father: because He alone with the
Son and Holy Ghost is perfectly conscious of that perfect generation.

Reply to Objection 1: The words quoted are to be understood of God's
eternal speaking, by which God the Father uttered the only-begotten and
co-eternal Word. Nevertheless, it can be said that God uttered the same
thing twice in a bodily voice, yet not for the same purpose, but in
order to show the divers modes in which men can be partakers of the
likeness of the eternal Sonship.

Reply to Objection 2: Just as in the Baptism, where the mystery of the
first regeneration was proclaimed, the operation of the whole Trinity
was made manifest, because the Son Incarnate was there, the Holy Ghost
appeared under the form of a dove, and the Father made Himself known in
the voice; so also in the transfiguration, which is the mystery of the
second regeneration, the whole Trinity appears---the Father in the
voice, the Son in the man, the Holy Ghost in the bright cloud; for just
as in baptism He confers innocence, signified by the simplicity of the
dove, so in the resurrection will He give His elect the clarity of
glory and refreshment from all sorts of evil, which are signified by
the bright cloud.

Reply to Objection 3: Christ came to give grace actually, and to
promise glory by His words. Therefore it was fitting at the time of His
transfiguration, and not at the time of His baptism, that men should be
commanded to hear Him.

Reply to Objection 4: It was fitting that the disciples should be
afraid and fall down on hearing the voice of the Father, to show that
the glory which was then being revealed surpasses in excellence the
sense and faculty of all mortal beings; according to Ex. 33:20: "Man
shall not see Me and live. " This is what Jerome says on Mat. 17:6:
"Such is human frailty that it cannot bear to gaze on such great
glory. " But men are healed of this frailty by Christ when He brings
them into glory. And this is signified by what He says to them: "Arise,
and fear not. "
__________________________________________________________________

THE PASSION OF CHRIST (TWELVE ARTICLES)

In proper sequence we have now to consider all that relates to Christ's
leaving the world. In the first place, His Passion; secondly, His
death; thirdly, His burial; and, fourthly, His descent into hell.

With regard to the Passion, there arises a threefold consideration: (1)
The Passion itself; (2) the efficient cause of the Passion; (3) the
fruits of the Passion.

Under the first heading there are twelve points of inquiry:

(1) Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for men's
deliverance?

(2) Whether there was any other possible means of delivering men?

(3) Whether this was the more suitable means?

(4) Whether it was fitting for Christ to suffer on the cross?

(5) The extent of His sufferings;

(6) Whether the pain which He endured was the greatest?

(7) Whether His entire soul suffered?

(8) Whether His Passion hindered the joy of fruition?

(9) The time of the Passion;

(10) The place;

(11) Whether it was fitting for Him to be crucified with robbers?

(12) Whether Christ's Passion is to be attributed to the Godhead?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the
human race?

Objection 1: It would seem that it was not necessary for Christ to
suffer for the deliverance of the human race.
For the human race could
not be delivered except by God, according to Is. 45:21: "Am not I the
Lord, and there is no God else besides Me? A just God and a Saviour,
there is none besides Me. " But no necessity can compel God, for this
would be repugnant to His omnipotence. Therefore it was not necessary
for Christ to suffer.

Objection 2: Further, what is necessary is opposed to what is
voluntary. But Christ suffered of His own will; for it is written (Is.
53:7): "He was offered because it was His own will. " Therefore it was
not necessary for Him to suffer.

Objection 3: Further, as is written (Ps. 24:10): "All the ways of the
Lord are mercy and truth. " But it does not seem necessary that He
should suffer on the part of the Divine mercy, which, as it bestows
gifts freely, so it appears to condone debts without satisfaction: nor,
again, on the part of Divine justice, according to which man had
deserved everlasting condemnation. Therefore it does not seem necessary
that Christ should have suffered for man's deliverance.

Objection 4: Further, the angelic nature is more excellent than the
human, as appears from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). But Christ did not
suffer to repair the angelic nature which had sinned. Therefore,
apparently, neither was it necessary for Him to suffer for the
salvation of the human race.

On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 3:14): "As Moses lifted up the
serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that
whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life
everlasting. "

I answer that, As the Philosopher teaches (Metaph. v), there are
several acceptations of the word "necessary. " In one way it means
anything which of its nature cannot be otherwise; and in this way it is
evident that it was not necessary either on the part of God or on the
part of man for Christ to suffer. In another sense a thing may be
necessary from some cause quite apart from itself; and should this be
either an efficient or a moving cause then it brings about the
necessity of compulsion; as, for instance, when a man cannot get away
owing to the violence of someone else holding him. But if the external
factor which induces necessity be an end, then it will be said to be
necessary from presupposing such end---namely, when some particular end
cannot exist at all, or not conveniently, except such end be
presupposed. It was not necessary, then, for Christ to suffer from
necessity of compulsion, either on God's part, who ruled that Christ
should suffer, or on Christ's own part, who suffered voluntarily. Yet
it was necessary from necessity of the end proposed; and this can be
accepted in three ways. First of all, on our part, who have been
delivered by His Passion, according to John (3:14): "The Son of man
must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but
may have life everlasting. " Secondly, on Christ's part, who merited the
glory of being exalted, through the lowliness of His Passion: and to
this must be referred Lk. 24:26: "Ought not Christ to have suffered
these things, and so to enter into His glory? " Thirdly, on God's part,
whose determination regarding the Passion of Christ, foretold in the
Scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the Old Testament, had
to be fulfilled. And this is what St. Luke says (22:22): "The Son of
man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined"; and (Lk.
24:44, 46): "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet
with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in
the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me:
for it is thus written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to
rise again from the dead. "

Reply to Objection 1: This argument is based on the necessity of
compulsion on God's part.

Reply to Objection 2: This argument rests on the necessity of
compulsion on the part of the man Christ.

Reply to Objection 3: That man should be delivered by Christ's Passion
was in keeping with both His mercy and His justice. With His justice,
because by His Passion Christ made satisfaction for the sin of the
human race; and so man was set free by Christ's justice: and with His
mercy, for since man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all
human nature, as was said above ([4227]Q[1], A[2]), God gave him His
Son to satisfy for him, according to Rom. 3:24,25: "Being justified
freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His
blood. " And this came of more copious mercy than if He had forgiven
sins without satisfaction. Hence it is said (Eph. 2:4): "God, who is
rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, even
when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ. "

Reply to Objection 4: The sin of the angels was irreparable; not so the
sin of the first man ([4228]FP, Q[64], A[2]).
__________________________________________________________________

Whether there was any other possible way of human deliverance besides the
Passion of Christ?

Objection 1: It would seem that there was no other possible way of
human deliverance besides Christ's Passion. For our Lord says (Jn.
12:24): "Amen, amen I say to you, unless the grain of wheat falling
into the ground dieth, itself remaineth alone; but if it die, it
bringeth forth much fruit. " Upon this St. Augustine (Tract. li)
observes that "Christ called Himself the seed. " Consequently, unless He
suffered death, He would not otherwise have produced the fruit of our
redemption.

Objection 2: Further, our Lord addresses the Father (Mat. 26:42): "My
Father, if this chalice may not pass away but I must drink it, Thy will
be done. " But He spoke there of the chalice of the Passion. Therefore
Christ's Passion could not pass away; hence Hilary says (Comm. 31 in
Matth. ): "Therefore the chalice cannot pass except He drink of it,
because we cannot be restored except through His Passion. "

Objection 3: Further, God's justice required that Christ should satisfy
by the Passion in order that man might be delivered from sin. But
Christ cannot let His justice pass; for it is written (2 Tim. 2:13):
"If we believe not, He continueth faithful, He cannot deny Himself. "
But He would deny Himself were He to deny His justice, since He is
justice itself. It seems impossible, then, for man to be delivered
otherwise than by Christ's Passion.

Objection 4: Further, there can be no falsehood underlying faith. But
the Fathers of old believed that Christ would suffer. Consequently, it
seems that it had to be that Christ should suffer.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "We assert that the
way whereby God deigned to deliver us by the man Jesus Christ, who is
mediator between God and man, is both good and befitting the Divine
dignity; but let us also show that other possible means were not
lacking on God's part, to whose power all things are equally
subordinate. "

I answer that, A thing may be said to be possible or impossible in two
ways: first of all, simply and absolutely; or secondly, from
supposition. Therefore, speaking simply and absolutely, it was possible
for God to deliver mankind otherwise than by the Passion of Christ,
because "no word shall be impossible with God" (Lk. 1:37). Yet it was
impossible if some supposition be made. For since it is impossible for
God's foreknowledge to be deceived and His will or ordinance to be
frustrated, then, supposing God's foreknowledge and ordinance regarding
Christ's Passion, it was not possible at the same time for Christ not
to suffer, and for mankind to be delivered otherwise than by Christ's
Passion. And the same holds good of all things foreknown and
preordained by God, as was laid down in the [4229]FP, Q[14], A[13].

Reply to Objection 1: Our Lord is speaking there presupposing God's
foreknowledge and predetermination, according to which it was resolved
that the fruit of man's salvation should not follow unless Christ
suffered.

Reply to Objection 2: In the same way we must understand what is here
objected to in the second instance: "If this chalice may not pass away
but I must drink of it"---that is to say, because Thou hast so ordained
it---hence He adds: "Thy will be done. "

Reply to Objection 3: Even this justice depends on the Divine will,
requiring satisfaction for sin from the human race. But if He had
willed to free man from sin without any satisfaction, He would not have
acted against justice. For a judge, while preserving justice, cannot
pardon fault without penalty, if he must visit fault committed against
another---for instance, against another man, or against the State, or
any Prince in higher authority. But God has no one higher than Himself,
for He is the sovereign and common good of the whole universe.
Consequently, if He forgive sin, which has the formality of fault in
that it is committed against Himself, He wrongs no one: just as anyone
else, overlooking a personal trespass, without satisfaction, acts
mercifully and not unjustly. And so David exclaimed when he sought
mercy: "To Thee only have I sinned" (Ps. 50:6), as if to say: "Thou
canst pardon me without injustice. "

Reply to Objection 4: Human faith, and even the Divine Scriptures upon
which faith is based, are both based on the Divine foreknowledge and
ordinance. And the same reason holds good of that necessity which comes
of supposition, and of the necessity which arises of the Divine
foreknowledge and will.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether there was any more suitable way of delivering the human race than by
Christ's Passion?

Objection 1: It would seem that there was some other more suitable way
of delivering the human race besides Christ's Passion. For nature in
its operation imitates the Divine work, since it is moved and regulated
by God. But nature never employs two agents where one will suffice.
Therefore, since God could have liberated mankind solely by His Divine
will, it does not seem fitting that Christ's Passion should have been
added for the deliverance of the human race.

Objection 2: Further, natural actions are more suitably performed than
deeds of violence, because violence is "a severance or lapse from what
is according to nature," as is said in De Coelo ii. But Christ's
Passion brought about His death by violence. Therefore it would have
been more appropriate had Christ died a natural death rather than
suffer for man's deliverance.

Objection 3: Further, it seems most fitting that whatsoever keeps
something unjustly and by violence, should be deprived of it by some
superior power; hence Isaias says (52:3): "You were sold gratis, and
you shall be redeemed without money. " But the devil possessed no right
over man, whom he had deceived by guile, and whom he held subject in
servitude by a sort of violence. Therefore it seems most suitable that
Christ should have despoiled the devil solely by His power and without
the Passion.

On the contrary, St. Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "There was no
other more suitable way of healing our misery" than by the Passion of
Christ.

I answer that, Among means to an end that one is the more suitable
whereby the various concurring means employed are themselves helpful to
such end. But in this that man was delivered by Christ's Passion, many
other things besides deliverance from sin concurred for man's
salvation. In the first place, man knows thereby how much God loves
him, and is thereby stirred to love Him in return, and herein lies the
perfection of human salvation; hence the Apostle says (Rom. 5:8): "God
commendeth His charity towards us; for when as yet we were sinners . .
. Christ died for us. " Secondly, because thereby He set us an example
of obedience, humility, constancy, justice, and the other virtues
displayed in the Passion, which are requisite for man's salvation.
Hence it is written (1 Pet. 2:21): "Christ also suffered for us,
leaving you an example that you should follow in His steps. " Thirdly,
because Christ by His Passion not only delivered man from sin, but also
merited justifying grace for him and the glory of bliss, as shall be
shown later ([4230]Q[48], A[1];[4231] Q[49], AA[1], 5). Fourthly,
because by this man is all the more bound to refrain from sin,
according to 1 Cor. 6:20: "You are bought with a great price: glorify
and bear God in your body. " Fifthly, because it redounded to man's
greater dignity, that as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so
also it should be a man that should overthrow the devil; and as man
deserved death, so a man by dying should vanquish death. Hence it is
written (1 Cor. 15:57): "Thanks be to God who hath given us the victory
through our Lord Jesus Christ. " It was accordingly more fitting that we
should be delivered by Christ's Passion than simply by God's good-will.

Reply to Objection 1: Even nature uses several means to one intent, in
order to do something more fittingly: as two eyes for seeing; and the
same can be observed in other matters.

Reply to Objection 2: As Chrysostom [*Athanasius, Orat. De Incarn.
Verb. ] says: "Christ had come in order to destroy death, not His own,
(for since He is life itself, death could not be His), but men's death.
Hence it was not by reason of His being bound to die that He laid His
body aside, but because the death He endured was inflicted on Him by
men. But even if His body had sickened and dissolved in the sight of
all men, it was not befitting Him who healed the infirmities of others
to have his own body afflicted with the same. And even had He laid His
body aside without any sickness, and had then appeared, men would not
have believed Him when He spoke of His resurrection. For how could
Christ's victory over death appear, unless He endured it in the sight
of all men, and so proved that death was vanquished by the incorruption
of His body? "

Reply to Objection 3: Although the devil assailed man unjustly,
nevertheless, on account of sin, man was justly left by God under the
devil's bondage. And therefore it was fitting that through justice man
should be delivered from the devil's bondage by Christ making
satisfaction on his behalf in the Passion. This was also a fitting
means of overthrowing the pride of the devil, "who is a deserter from
justice, and covetous of sway"; in that Christ "should vanquish him and
deliver man, not merely by the power of His Godhead, but likewise by
the justice and lowliness of the Passion," as Augustine says (De Trin.
xiii).
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ ought to have suffered on the cross?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ ought not to have suffered on
the cross. For the truth ought to conform to the figure. But in all the
sacrifices of the Old Testament which prefigured Christ the beasts were
slain with a sword and afterwards consumed by fire. Therefore it seems
that Christ ought not to have suffered on a cross, but rather by the
sword or by fire.

Objection 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that Christ
ought not to assume "dishonoring afflictions. " But death on a cross was
most dishonoring and ignominious; hence it is written (Wis. 2:20): "Let
us condemn Him to a most shameful death. " Therefore it seems that
Christ ought not to have undergone the death of the cross.

Objection 3: Further, it was said of Christ (Mat. 21:9): "Blessed is He
that cometh in the name of the Lord. " But death upon the cross was a
death of malediction, as we read Dt. 21:23: "He is accursed of God that
hangeth on a tree. " Therefore it does not seem fitting for Christ to be
crucified.

On the contrary, It is written (Phil. 2:8): "He became obedient unto
death, even the death of the cross. "

I answer that, It was most fitting that Christ should suffer the death
of the cross.

First of all, as an example of virtue. For Augustine thus writes (QQ.
lxxxiii, qu. 25): "God's Wisdom became man to give us an example in
righteousness of living. But it is part of righteous living not to
stand in fear of things which ought not to be feared. Now there are
some men who, although they do not fear death in itself, are yet
troubled over the manner of their death. In order, then, that no kind
of death should trouble an upright man, the cross of this Man had to be
set before him, because, among all kinds of death, none was more
execrable, more fear-inspiring, than this. "

Secondly, because this kind of death was especially suitable in order
to atone for the sin of our first parent, which was the plucking of the
apple from the forbidden tree against God's command. And so, to atone
for that sin, it was fitting that Christ should suffer by being
fastened to a tree, as if restoring what Adam had purloined; according
to Ps. 68:5: "Then did I pay that which I took not away. " Hence
Augustine says in a sermon on the Passion [*Cf. Serm. ci De Tempore]:
"Adam despised the command, plucking the apple from the tree: but all
that Adam lost, Christ found upon the cross. "

The third reason is because, as Chrysostom says in a sermon on the
Passion (De Cruce et Latrone i, ii): "He suffered upon a high rood and
not under a roof, in order that the nature of the air might be
purified: and the earth felt a like benefit, for it was cleansed by the
flowing of the blood from His side. " And on Jn. 3:14: "The Son of man
must be lifted up," Theophylact says: "When you hear that He was lifted
up, understand His hanging on high, that He might sanctify the air who
had sanctified the earth by walking upon it. "

The fourth reason is, because, by dying on it, He prepares for us an
ascent into heaven, as Chrysostom [*Athanasius, vide A, III, ad 2]
says. Hence it is that He says (Jn. 12:32): "If I be lifted up from the
earth, I will draw all things to Myself. "

The fifth reason is because it is befitting the universal salvation of
the entire world. Hence Gregory of Nyssa observes (In Christ. Resurr. ,
Orat. i) that "the shape of the cross extending out into four extremes
from their central point of contact denotes the power and the
providence diffused everywhere of Him who hung upon it. " Chrysostom
[*Athanasius, vide A. III, ad 2] also says that upon the cross "He dies
with outstretched hands in order to draw with one hand the people of
old, and with the other those who spring from the Gentiles. "

The sixth reason is because of the various virtues denoted by this
class of death. Hence Augustine in his book on the grace of the Old and
New Testament (Ep. cxl) says: "Not without purpose did He choose this
class of death, that He might be a teacher of that breadth, and height,
and length, and depth," of which the Apostle speaks (Eph. 3:18): "For
breadth is in the beam, which is fixed transversely above; this
appertains to good works, since the hands are stretched out upon it.
Length is the tree's extent from the beam to the ground; and there it
is planted---that is, it stands and abides---which is the note of
longanimity. Height is in that portion of the tree which remains over
from the transverse beam upwards to the top, and this is at the head of
the Crucified, because He is the supreme desire of souls of good hope.
But that part of the tree which is hidden from view to hold it fixed,
and from which the entire rood springs, denotes the depth of gratuitous
grace. " And, as Augustine says (Tract. cxix in Joan. ): "The tree upon
which were fixed the members of Him dying was even the chair of the
Master teaching. "

The seventh reason is because this kind of death responds to very many
figures. For, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Passion (Serm. ci De
Tempore), an ark of wood preserved the human race from the waters of
the Deluge; at the exodus of God's people from Egypt, Moses with a rod
divided the sea, overthrew Pharaoh and saved the people of God. the
same Moses dipped his rod into the water, changing it from bitter to
sweet; at the touch of a wooden rod a salutary spring gushed forth from
a spiritual rock; likewise, in order to overcome Amalec, Moses
stretched forth his arms with rod in hand; lastly, God's law is
entrusted to the wooden Ark of the Covenant; all of which are like
steps by which we mount to the wood of the cross.

Reply to Objection 1: The altar of holocausts, upon which the
sacrifices of animals were immolated, was constructed of timbers, as is
set forth Ex. 27:, and in this respect the truth answers to the figure;
but "it is not necessary for it to be likened in every respect,
otherwise it would not be a likeness," but the reality, as Damascene
says (De Fide Orth. iii). But. in particular, as Chrysostom
[*Athanasius, vide A, III, ad 2] says: "His head is not cut off, as was
done to John; nor was He sawn in twain, like Isaias, in order that His
entire and indivisible body might obey death, and that there might be
no excuse for them who want to divide the Church. " While, instead of
material fire, there was the spiritual fire of charity in Christ's
holocaust.

Reply to Objection 2: Christ refused to undergo dishonorable sufferings
which are allied with defects of knowledge, or of grace, or even of
virtue, but not those injuries inflicted from without---nay, more, as
is written Heb. 12:2: "He endured the cross, despising the shame. "

Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xiv), sin is
accursed, and, consequently, so is death, and mortality, which comes of
sin. "But Christ's flesh was mortal, 'having the resemblance of the
flesh of sin'"; and hence Moses calls it "accursed," just as the
Apostle calls it "sin," saying (2 Cor. 5:21): "Him that knew no sin,
for us He hath made sin"---namely, because of the penalty of sin. "Nor
is there greater ignominy on that account, because he said: 'He is
accursed of God. '" For, "unless God had hated sin, He would never have
sent His Son to take upon Himself our death, and to destroy it.
Acknowledge, then, that it was for us He took the curse upon Himself,
whom you confess to have died for us.