No More Learning

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not ascend above all the
heavens, for it is written (Ps. 10:5): "The Lord is in His holy temple,
the Lord's throne is in heaven. " But what is in heaven is not above
heaven. Therefore Christ did not ascend above all the heavens.

Objection 2: [*This objection with its solution is omitted in the
Leonine edition as not being in the original manuscript. ]

Further, there is no place above the heavens, as is proved in De Coelo
i. But every body must occupy a place. Therefore Christ's body did not
ascend above all the heavens.

Objection 3: Further, two bodies cannot occupy the same place. Since,
then, there is no passing from place to place except through the middle
space, it seems that Christ could not have ascended above all the
heavens unless heaven were divided; which is impossible.

Objection 4: Further, it is narrated (Acts 1:9) that "a cloud received
Him out of their sight. " But clouds cannot be uplifted beyond heaven.
Consequently, Christ did not ascend above all the heavens.

Objection 5: Further, we believe that Christ will dwell for ever in the
place whither He has ascended. But what is against nature cannot last
for ever, because what is according to nature is more prevalent and of
more frequent occurrence. Therefore, since it is contrary to nature for
an earthly body to be above heaven, it seems that Christ's body did not
ascend above heaven.

On the contrary, It is written (Eph. 4:10): "He ascended above all the
heavens that He might fill all things. "

I answer that, The more fully anything corporeal shares in the Divine
goodness, the higher its place in the corporeal order, which is order
of place. Hence we see that the more formal bodies are naturally the
higher, as is clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv; De Coelo ii), since
it is by its form that every body partakes of the Divine Essence, as is
shown in Physics i. But through glory the body derives a greater share
in the Divine goodness than any other natural body does through its
natural form; while among other glorious bodies it is manifest that
Christ's body shines with greater glory. Hence it was most fitting for
it to be set above all bodies. Thus it is that on Eph. 4:8: "Ascending
on high," the gloss says: "in place and dignity. "

Reply to Objection 1: God's seat is said to be in heaven, not as though
heaven contained Him, but rather because it is contained by Him. Hence
it is not necessary for any part of heaven to be higher, but for Him to
be above all the heavens; according to Ps. 8:2: "For Thy magnificence
is elevated above the heavens, O God! "

Reply to Objection 2: [*Omitted in Leonine edition; see OBJ[2]]

A place implies the notion of containing; hence the first container has
the formality of first place, and such is the first heaven. Therefore
bodies need in themselves to be in a place, in so far as they are
contained by a heavenly body. But glorified bodies, Christ's
especially, do not stand in need of being so contained, because they
draw nothing from the heavenly bodies, but from God through the soul.
So there is nothing to prevent Christ's body from being beyond the
containing radius of the heavenly bodies, and not in a containing
place. Nor is there need for a vacuum to exist outside heaven, since
there is no place there, nor is there any potentiality susceptive of a
body, but the potentiality of reaching thither lies in Christ. So when
Aristotle proves (De Coelo ii) that there is no body beyond heaven,
this must be understood of bodies which are in a state of pure nature,
as is seen from the proofs.

Reply to Objection 3: Although it is not of the nature of a body for it
to be in the same place with another body, yet God can bring it about
miraculously that a body be with another in the same place, as Christ
did when He went forth from the Virgin's sealed womb, also when He
entered among the disciples through closed doors, as Gregory says (Hom.
xxvi). Therefore Christ's body can be in the same place with another
body, not through some inherent property in the body, but through the
assistance and operation of the Divine power.

Reply to Objection 4: That cloud afforded no support as a vehicle to
the ascending Christ: but it appeared as a sign of the Godhead, just as
God's glory appeared to Israel in a cloud over the Tabernacle (Ex.
40:32; Num. 9:15).

Reply to Objection 5: A glorified body has the power to be in heaven or
above heaven. not from its natural principles, but from the beatified
soul, from which it derives its glory: and just as the upward motion of
a glorified body is not violent, so neither is its rest violent:
consequently, there is nothing to prevent it from being everlasting.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ's body ascended above every spiritual creature?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's body did not ascend above
every spiritual creature. For no fitting comparison can be made between
things which have no common ratio. But place is not predicated in the
same ratio of bodies and of spiritual creatures, as is evident from
what was said in the [4322]FP, Q[8], A[2], ad 1,2; [4323]FP, Q[52],
A[1]. Therefore it seems that Christ's body cannot be said to have
ascended above every spiritual creature.

Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (De Vera Relig. lv) that a spirit
always takes precedence over a body. But the higher place is due to the
higher things. Therefore it does not seem that Christ ascended above
every spiritual creature.

Objection 3: Further, in every place a body exists, since there is no
such thing as a vacuum in nature. Therefore if no body obtains a higher
place than a spirit in the order of natural bodies, then there will be
no place above every spiritual creature. Consequently, Christ's body
could not ascend above every spiritual creature.

On the contrary, It is written (Eph. 1:21): "God set Him above all
principality, and Power, and every name that is named, not only in this
world, but also in that which is to come. "

I answer that, The more exalted place is due to the nobler subject,
whether it be a place according to bodily contact, as regards bodies,
or whether it be by way of spiritual contact, as regards spiritual
substances; thus a heavenly place which is the highest of places is
becomingly due to spiritual substances, since they are highest in the
order of substances. But although Christ's body is beneath spiritual
substances, if we weigh the conditions of its corporeal nature,
nevertheless it surpasses all spiritual substances in dignity, when we
call to mind its dignity of union whereby it is united personally with
God. Consequently, owing to this very fittingness, a higher place is
due to it above every spiritual creature. Hence Gregory says in a
Homily on the Ascension (xxix in Evang. ) that "He who had made all
things, was by His own power raised up above all things. "

Reply to Objection 1: Although a place is differently attributed to
corporeal and spiritual substances, still in either case this remains
in common, that the higher place is assigned to the worthier.

Reply to Objection 2: This argument holds good of Christ's body
according to the conditions of its corporeal nature, but not according
to its formality of union.

Reply to Objection 3: This comparison may be considered either on the
part of the places; and thus there is no place so high as to exceed the
dignity of a spiritual substance: in this sense the objection runs. Or
it may be considered on the part of the dignity of the things to which
a place is attributed: and in this way it is due to the body of Christ
to be above spiritual creatures.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ's Ascension is the cause of our salvation?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's Ascension is not the cause of
our salvation. For, Christ was the cause of our salvation in so far as
He merited it. But He merited nothing for us by His Ascension, because
His Ascension belongs to the reward of His exaltation: and the same
thing is not both merit and reward, just as neither are a road and its
terminus the same. Therefore it seems that Christ's Ascension is not
the cause of our salvation.

Objection 2: Further, if Christ's Ascension be the cause of our
salvation, it seems that this is principally due to the fact that His
Ascension is the cause of ours. But this was bestowed upon us by His
Passion, for it is written (Heb. 10:19): "We have [Vulg. : 'Having']
confidence in the entering into the holies by" His "blood. " Therefore
it seems that Christ's Ascension was not the cause of our salvation.

Objection 3: Further, the salvation which Christ bestows is an
everlasting one, according to Is. 51:6: "My salvation shall be for
ever. " But Christ did not ascend into heaven to remain there eternally;
for it is written (Acts 1:11): "He shall so come as you have seen Him
going, into heaven. " Besides, we read of Him showing Himself to many
holy people on earth after He went up to heaven. to Paul, for instance
(Acts 9). Consequently, it seems that Christ's Ascension is not the
cause of our salvation.

On the contrary, He Himself said (Jn. 16:7): "It is expedient to you
that I go"; i. e. that I should leave you and ascend into heaven.

I answer that, Christ's Ascension is the cause of our salvation in two
ways: first of all, on our part; secondly, on His.

On our part, in so far as by the Ascension our souls are uplifted to
Him; because, as stated above (A[1], ad 3), His Ascension fosters,
first, faith; secondly, hope; thirdly, charity. Fourthly, our reverence
for Him is thereby increased, since we no longer deem Him an earthly
man, but the God of heaven; thus the Apostle says (2 Cor. 5:16): "If we
have known Christ according to the flesh---'that is, as mortal, whereby
we reputed Him as a mere man,'" as the gloss interprets the
words---"but now we know Him so no longer. "

On His part, in regard to those things which, in ascending, He did for
our salvation. First, He prepared the way for our ascent into heaven,
according to His own saying (Jn. 14:2): "I go to prepare a place for
you," and the words of Micheas (2:13), "He shall go up that shall open
the way before them. " For since He is our Head the members must follow
whither the Head has gone: hence He said (Jn. 14:3): "That where I am,
you also may be. " In sign whereof He took to heaven the souls of the
saints delivered from hell, according to Ps. 67:19 (Cf. Eph. 4:8):
"Ascending on high, He led captivity captive," because He took with Him
to heaven those who had been held captives by the devil---to heaven, as
to a place strange to human nature. captives in deed of a happy taking,
since they were acquired by His victory.

Secondly, because as the high-priest under the Old Testament entered
the holy place to stand before God for the people, so also Christ
entered heaven "to make intercession for us," as is said in Heb. 7:25.
Because the very showing of Himself in the human nature which He took
with Him to heaven is a pleading for us. so that for the very reason
that God so exalted human nature in Christ, He may take pity on them
for whom the Son of God took human nature. Thirdly, that being
established in His heavenly seat as God and Lord, He might send down
gifts upon men, according to Eph. 4:10: "He ascended above all the
heavens, that He might fill all things," that is, "with His gifts,"
according to the gloss.

Reply to Objection 1: Christ's Ascension is the cause of our salvation
by way not of merit, but of efficiency, as was stated above regarding
His Resurrection ([4324]Q[56], A[1], ad 3,4).

Reply to Objection 2: Christ's Passion is the cause of our ascending to
heaven, properly speaking, by removing the hindrance which is sin, and
also by way of merit: whereas Christ's Ascension is the direct cause of
our ascension, as by beginning it in Him who is our Head, with whom the
members must be united.

Reply to Objection 3: Christ by once ascending into heaven acquired for
Himself and for us in perpetuity the right and worthiness of a heavenly
dwelling-place; which worthiness suffers in no way, if, from some
special dispensation, He sometimes comes down in body to earth; either
in order to show Himself to the whole world, as at the judgment; or
else to show Himself particularly to some individual, e. g. in Paul's
case, as we read in Acts 9. And lest any man may think that Christ was
not bodily present when this occurred, the contrary is shown from what
the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 14:8, to confirm faith in the Resurrection:
"Last of all He was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time":
which vision would not confirm the truth of the Resurrection except he
had beheld Christ's very body.
__________________________________________________________________

OF CHRIST'S SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER (FOUR ARTICLES)

WE have now to consider Christ's sitting at the right hand of the
Father, concerning which there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father?

(2) Whether this belongs to Him according to the Divine Nature?

(3) Whether it belongs to Him according to His human nature?

(4) Whether it is something proper to Christ?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether it is fitting that Christ should sit at the right hand of God the
Father?

Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should sit at the
right hand of God the Father. For right and left are differences of
bodily position. But nothing corporeal can be applied to God, since
"God is a spirit," as we read in Jn. 4:24. Therefore it seems that
Christ does not sit at the right hand of the Father.

Objection 2: Further, if anyone sits at another's right hand, then the
latter is seated on his left. Consequently, if Christ sits at the right
hand of the Father, it follows that the Father is seated on the left of
the Son; which is unseemly.

Objection 3: Further, sitting and standing savor of opposition. But
Stephen (Acts 7:55) said: "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the
Son of man standing on the right hand of God. " Therefore it seems that
Christ does not sit at the right hand of the Father.

On the contrary, It is written in the last chapter of Mark (16:19):
"The Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up to heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God. "

I answer that, The word "sitting" may have a twofold meaning; namely,
"abiding" as in Lk. 24:49: "Sit [Douay: 'Stay'] you in the city": and
royal or judiciary "power," as in Prov. 20:8: "The king, that sitteth
on the throne of judgment, scattereth away all evil with his look. " Now
in either sense it belongs to Christ to sit at the Father's right hand.
First of all inasmuch as He abides eternally unchangeable in the
Father's bliss, which is termed His right hand, according to Ps. 15:11:
"At Thy right hand are delights even to the end. " Hence Augustine says
(De Symb. i): "'Sitteth at the right hand of the Father': To sit means
to dwell, just as we say of any man: 'He sat in that country for three
years': Believe, then, that Christ dwells so at the right hand of the
Father: for He is happy, and the Father's right hand is the name for
His bliss. " Secondly, Christ is said to sit at the right hand of the
Father inasmuch as He reigns together with the Father, and has
judiciary power from Him; just as he who sits at the king's right hand
helps him in ruling and judging. Hence Augustine says (De Symb. ii):
"By the expression 'right hand,' understand the power which this Man,
chosen of God, received, that He might come to judge, who before had
come to be judged. "

Reply to Objection 1: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "We do not
speak of the Father's right hand as of a place, for how can a place be
designated by His right hand, who Himself is beyond all place? Right
and left belong to things definable by limit. But we style, as the
Father's right hand, the glory and honor of the Godhead. "

Reply to Objection 2: The argument holds good if sitting at the right
hand be taken corporeally. Hence Augustine says (De Symb. i): "If we
accept it in a carnal sense that Christ sits at the Father's right
hand, then the Father will be on the left. But there"---that is, in
eternal bliss, "it is all right hand, since no misery is there. "

Reply to Objection 3: As Gregory says in a Homily on the Ascension
(Hom. xxix in Evang. ), "it is the judge's place to sit, while to stand
is the place of the combatant or helper. Consequently, Stephen in his
toil of combat saw Him standing whom He had as his helper. But Mark
describes Him as seated after the Ascension, because after the glory of
His Ascension He will at the end be seen as judge. "
__________________________________________________________________

Whether it belongs to Christ as God to sit at the right hand of the Father?

Objection 1: It would seem that it does not belong to Christ as God to
sit at the right hand of the Father. For, as God, Christ is the
Father's right hand. But it does not appear to be the same thing to be
the right hand of anyone and to sit on his right hand. Therefore, as
God, Christ does not sit at the right hand of the Father.

Objection 2: Further, in the last chapter of Mark (16:19) it is said
that "the Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right
hand of God. " But it was not as God that Christ was taken up to heaven.
Therefore neither does He, as God, sit at the right hand of God.

Objection 3: Further, Christ as God is the equal of the Father and of
the Holy Ghost. Consequently, if Christ sits as God at the right hand
of the Father, with equal reason the Holy Ghost sits at the right hand
of the Father and of the Son, and the Father Himself on the right hand
of the Son; which no one is found to say.

On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): that "what we style
as the Father's right hand, is the glory and honor of the Godhead,
wherein the Son of God existed before ages as God and as consubstantial
with the Father. "

I answer that, As may be gathered from what has been said [4325](A[1])
three things can be understood under the expression "right hand. " First
of all, as Damascene takes it, "the glory of the Godhead": secondly,
according to Augustine "the beatitude of the Father": thirdly,
according to the same authority, "judiciary power. " Now as we observed
[4326](A[1]) "sitting denotes" either abiding, or royal or judiciary
dignity. Hence, to sit on the right hand of the Father is nothing else
than to share in the glory of the Godhead with the Father, and to
possess beatitude and judiciary power, and that unchangeably and
royally. But this belongs to the Son as God. Hence it is manifest that
Christ as God sits at the right hand of the Father; yet so that this
preposition "at," which is a transitive one, implies merely personal
distinction and order of origin, but not degree of nature or dignity,
for there is no such thing in the Divine Persons, as was shown in the
[4327]FP, Q[42], AA[3],4.

Reply to Objection 1: The Son of God is called the Father's "right
hand" by appropriation, just as He is called the "Power" of the Father
(1 Cor. 1:24). But "right hand of the Father," in its three meanings
given above, is something common to the three Persons.

Reply to Objection 2: Christ as man is exalted to Divine honor; and
this is signified in the aforesaid sitting; nevertheless such honor
belongs to Him as God, not through any assumption, but through His
origin from eternity.

Reply to Objection 3: In no way can it be said that the Father is
seated at the right hand of the Son or of the Holy Ghost; because the
Son and the Holy Ghost derive their origin from the Father, and not
conversely. The Holy Ghost, however, can be said properly to sit at the
right hand of the Father or of the Son, in the aforesaid sense,
although by a kind of appropriation it is attributed to the Son, to
whom equality is appropriated; thus Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ.
i) that "in the Father there is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy
Ghost the connection of unity with equality. "
__________________________________________________________________

Whether it belongs to Christ as man to sit at the right hand of the Father?

Objection 1: It would seem that it does not belong to Christ as man to
sit at the right hand of the Father, because, as Damascene says (De
Fide Orth. iv): "What we call the Father's right hand is the glory and
honor of the Godhead. " But the glory and honor of the Godhead do not
belong to Christ as man. Consequently, it seems that Christ as man does
not sit at the right hand of the Father.

Objection 2: Further, to sit on the ruler's right hand seems to exclude
subjection, because one so sitting seems in a measure to be reigning
with him. But Christ as man is "subject unto" the Father, as is said in
1 Cor. 15:28. Therefore it seems that Christ as man does not sit at the
Father's right hand.

Objection 3: Further, on Rom. 8:34: "Who is at the right hand of God,"
the gloss adds: "that is, equal to the Father in that honor, whereby
God is the Father: or, on the right hand of the Father, that is, in the
mightier gifts of God. " And on Heb. 1:3: "sitteth on the right hand of
the majesty on high," the gloss adds, "that is, in equality with the
Father over all things, both in place and dignity. " But equality with
God does not belong to Christ as man; for in this respect Christ
Himself says (Jn. 14:28): "The Father is greater than I. " Consequently,
it appears unseemly for Christ as man to sit on the Father's right
hand.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Symb. ii): "By the expression
'right hand' understand the power which this Man, chosen of God,
received, that He might come as judge, who before had come to be
judged. "

I answer that, As stated above [4328](A[2]), by the expression "right
hand" is understood either the glory of His Godhead, or His eternal
beatitude, or His judicial and royal power. Now this preposition "at"
signifies a kind of approach to the right hand; thus denoting something
in common, and yet with a distinction, as already observed (De Symb.
ii). And this can be in three ways: first of all, by something common
in nature, and a distinction in person; and thus Christ as the Son of
God, sits at the right hand of the Father, because He has the same
Nature as the Father: hence these things belong to the Son essentially,
just as to the Father; and this is to be in equality with the Father.
Secondly, according to the grace of union, which, on the contrary,
implies distinction of nature, and unity of person. According to this,
Christ as man is the Son of God, and consequently sits at the Father's
right hand; yet so that the expression "as" does not denote condition
of nature, but unity of suppositum, as explained above (Q[16],
AA[10],11). Thirdly, the said approach can be understood according to
habitual grace, which is more fully in Christ than in all other
creatures, so much so that human nature in Christ is more blessed than
all other creatures, and possesses over all other creatures royal and
judiciary power.

So, then, if "as" denote condition of nature, then Christ, as God, sits
"at the Father's right hand," that is, "in equality with the Father";
but as man, He sits "at the right hand of the Father," that is, "in the
Father's mightier gifts beyond all other creatures," that is to say,
"in greater beatitude," and "exercising judiciary power. " But if "as"
denote unity of person, thus again as man, He sits at the Father's
right hand "as to equality of honor," inasmuch as with the same honor
we venerate the Son of God with His assumed nature, as was said above
([4329]Q[25], A[1]).

Reply to Objection 1: Christ's humanity according to the conditions of
His nature has not the glory or honor of the Godhead, which it has
nevertheless by reason of the Person with whom it is united. Hence
Damascene adds in the passage quoted: "In which," that is, in the glory
of the Godhead, "the Son of God existing before ages, as God and
consubstantial with the Father, sits in His conglorified flesh; for,
under one adoration the one hypostasis, together with His flesh, is
adored by every creature. "

Reply to Objection 2: Christ as man is subject to the Father, if "as"
denote the condition of nature: in which respect it does not belong to
Him as man to sit at the Father's right hand, by reason of their mutual
equality. But it does thus belong to Him to sit at the right hand of
the Father, according as is thereby denoted the excellence of beatitude
and His judiciary power over every creature.

Reply to Objection 3: It does not belong to Christ's human nature to be
in equality with the Father, but only to the Person who assumed it; but
it does belong even to the assumed human nature to share in God's
mightier gifts, in so far as it implies exaltation above other
creatures.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether it is proper to Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to sit at
the right hand of the Father, because the Apostle says (Eph. 2:4, 6):
"God . . . hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in
the heavenly places through Christ Jesus. " But to be raised up is not
proper to Christ. Therefore for like reason neither is it proper to Him
to sit "on the right hand" of God "on high" (Heb. 1:3).

Objection 2: Further, as Augustine says (De Symb. i): "For Christ to
sit at the right hand of the Father, is to dwell in His beatitude. " But
many more share in this. Therefore it does not appear to be proper to
Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father.

Objection 3: Further, Christ Himself says (Apoc. 3:21): "To him that
shall overcome, I will give to sit with Me in My throne: as I also have
overcome, and am set down with My Father in His throne. " But it is by
sitting on His Father's throne that Christ is seated at His right hand.
Therefore others who overcome likewise, sit at the Father's right hand.

Objection 4: Further, the Lord says (Mat. 20:23): "To sit on My right
or left hand, is not Mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is
prepared by My Father. " But no purpose would be served by saying this,
unless it was prepared for some. Consequently, to sit at the right hand
is not proper to Christ.

On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 1:13): "To which of the angels
said He at any time: Sit thou on My right hand, i. e. 'in My mightier
gifts,'" or "'as my equal in the Godhead'"? [*The comment is from the
gloss of Peter Lombard] as if to answer: "To none. " But angels are
higher than other creatures. Therefore, much less does it belong to
anyone save Christ to sit at the Father's right hand.

I answer that, As stated above [4330](A[3]), Christ is said to sit at
the Father's right hand inasmuch as He is on equality with the Father
in respect of His Divine Nature, while in respect of His humanity, He
excels all creatures in the possession of Divine gifts. But each of
these belongs exclusively to Christ. Consequently, it belongs to no one
else, angel or man, but to Christ alone, to sit at the right hand of
the Father.

Reply to Objection 1: Since Christ is our Head, then what was bestowed
on Christ is bestowed on us through Him. And on this account, since He
is already raised up, the Apostle says that God has, so to speak,
"raised us up together with Him," still we ourselves are not raised up
yet, but are to be raised up, according to Rom. 8:11: "He who raised up
Jesus from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies": and after
the same manner of speech the Apostle adds that "He has made us to sit
together with Him, in the heavenly places"; namely, for the very reason
that Christ our Head sits there.

Reply to Objection 2: Since the right hand is the Divine beatitude,
then "to sit on the right hand" does not mean simply to be in
beatitude, but to possess beatitude with a kind of dominative power, as
a property and part of one's nature. This belongs to Christ alone, and
to no other creature. Yet it can be said that every saint in bliss is
placed on God's right hand; hence it is written (Mat. 25:33): "He shall
set the sheep on His right hand. "

Reply to Objection 3: By the "throne" is meant the judiciary power
which Christ has from the Father: and in this sense He is said "to sit
in the Father's throne. " But other saints have it from Christ; and in
this respect they are said "to sit on Christ's throne"; according to
Mat. 19:28: "You also shall sit upon twelve seats, judging the twelve
tribes of Israel. "

Reply to Objection 4: As Chrysostom says (Hom. lxv in Matth. ), "that
place," to wit, sitting at the right hand, "is closed not only to all
men, but likewise to angels: for, Paul declares it to be the
prerogative of Christ, saying: 'To which of the angels said He at any
time: Sit on My right hand? '" Our Lord therefore "replied not as though
some were going to sit there one day, but condescending to the
supplication of the questioners; since more than others they sought
this one thing alone, to stand nigh to Him. " Still it can be said that
the sons of Zebedee sought for higher excellence in sharing His
judiciary power; hence they did not ask to sit on the Father's right
hand or left, but on Christ's.
__________________________________________________________________

OF CHRIST'S JUDICIARY POWER (SIX ARTICLES)

We have now to consider Christ's judiciary power. Under this head there
are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether judiciary power is to be attributed to Christ?

(2) Whether it belongs to Him as man?

(3) Whether He acquired it by merits?

(4) Whether His judiciary power is universal with regard to all men?

(5) Whether besides the judgment that takes place now in time, we are
to expect Him in the future general judgment?

(6) Whether His judiciary power extends likewise to the angels?

It will be more suitable to consider the execution of the Last Judgment
when we treat of things pertaining to the end of the world [*See XP,
QQ[88], seqq. ]. For the present it will be enough to touch on those
points that concern Christ's dignity.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether judiciary power is to be specially attributed to Christ?

Objection 1: It would seem that judiciary power is not to be specially
attributed to Christ. For judgment of others seems to belong to their
lord; hence it is written (Rom. 14:4): "Who art thou that judgest
another man's servant? " But, it belongs to the entire Trinity to be
Lord over creatures. Therefore judiciary power ought not to be
attributed specially to Christ.

Objection 2: Further, it is written (Dan. 7:9): "The Ancient of days
sat"; and further on (Dan. 7:10), "the judgment sat, and the books were
opened. " But the Ancient of days is understood to be the Father,
because as Hilary says (De Trin. ii): "Eternity is in the Father. "
Consequently, judiciary power ought rather to be attributed to the
Father than to Christ.

Objection 3: Further, it seems to belong to the same person to judge as
it does to convince. But it belongs to the Holy Ghost to convince: for
our Lord says (Jn. 16:8): "And when He is come," i. e. the Holy Ghost,
"He will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. "
Therefore judiciary power ought to be attributed to the Holy Ghost
rather than to Christ.

On the contrary, It is said of Christ (Acts 10:42): "It is He who was
appointed by God, to be judge of the living end of the dead. "

I answer that, Three things are required for passing judgment: first,
the power of coercing subjects; hence it is written (Ecclus. 7:6):
"Seek not to be made a judge unless thou have strength enough to
extirpate iniquities. " The second thing required is upright zeal, so as
to pass judgment not out of hatred or malice, but from love of justice,
according to Prov. 3:12: "For whom the Lord loveth, He chasteneth: and
as a father in the son He pleaseth Himself. " Thirdly, wisdom is needed,
upon which judgment is based, according to Ecclus. 10:1: "A wise judge
shall judge his people. " The first two are conditions for judging; but
on the third the very rule of judgment is based, because the standard
of judgment is the law of wisdom or truth, according to which the
judgment is passed.

Now because the Son is Wisdom begotten, and Truth proceeding from the
Father, and His perfect Image, consequently, judiciary power is
properly attributed to the Son of God. Accordingly Augustine says (De
Vera Relig. xxxi): "This is that unchangeable Truth, which is rightly
styled the law of all arts, and the art of the Almighty Craftsman. But
even as we and all rational souls judge aright of the things beneath
us, so does He who alone is Truth itself pass judgment on us, when we
cling to Him. But the Father judges Him not, for He is the Truth no
less than Himself. Consequently, whatever the Father judges, He judges
through It. " Further on he concludes by saying: "Therefore the Father
judges no man, but has given all judgment to the Son. "

Reply to Objection 1: This argument proves that judiciary power is
common to the entire Trinity, which is quite true: still by special
appropriation such power is attributed to the Son, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (De Trin. vi), eternity is
attributed to the Father, because He is the Principle, which is implied
in the idea of eternity. And in the same place Augustine says that the
Son is the art of the Father. So, then, judiciary authority is
attributed to the Father, inasmuch as He is the Principle of the Son,
but the very rule of judgment is attributed to the Son who is the art
and wisdom of the Father, so that as the Father does all things through
the Son, inasmuch as the Son is His art, so He judges all things
through the Son, inasmuch as the Son is His wisdom and truth. And this
is implied by Daniel, when he says in the first passage that "the
Ancient of days sat," and when he subsequently adds that the Son of Man
"came even to the Ancient of days, who gave Him power, and glory, and a
kingdom": and thereby we are given to understand that the authority for
judging lies with the Father, from whom the Son received the power to
judge.

Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (Tract. xcv in Joan. ): "Christ
said that the Holy Ghost shall convince the world of sin, as if to say
'He shall pour out charity upon your hearts. ' For thus, when fear is
driven away, you shall have freedom for convincing. " Consequently,
then, judgment is attributed to the Holy Ghost, not as regards the rule
of judgment, but as regards man's desire to judge others aright.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether judiciary power belongs to Christ as man?

Objection 1: It would seem that judiciary power does not belong to
Christ as man. For Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi) that judgment
is attributed to the Son inasmuch as He is the law of the first truth.
But this is Christ's attribute as God. Consequently, judiciary power
does not belong to Christ as man but as God.

Objection 2: Further, it belongs to judiciary power to reward the good,
just as to punish the wicked. But eternal beatitude, which is the
reward of good works, is bestowed by God alone: thus Augustine says
(Tract. xxiii super Joan. ) that "the soul is made blessed by
participation of God, and not by participation of a holy soul. "
Therefore it seems that judiciary power does not belong to Christ as
man, but as God.

Objection 3: Further, it belongs to Christ's judiciary power to judge
secrets of hearts, according to 1 Cor. 4:5: "Judge not before the time;
until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of
darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. " But this
belongs exclusively to the Divine power, according to Jer. 17:9,10:
"The heart of man is perverse and unsearchable, who can know it? I am
the Lord who search the heart, and prove the reins: who give to every
one according to his way. " Therefore judiciary power does not belong to
Christ as man but as God.

On the contrary, It is said (Jn. 5:27): "He hath given Him power to do
judgment, because He is the Son of man. "

I answer that, Chrysostom (Hom. xxxix in Joan. ) seems to think that
judiciary power belongs to Christ not as man, but only as God.
Accordingly he thus explains the passage just quoted from John: "'He
gave Him power to do judgment, because He is the Son of man: wonder not
at this. ' For He received judiciary power, not because He is man; but
because He is the Son of the ineffable God, therefore is He judge. But
since the expressions used were greater than those appertaining to man,
He said in explanation: 'Wonder not at this, because He is the Son of
man, for He is likewise the Son of God. '" And he proves this by the
effect of the Resurrection: wherefore He adds: "Because the hour cometh
when the dead in their graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God. "

But it must be observed that although the primary authority of judging
rests with God, nevertheless the power to judge is committed to men
with regard to those subject to their jurisdiction. Hence it is written
(Dt. 1:16): "Judge that which is just"; and further on (Dt. 1:17):
"Because it is the judgment of God," that is to say, it is by His
authority that you judge. Now it was said before ([4331]Q[8], AA[1],4)
that Christ even in His human nature is Head of the entire Church, and
that God has "put all things under His feet. " Consequently, it belongs
to Him, even according to His human nature, to exercise judiciary
power. on this account. it seems that the authority of Scripture quoted
above must be interpreted thus: "He gave Him power to do judgment,
because He is the Son of Man"; not on account of the condition of His
nature, for thus all men would have this kind of power, as Chrysostom
objects (Hom. xxxix in Joan. ); but because this belongs to the grace of
the Head, which Christ received in His human nature.

Now judiciary power belongs to Christ in this way according to His
human nature on three accounts. First, because of His likeness and
kinship with men; for, as God works through intermediary causes, as
being closer to the effects, so He judges men through the Man Christ,
that His judgment may be sweeter to men. Hence (Heb. 4:15) the Apostle
says: "For we have not a high-priest, who cannot have compassion on our
infirmities; but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.
Let us go therefore with confidence to the throne of His grace. "
Secondly, because at the last judgment, as Augustine says (Tract. xix
in Joan. ), "there will be a resurrection of dead bodies, which God will
raise up through the Son of Man"; just as by "the same Christ He raises
souls," inasmuch as "He is the Son of God. " Thirdly, because, as
Augustine observes (De Verb. Dom. , Serm. cxxvii): "It was but right
that those who were to be judged should see their judge. But those to
be judged were the good and the bad. It follows that the form of a
servant should be shown in the judgment to both good and wicked, while
the form of God should be kept for the good alone. "

Reply to Objection 1: Judgment belongs to truth as its standard, while
it belongs to the man imbued with truth, according as he is as it were
one with truth, as a kind of law and "living justice" [*Aristotle,
Ethic. v]. Hence Augustine quotes (De Verb. Dom. , Serm. cxxvii) the
saying of 1 Cor. 2:15: "The spiritual man judgeth all things. " But
beyond all creatures Christ's soul was more closely united with truth,
and more full of truth; according to Jn. 1:14: "We saw Him . . . full
of grace and truth. " And according to this it belongs principally to
the soul of Christ to judge all things.

Reply to Objection 2: It belongs to God alone to bestow beatitude upon
souls by a participation with Himself; but it is Christ's prerogative
to bring them to such beatitude, inasmuch as He is their Head and the
author of their salvation, according to Heb. 2:10: "Who had brought
many children into glory, to perfect the author of their salvation by
His Passion. "

Reply to Objection 3: To know and judge the secrets of hearts, of
itself belongs to God alone; but from the overflow of the Godhead into
Christ's soul it belongs to Him also to know and to judge the secrets
of hearts, as we stated above ([4332]Q[10], A[2]), when dealing with
the knowledge of Christ. Hence it is written (Rom. 2:16): "In the day
when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ. "
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ acquired His judiciary power by His merits?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not acquire His judiciary
power by His merits. For judiciary power flows from the royal dignity:
according to Prov. 20:8: "The king that sitteth on the throne of
judgment, scattereth away all evil with his look. " But it was without
merits that Christ acquired royal power, for it is His due as God's
Only-begotten Son: thus it is written (Lk. 1:32): "The Lord God shall
give unto Him the throne of David His father, and He shall reign in the
house of Jacob for ever. " Therefore Christ did not obtain judiciary
power by His merits.

Objection 2: Further, as stated above [4333](A[2]), judiciary power is
Christ's due inasmuch as He is our Head. But the grace of headship does
not belong to Christ by reason of merit, but follows the personal union
of the Divine and human natures: according to Jn. 1:14, 16: "We saw His
glory . . . as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and
truth . . . and of His fulness we all have received": and this pertains
to the notion of headship. Consequently, it seems that Christ did not
have judiciary power from merits.

Objection 3: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 2:15): "The spiritual
man judgeth all things. " But a man becomes spiritual through grace,
which is not from merits; otherwise it is "no more grace," as is said
in Rom. 11:6. Therefore it seems that judiciary power belongs neither
to Christ nor to others from any merits, but from grace alone.

On the contrary, It is written (Job 36:17): "Thy cause hath been judged
as that of the wicked, cause and judgment thou shalt recover.