Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] Out. Para. 1/2

OF CHRIST'S NATIVITY (EIGHT ARTICLES)

 After considering Christ's conception, we must treat of His nativity. 
First, as to the nativity itself; secondly, as to His manifestation after 
birth.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] Out. Para. 2/2

 Concerning the first there are eight points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether nativity regards the nature or the person?

 (2) Whether another, besides His eternal, birth should be attributed to 
Christ?

 (3) Whether the Blessed Virgin is His Mother in respect of His temporal 
birth?

 (4) Whether she ought to be called the Mother of God?

 (5) Whether Christ is the Son of God the Father and of the Virgin Mother 
in respect of two filiations?

 (6) Of the mode of the Nativity;

 (7) Of its place;

 (8) Of the time of the Nativity.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether nativity regards the nature rather than the person?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that nativity regards the nature rather than the 
person. For Augustine [*Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad Petrum): "The 
eternal Divine Nature could not be conceived and born of human nature, 
except in a true human nature." Consequently it becomes the Divine Nature 
to be conceived and born by reason of the human nature. Much more, 
therefore, does it regard human nature itself.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), "nature" is so 
denominated from "nativity." But things are denominated from one another 
by reason of some likeness. Therefore it seems that nativity regards the 
nature rather than the person.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, properly speaking, that is born which begins to exist by 
nativity. But Christ's Person did not begin to exist by His nativity, 
whereas His human nature did. Therefore it seems that the nativity 
properly regards the nature, and not the person.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "Nativity regards 
the hypostasis, not the nature."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, Nativity can be attributed to someone in two ways: first, 
as to its subject; secondly, as to its terminus. To him that is born it 
is attributed as to its subject: and this, properly speaking, is the 
hypostasis, not the nature. For since to be born is to be generated; as a 
thing is generated in order for it to be, so is a thing born in order for 
it to be. Now, to be, properly speaking, belongs to that which subsists; 
since a form that does not subsist is said to be only inasmuch as by it 
something is: and whereas person or hypostasis designates something as 
subsisting, nature designates form, whereby something subsists. 
Consequently, nativity is attributed to the person or hypostasis as  to 
the proper subject of being born, but not to the nature.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] Body Para. 2/2

 But to the nature nativity is attributed as to its terminus. For the 
terminus of generation and of every nativity is the form. Now, nature 
designates something as a form: wherefore nativity is said to be "the 
road to nature," as the Philosopher states (Phys. ii): for the purpose of 
nature is terminated in the form or nature of the species.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: On account of the identity of nature and hypostasis in God, 
nature fs sometimes put instead of person or hypostasis. And in this 
sense Augustine says that the Divine Nature was conceived and born, 
inasmuch as the Person of the Son was conceived and born in the human 
nature.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: No movement or change is denominated from the subject 
moved, but from the terminus of the movement, whence the subject has its 
species. For this reason nativity is not denominated from the person 
born, but from nature, which is the terminus of nativity.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Nature, properly speaking, does not begin to exist: rather 
is it the person that begins to exist in some nature. Because, as stated 
above, nature designates that by which something is; whereas person 
designates something as having subsistent being.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether a temporal nativity should be attributed to Christ?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that temporal nativity is not to be attributed to 
Christ. For "to be born is a certain movement of a thing that did not 
exist before it was born, which movement procures for it the benefit of 
existence" [*Cf. Augustine, De Unit. Trin. xii]. But Christ was from all 
eternity. Therefore He could not be born in time.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, what is perfect in itself needs not to be born. But the 
Person of the Son of God was perfect from eternity. Therefore He needs 
not to be born in time. Therefore it seems that He had no temporal birth.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, properly speaking, nativity regards the person. But in 
Christ there is only one person. Therefore in Christ there is but one 
nativity.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, what is born by two nativities is born twice. But this 
proposition is false; "Christ was born twice": because the nativity 
whereby He was born of the Father suffers no interruption; since it is 
eternal. Whereas interruption is required to warrant the use of the 
adverb "twice": for a man is said to run twice whose running is 
interrupted. Therefore it seems that we should not admit a double 
nativity in Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "We  confess two 
nativities in Christ: one of the Father---eternal; and one which occurred 
in these latter times for our sake."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), nature is compared to nativity, 
as the terminus to movement or change. Now, movement is diversified 
according to the diversity of its termini, as the Philosopher shows 
(Phys. v). But, in Christ there is a twofold nature: one which He 
received of the Father from eternity, the other which He received from 
His Mother in time. Therefore we must needs attribute to Christ a twofold 
nativity: one by which He was born of the Father from all eternity; one 
by which He was born of His Mother in time.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: This was the argument of a certain heretic, Felician, and 
is solved thus by Augustine (Contra Felic. xii). "Let us suppose," says 
he, "as many maintain, that in the world there is a universal soul, 
which, by its ineffable movement, so gives life to all seed, that it is 
not compounded with things begotten, but bestows life that they may be 
begotten. Without doubt, when this soul reaches the womb, being intent on 
fashioning the passible matter to its own purpose, it unites itself to 
the personality thereof, though manifestly it is not of the same 
substance; and thus of the active soul and passive matter, one man is 
made out of two substances. And so we confess that the soul is born from 
out the womb; but not as though, before birth, it was nothing at all in 
itself. Thus, then, but in a way much more sublime, the Son of God was 
born as man, just as the soul is held to be born together with the body: 
not as though they both made one substance, but that from both, one 
person results. Yet we do not say that the Son of God began thus to 
exist: lest it be thought that His Divinity is temporal. Nor do we 
acknowledge the flesh of the Son of God to have been from eternity: lest 
it be thought that He took, not a true human body, but some resemblance 
thereof."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: This was an argument of Nestorius, and it is thus solved by 
Cyril in an epistle [*Cf. Acta Concil. Ephes., p. 1, cap. viii]: "We do 
not say that the Son of God had need, for His own sake, of a second 
nativity, after that which is from the Father: for it is foolish and a 
mark of ignorance to say that He who is from all eternity, and co-eternal 
with the Father, needs to begin again to exist. But because for us and 
for our salvation, uniting the human nature to His Person, He became the 
child of a woman, for this reason do we say that He was born in the 
flesh."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Nativity regards the person as its subject, the nature as 
its terminus. Now, it is possible for several transformations to be in 
the same subject: yet must they be diversified in respect of their 
termini. But we do not say this as though the eternal nativity were a 
transformation or a movement, but because it is designated by way of a 
transformation or movement.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: Christ can be said to have been born twice in respect of 
His two nativities. For just as he is said to run twice  who runs at two 
different times, so can He be said to be born twice who is born once from 
eternity and once in time: because eternity and time differ much more 
than two different times, although each signifies a measure of duration.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the Blessed Virgin can be called Christ's Mother in respect of 
His temporal nativity?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin cannot be called Christ's 
Mother in respect of His temporal nativity. For, as stated above (Q[32], 
A[4]), the Blessed Virgin Mary did not cooperate actively in begetting 
Christ, but merely supplied the matter. But this does not seem sufficient 
to make her His Mother: otherwise wood might be called the mother of the 
bed or bench. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin cannot be called 
the Mother of Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Christ was born miraculously of the Blessed Virgin. But 
a miraculous begetting does not suffice for motherhood or sonship: for we 
do not speak of Eve as being the daughter of Adam. Therefore neither 
should Christ be called the Son of the Blessed Virgin.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, motherhood seems to imply partial separation of the 
semen. But, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii), "Christ's body was 
formed, not by a seminal process, but by the operation of the Holy 
Ghost." Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin should not be called 
the Mother of Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 1:18): "The generation of Christ was 
in this wise. When His Mother Mary was espoused to Joseph," etc.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, The Blessed Virgin Mary is in truth and by nature the 
Mother of Christ. For, as we have said above (Q[5], A[2]; Q[31], A[5]), 
Christ's body was not brought down from heaven, as the heretic Valentine 
maintained, but was taken from the Virgin Mother, and formed from her 
purest blood. And this is all that is required for motherhood, as has 
been made clear above (Q[31], A[5]; Q[32], A[4]). Therefore the Blessed 
Virgin is truly Christ's Mother.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As stated above (Q[32], A[3]), not every generation implies 
fatherhood or motherhood and sonship, but only the generation of living 
things. Consequently when inanimate things are made from some matter, the 
relationship of motherhood and sonship does not follow from this, but 
only in the generation of living things, which is properly called 
nativity.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "The temporal 
nativity by which Christ was born for our salvation is, in a way, 
natural, since a Man was born of a woman, and after the due lapse of time 
from His conception: but it is also supernatural, because He was 
begotten, not of seed, but of the Holy Ghost and the Blessed Virgin, 
above the law of conception." Thus, then, on the  part of the mother, 
this nativity was natural, but on the part of the operation of the Holy 
Ghost it was supernatural. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is the true and 
natural Mother of Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[31], A[5], ad 3; Q[32], A[4]), the 
resolution of the woman's semen is not necessary for conception; neither, 
therefore, is it required for motherhood.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the Blessed Virgin should be called the Mother of God?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin should not be called the 
Mother of God. For in the Divine mysteries we should not make any 
assertion that is not taken from Holy Scripture. But we read nowhere in 
Holy Scripture that she is the mother or parent of God, but that she is 
the "mother of Christ" or of "the Child," as may be seen from Mt. 1:18. 
Therefore we should not say that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Christ is called God in respect of His Divine Nature. 
But the Divine Nature did not first originate from the Virgin. Therefore 
the Blessed Virgin should not be called the Mother of God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the word "God" is predicated in common of Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost. If, therefore, the Blessed Virgin is Mother of God it 
seems to follow that she was the Mother of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
which cannot be allowed. Therefore the Blessed Virgin should not be 
called Mother of God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, In the chapters of Cyril, approved in the Council of 
Ephesus (P. 1, Cap. xxvi), we read: "If anyone confess not that the 
Emmanuel is truly God, and that for this reason the Holy Virgin is the 
Mother of God, since she begot of her flesh the Word of God made flesh, 
let him be anathema."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (Q[16], A[1]), every word that signifies 
a nature in the concrete can stand for any hypostasis of that nature. 
Now, since the union of the Incarnation took place in the hypostasis, as 
above stated (Q[2], A[3]), it is manifest that this word "God" can stand 
for the hypostasis, having a human and a Divine nature. Therefore 
whatever belongs to the Divine and to the human nature can be attributed 
to that Person: both when a word is employed to stand for it, signifying 
the Divine Nature, and when a word is used signifying the human nature. 
Now, conception and birth are attributed to the person and hypostasis in 
respect of that nature in which it is conceived and born. Since, 
therefore, the human nature was taken by the Divine Person in the very 
beginning of the conception, as stated above (Q[33], A[3]), it follows 
that it can be truly said that God was conceived and born of the Virgin. 
Now from this is a woman called a man's mother, that she conceived him 
and gave birth to him. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is truly called the 
Mother of God. For the only way in which it could be denied that the 
Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God would be either  if the humanity were 
first subject to conception and birth, before this man were the Son of 
God, as Photinus said; or if the humanity were not assumed unto unity of 
the Person or hypostasis of the Word of God, as Nestorius maintained. But 
both of these are erroneous. Therefore it is heretical to deny that the 
Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 1: This was an argument of Nestorius, and it is solved by 
saying that, although we do not find it said expressly in Scripture that 
the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, yet we do find it expressly said 
in Scripture that "Jesus Christ is true God," as may be seen 1 Jn. 5:20, 
and that the Blessed Virgin is the "Mother of Jesus Christ," which is 
clearly expressed Mt. 1:18. Therefore, from the words of Scripture it 
follows of necessity that she is the Mother of God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2

 Again, it is written (Rm. 9:5) that Christ is of the Jews "according to 
the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever." But He is not 
of the Jews except through the Blessed Virgin. Therefore He who is "above 
all things, God blessed for ever," is truly born of the Blessed Virgin as 
of His Mother.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: This was an argument of Nestorius. But Cyril, in a letter 
against Nestorius [*Cf. Acta Conc. Ephes., p. 1, cap. ii], answers it 
thus: "Just as when a man's soul is born with its body, they are 
considered as one being: and if anyone wish to say that the mother of the 
flesh is not the mother of the soul, he says too much. Something like 
this may be perceived in the generation of Christ. For the Word of God 
was born of the substance of God the Father: but because He took flesh, 
we must of necessity confess that in the flesh He was born of a woman." 
Consequently we must say that the Blessed Virgin is called the Mother of 
God, not as though she were the Mother of the Godhead, but because she is 
the mother, according to His human nature, of the Person who has both the 
divine and the human nature.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Although the name "God" is common to the three Persons, yet 
sometimes it stands for the Person of the Father alone, sometimes only 
for the Person of the Son or of the Holy Ghost, as stated above (Q[16], 
A[1]; FP, Q[39], A[4]). So that when we say, "The Blessed Virgin is the 
Mother of God," this word "God" stands only for the incarnate Person of 
the Son.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether there are two filiations in Christ?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that there are two filiations in Christ. For 
nativity is the cause of filiation. But in Christ there are two 
nativities. Therefore in Christ there are also two filiations.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, filiation, which is said of a man as being the son of 
someone, his father or his mother, depends, in a way, on him: because the 
very being of a relation consists "in being referred to another"; 
wherefore if one of two relatives be  destroyed, the other is destroyed 
also. But the eternal filiation by which Christ is the Son of God the 
Father depends not on His Mother, because nothing eternal depends on what 
is temporal. Therefore Christ is not His Mother's Son by temporal 
filiation. Either, therefore, He is not her Son at all, which is in 
contradiction to what has been said above (AA[3],4), or He must needs be 
her Son by some other temporal filiation. Therefore in Christ there are 
two filiations.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, one of two relatives enters the definition of the other; 
hence it is clear that of two relatives, one is specified from the other. 
But one and the same cannot be in diverse species. Therefore it seems 
impossible that one and the same relation be referred to extremes which 
are altogether diverse. But Christ is said to be the Son of the Eternal 
Father and a temporal mother, who are terms altogether diverse. Therefore 
it seems that Christ cannot, by the same relation, be called the Son of 
the Father and of His Mother Therefore in Christ there are two filiations.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii), things 
pertaining to the nature are multiple in Christ; but not those things 
that pertain to the Person. But filiation belongs especially to the 
Person, since it is a personal property, as appears from what was said in 
the FP, Q[32], A[3]; FP, Q[40], A[2]. Therefore there is but one 
filiation in Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, opinions differ on this question. For some, considering 
only the cause of filiation, which is nativity, put two filiations in 
Christ, just as there are two nativities. On the contrary, others, 
considering only the subject of filiation, which is the person or 
hypostasis, put only one filiation in Christ, just as there is but one 
hypostasis or person. Because the unity or plurality of a relation is 
considered in respect, not of its terms, but of its cause or of its 
subject. For if it were considered in respect of its terms, every man 
would of necessity have in himself two filiations---one in reference to 
his father, and another in reference to his mother. But if we consider 
the question aright, we shall see that every man bears but one relation 
to both his father and his mother, on account of the unity of the cause 
thereof. For man is born by one birth of both father and mother: whence 
he bears but one relation to both. The same is said of one master who 
teaches many disciples the same doctrine, and of one lord who governs 
many subjects by the same power. But if there be various causes 
specifically diverse, it seems that in consequence the relations differ 
in species: wherefore nothing hinders several such relations being in the 
same subject. Thus if a man teach grammar to some and logic to others, 
his teaching is of a different kind in one case and in the other; and 
therefore one and the same man may have different relations as the master 
of different disciples, or of the same disciples in regard to diverse 
doctrines. Sometimes, however, it happens that a man bears a relation to 
several in respect of various causes, but of the same species: thus a 
father may have several sons by several acts of generation. Wherefore the 
 paternity cannot differ specifically, since the acts of generation are 
specifically the same. And because several forms of the same species 
cannot at the same time be in the same subject, it is impossible for 
several paternities to be in a man who is the father of several sons by 
natural generation. But it would not be so were he the father of one son 
by natural generation and of another by adoption.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] Body Para. 2/3

 Now, it is manifest that Christ was not born by one and the same 
nativity, of the Father from eternity, and of His Mother in time: indeed, 
these two nativities differ specifically. Wherefore, as to this, we must 
say that there are various filiations, one temporal and the other 
eternal. Since, however, the subject of filiation is neither the nature 
nor part of the nature, but the person or hypostasis alone; and since in 
Christ there is no other hypostasis or person than the eternal, there can 
be no other filiation in Christ but that which is in the eternal 
hypostasis. Now, every relation which is predicated of God from time does 
not put something real in the eternal God, but only something according 
to our way of thinking, as we have said in the FP, Q[13], A[7]. Therefore 
the filiation by which Christ is referred to His Mother cannot be a real 
relation, but only a relation of reason.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] Body Para. 3/3

 Consequently each opinion is true to a certain extent. For if we 
consider the adequate causes of filiation, we must needs say that there 
are two filiations in respect of the twofold nativity. But if we consider 
the subject of filiation, which can only be the eternal suppositum, then 
no other than the eternal filiation in Christ is a real relation. 
Nevertheless, He has the relation of Son in regard to His Mother, because 
it is implied in the relation of motherhood to Christ. Thus God is called 
Lord by a relation which is implied in the real relation by which the 
creature is subject to God. And although lordship is not a real relation 
in God, yet is He really Lord through the real subjection of the creature 
to Him. In the same way Christ is really the Son of the Virgin Mother 
through the real relation of her motherhood to Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Temporal nativity would cause a real temporal filiation in 
Christ if there were in Him a subject capable of such filiation. But this 
cannot be; since the eternal suppositum cannot be receptive of a temporal 
relation, as stated above. Nor can it be said that it is receptive of 
temporal filiation by reason of the human nature, just as it is receptive 
of the temporal nativity; because human nature would need in some way to 
be the subject of filiation, just as in a way it is the subject of 
nativity; for since an Ethiopian is said to be white by reason of his 
teeth, it must be that his teeth are the subject of whiteness. But human 
nature can nowise be the subject of filiation, because this relation 
regards directly the person.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Eternal filiation does not depend on a temporal mother, but 
together with this eternal filiation we understand a certain temporal 
relation dependent on the mother, in respect of which relation Christ is 
called the Son of His Mother. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: One and being are mutually consequent, as is said Metaph. 
iv. Therefore, just as it happens that in one of the extremes of a 
relation there is something real, whereas in the other there is not 
something real, but merely a certain aspect, as the Philosopher observes 
of knowledge and the thing known; so also it happens that on the part of 
one extreme there is one relation, whereas on the part of the other there 
are many. Thus in man on the part of his parents there is a twofold 
relation, the one of paternity, the other of motherhood, which are 
specifically diverse, inasmuch as the father is the principle of 
generation in one way, and the mother in another (whereas if many be the 
principle of one action and in the same way---for instance, if many. 
together draw a ship along---there would be one and the same relation in 
all of them); but on the part of the child there is but one filiation in 
reality, though there be two in aspect, corresponding to the two 
relations in the parents, as considered by the intellect. And thus in one 
way there is only one real filiation in Christ, which is in respect of 
the Eternal Father: yet there is another temporal relation in regard to 
His temporal mother.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ was born without His Mother suffering?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ was not born without His Mother 
suffering. For just as man's death was a result of the sin of our first 
parents, according to Gn. 2:17: "In what day soever ye shall eat, ye 
shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt] die"; so were the pains 
of childbirth, according to Gn. 3:16: "In sorrow shalt thou bring forth 
children." But Christ was willing to undergo death. Therefore for the 
same reason it seems that His birth should have been with pain.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the end is proportionate to the beginning. But Christ 
ended His life in pain, according to Is. 53:4: "Surely . . . He hath 
carried our sorrows." Therefore it seems that His nativity was not 
without the pains of childbirth.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour [*Protevangelium 
Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were present at Christ's 
birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the mother's suffering pain. 
Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin suffered pain in giving birth 
to her Child.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ. [*Supposititious]), 
addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: "In conceiving thou wast all 
pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening 
the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (Q[28], A[2], 
Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of 
His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently 
there was no pain in that birth, as  neither was there any corruption; on 
the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man "was born into 
the world," according to Is. 35:1,2: "Like the lily, it shall bud forth 
and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: The pains of childbirth in the woman follow from the 
mingling of the sexes. Wherefore (Gn. 3:16) after the words, "in sorrow 
shalt thou bring forth children," the following are added: "and thou 
shalt be under thy husband's power." But, as Augustine says (Serm. de 
Assumpt. B. Virg., [*Supposititious]), from this sentence we must exclude 
the Virgin-Mother of God; who, "because she conceived Christ without the 
defilement of sin, and without the stain of sexual mingling, therefore 
did she bring Him forth without pain, without violation of her virginal 
integrity, without detriment to the purity of her maidenhood." Christ, 
indeed, suffered death, but through His own spontaneous desire, in order 
to atone for us, not as a necessary result of that sentence, for He was 
not a debtor unto death.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: As "by His death" Christ "destroyed our death" [*Preface of 
the Mass in Paschal-time], so by His pains He freed us from our pains; 
and so He wished to die a painful death. But the mother's pains in 
childbirth did not concern Christ, who came to atone for our sins. And 
therefore there was no need for His Mother to suffer in giving birth.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: We are told (Lk. 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin herself 
"wrapped up in swaddling clothes" the Child whom she had brought forth, 
"and laid Him in a manger." Consequently the narrative of this book, 
which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv): 
"No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother 
and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,' says he, 'she wrapped up the 
child, and laid Him in a manger.'" These words prove the falseness of the 
apocryphal ravings.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ should have been born in Bethlehem?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been born in Bethlehem. 
For it is written (Is. 2:3): "The law shall come forth from Sion, and the 
Word of the Lord from Jerusalem." But Christ is truly the Word of God. 
Therefore He should have come into the world at Jerusalem.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, it is said (Mt. 2:23) that it is written of Christ that 
"He shall be called a Nazarene"; which is taken from Is. 11:1: "A flower 
shall rise up out of his root"; for "Nazareth" is interpreted "a flower." 
But a man is named especially from the place of his birth. Therefore it 
seems that He should have been born in Nazareth, where also He was 
conceived and brought up.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, for this was our Lord born into the world, that He might 
make known the true faith. according to Jn. 18:37:  "For this was I born, 
and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the 
truth." But this would have been easier if He had been born in the city 
of Rome, which at that time ruled the world; whence Paul, writing to the 
Romans (1:8) says: "Your faith is spoken of in the whole world." 
Therefore it seems that He should not have been born in Bethlehem.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Mich. 5:2): "And thou, Bethlehem, 
Ephrata . . . out of thee shall He come forth unto Me, that is to be the 
ruler in Israel."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, Christ willed to be born in Bethlehem for two reasons. 
First, because "He was made . . . of the seed of David according to the 
flesh," as it is written (Rm. 1:3); to whom also was a special promise 
made concerning Christ; according to 2 Kgs. 23:1: "The man to whom it was 
appointed concerning the Christ of the God of Jacob . . . said." 
Therefore He willed to be born at Bethlehem, where David was born, in 
order that by the very birthplace the promise made to David might be 
shown to be fulfilled. The Evangelist points this out by saying: "Because 
He was of the house and of the family of David." Secondly, because, as 
Gregory says (Hom. viii in Evang.): "Bethlehem is interpreted 'the house 
of bread.' It is Christ Himself who said, 'I am the living Bread which 
came down from heaven.'"

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 1: As David was born in Bethlehem, so also did he choose 
Jerusalem to set up his throne there, and to build there the Temple of 
God, so that Jerusalem was at the same time a royal and a priestly city. 
Now, Christ's priesthood and kingdom were "consummated" principally in 
His Passion. Therefore it was becoming that He should choose Bethlehem 
for His Birthplace and Jerusalem for the scene of His Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2

 At the same time, too, He put to silence the vain boasting of men who 
take pride in being born in great cities, where also they desire 
especially to receive honor. Christ, on the contrary, willed to be born 
in a mean city, and to suffer reproach in a great city.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Christ wished "to flower" by His holy life, not in His 
carnal birth. Therefore He wished to be fostered and brought up at 
Nazareth. But He wished to be born at Bethlehem away from home; because, 
as Gregory says (Hom. viii in Evang.), through the human nature which He 
had taken, He was born, as it were, in a foreign place---foreign not to 
His power, but to His Nature. And, again, as Bede says on Lk. 2:7: "In 
order that He who found no room at the inn might prepare many mansions 
for us in His Father's house."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 3: According to a sermon in the Council of Ephesus [*P. iii, 
cap. ix]: "If He had chosen the great city of Rome, the change in the 
world would be ascribed to the influence of her citizens. If He had been 
the son of the Emperor, His benefits would have been attributed to the 
latter's power. But that we might acknowledge the work of God in the 
transformation of the whole  earth, He chose a poor mother and a 
birthplace poorer still."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2

 "But the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that He may confound 
the strong" (1 Cor. 1:27). And therefore, in order the more to show His 
power, He set up the head of His Church in Rome itself, which was the 
head of the world, in sign of His complete victory, in order that from 
that city the faith might spread throughout the world; according to Is. 
26:5,6: "The high city He shall lay low . . . the feet of the poor," i.e. 
of Christ, "shall tread it down; the steps of the needy," i.e. of the 
apostles Peter and Paul.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ was born at a fitting time?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ was not born at a fitting time. Because 
Christ came in order to restore liberty to His own. But He was born at a 
time of subjection---namely, when the whole world, as it were, tributary 
to Augustus, was being enrolled, at his command as Luke relates (2:1). 
Therefore it seems that Christ was not born at a fitting time.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the promises concerning the coming of Christ were not 
made to the Gentiles; according to Rm. 9:4: "To whom belong . . . the 
promises." But Christ was born during the reign of a foreigner, as 
appears from Mt. 2:1: "When Jesus was born in the days of King Herod." 
Therefore it seems that He was not born at a fitting time.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the time of Christ's presence on earth is compared to 
the day, because He is the "Light of the world"; wherefore He says 
Himself (Jn. 9:4): "I must work the works of Him that sent Me, whilst it 
is day." But in summer the days are longer than in winter. Therefore, 
since He was born in the depth of winter, eight days before the Kalends 
of January, it seems that He was not born at a fitting time.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Gal. 4:4): "When the fulness of the time 
was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, There is this difference between Christ and other men, 
that, whereas they are born subject to the restrictions of time, Christ, 
as Lord and Maker of all time, chose a time in which to be born, just as 
He chose a mother and a birthplace. And since "what is of God is well 
ordered" and becomingly arranged, it follows that Christ was born at a 
most fitting time.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/3

 Reply OBJ 1: Christ came in order to bring us back from a state of 
bondage to a state of liberty. And therefore, as He took our mortal 
nature in order to restore us to life, so, as Bede says (Super Luc. ii, 
4,5), "He deigned to take flesh at such a time that, shortly after His 
birth, He would be enrolled in Caesar's census, and thus submit Himself 
to bondage for the sake of our  liberty."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 2/3

 Moreover, at that time, when the whole world lived under one ruler, 
peace abounded on the earth. Therefore it was a fitting time for the 
birth of Christ, for "He is our peace, who hath made both one," as it is 
written (Eph. 2:14). Wherefore Jerome says on Is. 2:4: "If we search the 
page of ancient history, we shall find that throughout the whole world 
there was discord until the twenty-eighth year of Augustus Caesar: but 
when our Lord was born, all war ceased"; according to Is. 2:4: "Nation 
shall not lift up sword against nation."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 3/3

 Again, it was fitting that Christ should be born while the world was 
governed by one ruler, because "He came to gather His own [Vulg.: 'the 
children of God'] together in one" (Jn. 11:52), that there might be "one 
fold and one shepherd" (Jn. 10:16).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Christ wished to be born during the reign of a foreigner, 
that the prophecy of Jacob might be fulfilled (Gn. 49:10): "The sceptre 
shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till He 
come that is to be sent." Because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth. 
[*Opus Imperf., falsely ascribed to Chrysostom]), as long as the Jewish 
"people was governed by Jewish kings, however wicked, prophets were sent 
for their healing. But now that the Law of God is under the power of a 
wicked king, Christ is born; because a grave and hopeless disease 
demanded a more skilful physician."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 3: As says the author of the book De Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., 
"Christ wished to be born, when the light of day begins to increase in 
length," so as to show that He came in order that man might come nearer 
to the Divine Light, according to Lk. 1:79: "To enlighten them that sit 
in darkness and in the shadow of death."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[35] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2

 In like manner He chose to be born in the rough winter season, that He 
might begin from then to suffer in body for us.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] Out. Para. 1/1

OF THE MANIFESTATION OF THE NEWLY BORN CHRIST (EIGHT ARTICLES)

 We must now consider the manifestation of the newly born Christ: 
concerning which there are eight points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to all?

 (2) Whether it should have been made known to some?

 (3) To whom should it have been made known?

 (4) Whether He should have made Himself known, or should He rather have 
been manifested by others?

 (5) By what other means should it have been made known?

 (6) Of the order of these manifestations;

 (7) Of the star by means of which His birth was made known;

 (8) of the adoration of the Magi, who were informed of Christ's nativity 
by means of the star.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1 

Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to all?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should have been made known to 
all. Because fulfilment should correspond to promise. Now, the promise of 
Christ's coming is thus expressed (Ps. 49:3): "God shall come manifestly. 
But He came by His birth in the flesh." Therefore it seems that His birth 
should have been made known to the whole world.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, it is written (1 Tim. 1:15): "Christ came into this 
world to save sinners." But this is not effected save in as far as the 
grace of Christ is made known to them; according to Titus 2:11,12: "The 
grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men, instructing us, that 
denying ungodliness and worldly desires, we should live soberly, and 
justly, and godly in this world." Therefore it seems that Christ's birth 
should have been made known to all.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, God is most especially inclined to mercy; according to 
Ps. 144:9: "His tender mercies are over all His works." But in His second 
coming, when He will "judge justices" (Ps. 70:3), He will come before the 
eyes of all; according to Mt. 24:27: "As lightning cometh out of the 
east, and appeareth even into the west, so shall also the coming of the 
Son of Man be." Much more, therefore, should His first coming, when He 
was born into the world according to the flesh, have been made known to 
all.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Is. 45:15): "Thou art a hidden God, the 
Holy [Vulg.: 'the God] of Israel, the Saviour." And, again (Is. 43:3): 
"His look was, as it were, hidden and despised."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, It was unfitting that Christ's birth should be made known 
to all men without distinction. First, because this would have been a 
hindrance to the redemption of man, which was accomplished by means of 
the Cross; for, as it is written (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had known it, 
they would never have crucified the Lord of glory."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] Body Para. 2/3

 Secondly, because this would have lessened the merit of faith, which He 
came to offer men as the way to righteousness. according to Rm. 3:22: 
"The justice of God by faith of Jesus Christ." For if, when Christ was 
born, His birth had been made known to all by evident signs, the very 
nature of faith would have been destroyed, since it is "the evidence of 
things that appear not," as stated, Heb. 11:1.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] Body Para. 3/3

 Thirdly, because thus the reality of His human nature would have come 
into doubt. Whence Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum cxxxvii): "If He had 
not passed through the different stages of age from babyhood to youth, 
had neither eaten nor slept, would He not have strengthened an erroneous 
opinion, and made it impossible for us to believe that He had become true 
man? And while He is doing all things wondrously, would He have taken 
away that which He accomplished in mercy?" 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: According to the gloss, the words quoted must be understood 
of Christ's coming as judge.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: All men were to be instructed unto salvation, concerning 
the grace of God our Saviour, not at the very time of His birth, but 
afterwards, in due time, after He had "wrought salvation in the midst of 
the earth" (Ps. 73:12). Wherefore after His Passion and Resurrection, He 
said to His disciples (Mt. 28:19): "Going . . . teach ye all nations."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: For judgment to be passed, the authority of the judge needs 
to be known: and for this reason it behooves that the coming of Christ 
unto judgment should be manifest. But His first coming was unto the 
salvation of all, which is by faith that is of things not seen. And 
therefore it was fitting that His first coming should be hidden.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to some?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should not have been made known 
to anyone. For, as stated above (A[1], ad 3), it befitted the salvation 
of mankind that Christ's first coming should be hidden. But Christ came 
to save all; according to 1 Tim. 4:10: "Who is the Saviour of all men, 
especially of the faithful." Therefore Christ's birth should not have 
been made known to anyone.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, before Christ was born, His future birth was made known 
to the Blessed Virgin and Joseph. Therefore it was not necessary that it 
should be made known to others after His birth.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, no wise man makes known that from which arise 
disturbance and harm to others. But, when Christ's birth was made known, 
disturbance arose: for it is written (Mt. 2:3) that "King Herod, hearing" 
of Christ's birth, "was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." Moreover, 
this brought harm to others; because it was the occasion of Herod's 
killing "all the male children that were in Bethlehem . . . from two 
years old and under." Therefore it seems unfitting for Christ's birth to 
have been made known to anyone.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Christ's birth would have been profitable to none if it 
had been hidden from all. But it behooved Christ's birth to be 
profitable: else He were born in vain. Therefore it seems that Christ's 
birth should have been made known to some.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rm. 13:1) "what is of God is well 
ordered." Now it belongs to the order of Divine wisdom that God's gifts 
and the secrets of His wisdom are not bestowed on all equally, but to 
some immediately, through whom they are made known to others. Wherefore, 
with regard to the mystery of the Resurrection it is written (Acts 
10:40,41): "God . . . gave" Christ rising again "to be made manifest, not 
to all the people, but to witnesses pre-ordained by God." Consequently, 
that His birth might  be consistent with this, it should have been made 
known, not to all, but to some, through whom it could be made known to 
others.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As it would have been prejudicial to the salvation of 
mankind if God's birth had been made known to all men, so also would it 
have been if none had been informed of it. Because in either case faith 
is destroyed, whether a thing be perfectly manifest, or whether it be 
entirely unknown, so that no one can hear it from another; for "faith 
cometh by hearing" (Rm. 10:17).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Mary and Joseph needed to be instructed concerning Christ's 
birth before He was born, because it devolved on them to show reverence 
to the child conceived in the womb, and to serve Him even before He was 
born. But their testimony, being of a domestic character, would have 
aroused suspicion in regard to Christ's greatness: and so it behooved it 
to be made known to others, whose testimony could not be suspect.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/4

 Reply OBJ 3: The very disturbance that arose when it was known that 
Christ was born was becoming to His birth. First, because thus the 
heavenly dignity of Christ is made manifest. Wherefore Gregory says (Hom. 
x in Evang.): "After the birth of the King of heaven, the earthly king is 
troubled: doubtless because earthly grandeur is covered with confusion 
when the heavenly majesty is revealed."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 2/4

 Secondly, thereby the judicial power of Christ was foreshadowed. Thus 
Augustine says in a sermon (30 de Temp.) on the Epiphany: "What will He 
be like in the judgment-seat; since from His cradle He struck terror into 
the heart of a proud king?"

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 3/4

 Thirdly, because thus the overthrow of the devil's kingdom was 
foreshadowed. For, as Pope Leo says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Serm. v 
[*Opus Imperfectum in Matth., Hom. ii, falsely ascribed to St. John 
Chrysostom]): "Herod was not so much troubled in himself as the devil in 
Herod. For Herod thought Him to be a man, but the devil thought Him to be 
God. Each feared a successor to his kingdom: the devil, a heavenly 
successor; Herod, an earthly successor." But their fear was needless: 
since Christ had not come to set up an earthly kingdom, as Pope Leo says, 
addressing himself to Herod: "Thy palace cannot hold Christ: nor is the 
Lord of the world content with the paltry power of thy scepter." That the 
Jews were troubled, who, on the contrary, should have rejoiced, was 
either because, as Chrysostom says, "wicked men could not rejoice at the 
coming of the Holy one," or because they wished to court favor with 
Herod, whom they feared; for "the populace is inclined to favor too much 
those whose cruelty it endures."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 4/4

 And that the children were slain by Herod was not harmful to them, but 
profitable. For Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (66 de 
Diversis): "It cannot be questioned that Christ, who came to set man 
free, rewarded those who were slain for Him; since, while hanging on the 
cross, He prayed for those who were putting Him to death."

 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether those to whom Christ's birth was made known were suitably chosen?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that those to whom Christ's birth was made known 
were not suitably chosen. For our Lord (Mt. 10:5) commanded His 
disciples, "Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles," so that He might be 
made known to the Jews before the Gentiles. Therefore it seems that much 
less should Christ's birth have been at once revealed to the Gentiles who 
"came from the east," as stated Mt. 2:1.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the revelation of Divine truth should be made especially 
to the friends of God, according to Job 37 [Vulg.: Job 36:33]: "He 
sheweth His friend concerning it." But the Magi seem to be God's foes; 
for it is written (Lev. 19:31): "Go not aside after wizards [magi], 
neither ask anything of soothsayers." Therefore Christ's birth should not 
have been made known to the Magi.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, Christ came in order to set free the whole world from 
the power of the devil; whence it is written (Malachi 1:11): "From the 
rising of the sun even to the going down, My name is great among the 
Gentiles." Therefore He should have been made known, not only to those 
who dwelt in the east, but also to some from all parts of the world.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, all the sacraments of the Old Law were figures of 
Christ. But the sacraments of the Old Law were dispensed through the 
ministry of the legal priesthood. Therefore it seems that Christ's birth 
should have been made known rather to the priests in the Temple than to 
the shepherds in the fields.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 5: Further, Christ was born of a Virgin-Mother, and was as yet a 
little child. It was therefore more suitable that He should be made known 
to youths and virgins than to old and married people or to widows, such 
as Simeon and Anna.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 13:18): "I know whom I have chosen." 
But what is done by God's wisdom is done becomingly. Therefore those to 
whom Christ's birth was made known were suitably chosen.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, Salvation, which was to be accomplished by Christ, 
concerns all sorts and conditions of men: because, as it is written (Col. 
3:11), in Christ "there is neither male nor female, [*These words are in 
reality from Gal. 3:28] neither Gentile nor Jew . . . bond nor free," and 
so forth. And in order that this might be foreshadowed in Christ's birth, 
He was made known to men of all conditions. Because, as Augustine says in 
a sermon on the Epiphany (32 de Temp.), "the shepherds were Israelites, 
the Magi were Gentiles. The former were nigh to Him, the latter far from 
Him. Both hastened to Him together as to the cornerstone." There was also 
another point of contrast: for the Magi were wise and powerful; the 
shepherds simple and lowly. He was also made known to  the righteous as 
Simeon and Anna; and to sinners, as the Magi. He was made known both to 
men, and to women---namely, to Anna---so as to show no condition of men 
to be excluded from Christ's redemption.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: That manifestation of Christ's birth was a kind of 
foretaste of the full manifestation which was to come. And as in the 
later manifestation the first announcement of the grace of Christ was 
made by Him and His Apostles to the Jews and afterwards to the Gentiles, 
so the first to come to Christ were the shepherds, who were the 
first-fruits of the Jews, as being near to Him; and afterwards came the 
Magi from afar, who were "the first-fruits of the Gentiles," as Augustine 
says (Serm. 30 de Temp. cc.).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Serm. 30 de 
Temp.): "As unskilfulness predominates in the rustic manners of the 
shepherd, so ungodliness abounds in the profane rites of the Magi. Yet 
did this Corner-Stone draw both to Itself; inasmuch as He came 'to choose 
the foolish things that He might confound the wise,' and 'not to call the 
just, but sinners,'" so that "the proud might not boast, nor the weak 
despair." Nevertheless, there are those who say that these Magi were not 
wizards, but wise astronomers, who are called Magi among the Persians or 
Chaldees.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As Chrysostom says [*Hom. ii in Matth. in the Opus Imperf., 
among the supposititious works of Chrysostom]: "The Magi came from the 
east, because the first beginning of faith came from the land where the 
day is born; since faith is the light of the soul." Or, "because all who 
come to Christ come from Him and through Him": whence it is written 
(Zach. 6:12): "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name." Now, they are said 
to come from the east literally, either because, as some say, they came 
from the farthest parts of the east, or because they came from the 
neighboring parts of Judea that lie to the east of the region inhabited 
by the Jews. Yet it is to be believed that certain signs of Christ's 
birth appeared also in other parts of the world: thus, at Rome the river 
flowed with oil [*Eusebius, Chronic. II, Olymp. 185]; and in Spain three 
suns were seen, which gradually merged into one [*Cf. Eusebius, Chronic. 
II, Olymp. 184].

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 4: As Chrysostom observes (Theophylact., Enarr. in Luc. ii, 
8), the angel who announced Christ's birth did not go to Jerusalem, nor 
did he seek the Scribes and Pharisees, for they were corrupted, and full 
of ill-will. But the shepherds were single-minded, and were like the 
patriarchs and Moses in their mode of life.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 2/2

 Moreover, these shepherds were types of the Doctors of the Church, to 
whom are revealed the mysteries of Christ that were hidden from the Jews.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[3] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 5: As Ambrose says (on Lk. 2:25): "It was right that our 
Lord's birth should be attested not only by the shepherds, but  also by 
people advanced in age and virtue": whose testimony is rendered the more 
credible by reason of their righteousness.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ Himself should have made His birth know?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should have Himself made His birth 
known. For "a direct cause is always of greater power than an indirect 
cause," as is stated Phys. viii. But Christ made His birth known through 
others---for instance, to the shepherds through the angels, and to the 
Magi through the star. Much more, therefore, should He Himself have made 
His birth known.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 20:32): "Wisdom that is hid and 
treasure that is not seen; what profit is there in them both?" But Christ 
had, to perfection, the treasure of wisdom and grace from the beginning 
of His conception. Therefore, unless He had made the fulness of these 
gifts known by words and deeds, wisdom and grace would have been given 
Him to no purpose. But this is unreasonable: because "God and nature do 
nothing without a purpose" (De Coelo i).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, we read in the book De Infantia Salvatoris that in His 
infancy Christ worked many miracles. It seems therefore that He did 
Himself make His birth known.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Pope Leo says (Serm. xxxiv) that the Magi found the 
"infant Jesus in no way different from the generality of human infants." 
But other infants do not make themselves known. Therefore it was not 
fitting that Christ should Himself make His birth known.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, Christ's birth was ordered unto man's salvation, which is 
by faith. But saving faith confesses Christ's Godhead and humanity. It 
behooved, therefore, Christ's birth to be made known in such a way that 
the proof of His Godhead should not be prejudicial to faith in His human 
nature. But this took place while Christ presented a likeness of human 
weakness, and yet, by means of God's creatures, He showed the power of 
the Godhead in Himself. Therefore Christ made His birth known, not by 
Himself, but by means of certain other creatures.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: By the way of generation and movement we must of necessity 
come to the imperfect before the perfect. And therefore Christ was made 
known first through other creatures, and afterwards He Himself manifested 
Himself perfectly.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Although hidden wisdom is useless, yet there is no need for 
a wise man to make himself known at all times, but at a suitable time; 
for it is written (Ecclus. 20:6): "There is one that holdeth his peace 
because he knoweth not what to say: and there is another that holdeth his 
peace, knowing the proper time." Hence the wisdom given to Christ was not 
useless, because at a suitable time He manifested Himself. And the very 
fact that He was  hidden at a suitable time is a sign of wisdom.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: The book De Infantia Salvatoris is apocryphal. Moreover, 
Chrysostom (Hom. xxi super Joan.) says that Christ worked no miracles 
before changing the water into wine, according to Jn. 2:11: "'This 
beginning of miracles did Jesus.' For if He had worked miracles at an 
early age, there would have been no need for anyone else to manifest Him 
to the Israelites; whereas John the Baptist says (Jn. 1:31): 'That He may 
be made manifest in Israel; therefore am I come baptizing with water.' 
Moreover, it was fitting that He should not begin to work miracles at an 
early age. For people would have thought the Incarnation to be unreal, 
and, out of sheer spite, would have crucified Him before the proper time."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ's birth should have been manifested by means of the angels 
and the star?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should not have been manifested 
by means of the angels. For angels are spiritual substances, according to 
Ps. 103:4: "Who maketh His [Vulg.: 'makest Thy'] angels, spirits." But 
Christ's birth was in the flesh, and not in His spiritual substance. 
Therefore it should not have been manifested by means of angels.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the righteous are more akin to the angels than to any 
other, according to Ps. 33:8: "The angel of the Lord shall encamp round 
about them that fear Him, and shall deliver them." But Christ's birth was 
not announced to the righteous, viz. Simeon and Anna, through the angels. 
Therefore neither should it have been announced to the shepherds by means 
of the angels.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, it seems that neither ought it to have been announced to 
the Magi by means of the star. For this seems to favor the error of those 
who think that man's birth is influenced by the stars. But occasions of 
sin should be taken away from man. Therefore it was not fitting that 
Christ's birth should be announced by a star.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, a sign should be certain, in order that something be 
made known thereby. But a star does not seem to be a certain sign of 
Christ's birth. Therefore Christ's birth was not suitably announced by a 
star.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 32:4): "The works of God are 
perfect." But this manifestation is the work of God. Therefore it was 
accomplished by means of suitable signs.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As knowledge is imparted through a syllogism from 
something which we know better, so knowledge given by signs must be 
conveyed through things which are familiar to those to whom the knowledge 
is imparted. Now, it is clear that the righteous have, through the spirit 
of prophecy, a certain familiarity with the interior instinct of the Holy 
Ghost, and are wont to be taught  thereby, without the guidance of 
sensible signs. Whereas others, occupied with material things, are led 
through the domain of the senses to that of the intellect. The Jews, 
however, were accustomed to receive Divine answers through the angels; 
through whom they also received the Law, according to Acts 7:53: "You 
[Vulg.: 'who'] . . . have received the Law by the disposition of angels." 
And the Gentiles, especially astrologers, were wont to observe the course 
of the stars. And therefore Christ's birth was made known to the 
righteous, viz. Simeon and Anna, by the interior instinct of the Holy 
Ghost, according to Lk. 2:26: "He had received an answer from the Holy 
Ghost that he should not see death before he had seen the Christ of the 
Lord." But to the shepherds and Magi, as being occupied with material 
things, Christ's birth was made known by means of visible apparitions. 
And since this birth was not only earthly, but also, in a way, heavenly, 
to both (shepherds and Magi) it is revealed through heavenly signs: for, 
as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cciv): "The angels 
inhabit, and the stars adorn, the heavens: by both, therefore, do the 
'heavens show forth the glory of God.'" Moreover, it was not without 
reason that Christ's birth was made known, by means of angels, to the 
shepherds, who, being Jews, were accustomed to frequent apparitions of 
the angels: whereas it was revealed by means of a star to the Magi, who 
were wont to consider the heavenly bodies. Because, as Chrysostom says 
(Hom. vi in Matth.): "Our Lord deigned to call them through things to 
which they were accustomed." There is also another reason. For, as 
Gregory says (Hom. x in Evang.): "To the Jews, as rational beings, it was 
fitting that a rational animal [*Cf. FP, Q[51], A[1], ad 2]," viz. an 
angel, "should preach. Whereas the Gentiles, who were unable to come to 
the knowledge of God through the reason, were led to God, not by words, 
but by signs. And as our Lord, when He was able to speak, was announced 
by heralds who spoke, so before He could speak He was manifested by 
speechless elements." Again, there is yet another reason. For, as 
Augustine [*Pope Leo] says in a sermon on the Epiphany: "To Abraham was 
promised an innumerable progeny, begotten, not of carnal propagation, but 
of the fruitfulness of faith. For this reason it is compared to the 
multitude of stars; that a heavenly progeny might be hoped for." 
Wherefore the Gentiles, "who are thus designated by the stars, are by the 
rising of a new star stimulated" to seek Christ, through whom they are 
made the seed of Abraham.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: That which of itself is hidden needs to be manifested, but 
not that which in itself is manifest. Now, the flesh of Him who was born 
was manifest, whereas the Godhead was hidden. And therefore it was 
fitting that this birth should be made known by angels, who are the 
ministers of God. Wherefore also a certain "brightness" (Lk. 2:9) 
accompanied the angelic apparition, to indicate that He who was just born 
was the "Brightness of" the Father's "glory."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: The righteous did not need the visible apparition of the 
angel; on account of their perfection the interior instinct of the Holy 
Ghost was enough for them. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 3: The star which manifested Christ's birth removed all 
occasion of error. For, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. ii): "No 
astrologer has ever so far connected the stars with man's fate at the 
time of his birth as to assert that one of the stars, at the birth of any 
man, left its orbit and made its way to him who was just born": as 
happened in the case of the star which made known the birth of Christ. 
Consequently this does not corroborate the error of those who "think 
there is a connection between man's birth and the course of the stars, 
for they do not hold that the course of the stars can be changed at a 
man's birth."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2

 In the same sense Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Matth.): "It is not an 
astronomer's business to know from the stars those who are born, but to 
tell the future from the hour of a man's birth: whereas the Magi did not 
know the time of the birth, so as to conclude therefrom some knowledge of 
the future; rather was it the other way about."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 1/4

 Reply OBJ 4: Chrysostom relates (Hom. ii in Matth.) that, according to 
some apocryphal books, a certain tribe in the far east near the ocean was 
in the possession of a document written by Seth, referring to this star 
and to the presents to be offered: which tribe watched attentively for 
the rising of this star, twelve men being appointed to take observations, 
who at stated times repaired to the summit of a mountain with faithful 
assiduity: whence they subsequently perceived the star containing the 
figure of a small child, and above it the form of a cross.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 2/4

 Or we may say, as may be read in the book De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. 
lxiii, that "these Magi followed the tradition of Balaam," who said, "'A 
star shall rise out of Jacob.' Wherefore observing this star to be a 
stranger to the system of this world, they gathered that it was the one 
foretold by Balaam to indicate the King of the Jews."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 3/4

 Or again, it may be said with Augustine, in a sermon on the Epiphany 
(ccclxxiv), that "the Magi had received a revelation through the angels" 
that the star was a sign of the birth of Christ: and he thinks it 
probable that these were "good angels; since in adoring Christ they were 
seeking for salvation."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 4/4

 Or with Pope Leo, in a sermon on the Epiphany (xxxiv), that "besides the 
outward form which aroused the attention of their corporeal eyes, a more 
brilliant ray enlightened their minds with the light of faith."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ's birth was made known in a becoming order?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's birth was made known in an unbecoming 
order. For Christ's birth should have been made known to them first who 
were nearest to Christ, and who longed for Him most; according to Wis. 
6:14: "She preventeth them that covet her, so  that she first showeth 
herself unto them." But the righteous were nearest to Christ by faith, 
and longed most for His coming; whence it is written (Lk. 2:25) of Simeon 
that "he was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel." 
Therefore Christ's birth should have been made known to Simeon before the 
shepherds and Magi.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the Magi were the "first-fruits of the Gentiles," who 
were to believe in Christ. But first the "fulness of the Gentiles . . . 
come in" unto faith, and afterwards "all Israel" shall "be saved," as is 
written (Rm. 11:25). Therefore Christ's birth should have been made known 
to the Magi before the shepherds.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, it is written (Mt. 2:16) that "Herod killed all the male 
children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two 
years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently 
inquired from the wise men": so that it seems that the Magi were two 
years in coming to Christ after His birth. It was therefore unbecoming 
that Christ should be made known to the Gentiles so long after His birth.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Dan. 2:21): "He changes time and ages." 
Consequently the time of the manifestation of Christ's birth seems to 
have been arranged in a suitable order.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, Christ's birth was first made known to the shepherds on 
the very day that He was born. For, as it is written (Lk. 2:8,15,16): 
"There were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the 
night-watches over their flock . . . And it came to pass, after the 
angels departed from them into heaven they [Vulg.: 'the shepherds'] said 
one to another: Let us go over to Bethlehem . . . and they came with 
haste." Second in order were the Magi, who came to Christ on the 
thirteenth day after His birth, on which day is kept the feast of the 
Epiphany. For if they had come after a year, or even two years, they 
would not have found Him in Bethlehem, since it is written (Lk. 2:39) 
that "after they had performed all things according to the law of the 
Lord"---that is to say, after they had offered up the Child Jesus in the 
Temple---"they returned into Galilee, to their city"---namely, 
"Nazareth." In the third place, it was made known in the Temple to the 
righteous on the fortieth day after His birth, as related by Luke (2:22).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] Body Para. 2/2

 The reason of this order is that the shepherds represent the apostles 
and other believers of the Jews, to whom the faith of Christ was made 
known first; among whom there were "not many mighty, not many noble," as 
we read 1 Cor. 1:26. Secondly, the faith of Christ came to the "fulness 
of the Gentiles"; and this is foreshadowed in the Magi. Thirdly it came 
to the fulness of the Jews, which is foreshadowed in the righteous. 
Wherefore also Christ was manifested to them in the Jewish Temple.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As the Apostle says (Rm. 9:30,31): "Israel, by following 
after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of  justice": but the 
Gentiles, "who followed not after justice," forestalled the generality of 
the Jews in the justice which is of faith. As a figure of this, Simeon, 
"who was waiting for the consolation of Israel," was the last to know 
Christ born: and he was preceded by the Magi and the shepherds, who did 
not await the coming of Christ with such longing.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Although the "fulness of the Gentiles came in" unto faith 
before the fulness of the Jews, yet the first-fruits of the Jews preceded 
the first-fruits of the Gentiles in faith. For this reason the birth of 
Christ was made known to the shepherds before the Magi.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 3: There are two opinions about the apparition of the star 
seen by the Magi. For Chrysostom (Hom. ii in Matth. [*Opus Imperf. in 
Matth., falsely ascribed to Chrysostom]), and Augustine in a sermon on 
the Epiphany (cxxxi, cxxxii), say that the star was seen by the Magi 
during the two years that preceded the birth of Christ: and then, having 
first considered the matter and prepared themselves for the journey, they 
came from the farthest east to Christ, arriving on the thirteenth day 
after His birth. Wherefore Herod, immediately after the departure of the 
Magi, "perceiving that He was deluded by them," commanded the male 
children to be killed "from two years old and under," being doubtful lest 
Christ were already born when the star appeared, according as he had 
heard from the Magi.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2

 But others say that the star first appeared when Christ was born, and 
that the Magi set off as soon as they saw the star, and accomplished a 
journey of very great length in thirteen days, owing partly to the Divine 
assistance, and partly to the fleetness of the dromedaries. And I say 
this on the supposition that they came from the far east. But others, 
again, say that they came from a neighboring country, whence also was 
Balaam, to whose teaching they were heirs; and they are said to have come 
from the east, because their country was to the east of the country of 
the Jews. In this case Herod killed the babes, not as soon as the Magi 
departed, but two years after: and that either because he is said to have 
gone to Rome in the meanwhile on account of an accusation brought against 
him, or because he was troubled at some imminent peril, and for the time 
being desisted from his anxiety to slay the child, or because he may have 
thought that the Magi, "being deceived by the illusory appearance of the 
star, and not finding the child, as they had expected to, were ashamed to 
return to him": as Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii). And the reason 
why he killed not only those who were two years old, but also the younger 
children, would be, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Innocents, 
because he feared lest a child whom the stars obey, might make himself 
appear older or younger.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the star which appeared to the Magi belonged to the heavenly 
system?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1 

 OBJ 1: It would seem that the star which appeared to the Magi belonged 
to the heavenly system. For Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany 
(cxxii): "While God yet clings to the breast, and suffers Himself to be 
wrapped in humble swaddling clothes, suddenly a new star shines forth in 
the heavens." Therefore the star which appeared to the Magi belonged to 
the heavenly system.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cci): 
"Christ was made known to the shepherds by angels, to the Magi by a star. 
A heavenly tongue speaks to both, because the tongue of the prophets 
spoke no longer." But the angels who appeared to the shepherds were 
really angels from heaven. Therefore also the star which appeared to the 
Magi was really a star from the heavens.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, stars which are not in the heavens but in the air are 
called comets, which do not appear at the birth of kings, but rather are 
signs of their approaching death. But this star was a sign of the King's 
birth: wherefore the Magi said (Mt. 2:2): "Where is He that is born King 
of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the east." Therefore it seems 
that it was a star from the heavens.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. ii): "It was not one of 
those stars which since the beginning of the creation observe the course 
appointed to them by the Creator; but this star was a stranger to the 
heavens, and made its appearance at the strange sight of a virgin in 
childbirth."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, As Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Matth.), it is clear, for 
many reasons, that the star which appeared to the Magi did not belong to 
the heavenly system. First, because no other star approaches from the 
same quarter as this star, whose course was from north to south, these 
being the relative positions of Persia, whence the Magi came, and Judea. 
Secondly, from the time [at which it was seen]. For it appeared not only 
at night, but also at midday: and no star can do this, not even the moon. 
Thirdly, because it was visible at one time and hidden at another. For 
when they entered Jerusalem it hid itself: then, when they had left 
Herod, it showed itself again. Fourthly, because its movement was not 
continuous, but when the Magi had to continue their journey the star 
moved on; when they had to stop the star stood still; as happened to the 
pillar of a cloud in the desert. Fifthly, because it indicated the 
virginal Birth, not by remaining aloft, but by coming down below. For it 
is written (Mt. 2:9) that "the star which they had seen in the east went 
before them, until it came and stood over where the child was." Whence it 
is evident that the words of the Magi, "We have seen His star in the 
east," are to be taken as meaning, not that when they were in the east 
the star appeared over the country of Judea, but that when they saw the 
star it was in the east, and that it preceded them into Judea (although 
this is considered doubtful by some). But it could not have indicated the 
house distinctly, unless it were near the earth. And, as he [Chrysostom] 
observes, this does not seem fitting to a star, but  "of some power 
endowed with reason." Consequently "it seems that this was some invisible 
force made visible under the form of a star."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] Body Para. 2/2

 Wherefore some say that, as the Holy Ghost, after our Lord's Baptism, 
came down on Him under the form of a dove, so did He appear to the Magi 
under the form of a star. While others say that the angel who, under a 
human form, appeared to the shepherds, under the form of a star, appeared 
to the Magi. But it seems more probable that it was a newly created star, 
not in the heavens, but in the air near the earth, and that its movement 
varied according to God's will. Wherefore Pope Leo says in a sermon on 
the Epiphany (xxxi): "A star of unusual brightness appeared to the three 
Magi in the east, which, through being more brilliant and more beautiful 
than the other stars, drew men's gaze and attention: so that they 
understood at once that such an unwonted event could not be devoid of 
purpose."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: In Holy Scripture the air is sometimes called the 
heavens---for instance, "The birds of the heavens [Douay: 'air'] and the 
fishes of the sea."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: The angels of heaven, by reason of their very office, come 
down to us, being "sent to minister." But the stars of heaven do not 
change their position. Wherefore there is no comparison.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As the star did not follow the course of the heavenly 
stars, so neither did it follow the course of the comets, which neither 
appear during the daytime nor vary their customary course. Nevertheless 
in its signification it has something in common with the comets. Because 
the heavenly kingdom of Christ "shall break in pieces, and shall consume 
all the kingdoms" of the earth, "and itself shall stand for ever" (Dan. 
2:44).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it was becoming that the Magi should come to adore Christ and pay 
homage to Him?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that it was unbecoming that the Magi should come to 
adore Christ and pay homage to Him. For reverence is due to a king from 
his subjects. But the Magi did not belong to the kingdom of the Jews. 
Therefore, since they knew by seeing the star that He that was born was 
the "King of the Jews," it seems unbecoming that they should come to 
adore Him.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, it seems absurd during the reign of one king to proclaim 
a stranger. But in Judea Herod was reigning. Therefore it was foolish of 
the Magi to proclaim the birth of a king.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, a heavenly sign is more certain than a human sign. But 
the Magi had come to Judea from the east, under the guidance of a 
heavenly sign. Therefore it was foolish of them to seek human guidance 
besides that of the star, saying: "Where is He  that is born King of the 
Jews?"

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, the offering of gifts and the homage of adoration are 
not due save to kings already reigning. But the Magi did not find Christ 
resplendent with kingly grandeur. Therefore it was unbecoming for them to 
offer Him gifts and homage.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Is. 60:3): "[The Gentiles] shall walk in 
the light, and kings in the brightness of thy rising." But those who walk 
in the Divine light do not err. Therefore the Magi were right in offering 
homage to Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (A[3], ad 1), the Magi are the 
"first-fruits of the Gentiles" that believed in Christ; because their 
faith was a presage of the faith and devotion of the nations who were to 
come to Christ from afar. And therefore, as the devotion and faith of the 
nations is without any error through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, 
so also we must believe that the Magi, inspired by the Holy Ghost, did 
wisely in paying homage to Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cc.): 
"Though many kings of the Jews had been born and died, none of them did 
the Magi seek to adore. And so they who came from a distant foreign land 
to a kingdom that was entirely strange to them, had no idea of showing 
such great homage to such a king as the Jews were wont to have. But they 
had learnt that such a King was born that by adoring Him they might be 
sure of obtaining from Him the salvation which is of God."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: By proclaiming [Christ King] the Magi foreshadowed the 
constancy of the Gentiles in confessing Christ even until death. Whence 
Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth.) that, while they thought of the King 
who was to come, the Magi feared not the king who was actually present. 
They had not yet seen Christ, and they were already prepared to die for 
Him.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cc.): "The 
star which led the Magi to the place where the Divine Infant was with His 
Virgin-Mother could bring them to the town of Bethlehem, in which Christ 
was born. Yet it hid itself until the Jews also bore testimony of the 
city in which Christ was to be born: so that, being encouraged by a 
twofold witness," as Pope Leo says (Serm. xxxiv), "they might seek with 
more ardent faith Him, whom both the brightness of the star and the 
authority of prophecy revealed." Thus they "proclaim" that Christ is 
born, and "inquire where; they believe and ask, as it were, betokening 
those who walk by faith and desire to see," as Augustine says in a sermon 
on the Epiphany (cxcix). But the Jews, by indicating to them the place of 
Christ's birth, "are like the carpenters who built the Ark of Noe, who 
provided others with the means of escape, and themselves perished in the 
flood. Those who asked, heard and went their way: the teachers spoke and 
stayed where they were; like the milestones that point out the way but 
walk not" (Augustine, Serm. cclxxiii).  It was also by God's will that, 
when they no longer saw the star, the Magi, by human instinct, went to 
Jerusalem, to seek in the royal city the new-born King, in order that 
Christ's birth might be publicly proclaimed first in Jerusalem, according 
to Is. 2:3: "The Law shall come forth from Sion, and the Word of the Lord 
from Jerusalem"; and also "in order that by the zeal of the Magi who came 
from afar, the indolence of the Jews who lived near at hand, might be 
proved worthy of condemnation" (Remig., Hom. in Matth. ii, 1).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[36] A[8] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: As Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth. [*From the 
supposititious Opus Imperfectum]): "If the Magi had come in search of an 
earthly King, they would have been disconcerted at finding that they had 
taken the trouble to come such a long way for nothing. Consequently they 
would have neither adored nor offered gifts. But since they sought a 
heavenly King, though they found in Him no signs of royal pre-eminence, 
yet, content with the testimony of the star alone, they adored: for they 
saw a man, and they acknowledged a God." Moreover, they offer gifts in 
keeping with Christ's greatness: "gold, as to the great King; they offer 
up incense as to God, because it is used in the Divine Sacrifice; and 
myrrh, which is used in embalming the bodies of the dead, is offered as 
to Him who is to die for the salvation of all" (Gregory, Hom. x in 
Evang.). And hereby, as Gregory says (Hom. x in Evang.), we are taught to 
offer gold, "which signifies wisdom, to the new-born King, by the luster 
of our wisdom in His sight." We offer God incense, "which signifies 
fervor in prayer, if our constant prayers mount up to God with an odor of 
sweetness"; and we offer myrrh, "which signifies mortification of the 
flesh, if we mortify the ill-deeds of the flesh by refraining from them."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] Out. Para. 1/1

OF CHRIST'S CIRCUMCISION, AND OF THE OTHER LEGAL OBSERVANCES ACCOMPLISHED 
IN REGARD TO THE CHILD CHRIST (FOUR ARTICLES)

 We must now consider Christ's circumcision. And since the circumcision 
is a kind of profession of observing the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: "I 
testify . . . to every man circumcising himself that he is a debtor to do 
the whole Law," we shall have at the same time to inquire about the other 
legal observances accomplished in regard to the Child Christ. Therefore 
there are four points of inquiry:

 (1) His circumcision;

 (2) The imposition of His name;

 (3) His presentation;

 (4) His Mother's purification.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ should have been circumcised?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been circumcised. For 
on the advent of the reality, the figure ceases. But circumcision was 
prescribed to Abraham as a sign of the covenant concerning his posterity, 
as may be seen from Gn. 17. Now this covenant was fulfilled in Christ's 
birth. Therefore  circumcision should have ceased at once.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, "every action of Christ is a lesson to us" [*Innoc. III, 
Serm. xxii de Temp.]; wherefore it is written (Jn. 3:15): "I have given 
you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also." But we ought 
not to be circumcised; according to Gal. 5:2: "If you be circumcised, 
Christ shall profit you nothing." Therefore it seems that neither should 
Christ have been circumcised.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, circumcision was prescribed as a remedy of original sin. 
But Christ did not contract original sin, as stated above (Q[14], A[3]; 
Q[15], A[1]). Therefore Christ should not have been circumcised.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 2:21): "After eight days were 
accomplished, that the child should be circumcised."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, For several reasons Christ ought to have been 
circumcised. First, in order to prove the reality of His human nature, in 
contradiction to the Manicheans, who said that He had an imaginary body: 
and in contradiction to Apollinarius, who said that Christ's body was 
consubstantial with His Godhead; and in contradiction to Valentine, who 
said that Christ brought His body from heaven. Secondly, in order to show 
His approval of circumcision, which God had instituted of old. Thirdly, 
in order to prove that He was descended from Abraham, who had received 
the commandment of circumcision as a sign of his faith in Him. Fourthly, 
in order to take away from the Jews an excuse for not receiving Him, if 
He were uncircumcised. Fifthly, "in order by His example to exhort us to 
be obedient" [*Bede, Hom. x in Evang.]. Wherefore He was circumcised on 
the eighth day according to the prescription of the Law (Lev. 12:3). 
Sixthly, "that He who had come in the likeness of sinful flesh might not 
reject the remedy whereby sinful flesh was wont to be healed." Seventhly, 
that by taking on Himself the burden of the Law, He might set others free 
therefrom, according to Gal. 4:4,5: "God sent His Son . . . made under 
the Law, that He might redeem them who were under the Law."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Circumcision by the removal of the piece of skin in the 
member of generation, signified "the passing away of the old generation" 
[*Athanasius, De Sabb. et Circumcis.]: from the decrepitude of which we 
are freed by Christ's Passion. Consequently this figure was not 
completely fulfilled in Christ's birth, but in His Passion, until which 
time the circumcision retained its virtue and status. Therefore it 
behooved Christ to be circumcised as a son of Abraham before His Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 2: Christ submitted to circumcision while it was yet of 
obligation. And thus His action in this should be imitated by us, in 
fulfilling those things which are of obligation in our own time. Because 
"there is a time and opportunity for every business" (Eccl 8:6).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2 

 Moreover, according to Origen (Hom. xiv in Luc.), "as we died when He 
died, and rose again when Christ rose from the dead, so were we 
circumcised spiritually through Christ: wherefore we need no carnal 
circumcision." And this is what the Apostle says (Col. 2:11): "In whom," 
[i.e. Christ] "you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in 
despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of" our Lord 
Jesus "Christ."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As Christ voluntarily took upon Himself our death, which is 
the effect of sin, whereas He had no sin Himself, in order to deliver us 
from death, and to make us to die spiritually unto sin, so also He took 
upon Himself circumcision, which was a remedy against original sin, 
whereas He contracted no original sin, in order to deliver us from the 
yoke of the Law, and to accomplish a spiritual circumcision in us---in 
order, that is to say, that, by taking upon Himself the shadow, He might 
accomplish the reality.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether His name was suitably given to Christ?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that an unsuitable name was given to Christ. For 
the Gospel reality should correspond to the prophetic foretelling. But 
the prophets foretold another name for Christ: for it is written (Is. 
7:14): "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and His name shall 
be called Emmanuel"; and (Is. 8:3): "Call His name, Hasten to take away 
the spoils; Make haste to take away the prey"; and (Is. 9:6): "His name 
shall be called Wonderful, Counselor God the Mighty, the Father of the 
world to come, the Prince of Peace"; and (Zach. 6:12): "Behold a Man, the 
Orient is His name." Thus it was unsuitable that His name should be 
called Jesus.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Is. 62:2): "Thou shalt be called by a new 
name, which the mouth of the Lord hath named [Vulg.: 'shall name']." But 
the name Jesus is not a new name, but was given to several in the Old 
Testament: as may be seen in the genealogy of Christ (Lk. 3:29), 
"Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for His name to be called 
Jesus."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the name Jesus signifies "salvation"; as is clear from 
Mt. 1:21: "She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name 
Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins." But salvation 
through Christ was accomplished not only in the circumcision, but also in 
uncircumcision, as is declared by the Apostle (Rm. 4:11,12). Therefore 
this name was not suitably given to Christ at His circumcision.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, in which it is written 
(Lk. 2:21): "After eight days were accomplished, that the child should be 
circumcised, His name was called Jesus."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, A name should answer to the nature of a thing. This is 
clear in the names of genera and species, as stated Metaph.  iv: "Since a 
name is but an expression of the definition" which designates a thing's 
proper nature.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] Body Para. 2/3

 Now, the names of individual men are always taken from some property of 
the men to whom they are given. Either in regard to time; thus men are 
named after the Saints on whose feasts they are born: or in respect of 
some blood relation; thus a son is named after his father or some other 
relation; and thus the kinsfolk of John the Baptist wished to call him 
"by his father's name Zachary," not by the name John, because "there" was 
"none of" his "kindred that" was "called by this name," as related Lk. 
1:59-61. Or, again, from some occurrence; thus Joseph "called the name 
of" the "first-born Manasses, saying: God hath made me to forget all my 
labors" (Gn. 41:51). Or, again, from some quality of the person who 
receives the name; thus it is written (Gn. 25:25) that "he that came 
forth first was red and hairy like a skin; and his name was called Esau," 
which is interpreted "red."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] Body Para. 3/3

 But names given to men by God always signify some gratuitous gift 
bestowed on them by Him; thus it was said to Abraham (Gn. 17:5): "Thou 
shalt be called Abraham; because I have made thee a father of many 
nations": and it was said to Peter (Mt. 16:18): "Thou art Peter, and upon 
this rock I will build My Church." Since, therefore, this prerogative of 
grace was bestowed on the Man Christ that through Him all men might be 
saved, therefore He was becomingly named Jesus, i.e. Saviour: the angel 
having foretold this name not only to His Mother, but also to Joseph, who 
was to be his foster-father.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/4

 Reply OBJ 1: All these names in some way mean the same as Jesus, which 
means "salvation." For the name "Emmanuel, which being interpreted is 
'God with us,'" designates the cause of salvation, which is the union of 
the Divine and human natures in the Person of the Son of God, the result 
of which union was that "God is with us."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 2/4

 When it was said, "Call his name, Hasten to take away," etc., these 
words indicate from what He saved us, viz. from the devil, whose spoils 
He took away, according to Col. 2:15: "Despoiling the principalities and 
powers, He hath exposed them confidently."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 3/4

 When it was said, "His name shall be called Wonderful," etc., the way 
and term of our salvation are pointed out: inasmuch as "by the wonderful 
counsel and might of the Godhead we are brought to the inheritance of the 
life to come," in which the children of God will enjoy "perfect peace" 
under "God their Prince."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 4/4

 When it was said, "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name," reference is 
made to the same, as in the first, viz. to the mystery of the 
Incarnation, by reason of which "to the righteous a light is risen up in 
darkness" (Ps. 111:4).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: The name Jesus could be suitable for some other reason to 
those who lived before Christ---for instance, because  they were saviours 
in a particular and temporal sense. But in the sense of spiritual and 
universal salvation, this name is proper to Christ, and thus it is called 
a "new" name.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As is related Gn. 17, Abraham received from God and at the 
same time both his name and the commandment of circumcision. For this 
reason it was customary among the Jews to name children on the very day 
of circumcision, as though before being circumcised they had not as yet 
perfect existence: just as now also children receive their names in 
Baptism. Wherefore on Prov. 4:3, "I was my father's son, tender, and as 
an only son in the sight of my mother," the gloss says: "Why does Solomon 
call himself an only son in the sight of his mother, when Scripture 
testifies that he had an elder brother of the same mother, unless it be 
that the latter died unnamed soon after birth?" Therefore it was that 
Christ received His name at the time of His circumcision.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ was becomingly presented in the temple?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ was unbecomingly presented in the 
Temple. For it is written (Ex. 13:2): "Sanctify unto Me every first-born 
that openeth the womb among the children of Israel." But Christ came 
forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; and thus He did not open His 
Mother's womb. Therefore Christ was not bound by this law to be presented 
in the Temple.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, that which is always in one's presence cannot be 
presented to one. But Christ's humanity was always in God's presence in 
the highest degree, as being always united to Him in unity of person. 
Therefore there was no need for Him to be presented to the Lord.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, Christ is the principal victim, to whom all the victims 
of the old Law are referred, as the figure to the reality. But a victim 
should not be offered up for a victim. Therefore it was not fitting that 
another victim should be offered up for Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, among the legal victims the principal was the lamb, 
which was a "continual sacrifice" [Vulg.: 'holocaust'], as is stated Num. 
28:6: for which reason Christ is also called "the Lamb---Behold the Lamb 
of God" (Jn. 1: 29). It was therefore more fitting that a lamb should be 
offered for Christ than "a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary is the authority of Scripture which relates this as 
having taken place (Lk. 2:22).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), Christ wished to be "made under 
the Law, that He might redeem them who were under the Law" (Gal. 4:4,5), 
and that the "justification of the Law might be" spiritually "fulfilled" 
in His members. Now, the Law contained a twofold precept touching the 
children born. one was a general  precept which affected all---namely, 
that "when the days of the mother's purification were expired," a 
sacrifice was to be offered either "for a son or for a daughter," as laid 
down Lev. 12:6. And this sacrifice was for the expiation of the sin in 
which the child was conceived and born; and also for a certain 
consecration of the child, because it was then presented in the Temple 
for the first time. Wherefore one offering was made as a holocaust and 
another for sin.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] Body Para. 2/3

 The other was a special precept in the law concerning the first-born of 
"both man and beast": for the Lord claimed for Himself all the first-born 
in Israel, because, in order to deliver the Israelites, He "slew every 
first-born in the land of Egypt, both men and cattle" (Ex. 12:12,13,29), 
the first-born of Israel being saved; which law is set down Ex. 13. Here 
also was Christ foreshadowed, who is "the First-born amongst many 
brethren" (Rm. 8:29).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] Body Para. 3/3

 Therefore, since Christ was born of a woman and was her first-born, and 
since He wished to be "made under the Law," the Evangelist Luke shows 
that both these precepts were fulfilled in His regard. First, as to that 
which concerns the first-born, when he says (Lk. 2:22,23): "They carried 
Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord: as it is written in the law 
of the Lord, 'Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the 
Lord.'" Secondly, as to the general precept which concerned all, when he 
says (Lk. 2:24): "And to offer a sacrifice according as it is written in 
the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As Gregory of Nyssa says (De Occursu Dom.): "It seems that 
this precept of the Law was fulfilled in God incarnate alone in a special 
manner exclusively proper to Him. For He alone, whose conception was 
ineffable, and whose birth was incomprehensible, opened the virginal womb 
which had been closed to sexual union, in such a way that after birth the 
seal of chastity remained inviolate." Consequently the words "opening the 
womb" imply that nothing hitherto had entered or gone forth therefrom. 
Again, for a special reason is it written "'a male,' because He 
contracted nothing of the woman's sin": and in a singular way "is He 
called 'holy,' because He felt no contagion of earthly corruption, whose 
birth was wondrously immaculate" (Ambrose, on Lk. 2:23).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: As the Son of God "became man, and was circumcised in the 
flesh, not for His own sake, but that He might make us to be God's 
through grace, and that we might be circumcised in the spirit; so, again, 
for our sake He was presented to the Lord, that we may learn to offer 
ourselves to God" [*Athanasius, on Lk. 2:23]. And this was done after His 
circumcision, in order to show that "no one who is not circumcised from 
vice is worthy of Divine regard" [*Bede, on Lk. 2:23].

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: For this very reason He wished the legal victims to be 
offered for Him who was the true Victim, in order that the  figure might 
be united to and confirmed by the reality, against those who denied that 
in the Gospel Christ preached the God of the Law. "For we must not 
think," says Origen (Hom. xiv in Luc.) "that the good God subjected His 
Son to the enemy's law, which He Himself had not given."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: The law of Lev. 12:6,[8] "commanded those who could, to 
offer, for a son or a daughter, a lamb and also a turtle dove or a 
pigeon: but those who were unable to offer a lamb were commanded to offer 
two turtle doves or two young pigeons" [*Bede, Hom. xv in Purif.]. "And 
so the Lord, who, 'being rich, became poor for our [Vulg.: 'your'] sakes, 
that through His poverty we [you] might be rich," as is written 2 Cor. 
8:9, "wished the poor man's victim to be offered for Him" just as in His 
birth He was "wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger" [*Bede 
on Lk. 1]. Nevertheless, these birds have a figurative sense. For the 
turtle dove, being a loquacious bird, represents the preaching and 
confession of faith; and because it is a chaste animal, it signifies 
chastity; and being a solitary animal, it signifies contemplation. The 
pigeon is a gentle and simple animal, and therefore signifies gentleness 
and simplicity. It is also a gregarious animal; wherefore it signifies 
the active life. Consequently this sacrifice signified the perfection of 
Christ and His members. Again, "both these animals, by the plaintiveness 
of their song, represented the mourning of the saints in this life: but 
the turtle dove, being solitary, signifies the tears of prayer; whereas 
the pigeon, being gregarious, signifies the public prayers of the Church" 
[*Bede, Hom. xv in Purif.]. Lastly, two of each of these animals are 
offered, to show that holiness should be not only in the soul, but also 
in the body.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it was fitting that the Mother of God should go to the temple to 
be purified?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that it was unfitting for the Mother of God to go 
to the Temple to be purified. For purification presupposes uncleanness. 
But there was no uncleanness in the Blessed Virgin, as stated above 
(QQ[27],28). Therefore she should not have gone to the Temple to be 
purified.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Lev. 12:2-4): "If a woman, having 
received seed, shall bear a man-child, she shall be unclean seven days"; 
and consequently she is forbidden "to enter into the sanctuary until the 
days of her purification be fulfilled." But the Blessed Virgin brought 
forth a male child without receiving the seed of man. Therefore she had 
no need to come to the Temple to be purified.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, purification from uncleanness is accomplished by grace 
alone. But the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace; rather, 
indeed, did she have the very Author of grace with her. Therefore it was 
not fitting that the Blessed Virgin should come to the Temple to be 
purified. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, where it is stated (Lk. 
2:22) that "the days of" Mary's "purification were accomplished according 
to the law of Moses."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As the fulness of grace flowed from Christ on to His 
Mother, so it was becoming that the mother should be like her Son in 
humility: for "God giveth grace to the humble," as is written James 4:6. 
And therefore, just as Christ, though not subject to the Law, wished, 
nevertheless, to submit to circumcision and the other burdens of the Law, 
in order to give an example of humility and obedience; and in order to 
show His approval of the Law; and, again, in order to take away from the 
Jews an excuse for calumniating Him: for the same reasons He wished His 
Mother also to fulfil the prescriptions of the Law, to which, 
nevertheless, she was not subject.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Although the Blessed Virgin had no uncleanness, yet she 
wished to fulfil the observance of purification, not because she needed 
it, but on account of the precept of the Law. Thus the Evangelist says 
pointedly that the days of her purification "according to the Law" were 
accomplished; for she needed no purification in herself.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Moses seems to have chosen his words in order to exclude 
uncleanness from the Mother of God, who was with child "without receiving 
seed." It is therefore clear that she was not bound to fulfil that 
precept, but fulfilled the observance of purification of her own accord, 
as stated above.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[37] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: The sacraments of the Law did not cleanse from the 
uncleanness of sin which is accomplished by grace, but they foreshadowed 
this purification: for they cleansed by a kind of carnal purification, 
from the uncleanness of a certain irregularity, as stated in the FS, 
Q[102], A[5]; FS, Q[103], A[2]. But the Blessed Virgin contracted neither 
uncleanness, and consequently did not need to be purified.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] Out. Para. 1/1

OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN (SIX ARTICLES)

 We now proceed to consider the baptism wherewith Christ was baptized. 
And since Christ was baptized with the baptism of John, we shall consider 
(1) the baptism of John in general; (2) the baptizing of Christ. In 
regard to the former there are six points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether it was fitting that John should baptize?

 (2) Whether that baptism was from God?

 (3) Whether it conferred grace?

 (4) Whether others besides Christ should have received that baptism?

 (5) Whether that baptism should have ceased when Christ was baptized?

 (6) Whether those who received John's baptism had afterwards to receive 
Christ's baptism? 

™Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it was fitting that John should baptize?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that John should baptize. 
For every sacramental rite belongs to some law. But John did not 
introduce a new law. Therefore it was not fitting that he should 
introduce the new rite of baptism.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, John "was sent by God . . . for a witness" (Jn. 1:6,7) 
as a prophet; according to Lk. 1:76: "Thou, child, shalt be called the 
prophet of the Highest." But the prophets who lived before Christ did not 
introduce any new rite, but persuaded men to observe the rites of the 
Law. as is clearly stated Malachi 4:4: "Remember the law of Moses My 
servant." Therefore neither should John have introduced a new rite of 
baptism.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, when there is too much of anything, nothing should be 
added to it. But the Jews observed a superfluity of baptisms; for it is 
written (Mk. 7:3,4) that "the Pharisees and all the Jews eat not without 
often washing their hands . . . and when they come from the market, 
unless they be washed, they eat not; and many other things there are that 
have been delivered to them to observe, the washings of cups and of pots, 
and of brazen vessels, and of beds." Therefore it was unfitting that John 
should baptize.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary is the authority of Scripture (Mt. 3:5,6), which, after 
stating the holiness of John, adds many went out to him, "and were 
baptized in the Jordan."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] Body Para. 1/4

 I answer that, It was fitting for John to baptize, for four reasons: 
first, it was necessary for Christ to be baptized by John, in order that 
He might sanctify baptism; as Augustine observes, super Joan. (Tract. 
xiii in Joan.).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] Body Para. 2/4

 Secondly, that Christ might be manifested. Whence John himself says (Jn. 
1:31): "That He," i.e. Christ, "may be made manifest in Israel, therefore 
am I come baptizing with water." For he announced Christ to the crowds 
that gathered around him; which was thus done much more easily than if he 
had gone in search of each individual, as Chrysostom observes, commenting 
on St. John (Hom. x in Matth.).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] Body Para. 3/4

 Thirdly, that by his baptism he might accustom men to the baptism of 
Christ; wherefore Gregory says in a homily (Hom. vii in Evang.) that 
therefore did John baptize, "that, being consistent with his office of 
precursor, as he had preceded our Lord in birth, so he might also by 
baptizing precede Him who was about to baptize."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] Body Para. 4/4

 Fourthly, that by persuading men to do penance, he might prepare men to 
receive worthily the baptism of Christ. Wherefore Bede [*Cf. Scot. Erig. 
in Joan. iii, 24] says that "the baptism of John was as profitable before 
the baptism of Christ, as instruction in the faith profits the 
catechumens not yet baptized. For just as he preached penance, and 
foretold the baptism of Christ, and drew  men to the knowledge of the 
Truth that hath appeared to the world, so do the ministers of the Church, 
after instructing men, chide them for their sins, and lastly promise them 
forgiveness in the baptism of Christ."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: The baptism of John was not a sacrament properly so called 
[per se], but a kind of sacramental, preparatory to the baptism of 
Christ. Consequently, in a way, it belonged to the law of Christ, but not 
to the law of Moses.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: John was not only a prophet, but "more than a prophet," as 
stated Mt. 11:9: for he was the term of the Law and the beginning of the 
Gospel. Therefore it was in his province to lead men, both by word and 
deed, to the law of Christ rather than to the observance of the Old Law.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Those baptisms of the Pharisees were vain, being ordered 
merely unto carnal cleanliness. But the baptism of John was ordered unto 
spiritual cleanliness, since it led men to do penance, as stated above.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the baptism of John was from God?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that the baptism of John was not from God. For 
nothing sacramental that is from God is named after a mere man: thus the 
baptism of the New Law is not named after Peter or Paul, but after 
Christ. But that baptism is named after John, according to Mt. 21:25: 
"The baptism of John . . . was it from heaven or from men?" Therefore the 
baptism of John was not from God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, every doctrine that proceeds from God anew is confirmed 
by some signs: thus the Lord (Ex. 4) gave Moses the power of working 
signs; and it is written (Heb. 2:3,4) that our faith "having begun to be 
declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him, God 
also bearing them witness by signs and wonders." But it is written of 
John the Baptist (Jn. 10:41) that "John did no sign." Therefore it seems 
that the baptism wherewith he baptized was not from God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, those sacraments which are instituted by God are 
contained in certain precepts of Holy Scripture. But there is no precept 
of Holy Writ commanding the baptism of John. Therefore it seems that it 
was not from God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 1:33): "He who sent me to baptize 
with water said to me: 'He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit,'" etc.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, Two things may be considered in the baptism of 
John---namely, the rite of baptism and the effect of baptism. The rite of 
baptism was not from men, but from God, who by an interior revelation of 
the Holy Ghost sent John to baptize. But the effect  of that baptism was 
from man, because it effected nothing that man could not accomplish. 
Wherefore it was not from God alone, except in as far as God works in man.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: By the baptism of the New Law men are baptized inwardly by 
the Holy Ghost, and this is accomplished by God alone. But by the baptism 
of John the body alone was cleansed by the water. Wherefore it is written 
(Mt. 3:11): "I baptize you in water; but . . . He shall baptize you in 
the Holy Ghost." For this reason the baptism of John was named after him, 
because it effected nothing that he did not accomplish. But the baptism 
of the New Law is not named after the minister thereof, because he does 
not accomplish its principal effect, which is the inward cleansing.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: The whole teaching and work of John was ordered unto 
Christ, who, by many miracles confirmed both His own teaching and that of 
John. But if John had worked signs, men would have paid equal attention 
to John and to Christ. Wherefore, in order that men might pay greater 
attention to Christ, it was not given to John to work a sign. Yet when 
the Jews asked him why he baptized, he confirmed his office by the 
authority of Scripture, saying: "I am the voice of one crying in the 
wilderness," etc. as related, Jn. 1:23 (cf. Is. 40:3). Moreover, the very 
austerity of his life was a commendation of his office, because, as 
Chrysostom says, commenting on Matthew (Hom. x in Matth.), "it was 
wonderful to witness such endurance in a human body."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: The baptism of John was intended by God to last only for a 
short time, for the reasons given above (A[1]). Therefore it was not the 
subject of a general commandment set down in Sacred Writ, but of a 
certain interior revelation of the Holy Ghost, as stated above.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether grace was given in the baptism of John?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that grace was given in the baptism of John. For it 
is written (Mk. 1:4): "John was in the desert baptizing and preaching the 
baptism of penance unto remission of sins." But penance and remission of 
sins are the effect of grace. Therefore the baptism of John conferred 
grace.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, those who were about to be baptized by John "confessed 
their sins," as related Mt. 3:6 and Mk. 1:5. But the confession of sins 
is ordered to their remission, which is effected by grace. Therefore 
grace was conferred in the baptism of John.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the baptism of John was more akin than circumcision to 
the baptism of Christ. But original sin was remitted through 
circumcision: because, as Bede says (Hom. x in Circumcis.), "under the 
Law, circumcision brought the same saving aid to heal the wound of 
original sin as baptism is wont to bring now that grace is revealed." 
Much more, therefore, did the baptism of John effect the remission of 
sins, which cannot be accomplished  without grace.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 3:11): "I indeed baptize you in 
water unto penance." Which words Gregory thus expounds in a certain 
homily (Hom. vii in Evang.): "John baptized, not in the Spirit, but in 
water: because he could not forgive sins." But grace is given by the Holy 
Ghost, and by means thereof sins are taken away. Therefore the baptism of 
John did not confer grace.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (A[2], ad 2), the whole teaching and work 
of John was in preparation for Christ: just as it is the duty of the 
servant and of the under-craftsman to prepare the matter for the form 
which is accomplished by the head-craftsman. Now grace was to be 
conferred on men through Christ, according to Jn. 1:17: "Grace and truth 
came through Jesus Christ." Therefore the baptism of John did not confer 
grace, but only prepared the way for grace; and this in three ways: 
first, by John's teaching, which led men to faith in Christ; secondly, by 
accustoming men to the rite of Christ's baptism; thirdly, by penance, 
preparing men to receive the effect of Christ's baptism.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/3

 Reply OBJ 1: In these words, as Bede says (on Mk. 1:4), a twofold 
baptism of penance may be understood. one is that which John conferred by 
baptizing, which is called "a baptism of penance," etc., by reason of its 
inducing men to do penance, and of its being a kind of protestation by 
which men avowed their purpose of doing penance. The other is the baptism 
of Christ, by which sins are remitted, and which John could not give, but 
only preach, saying: "He will baptize you in the Holy Ghost."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 2/3

 Or it may be said that he preached the "baptism of penance," i.e. which 
induced men to do penance, which penance leads men on to "the remission 
of sins."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 3/3

 Or again, it may be said with Jerome [*Another author on Mk. 1 (inter 
op. Hier.)] that "by the baptism of Christ grace is given, by which sins 
are remitted gratis; and that what is accomplished by the bridegroom is 
begun by the bridesman," i.e. by John. Consequently it is said that "he 
baptized and preached the baptism of penance unto remission of sins," not 
as though he accomplished this himself, but because he began it by 
preparing the way for it.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: That confession of sins was not made unto the remission of 
sins, to be realized immediately through the baptism of John, but to be 
obtained through subsequent penance and through the baptism of Christ, 
for which that penance was a preparation.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Circumcision was instituted as a remedy for original sin. 
Whereas the baptism of John was not instituted for this purpose, but was 
merely in preparation for the baptism of Christ, as stated above; whereas 
the sacraments attain their effect through the force of their institution.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1 

Whether Christ alone should have been baptized with the baptism of John?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ alone should have been baptized with 
the baptism of John. For, as stated above (A[1]), "the reason why John 
baptized was that Christ might receive baptism," as Augustine says (Super 
Joan., Tract. xiii). But what is proper to Christ should not be 
applicable to others. Therefore no others should have received that 
baptism.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, whoever is baptized either receives something from the 
baptism or confers something on the baptism. But no one could receive 
anything from the baptism of John, because thereby grace was not 
conferred, as stated above (A[3]). On the other hand, no one could confer 
anything on baptism save Christ, who "sanctified the waters by the touch 
of His most pure flesh" [*Mag. Sent. iv, 3]. Therefore it seems that 
Christ alone should have been baptized with the baptism of John.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, if others were baptized with that baptism, this was only 
in order that they might be prepared for the baptism of Christ: and thus 
it would seem fitting that the baptism of John should be conferred on 
all, old and young, Gentile and Jew, just as the baptism of Christ. But 
we do not read that either children or Gentiles were baptized by the 
latter; for it is written (Mk. 1:5) that "there went out to him . . . all 
they of Jerusalem, and were baptized by him." Therefore it seems that 
Christ alone should have been baptized by John.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 3:21): "It came to pass, when all 
the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and praying, 
heaven was opened."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, For two reasons it behooved others besides Christ to be 
baptized with the baptism of John. First, as Augustine says (Super Joan., 
Tract. iv, v), "if Christ alone had been baptized with the baptism of 
John, some would have said that John's baptism, with which Christ was 
baptized, was more excellent than that of Christ, with which others are 
baptized."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] Body Para. 2/2

 Secondly, because, as above stated, it behooved others to be prepared by 
John's baptism for the baptism of Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: The baptism of John was instituted not only that Christ 
might be baptized, but also for other reasons, as stated above (A[1]). 
And yet, even if it were instituted merely in order that Christ might be 
baptized therewith, it was still necessary for others to receive this 
baptism, in order to avoid the objection mentioned above.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Others who approached to be baptized by John could not, 
indeed, confer anything on his baptism: yet neither did they receive 
anything therefrom, save only the sign of penance.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1 

 Reply OBJ 3: This was the baptism of "penance," for which children were 
not suited; wherefore they were not baptized therewith. But to bring the 
nations into the way of salvation was reserved to Christ alone, who is 
the "expectation of the nations," as we read Gn. 49:10. Indeed, Christ 
forbade the apostles to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles before His 
Passion and Resurrection. Much less fitting, therefore, was it for the 
Gentiles to be baptized by John.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether John's baptism should have ceased after Christ was baptized?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that John's baptism should have ceased after Christ 
was baptized. For it is written (Jn. 1:31): "That He may be made manifest 
in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing in water." But when Christ had 
been baptized, He was made sufficiently manifest, both by the testimony 
of John and by the dove coming down upon Him, and again by the voice of 
the Father bearing witness to Him. Therefore it seems that John's baptism 
should not have endured thereafter.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. iv): "Christ was 
baptized, and John's baptism ceased to avail." Therefore it seems that, 
after Christ's baptism, John should not have continued to baptize.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, John's baptism prepared the way for Christ's. But 
Christ's baptism began as soon as He had been baptized; because "by the 
touch of His most pure flesh He endowed the waters with a regenerating 
virtue," as Bede asserts (Mag. Sent. iv, 3). Therefore it seems that 
John's baptism ceased when Christ had been baptized.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 3:22,23): "Jesus . . . came into the 
land of Judea . . . and baptized: and John also was baptizing." But 
Christ did not baptize before being baptized. Therefore it seems that 
John continued to baptize after Christ had been baptized.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, It was not fitting for the baptism of John to cease when 
Christ had been baptized. First, because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxix 
in Joan.), "if John had ceased to baptize" when Christ had been baptized, 
"men would think that he was moved by jealousy or anger." Secondly, if he 
had ceased to baptize when Christ baptized, "he would have given His 
disciples a motive for yet greater envy." Thirdly, because, by continuing 
to baptize, "he sent his hearers to Christ" (Hom. xxix in Joan.). 
Fourthly, because, as Bede [*Scot. Erig. Comment. in Joan.] says, "there 
still remained a shadow of the Old Law: nor should the forerunner 
withdraw until the truth be made manifest."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: When Christ was baptized, He was not as yet fully 
manifested: consequently there was still need for John to continue 
baptizing. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: The baptism of John ceased after Christ had been baptized, 
not immediately, but when the former was cast into prison. Thus 
Chrysostom says (Hom. xxix in Joan.): "I consider that John's death was 
allowed to take place, and that Christ's preaching began in a great 
measure after John had died, so that the undivided allegiance of the 
multitude was transferred to Christ, and there was no further motive for 
the divergence of opinions concerning both of them."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: John's baptism prepared the way not only for Christ to be 
baptized, but also for others to approach to Christ's baptism: and this 
did not take place as soon as Christ was baptized.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether those who had been baptized with John's baptism had to be 
baptized with the baptism of Christ?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that those who had been baptized with John's 
baptism had not to be baptized with the baptism of Christ. For John was 
not less than the apostles, since of him is it written (Mt. 11:11): 
"There hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than 
John the Baptist." But those who were baptized by the apostles were not 
baptized again, but only received the imposition of hands; for it is 
written (Acts 8:16,17) that some were "only baptized" by Philip "in the 
name of the Lord Jesus": then the apostles---namely, Peter and 
John---"laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost." 
Therefore it seems that those who had been baptized by John had not to be 
baptized with the baptism of Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the apostles were baptized with John's baptism, since 
some of them were his disciples, as is clear from Jn. 1:37. But the 
apostles do not seem to have been baptized with the baptism of Christ: 
for it is written (Jn. 4:2) that "Jesus did not baptize, but His 
disciples." Therefore it seems that those who had been baptized with 
John's baptism had not to be baptized with the baptism of Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, he who is baptized is less than he who baptizes. But we 
are not told that John himself was baptized with the baptism of Christ. 
Therefore much less did those who had been baptized by John need to 
receive the baptism of Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, it is written (Acts 19:1-5) that "Paul . . . found 
certain disciples; and he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost 
since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard 
whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you 
baptized? Who said: In John's baptism." Wherefore "they were" again 
"baptized in the name of our [Vulg.: 'the'] Lord Jesus Christ." Hence it 
seems that they needed to be baptized again, because they did not know of 
the Holy Ghost: as Jerome says on Joel 2:28 and in an epistle (lxix De 
Viro unius uxoris), and  likewise Ambrose (De Spiritu Sancto). But some 
were baptized with John's baptism who had full knowledge of the Trinity. 
Therefore these had no need to be baptized again with Christ's baptism.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 5: Further, on Rm. 10:8, "This is the word of faith, which we 
preach," the gloss of Augustine says: "Whence this virtue in the water, 
that it touches the body and cleanses the heart, save by the efficacy of 
the word, not because it is uttered, but because it is believed?" Whence 
it is clear that the virtue of baptism depends on faith. But the form of 
John's baptism signified the faith in which we are baptized; for Paul 
says (Acts 19:4): "John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, 
saying: That they should believe in Him who was to come after him---that 
is to say, in Jesus." Therefore it seems that those who had been baptized 
with John's baptism had no need to be baptized again with the baptism of 
Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. v): "Those who were 
baptized with John's baptism needed to be baptized with the baptism of 
our Lord."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, According to the opinion of the Master (Sent. iv, D, 2), 
"those who had been baptized by John without knowing of the existence of 
the Holy Ghost, and who based their hopes on his baptism, were afterwards 
baptized with the baptism of Christ: but those who did not base their 
hope on John's baptism, and who believed in the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost, were not baptized afterwards, but received the Holy Ghost by the 
imposition of hands made over them by the apostles."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] Body Para. 2/2

 And this, indeed, is true as to the first part, and is confirmed by many 
authorities. But as to the second part, the assertion is altogether 
unreasonable. First, because John's baptism neither conferred grace nor 
imprinted a character, but was merely "in water," as he says himself (Mt. 
3:11). Wherefore the faith or hope which the person baptized had in 
Christ could not supply this defect. Secondly, because, when in a 
sacrament, that is omitted which belongs of necessity to the sacrament, 
not only must the omission be supplied, but the whole must be entirely 
renewed. Now, it belongs of necessity to Christ's baptism that it be 
given not only in water, but also in the Holy Ghost, according to Jn. 
3:5: "Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter 
into the kingdom of God." Wherefore in the case of those who had been 
baptized with John's baptism in water only, not merely had the omission 
to be supplied by giving them the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands, 
but they had to be baptized wholly anew "in water and the Holy Ghost."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. v): "After John, 
baptism was administered, and the reason why was because he gave not 
Christ's baptism, but his own . . . That which Peter gave . . . and if 
any were given by Judas, that was Christ's. And therefore if Judas 
baptized anyone, yet were they not rebaptized . . . For the baptism 
corresponds with him by whose authority it is  given, not with him by 
whose ministry it is given." For the same reason those who were baptized 
by the deacon Philip, who gave the baptism of Christ, were not baptized 
again, but received the imposition of hands by the apostles, just as 
those who are baptized by priests are confirmed by bishops.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says to Seleucianus (Ep. cclxv), "we deem that 
Christ's disciples were baptized either with John's baptism, as some 
maintain, or with Christ's baptism, which is more probable. For He would 
not fail to administer baptism so as to have baptized servants through 
whom He baptized others, since He did not fail in His humble service to 
wash their feet."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth. [*From the 
supposititious Opus Imperfectum]): "Since, when John said, 'I ought to be 
baptized by Thee,' Christ answered, 'Suffer it to be so now': it follows 
that afterwards Christ did baptize John." Moreover, he asserts that "this 
is distinctly set down in some of the apocryphal books." At any rate, it 
is certain, as Jerome says on Mt. 3:13, that, "as Christ was baptized in 
water by John, so had John to be baptized in the Spirit by Christ."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: The reason why these persons were baptized after being 
baptized by John was not only because they knew not of the Holy Ghost, 
but also because they had not received the baptism of Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[38] A[6] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 5: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), our sacraments are 
signs of present grace, whereas the sacraments of the Old Law were signs 
of future grace. Wherefore the very fact that John baptized in the name 
of one who was to come, shows that he did not give the baptism of Christ, 
which is a sacrament of the New Law.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] Out. Para. 1/1

OF THE BAPTIZING OF CHRIST (EIGHT ARTICLES)

 We have now to consider the baptizing of Christ, concerning which there 
are eight points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether Christ should have been baptized?

 (2) Whether He should have been baptized with the baptism of John?

 (3) Of the time when He was baptized;

 (4) Of the place;

 (5) Of the heavens being opened unto Him;

 (6) Of the apparition of the Holy Ghost under the form of a dove;

 (7) Whether that dove was a real animal?

 (8) Of the voice of the Father witnessing unto Him.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it was fitting that Christ should be baptized?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to be baptized. 
For to be baptized is to be washed. But it was not  fitting for Christ to 
be washed, since there was no uncleanness in Him. Therefore it seems 
unfitting for Christ to be baptized.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Christ was circumcised in order to fulfil the law. But 
baptism was not prescribed by the law. Therefore He should not have been 
baptized.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the first mover in every genus is unmoved in regard to 
that movement; thus the heaven, which is the first cause of alteration, 
is unalterable. But Christ is the first principle of baptism, according 
to Jn. 1:33: "He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and 
remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth." Therefore it was unfitting 
for Christ to be baptized.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 3:13) that "Jesus cometh from 
Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to be baptized. First, because, 
as Ambrose says on Lk. 3:21: "Our Lord was baptized because He wished, 
not to be cleansed, but to cleanse the waters, that, being purified by 
the flesh of Christ that knew no sin, they might have the virtue of 
baptism"; and, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.), "that He might 
bequeath the sanctified waters to those who were to be baptized 
afterwards." Secondly, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.), "although 
Christ was not a sinner, yet did He take a sinful nature and 'the 
likeness of sinful flesh.' Wherefore, though He needed not baptism for 
His own sake, yet carnal nature in others had need thereof." And, as 
Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix) "Christ was baptized that He might 
plunge the old Adam entirely in the water." Thirdly, He wished to be 
baptized, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxvi), 
"because He wished to do what He had commanded all to do." And this is 
what He means by saying: "So it becometh us to fulfil all justice" (Mt. 
3:15). For, as Ambrose says (on Lk. 3:21), "this is justice, to do first 
thyself that which thou wishest another to do, and so encourage others by 
thy example."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Christ was baptized, not that He might be cleansed, but 
that He might cleanse, as stated above.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: It was fitting that Christ should not only fulfil what was 
prescribed by the Old Law, but also begin what appertained to the New 
Law. Therefore He wished not only to be circumcised, but also to be 
baptized.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Christ is the first principle of baptism's spiritual 
effect. Unto this He was not baptized, but only in water.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it was fitting for Christ to be baptized with John's baptism?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that it was unfitting for Christ to be baptized 
with John's baptism. For John's baptism was the "baptism  of penance." 
But penance is unbecoming to Christ, since He had no sin. Therefore it 
seems that He should not have been baptized with John's baptism.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, John's baptism, as Chrysostom says (Hom. de Bapt. 
Christi), "was a mean between the baptism of the Jews and that of 
Christ." But "the mean savors of the nature of the extremes" (Aristotle, 
De Partib. Animal.). Since, therefore, Christ was not baptized with the 
Jewish baptism, nor yet with His own, on the same grounds He should not 
have been baptized with the baptism of John.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, whatever is best in human things should be ascribed to 
Christ. But John's baptism does not hold the first place among baptisms. 
Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to be baptized with John's 
baptism.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 3:13) that "Jesus cometh to the 
Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. xiii): "After 
being baptized, the Lord baptized, not with that baptism wherewith He was 
baptized." Wherefore, since He Himself baptized with His own baptism, it 
follows that He was not baptized with His own, but with John's baptism. 
And this was befitting: first, because John's baptism was peculiar in 
this, that he baptized, not in the Spirit, but only "in water"; while 
Christ did not need spiritual baptism, since He was filled with the grace 
of the Holy Ghost from the beginning of His conception, as we have made 
clear above (Q[34], A[1]). And this is the reason given by Chrysostom 
(Hom. de Bapt. Christi). Secondly, as Bede says on Mk. 1:9, He was 
baptized with the baptism of John, that, "by being thus baptized, He 
might show His approval of John's baptism." Thirdly, as Gregory Nazianzen 
says (Orat. xxxix), "by going to John to be baptized by him, He 
sanctified baptism."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As stated above (A[1]), Christ wished to be baptized in 
order by His example to lead us to baptism. And so, in order that He 
might lead us thereto more efficaciously, He wished to be baptized with a 
baptism which He clearly needed not, that men who needed it might 
approach unto it. Wherefore Ambrose says on Lk. 3:21: "Let none decline 
the laver of grace, since Christ did not refuse the laver of penance."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: The Jewish baptism prescribed by the law was merely 
figurative, whereas John's baptism, in a measure, was real, inasmuch as 
it induced men to refrain from sin; but Christ's baptism is efficacious 
unto the remission of sin and the conferring of grace. Now Christ needed 
neither the remission of sin, which was not in Him, nor the bestowal of 
grace, with which He was filled. Moreover, since He is "the Truth," it 
was not fitting that He should receive that which was no more than a 
figure. Consequently it was more fitting that He should receive the 
intermediate baptism than one of the extremes. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Baptism is a spiritual remedy. Now, the more perfect a 
thing is, the less remedy does it need. Consequently, from the very fact 
that Christ is most perfect, it follows that it was fitting that He 
should not receive the most perfect baptism: just as one who is healthy 
does not need a strong medicine.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ was baptized at a fitting time?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ was baptized at an unfitting time. For 
Christ was baptized in order that He might lead others to baptism by His 
example. But it is commendable that the faithful of Christ should be 
baptized, not merely before their thirtieth year, but even in infancy. 
Therefore it seems that Christ should not have been baptized at the age 
of thirty.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, we do not read that Christ taught or worked miracles 
before being baptized. But it would have been more profitable to the 
world if He had taught for a longer time, beginning at the age of twenty, 
or even before. Therefore it seems that Christ, who came for man's 
profit, should have been baptized before His thirtieth year.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the sign of wisdom infused by God should have been 
especially manifest in Christ. But in the case of Daniel this was 
manifested at the time of his boyhood; according to Dan. 13:45: "The Lord 
raised up the holy spirit of a young boy, whose name was Daniel." Much 
more, therefore, should Christ have been baptized or have taught in His 
boyhood.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, John's baptism was ordered to that of Christ as to its 
end. But "the end is first in intention and last in execution." Therefore 
He should have been baptized by John either before all the others, or 
after them.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 3:21): "It came to pass, when all 
the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying;" 
and further on (Lk. 3:23): "And Jesus Himself was beginning about the age 
of thirty years."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, Christ was fittingly baptized in His thirtieth year. 
First, because Christ was baptized as though for the reason that He was 
about forthwith to begin to teach and preach: for which purpose perfect 
age is required, such as is the age of thirty. Thus we read (Gn. 41:46) 
that "Joseph was thirty" years old when he undertook the government of 
Egypt. In like manner we read (2 Kgs. 5:4) that "David was thirty years 
old when he began to reign." Again, Ezechiel began to prophesy in "his 
thirtieth year," as we read Ezech. 1:1.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] Body Para. 2/3

 Secondly, because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. x in Matth.), "the law was 
about to pass away after Christ's baptism: wherefore Christ came to be 
baptized at this age which admits of all sins; in order  that by His 
observing the law, no one might say that because He Himself could not 
fulfil it, He did away with it."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] Body Para. 3/3

 Thirdly, because by Christ's being baptized at the perfect age, we are 
given to understand that baptism brings forth perfect men, according to 
Eph. 4:13: "Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the 
knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the 
age of the fulness of Christ." Hence the very property of the number 
seems to point to this. For thirty is product of three and ten: and by 
the number three is implied faith in the Trinity, while ten signifies the 
fulfilment of the commandments of the Law: in which two things the 
perfection of Christian life consists.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xl), Christ was baptized, 
not "as though He needed to be cleansed, or as though some peril 
threatened Him if He delayed to be baptized. But no small danger besets 
any other man who departs from this life without being clothed with the 
garment of incorruptibility"---namely, grace. And though it be a good 
thing to remain clean after baptism, "yet is it still better," as he 
says, "to be slightly sullied now and then than to be altogether deprived 
of grace."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: The profit which accrues to men from Christ is chiefly 
through faith and humility: to both of which He conduced by beginning to 
teach not in His boyhood or youth, but at the perfect age. To faith, 
because in this manner His human nature is shown to be real, by its 
making bodily progress with the advance of time; and lest this progress 
should be deemed imaginary, He did not wish to show His wisdom and power 
before His body had reached the perfect age: to humility, lest anyone 
should presume to govern or teach others before attaining to perfect age.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Christ was set before men as an example to all. Wherefore 
it behooved that to be shown forth in Him, which is becoming to all 
according to the common law---namely, that He should teach after reaching 
the perfect age. But, as Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix), that which 
seldom occurs is not the law of the Church; as "neither does one swallow 
make the spring." For by special dispensation, in accordance with the 
ruling of Divine wisdom, it has been granted to some, contrary to the 
common law, to exercise the functions of governing or teaching. such as 
Solomon, Daniel, and Jeremias.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: It was not fitting that Christ should be baptized by John 
either before or after all others. Because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv 
in Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus Imperfectum]), for this was 
Christ baptized, "that He might confirm the preaching and the baptism of 
John, and that John might bear witness to Him." Now, men would not have 
had faith in John's testimony except after many had been baptized by him. 
Consequently it was not fitting that John should baptize Him before 
baptizing anyone else. In like manner, neither was it fitting that he 
should  baptize Him last. For as he (Chrysostom) says in the same 
passage: "As the light of the sun does not wait for the setting of the 
morning star, but comes forth while the latter is still above the 
horizon, and by its brilliance dims its shining: so Christ did not wait 
till John had run his course, but appeared while he was yet teaching and 
baptizing."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ should have been baptized in the Jordan?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been baptized in the 
Jordan. For the reality should correspond to the figure. But baptism was 
prefigured in the crossing of the Red Sea, where the Egyptians were 
drowned, just as our sins are blotted out in baptism. Therefore it seems 
that Christ should rather have been baptized in the sea than in the river 
Jordan.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, "Jordan" is interpreted a "going down." But by baptism a 
man goes up rather than down: wherefore it is written (Mt. 3:16) that 
"Jesus being baptized, forthwith came up [Douay: 'out'] from the water." 
Therefore it seems unfitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, while the children of Israel were crossing, the waters 
of the Jordan "were turned back," as it is related Jos. 4, and as it is 
written Ps. 113:3,5. But those who are baptized go forward, not back. 
Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Mk. 1:9) that "Jesus was baptized by 
John in the Jordan."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, It was through the river Jordan that the children of 
Israel entered into the land of promise. Now, this is the prerogative of 
Christ's baptism over all other baptisms: that it is the entrance to the 
kingdom of God, which is signified by the land of promise; wherefore it 
is said (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy 
Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." To this also is to be 
referred the dividing of the water of the Jordan by Elias, who was to be 
snatched up into heaven in a fiery chariot, as it is related 4 Kgs. 2: 
because, to wit, the approach to heaven is laid open by the fire of the 
Holy Ghost, to those who pass through the waters of baptism. Therefore it 
was fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: The crossing of the Red Sea foreshadowed baptism in 
this---that baptism washes away sin: whereas the crossing of the Jordan 
foreshadows it in this---that it opens the gate to the heavenly kingdom: 
and this is the principal effect of baptism, and accomplished through 
Christ alone. And therefore it was fitting that Christ should be baptized 
in the Jordan rather than in the sea.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: In baptism we "go up" by advancing in grace: for  which we 
need to "go down" by humility, according to James 4:6: "He giveth grace 
to the humble." And to this "going down" must the name of the Jordan be 
referred.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says in a sermon for the Epiphany (x): "As of 
yore the waters of the Jordan were held back, so now, when Christ was 
baptized, the torrent of sin was held back." Or else this may signify 
that against the downward flow of the waters the river of blessings 
flowed upwards.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the heavens should have been opened unto Christ at His baptism?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that the heavens should not have been opened unto 
Christ at His baptism. For the heavens should be opened unto one who 
needs to enter heaven, by reason of his being out of heaven. But Christ 
was always in heaven, according to Jn. 3:13: "The Son of Man who is in 
heaven." Therefore it seems that the heavens should not have been opened 
unto Him.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the opening of the heavens is understood either in a 
corporal or in a spiritual sense. But it cannot be understood in a 
corporal sense: because the heavenly bodies are impassible and 
indissoluble, according to Job 37:18: "Thou perhaps hast made the heavens 
with Him, which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass." In 
like manner neither can it be understood in a spiritual sense, because 
the heavens were not previously closed to the eyes of the Son of God. 
Therefore it seems unbecoming to say that when Christ was baptized "the 
heavens were opened."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, heaven was opened to the faithful through Christ's 
Passion, according to Heb. 10:19: "We have [Vulg.: 'Having'] a confidence 
in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ." Wherefore not 
even those who were baptized with Christ's baptism, and died before His 
Passion, could enter heaven. Therefore the heavens should have been 
opened when Christ was suffering rather than when He was baptized.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 3:21): "Jesus being baptized and 
praying, heaven was opened."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] Body Para. 1/4

 I answer that, As stated above (A[1]; Q[38], A[1]), Christ wished to be 
baptized in order to consecrate the baptism wherewith we were to be 
baptized. And therefore it behooved those things to be shown forth which 
belong to the efficacy of our baptism: concerning which efficacy three 
points are to be considered. First, the principal power from which it is 
derived; and this, indeed, is a heavenly power. For which reason, when 
Christ was baptized, heaven was opened, to show that in future the 
heavenly power would sanctify baptism.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] Body Para. 2/4

 Secondly, the faith of the Church and of the person baptized conduces to 
the efficacy of baptism: wherefore those who are  baptized make a 
profession of faith, and baptism is called the "sacrament of faith." Now 
by faith we gaze on heavenly things, which surpass the senses and human 
reason. And in order to signify this, the heavens were opened when Christ 
was baptized.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] Body Para. 3/4

 Thirdly, because the entrance to the heavenly kingdom was opened to us 
by the baptism of Christ in a special manner, which entrance had been 
closed to the first man through sin. Hence, when Christ was baptized, the 
heavens were opened, to show that the way to heaven is open to the 
baptized.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] Body Para. 4/4

 Now after baptism man needs to pray continually, in order to enter 
heaven: for though sins are remitted through baptism, there still remain 
the fomes of sin assailing us from within, and the world and the devils 
assailing us from without. And therefore it is said pointedly (Lk. 3:21) 
that "Jesus being baptized and praying, heaven was opened": because, to 
wit, the faithful after baptism stand in need of prayer. Or else, that we 
may be led to understand that the very fact that through baptism heaven 
is opened to believers is in virtue of the prayer of Christ. Hence it is 
said pointedly (Mt. 3:16) that "heaven was opened to Him"---that is, "to 
all for His sake." Thus, for example, the Emperor might say to one asking 
a favor for another: "Behold, I grant this favor, not to him, but to 
thee"---that is, "to him for thy sake," as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in 
Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus Imperfectum]).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: According to Chrysostom (Hom. iv in Matth.; from the 
supposititious Opus Imperfectum), as Christ was baptized for man's sake, 
though He needed no baptism for His own sake, so the heavens were opened 
unto Him as man, whereas in respect of His Divine Nature He was ever in 
heaven.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: As Jerome says on Mt. 3:16,17, the heavens were opened to 
Christ when He was baptized, not by an unfolding of the elements, but by 
a spiritual vision: thus does Ezechiel relate the opening of the heavens 
at the beginning of his book. And Chrysostom proves this (Hom. iv in 
Matth.; from the supposititious Opus Imperfectum) by saying that "if the 
creature"---namely, heaven---"had been sundered he would not have said, 
'were opened to Him,' since what is opened in a corporeal sense is open 
to all." Hence it is said expressly (Mk. 1:10) that Jesus "forthwith 
coming up out of the water, saw the heavens opened"; as though the 
opening of the heavens were to be considered as seen by Christ. Some, 
indeed, refer this to the corporeal vision, and say that such a brilliant 
light shone round about Christ when He was baptized, that the heavens 
seemed to be opened. It can also be referred to the imaginary vision, in 
which manner Ezechiel saw the heavens opened: since such a vision was 
formed in Christ's imagination by the Divine power and by His rational 
will, so as to signify that the entrance to heaven is opened to men 
through baptism. Lastly, it can be referred to intellectual vision: 
forasmuch as Christ, when He had sanctified baptism, saw that heaven was 
opened to men: nevertheless He had seen before that this would be 
accomplished. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 3: Christ's Passion is the common cause of the opening of 
heaven to men. But it behooves this cause to be applied to each one, in 
order that he enter heaven. And this is effected by baptism, according to 
Rm. 6:3: "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in His 
death." Wherefore mention is made of the opening of the heavens at His 
baptism rather than at His Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2

 Or, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.; from the supposititious Opus 
Imperfectum): "When Christ was baptized, the heavens were merely opened: 
but after He had vanquished the tyrant by the cross; since gates were no 
longer needed for a heaven which thenceforth would be never closed, the 
angels said, not 'open the gates,' but 'Take them away.'" Thus Chrysostom 
gives us to understand that the obstacles which had hitherto hindered the 
souls of the departed from entering into heaven were entirely removed by 
the Passion: but at Christ's baptism they were opened, as though the way 
had been shown by which men were to enter into heaven.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it is fitting to say that when Christ was baptized the Holy Ghost 
came down on Him in the form of a dove?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that it is not fitting to say that when Christ was 
baptized the Holy Ghost came down on Him in the form of a dove. For the 
Holy Ghost dwells in man by grace. But the fulness of grace was in the 
Man-Christ from the beginning of His conception, because He was the 
"Only-begotten of the Father," as is clear from what has been said above 
(Q[7], A[12]; Q[34], A[1]). Therefore the Holy Ghost should not have been 
sent to Him at His baptism.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Christ is said to have "descended" into the world in the 
mystery of the Incarnation, when "He emptied Himself, taking the form of 
a servant" (Phil. 2:7). But the Holy Ghost did not become incarnate. 
Therefore it is unbecoming to say that the Holy Ghost "descended upon 
Him."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, that which is accomplished in our baptism should have 
been shown in Christ's baptism, as in an exemplar. But in our baptism no 
visible mission of the Holy Ghost takes place. Therefore neither should a 
visible mission of the Holy Ghost have taken place in Christ's baptism.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, the Holy Ghost is poured forth on others through Christ, 
according to Jn. 1:16: "Of His fulness we all have received." But the 
Holy Ghost came down on the apostles in the form, not of a dove, but of 
fire. Therefore neither should He have come down on Christ in the form of 
a dove, but in the form of fire.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 3:22): "The Holy Ghost descended in 
a bodily shape as a dove upon Him."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, What took place with respect to Christ in His baptism, as 
Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth. [*From the  supposititious Opus 
Imperfectum]), "is connected with the mystery accomplished in all who 
were to be baptized afterwards." Now, all those who are baptized with the 
baptism of Christ receive the Holy Ghost, unless they approach 
unworthily; according to Mt. 3:11: "He shall baptize you in the Holy 
Ghost." Therefore it was fitting that when our Lord was baptized the Holy 
Ghost should descend upon Him.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says (De Trin. xv): "It is most absurd to say 
that Christ received the Holy Ghost, when He was already thirty years 
old: for when He came to be baptized, since He was without sin, therefore 
was He not without the Holy Ghost. For if it is written of John that 'he 
shall be filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb,' what must we 
say of the Man-Christ, whose conception in the flesh was not carnal, but 
spiritual? Therefore now," i.e. at His baptism, "He deigned to foreshadow 
His body," i.e. the Church, "in which those who are baptized receive the 
Holy Ghost in a special manner."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says (De Trin. ii), the Holy Ghost is said to 
have descended on Christ in a bodily shape, as a dove, not because the 
very substance of the Holy Ghost was seen, for He is invisible: nor as 
though that visible creature were assumed into the unity of the Divine 
Person; since it is not said that the Holy Ghost was the dove, as it is 
said that the Son of God is man by reason of the union. Nor, again, was 
the Holy Ghost seen under the form of a dove, after the manner in which 
John saw the slain Lamb in the Apocalypse (5:6): "For the latter vision 
took place in the spirit through spiritual images of bodies; whereas no 
one ever doubted that this dove was seen by the eyes of the body." Nor, 
again, did the Holy Ghost appear under the form of a dove in the sense in 
which it is said (1 Cor. 10:4): "'Now, the rock was Christ': for the 
latter had already a created existence, and through the manner of its 
action was called by the name of Christ, whom it signified: whereas this 
dove came suddenly into existence, to fulfil the purpose of its 
signification, and afterwards ceased to exist, like the flame which 
appeared in the bush to Moses."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2

 Hence the Holy Ghost is said to have descended upon Christ, not by 
reason of His being united to the dove: but either because the dove 
itself signified the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as it "descended" when it came 
upon Him; or, again, by reason of the spiritual grace, which is poured 
out by God, so as to descend, as it were, on the creature, according to 
James 1:17: "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming 
down from the Father of lights."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xii in Matth.): "At the beginning 
of all spiritual transactions sensible visions appear, for the sake of 
them who cannot conceive at all an incorporeal nature . . . so that, 
though afterwards no such thing occur, they may shape their faith 
according to that which has occurred once for all." And therefore the 
Holy Ghost descended visibly, under a bodily shape, on Christ at His 
baptism, in order that we may believe Him to descend invisibly on all 
those who are baptized. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 1/6

 Reply OBJ 4: The Holy Ghost appeared over Christ at His baptism, under 
the form of a dove, for four reasons. First, on account of the 
disposition required in the one baptized---namely, that he approach in 
good faith: since! as it is written (Wis. 1:5): "The holy spirit of 
discipline will flee from the deceitful." For the dove is an animal of a 
simple character, void of cunning and deceit: whence it is said (Mt. 
10:16): "Be ye simple as doves."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 2/6

 Secondly, in order to designate the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, which 
are signified by the properties of the dove. For the dove dwells beside 
the running stream, in order that, on perceiving the hawk, it may plunge 
in and escape. This refers to the gift of wisdom, whereby the saints 
dwell beside the running waters of Holy Scripture, in order to escape the 
assaults of the devil. Again, the dove prefers the more choice seeds. 
This refers to the gift of knowledge, whereby the saints make choice of 
sound doctrines, with which they nourish themselves. Further, the dove 
feeds the brood of other birds. This refers to the gift of counsel, with 
which the saints, by teaching and example, feed men who have been the 
brood, i.e. imitators, of the devil. Again, the dove tears not with its 
beak. This refers to the gift of understanding, wherewith the saints do 
not rend sound doctrines, as heretics do. Again, the dove has no gall. 
This refers to the gift of piety, by reason of which the saints are free 
from unreasonable anger. Again, the dove builds its nest in the cleft of 
a rock. This refers to the gift of fortitude, wherewith the saints build 
their nest, i.e. take refuge and hope, in the death wounds of Christ, who 
is the Rock of strength. Lastly, the dove has a plaintive song. This 
refers to the gift of fear, wherewith the saints delight in bewailing 
sins.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 3/6

 Thirdly, the Holy Ghost appeared under the form of a dove on account of 
the proper effect of baptism, which is the remission of sins and 
reconciliation with God: for the dove is a gentle creature. Wherefore, as 
Chrysostom says, (Hom. xii in Matth.), "at the Deluge this creature 
appeared bearing an olive branch, and publishing the tidings of the 
universal peace of the whole world: and now again the dove appears at the 
baptism, pointing to our Deliverer."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 4/6

 Fourthly, the Holy Ghost appeared over our Lord at His baptism in the 
form of a dove, in order to designate the common effect of 
baptism---namely, the building up of the unity of the Church. Hence it is 
written (Eph. 5:25-27): "Christ delivered Himself up . . . that He might 
present . . . to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, 
or any such thing . . . cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of 
life." Therefore it was fitting that the Holy Ghost should appear at the 
baptism under the form of a dove, which is a creature both loving and 
gregarious. Wherefore also it is said of the Church (Cant 6:8): "One is 
my dove."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 5/6

 But on the apostles the Holy Ghost descended under the form of fire, for 
two reasons. First, to show with what fervor their hearts were to be 
moved, so as to preach Christ everywhere, though  surrounded by 
opposition. And therefore He appeared as a fiery tongue. Hence Augustine 
says (Super Joan., Tract. vi): Our Lord "manifests" the Holy Ghost 
"visibly in two ways"---namely, "by the dove corning upon the Lord when 
He was baptized; by fire, coming upon the disciples when they were met 
together . . . In the former case simplicity is shown, in the latter 
fervor . . . We learn, then, from the dove, that those who are sanctified 
by the Spirit should be without guile: and from the fire, that their 
simplicity should not be left to wax cold. Nor let it disturb anyone that 
the tongues were cloven . . . in the dove recognize unity."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 6/6

 Secondly, because, as Chrysostom says (Gregory, Hom. xxx in Ev.): "Since 
sins had to be forgiven," which is effected in baptism, "meekness was 
required"; this is shown by the dove: "but when we have obtained grace we 
must look forward to be judged"; and this is signified by the fire.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the dove in which the Holy Ghost appeared was real?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that the dove in which the Holy Ghost appeared was 
not real. For that seems to be a mere apparition which appears in its 
semblance. But it is stated (Lk. 3:22) that the "Holy Ghost descended in 
a bodily shape as a dove upon Him." Therefore it was not a real dove, but 
a semblance of a dove.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, just as "Nature does nothing useless, so neither does 
God" (De Coelo i). Now since this dove came merely "in order to signify 
something and pass away," as Augustine says (De Trin. ii), a real dove 
would have been useless: because the semblance of a dove was sufficient 
for that purpose. Therefore it was not a real dove.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the properties of a thing lead us to a knowledge of that 
thing. If, therefore, this were a real dove, its properties would have 
signified the nature of the real animal, and not the effect of the Holy 
Ghost. Therefore it seems that it was not a real dove.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xxii): "Nor do we say 
this as though we asserted that our Lord Jesus Christ alone had a real 
body, and that the Holy Ghost appeared to men's eyes in a fallacious 
manner: but we say that both those bodies were real."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (Q[5], A[1]), it was unbecoming that the 
Son of God, who is the Truth of the Father, should make use of anything 
unreal; wherefore He took, not an imaginary, but a real body. And since 
the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Truth, as appears from Jn. 16:13, 
therefore He too made a real dove in which to appear, though He did not 
assume it into unity of person. Wherefore, after the words quoted above, 
Augustine adds: "Just as it behooved the Son of God not to deceive men, 
so it behooved the Holy Ghost not to deceive. But it was easy for 
Almighty God, who  created all creatures out of nothing, to frame the 
body of a real dove without the help of other doves, just as it was easy 
for Him to form a true body in Mary's womb without the seed of a man: 
since the corporeal creature obeys its Lord's command and will, both in 
the mother's womb in forming a man, and in the world itself in forming a 
dove."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: The Holy Ghost is said to have descended in the shape or 
semblance of a dove, not in the sense that the dove was not real, but in 
order to show that He did not appear in the form of His substance.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: It was not superfluous to form a real dove, in which the 
Holy Ghost might appear, because by the very reality of the dove the 
reality of the Holy Ghost and of His effects is signified.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: The properties of the dove lead us to understand the dove's 
nature and the effects of the Holy Ghost in the same way. Because from 
the very fact that the dove has such properties, it results that it 
signifies the Holy Ghost.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it was becoming, when Christ was baptized that the Father's voice 
should be heard, bearing witness to the Son?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that it was unbecoming when Christ was baptized for 
the Father's voice to be heard bearing witness to the Son. For the Son 
and the Holy Ghost, according as they have appeared visibly, are said to 
have been visibly sent. But it does not become the Father to be sent, as 
Augustine makes it clear (De Trin. ii). Neither, therefore, (does it 
become Him) to appear.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the voice gives expression to the word conceived in the 
heart. But the Father is not the Word. Therefore He is unfittingly 
manifested by a voice.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the Man-Christ did not begin to be Son of God at His 
baptism, as some heretics have stated: but He was the Son of God from the 
beginning of His conception. Therefore the Father's voice should have 
proclaimed Christ's Godhead at His nativity rather than at His baptism.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 3:17): "Behold a voice from heaven, 
saying: This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (A[5]), that which is accomplished in our 
baptism should be manifested in Christ's baptism, which was the exemplar 
of ours. Now the baptism which the faithful receive is hallowed by the 
invocation and the power of the Trinity; according to Mt. 28:19: "Go ye 
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Wherefore, as Jerome says on Mt. 
3:16,17: "The  mystery of the Trinity is shown forth in Christ's baptism. 
our Lord Himself is baptized in His human nature; the Holy Ghost 
descended in the shape of a dove: the Father's voice is heard bearing 
witness to the Son." Therefore it was becoming that in that baptism the 
Father should be manifested by a voice.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: The visible mission adds something to the apparition, to 
wit, the authority of the sender. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost 
who are from another, are said not only to appear, but also to be sent 
visibly. But the Father, who is not from another, can appear indeed, but 
cannot be sent visibly.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: The Father is manifested by the voice, only as producing 
the voice or speaking by it. And since it is proper to the Father to 
produce the Word---that is, to utter or to speak---therefore was it most 
becoming that the Father should be manifested by a voice, because the 
voice designates the word. Wherefore the very voice to which the Father 
gave utterance bore witness to the Sonship of the Word. And just as the 
form of the dove, in which the Holy Ghost was made manifest, is not the 
Nature of the Holy Ghost, nor is the form of man in which the Son Himself 
was manifested, the very Nature of the Son of God, so neither does the 
voice belong to the Nature of the Word or of the Father who spoke. Hence 
(Jn. 5:37) our Lord says: "Neither have you heard His," i.e. the 
Father's, "voice at any time, nor seen His shape." By which words, as 
Chrysostom says (Hom. xl in Joan.), "He gradually leads them to the 
knowledge of the philosophical truth, and shows them that God has neither 
voice nor shape, but is above all such forms and utterances." And just as 
the whole Trinity made both the dove and the human nature assumed by 
Christ, so also they formed the voice: yet the Father alone as speaking 
is manifested by the voice, just as the Son alone assumed human nature, 
and the Holy Ghost alone is manifested in the dove, as Augustine 
[*Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum] makes evident.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[39] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: It was becoming that Christ's Godhead should not be 
proclaimed to all in His nativity, but rather that It should be hidden 
while He was subject to the defects of infancy. But when He attained to 
the perfect age, when the time came for Him to teach, to work miracles, 
and to draw men to Himself then did it behoove His Godhead to be attested 
from on high by the Father's testimony, so that His teaching might become 
the more credible. Hence He says (Jn. 5:37): "The Father Himself who sent 
Me, hath given testimony of Me." And specially at the time of baptism, by 
which men are born again into adopted sons of God; since God's sons by 
adoption are made to be like unto His natural Son, according to Rm. 8:29: 
"Whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the 
image of His Son." Hence Hilary says (Super Matth. ii) that when Jesus 
was baptized, the Holy Ghost descended on Him, and the Father's voice was 
heard saying: "'This is My beloved Son,' that we might know, from what 
was accomplished in Christ, that after being washed in the waters of 
baptism the Holy Ghost comes down upon us from on high, and that the 
Father's voice declares us to have become the adopted sons of God." 

™Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] Out. Para. 1/2

OF CHRIST'S MANNER OF LIFE (FOUR ARTICLES)

 Having considered those things which relate to Christ's entrance into 
the world, or to His beginning, it remains for us to consider those that 
relate to the process of His life. And we must consider (1) His manner of 
life; (2) His temptation; (3) His doctrine; (4) His miracles.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] Out. Para. 2/2

 Concerning the first there are four points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether Christ should have led a solitary life, or have associated 
with men?

 (2) Whether He should have led an austere life as regards food, drink, 
and clothing? Or should He have conformed Himself to others in these 
respects?

 (3) Whether He should have adopted a lowly state of life, or one of 
wealth and honor?

 (4) Whether He should have lived in conformity with the Law?


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ should have associated with men, or led a solitary life?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should not have associated with men, 
but should have led a solitary life. For it behooved Christ to show by 
His manner of life not only that He was man, but also that He was God. 
But it is not becoming that God should associate with men, for it is 
written (Dan. 2:11): "Except the gods, whose conversation is not with 
men"; and the Philosopher says (Polit. i) that he who lives alone is 
"either a beast"---that is, if he do this from being wild---"or a god," 
if his motive be the contemplation of truth. Therefore it seems that it 
was not becoming for Christ to associate with men.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, while He lived in mortal flesh, it behooved Christ to 
lead a most perfect life. But the most perfect is the contemplative life, 
as we have stated in the SS, Q[182], AA[1],2. Now, solitude is most 
suitable to the contemplative life; according to Osee 2:14: "I will lead 
her into the wilderness, and I will speak to her heart." Therefore it 
seems that Christ should have led a solitary life.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, Christ's manner of life should have been uniform: 
because it should always have given evidence of that which is best. But 
at times Christ avoided the crowd and sought lonely places: hence 
Remigius [*Cf. Catena Aurea, Matth. 5:1], commenting on Matthew, says: 
"We read that our Lord had three places of refuge: the ship, the 
mountain, the desert; to one or other of which He betook Himself whenever 
he was harassed by the crowd." Therefore He ought always to have led a 
solitary life.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Baruch 3:38): "Afterwards He was seen 
upon earth and conversed with men."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, Christ's manner of life had to be in keeping  with the 
end of His Incarnation, by reason of which He came into the world. Now He 
came into the world, first, that He might publish the truth. thus He says 
Himself (Jn. 18:37): "For this was I born, and for this came I into the 
world, that I should give testimony to the truth." Hence it was fitting 
not that He should hide Himself by leading a solitary life, but that He 
should appear openly and preach in public. Wherefore (Lk. 4:42,43) He 
says to those who wished to stay Him: "To other cities also I must preach 
the kingdom of God: for therefore am I sent."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] Body Para. 2/3

  Secondly, He came in order to free men from sin; according to 1 Tim. 
1:15: "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners." And hence, as 
Chrysostom says, "although Christ might, while staying in the same place, 
have drawn all men to Himself, to hear His preaching, yet He did not do 
so; thus giving us the example to go about and seek those who perish, 
like the shepherd in his search of the lost sheep, and the physician in 
his attendance on the sick."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] Body Para. 3/3

 Thirdly, He came that by Him "we might have access to God," as it is 
written (Rm. 5:2). And thus it was fitting that He should give men 
confidence in approaching Him by associating familiarly with them. 
Wherefore it is written (Mt. 9:10): "It came to pass as He was sitting . 
. . in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came, and sat down 
with Jesus and His disciples." On which Jerome comments as follows: "They 
had seen the publican who had been converted from a sinful to a better 
life: and consequently they did not despair of their own salvation."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Christ wished to make His Godhead known through His human 
nature. And therefore, since it is proper to man to do so, He associated 
with men, at the same time manifesting His Godhead to all, by preaching 
and working miracles, and by leading among men a blameless and righteous 
life.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: As stated in the SS, Q[182], A[1]; SS, Q[188], A[6], the 
contemplative life is, absolutely speaking, more perfect than the active 
life, because the latter is taken up with bodily actions: yet that form 
of active life in which a man, by preaching and teaching, delivers to 
others the fruits of his contemplation, is more perfect than the life 
that stops at contemplation, because such a life is built on an abundance 
of contemplation, and consequently such was the life chosen by Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Christ's action is our instruction. And therefore, in order 
to teach preachers that they ought not to be for ever before the public, 
our Lord withdrew Himself sometimes from the crowd. We are told of three 
reasons for His doing this. First, for the rest of the body: hence (Mk. 
6:31) it is stated that our Lord said to His disciples: "Come apart into 
a desert place, and rest a little. For there were many coming and going: 
and they had not so much as time to eat." But sometimes it was for the 
sake of prayer; thus it is written (Lk. 6:12): "It came to pass in those 
days, that He went out into a mountain to pray; and He passed the  whole 
night in the prayer of God." On this Ambrose remarks that "by His example 
He instructs us in the precepts of virtue." And sometimes He did so in 
order to teach us to avoid the favor of men. Wherefore Chrysostom, 
commenting on Mt. 5:1, Jesus, "seeing the multitude, went up into a 
mountain," says: "By sitting not in the city and in the market-place, but 
on a mountain and in a place of solitude, He taught us to do nothing for 
show, and to withdraw from the crowd, especially when we have to 
discourse of needful things."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it was becoming that Christ should lead an austere life in this 
world?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that it was becoming that Christ should lead an 
austere life in this world. For Christ preached the perfection of life 
much more than John did. But John led an austere life in order that he 
might persuade men by his example to embrace a perfect life; for it is 
written (Mt. 3:4) that "the same John had his garment of camel's hair and 
a leathern girdle about his loins: and his meat was locusts and wild 
honey"; on which Chrysostom comments as follows (Hom. x): "It was a 
marvelous and strange thing to behold such austerity in a human frame: 
which thing also particularly attracted the Jews." Therefore it seems 
that an austere life was much more becoming to Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, abstinence is ordained to continency; for it is written 
(Osee 4:10): "They shall eat and shall not be filled; they have committed 
fornication, and have not ceased." But Christ both observed continency in 
Himself and proposed it to be observed by others when He said (Mt. 
19:12): "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the 
kingdom of heaven: he that can take it let him take it." Therefore it 
seems that Christ should have observed an austere life both in Himself 
and in His disciples.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, it seems absurd for a man to begin a stricter form of 
life and to return to an easier life: for one might quote to his 
discredit that which is written, Lk. 14:30: "This man began to build, and 
was not able to finish." Now Christ began a very strict life after His 
baptism, remaining in the desert and fasting for "forty days and forty 
nights." Therefore it seems unbecoming that, after leading such a strict 
life, He should return to the common manner of living.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 11:19): "The Son of Man came eating 
and drinking."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), it was in keeping with the end of 
the Incarnation that Christ should not lead a solitary life, but should 
associate with men. Now it is most fitting that he who associates with 
others should conform to their manner of living; according to the words 
of the Apostle (1 Cor. 9:22): "I became all things to all men." And 
therefore it was most fitting that Christ should conform to others in the 
matter of eating and drinking. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xvi) 
that "John is  described as 'neither eating nor drinking,' because he did 
not take the same food as the Jews. Therefore, unless our Lord had taken 
it, it would not be said of Him, in contrast, 'eating and drinking.'"

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 1: In His manner of living our Lord gave an example of 
perfection as to all those things which of themselves relate to 
salvation. Now abstinence in eating and drinking does not of itself 
relate to salvation, according to Rm. 14:17: "The kingdom of God is not 
meat and drink." And Augustine (De Qq. Evang. ii, qu. 11) explains Mt. 
11:19, "Wisdom is justified by her children," saying that this is because 
the holy apostles "understood that the kingdom of God does not consist in 
eating and drinking, but in suffering indigence with equanimity," for 
they are neither uplifted by affluence, nor distressed by want. Again (De 
Doctr. Christ. iii), he says that in all such things "it is not making 
use of them, but the wantonness of the user, that is sinful." Now both 
these lives are lawful and praiseworthy---namely, that a man withdraw 
from the society of other men and observe abstinence; and that he 
associate with other men and live like them. And therefore our Lord 
wished to give men an example of either kind of life.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2

 As to John, according to Chrysostom (Hom. xxxvii super Matth.), "he 
exhibited no more than his life and righteous conduct . . . but Christ 
had the testimony also of miracles. Leaving, therefore, John to be 
illustrious by his fasting, He Himself came the opposite way, both coming 
unto publicans' tables and eating and drinking."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Just as by abstinence other men acquire the power of 
self-restraint, so also Christ, in Himself and in those that are His, 
subdued the flesh by the power of His Godhead. Wherefore, as we read Mt. 
9:14, the Pharisees and the disciples of John fasted, but not the 
disciples of Christ. On which Bede comments, saying that "John drank 
neither wine nor strong drink: because abstinence is meritorious where 
the nature is weak. But why should our Lord, whose right by nature it is 
to forgive sins, avoid those whom He could make holier than such as 
abstain?"

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xiii super Matth.), "that thou 
mightest learn how great a good is fasting, and how it is a shield 
against the devil, and that after baptism thou shouldst give thyself up, 
not to luxury, but to fasting---for this cause did He fast, not as 
needing it Himself, but as teaching us . . . And for this did He proceed 
no further than Moses and Elias, lest His assumption of our flesh might 
seem incredible." The mystical meaning, as Gregory says (Hom. xvi in 
Evang.), is that by Christ's example the number "forty" is observed in 
His fast, because the power of the "decalogue is fulfilled throughout the 
four books of the Holy Gospel: since ten multiplied by four amounts to 
forty." Or, because "we live in this mortal body composed of the four 
elements, and by its lusts we transgress the commandments of the Lord, 
which are expressed in the decalogue." Or, according to Augustine (QQ. 
lxxxiii, qu. 81): "To know the Creator and the creature is the entire 
teaching of wisdom. The Creator is the  Trinity, the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Ghost. Now the creature is partly invisible, as the soul, to 
which the number three may be ascribed, for we are commanded to love God 
in three ways, 'with our whole heart, our whole soul, and our whole 
mind'; and partly visible, as the body, to which the number four is 
applicable on account of its being subject to heat, moisture, cold, and 
dryness. Hence if we multiply ten, which may be referred to the entire 
moral code, by four, which number may be applied to the body, because it 
is the body that executes the law, the product is the number forty: in 
which," consequently, "the time during which we sigh and grieve is shown 
forth." And yet there was no inconsistency in Christ's returning to the 
common manner of living, after fasting and (retiring into the) desert. 
For it is becoming to that kind of life, which we hold Christ to have 
embraced, wherein a man delivers to others the fruits of his 
contemplation, that he devote himself first of all to contemplation, and 
that he afterwards come down to the publicity of active life by 
associating with other men. Hence Bede says on Mk. 2:18: "Christ fasted, 
that thou mightest not disobey the commandment; He ate with sinners, that 
thou mightest discern His sanctity and acknowledge His power."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ should have led a life of poverty in this world?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should not have led a life of poverty 
in this world. Because Christ should have embraced the most eligible form 
of life. But the most eligible form of life is that which is a mean 
between riches and poverty; for it is written (Prov. 30:8): "Give me 
neither beggary nor riches; give me only the necessaries of life." 
Therefore Christ should have led a life, not of poverty, but of 
moderation.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, external wealth is ordained to bodily use as to food and 
raiment. But Christ conformed His manner of life to those among whom He 
lived, in the matter of food and raiment. Therefore it seems that He 
should have observed the ordinary manner of life as to riches and 
poverty, and have avoided extreme poverty.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, Christ specially invited men to imitate His example of 
humility, according to Mt. 11:29: "Learn of Me, because I am meek and 
humble of heart." But humility is most commendable in the rich; thus it 
is written (1 Tim. 6:11): "Charge the rich of this world not to be 
high-minded." Therefore it seems that Christ should not have chosen a 
life of poverty.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 8:20): "The Son of Man hath not 
where to lay His head": as though He were to say as Jerome observes: "Why 
desirest thou to follow Me for the sake of riches and worldly gain, since 
I am so poor that I have not even the smallest dwelling-place, and I am 
sheltered by a roof that is not Mine?" And on Mt. 17:26: "That we may not 
scandalize them, go to the sea," Jerome says: "This incident, taken 
literally, affords edification to those who hear it when they are told 
that our Lord was so poor that He had not the wherewithal to pay the tax 
for  Himself and His apostles."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] Body Para. 1/4

 I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to lead a life of poverty in 
this world. First, because this was in keeping with the duty of 
preaching, for which purpose He says that He came (Mk. 1:38): "Let us go 
into the neighboring towns and cities, that I may preach there also: for 
to this purpose am I come." Now in order that the preachers of God's word 
may be able to give all their time to preaching, they must be wholly free 
from care of worldly matters: which is impossible for those who are 
possessed of wealth. Wherefore the Lord Himself, when sending the 
apostles to preach, said to them (Mt. 10:9): "Do not possess gold nor 
silver." And the apostles (Acts 6:2) say: "It is not reasonable that we 
should leave the word of God and serve tables."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] Body Para. 2/4

 Secondly, because just as He took upon Himself the death of the body in 
order to bestow spiritual life on us, so did He bear bodily poverty, in 
order to enrich us spiritually, according to 2 Cor. 8:9: "You know the 
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ: that . . . He became poor for our [Vulg.: 
'your'] sakes that through His poverty we [Vulg.: 'you'] might be rich."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] Body Para. 3/4

 Thirdly, lest if He were rich His preaching might be ascribed to 
cupidity. Wherefore Jerome says on Mt. 10:9, that if the disciples had 
been possessed of wealth, "they had seemed to preach for gain, not for 
the salvation of mankind." And the same reason applies to Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] Body Para. 4/4

 Fourthly, that the more lowly He seemed by reason of His poverty, the 
greater might the power of His Godhead be shown to be. Hence in a sermon 
of the Council of Ephesus (P. iii, c. ix) we read: "He chose all that was 
poor and despicable, all that was of small account and hidden from the 
majority, that we might recognize His Godhead to have transformed the 
terrestrial sphere. For this reason did He choose a poor maid for His 
Mother, a poorer birthplace; for this reason did He live in want. Learn 
this from the manger."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Those who wish to live virtuously need to avoid abundance 
of riches and beggary, in as far as these are occasions of sin: since 
abundance of riches is an occasion for being proud; and beggary is an 
occasion of thieving and lying, or even of perjury. But forasmuch as 
Christ was incapable of sin, He had not the same motive as Solomon for 
avoiding these things. Yet neither is every kind of beggary an occasion 
of theft and perjury, as Solomon seems to add (Prov. 30:8); but only that 
which is involuntary, in order to avoid which, a man is guilty of theft 
and perjury. But voluntary poverty is not open to this danger: and such 
was the poverty chosen by Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: A man may feed and clothe himself in conformity with 
others, not only by possessing riches, but also by receiving the 
necessaries of life from those who are rich. This is what happened in 
regard to Christ: for it is written (Lk. 8:2,3) that  certain women 
followed Christ and "ministered unto Him of their substance." For, as 
Jerome says on Mt. 27:55, "It was a Jewish custom, nor was it thought 
wrong for women, following the ancient tradition of their nation, out of 
their private means to provide their instructors with food and clothing. 
But as this might give scandal to the heathens, Paul says that he gave it 
up": thus it was possible for them to be fed out of a common fund, but 
not to possess wealth, without their duty of preaching being hindered by 
anxiety.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Humility is not much to be praised in one who is poor of 
necessity. But in one who, like Christ, is poor willingly, poverty itself 
is a sign of very great humility.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ conformed His conduct to the Law?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not conform His conduct to the Law. 
For the Law forbade any work whatsoever to be done on the Sabbath, since 
God "rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done." But 
He healed a man on the Sabbath, and commanded him to take up his bed. 
Therefore it seems that He did not conform His conduct to the Law.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, what Christ taught, that He also did, according to Acts 
1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." But He taught (Mt. 15:11) that 
"not" all "that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man": and this is 
contrary to the precept of the Law, which declared that a man was made 
unclean by eating and touching certain animals, as stated Lev. 11. 
Therefore it seems that He did not conform His conduct to the Law.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, he who consents to anything is of the same mind as he 
who does it, according to Rm. 1:32: "Not only they that do them, but they 
also that consent to them that do them." But Christ, by excusing His 
disciples, consented to their breaking the Law by plucking the ears of 
corn on the Sabbath; as is related Mt. 12:1-8. Therefore it seems that 
Christ did not conform His conduct to the Law.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 5:17): "Do not think that I am come 
to destroy the Law or the Prophets." Commenting on these words, 
Chrysostom says: "He fulfilled the Law . . . in one way, by transgressing 
none of the precepts of the Law; secondly, by justifying us through 
faith, which the Law, in the letter, was unable to do."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, Christ conformed His conduct in all things to the 
precepts of the Law. In token of this He wished even to be circumcised; 
for the circumcision is a kind of protestation of a man's purpose of 
keeping the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: "I testify to every man 
circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] Body Para. 2/2 

 And Christ, indeed, wished to conform His conduct to the Law, first, to 
show His approval of the Old Law. Secondly, that by obeying the Law He 
might perfect it and bring it to an end in His own self, so as to show 
that it was ordained to Him. Thirdly, to deprive the Jews of an excuse 
for slandering Him. Fourthly, in order to deliver men from subjection to 
the Law, according to Gal. 4:4,5: "God sent His Son . . . made under the 
Law that He might redeem them who were under the Law."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/3

 Reply OBJ 1: Our Lord excuses Himself from any transgression of the Law 
in this matter, for three reasons. First, the precept of the hallowing of 
the Sabbath forbids not Divine work, but human work: for though God 
ceased on the seventh day from the creation of new creatures, yet He ever 
works by keeping and governing His creatures. Now that Christ wrought 
miracles was a Divine work: hence He says (Jn. 5:17): "My Father worketh 
until now; and I work."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 2/3

 Secondly, He excuses Himself on the ground that this precept does not 
forbid works which are needful for bodily health. Wherefore He says (Lk. 
13:15): "Doth not every one of you on the Sabbath-day loose his ox or his 
ass from the manger, and lead them to water?" And farther on (Lk. 14:5): 
"Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into a pit, and will not 
immediately draw him out on the Sabbath-day?" Now it is manifest that the 
miraculous works done by Christ related to health of body and soul.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 3/3

 Thirdly, because this precept does not forbid works pertaining to the 
worship of God. Wherefore He says (Mt. 12:5): "Have ye not read in the 
Law that on the Sabbath-days the priests in the Temple break the Sabbath, 
and are without blame?" And (Jn. 7:23) it is written that a man receives 
circumcision on the Sabbath-day. Now when Christ commanded the paralytic 
to carry his bed on the Sabbath-day, this pertained to the worship of 
God, i.e. to the praise of God's power. And thus it is clear that He did 
not break the Sabbath: although the Jews threw this false accusation in 
His face, saying (Jn. 9:16): "This man is not of God, who keepeth not the 
Sabbath."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: By those words Christ wished to show that man is made 
unclean as to his soul, by the use of any sort of foods considered not in 
their nature, but only in some signification. And that certain foods are 
in the Law called "unclean" is due to some signification; whence 
Augustine says (Contra Faust. vi): "If a question be raised about swine 
and lambs, both are clean by nature, since 'all God's creatures are 
good'; but by a certain signification lambs are clean and swine unclean."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[40] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: The disciples also, when, being hungry, they plucked the 
ears of corn on the Sabbath, are to be excused from transgressing the 
Law, since they were pressed by hunger: just as David did not transgress 
the Law when, through being compelled by hunger, he ate the loaves which 
it was not lawful for him to eat.

 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] Out. Para. 1/1

OF CHRIST'S TEMPTATION (FOUR ARTICLES)

 We have now to consider Christ's temptation, concerning which there are 
four points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether it was becoming that Christ should be tempted?

 (2) Of the place;

 (3) Of the time;

 (4) Of the mode and order of the temptation.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it was becoming that Christ should be tempted?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that it was not becoming for Christ to be tempted. 
For to tempt is to make an experiment, which is not done save in regard 
to something unknown. But the power of Christ was known even to the 
demons; for it is written (Lk. 4:41) that "He suffered them not to speak, 
for they knew that He was Christ." Therefore it seems that it was 
unbecoming for Christ to be tempted.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Christ was come in order to destroy the works of the 
devil, according to 1 Jn. 3:8: "For this purpose the Son of God appeared, 
that He might destroy the works of the devil." But it is not for the same 
to destroy the works of a certain one and to suffer them. Therefore it 
seems unbecoming that Christ should suffer Himself to be tempted by the 
devil.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, temptation is from a threefold source---the flesh, the 
world, and the devil. But Christ was not tempted either by the flesh or 
by the world. Therefore neither should He have been tempted by the devil.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 4:1): "Jesus was led by the Spirit 
into the desert to be tempted by the devil."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] Body Para. 1/4

 I answer that, Christ wished to be tempted; first that He might 
strengthen us against temptations. Hence Gregory says in a homily (xvi in 
Evang.): "It was not unworthy of our Redeemer to wish to be tempted, who 
came also to be slain; in order that by His temptations He might conquer 
our temptations, just as by His death He overcame our death."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] Body Para. 2/4

 Secondly, that we might be warned, so that none, however holy, may think 
himself safe or free from temptation. Wherefore also He wished to be 
tempted after His baptism, because, as Hilary says (Super Matth., cap. 
iii.): "The temptations of the devil assail those principally who are 
sanctified, for he desires, above all, to overcome the holy. Hence also 
it is written (Ecclus. 2): Son, when thou comest to the service of God, 
stand in justice and in fear, and prepare thy soul for temptation."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] Body Para. 3/4

 Thirdly, in order to give us an example: to teach us, to wit, how to 
overcome the temptations of the devil. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. iv) 
that Christ "allowed Himself to be tempted" by the devil, "that He might 
be our Mediator in overcoming temptations,  not only by helping us, but 
also by giving us an example."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] Body Para. 4/4

 Fourthly, in order to fill us with confidence in His mercy. Hence it is 
written (Heb. 4:15): "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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix): "Christ was known to 
the demons only so far as He willed; not as the Author of eternal life, 
but as the cause of certain temporal effects," from which they formed a 
certain conjecture that Christ was the Son of God. But since they also 
observed in Him certain signs of human frailty, they did not know for 
certain that He was the Son of God: wherefore (the devil) wished to tempt 
Him. This is implied by the words of Mt. 4:2,3, saying that, after "He 
was hungry, the tempter" came "to Him," because, as Hilary says (Super 
Matth., cap. iii), "Had not Christ's weakness in hungering betrayed His 
human nature, the devil would not have dared to tempt Him." Moreover, 
this appears from the very manner of the temptation, when he said: "If 
Thou be the Son of God." Which words Ambrose explains as follows (In Luc. 
iv): "What means this way of addressing Him, save that, though he knew 
that the Son of God was to come, yet he did not think that He had come in 
the weakness of the flesh?"

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, not by 
powerful deeds, but rather by suffering from him and his members, so as 
to conquer the devil by righteousness, not by power; thus Augustine says 
(De Trin. xiii) that "the devil was to be overcome, not by the power of 
God, but by righteousness." And therefore in regard to Christ's 
temptation we must consider what He did of His own will and what He 
suffered from the devil. For that He allowed Himself to be tempted was 
due to His own will. Wherefore it is written (Mt. 4:1): "Jesus was led by 
the Spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil"; and Gregory 
(Hom. xvi in Evang.) says this is to be understood of the Holy Ghost, to 
wit, that "thither did His Spirit lead Him, where the wicked spirit would 
find Him and tempt Him." But He suffered from the devil in being "taken 
up" on to "the pinnacle of the Temple" and again "into a very high 
mountain." Nor is it strange, as Gregory observes, "that He allowed 
Himself to be taken by him on to a mountain, who allowed Himself to be 
crucified by His members." And we understand Him to have been taken up by 
the devil, not, as it were, by force, but because, as Origen says (Hom. 
xxi super Luc.), "He followed Him in the course of His temptation like a 
wrestler advancing of his own accord."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As the Apostle says (Heb. 4:15), Christ wished to be 
"tempted in all things, without sin." Now temptation which comes from an 
enemy can be without sin: because it comes about by merely outward 
suggestion. But temptation which comes from the flesh cannot be without 
sin, because such a temptation is caused by pleasure and concupiscence; 
and, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix), "it is not without sin that 
'the flesh desireth against the spirit.'" And hence Christ wished to be 
tempted by an enemy, but  not by the flesh.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ should have been tempted in the desert?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been tempted in the 
desert. Because Christ wished to be tempted in order to give us an 
example, as stated above (A[1]). But an example should be set openly 
before those who are to follow it. Therefore He should not have been 
tempted in the desert.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Chrysostom says (Hom. xii in Matth.): "Then most 
especially does the devil assail by tempting us, when he sees us alone. 
Thus did he tempt the woman in the beginning when he found her apart from 
her husband." Hence it seems that, by going into the desert to be 
tempted, He exposed Himself to temptation. Since, therefore, His 
temptation is an example to us, it seems that others too should take such 
steps as will lead them into temptation. And yet this seems a dangerous 
thing to do, since rather should we avoid the occasion of being tempted.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, Mt. 4:5, Christ's second temptation is set down, in 
which "the devil took" Christ up "into the Holy City, and set Him upon 
the pinnacle of the Temple": which is certainly not in the desert. 
Therefore He was not tempted in the desert only.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Mk. 1:13) that Jesus "was in the desert 
forty days and forty nights, and was tempted by Satan."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 2), Christ of His own free-will 
exposed Himself to be tempted by the devil, just as by His own free-will 
He submitted to be killed by His members; else the devil would not have 
dared to approach Him. Now the devil prefers to assail a man who is 
alone, for, as it is written (Eccles. 4:12), "if a man prevail against 
one, two shall withstand him." And so it was that Christ went out into 
the desert, as to a field of battle, to be tempted there by the devil. 
Hence Ambrose says on Lk. 4:1, that "Christ was led into the desert for 
the purpose of provoking the devil. For had he," i.e. the devil, "not 
fought, He," i.e. Christ, "would not have conquered." He adds other 
reasons, saying that "Christ in doing this set forth the mystery of 
Adam's delivery from exile," who had been expelled from paradise into the 
desert, and "set an example to us, by showing that the devil envies those 
who strive for better things."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Christ is set as an example to all through faith, according 
to Heb. 12:2: "Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith." Now 
faith, as it is written (Rm. 10:17), "cometh by hearing," but not by 
seeing: nay, it is even said (Jn. 20:29): "Blessed are they that have not 
seen and have believed." And therefore, in order that Christ's temptation 
might be an example to us, it behooved that men should not see it, and it 
was enough that they should hear it related.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2 

 Reply OBJ 2: The occasions of temptation are twofold. one is on the part 
of man---for instance, when a man causes himself to be near to sin by not 
avoiding the occasion of sinning. And such occasions of temptation should 
be avoided, as it is written of Lot (Gn. 19:17): "Neither stay thou in 
all the country about" Sodom.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2

 Another occasion of temptation is on the part of the devil, who always 
"envies those who strive for better things," as Ambrose says (In Luc. iv, 
1). And such occasions of temptation are not to be avoided. Hence 
Chrysostom says (Hom. v in Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus 
Imperfectum]): "Not only Christ was led into the desert by the Spirit, 
but all God's children that have the Holy Ghost. For it is not enough for 
them to sit idle; the Holy Ghost urges them to endeavor to do something 
great: which is for them to be in the desert from the devil's standpoint, 
for no unrighteousness, in which the devil delights, is there. Again, 
every good work, compared to the flesh and the world, is the desert; 
because it is not according to the will of the flesh and of the world." 
Now, there is no danger in giving the devil such an occasion of 
temptation; since the help of the Holy Ghost, who is the Author of the 
perfect deed, is more powerful* than the assault of the envious devil. 
[*All the codices read 'majus.' One of the earliest printed editions has 
'magis,' which has much to commend it, since St. Thomas is commenting the 
text quoted from St. Chrysostom. The translation would run thus: 'since 
rather is it (the temptation) a help from the Holy Ghost, who,' etc.].

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Some say that all the temptations took place in the desert. 
Of these some say that Christ was led into the Holy City, not really, but 
in an imaginary vision; while others say that the Holy City itself, i.e. 
Jerusalem, is called "a desert," because it was deserted by God. But 
there is no need for this explanation. For Mark says that He was tempted 
in the desert by the devil, but not that He was tempted in the desert 
only.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ's temptation should have taken place after His fast?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's temptation should not have taken 
place after His fast. For it has been said above (Q[40], A[2]) that an 
austere mode of life was not becoming to Christ. But it savors of extreme 
austerity that He should have eaten nothing for forty days and forty 
nights, for Gregory (Hom. xvi inn Evang.) explains the fact that "He 
fasted forty days and forty nights," saying that "during that time He 
partook of no food whatever." It seems, therefore, that He should not 
thus have fasted before His temptation.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Mk. 1:13) that "He was in the desert 
forty days and forty nights; and was tempted by Satan." Now, He fasted 
forty days and forty nights. Therefore it seems that He was tempted by 
the devil, not after, but during, His fast.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, we read that Christ fasted but once. But He  was tempted 
by the devil, not only once, for it is written (Lk. 4:13) "that all the 
temptation being ended, the devil departed from Him for a time." As, 
therefore, He did not fast before the second temptation, so neither 
should He have fasted before the first.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 4:2,3): "When He had fasted forty 
days and forty nights, afterwards He was hungry": and then "the tempter 
came to Him."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, It was becoming that Christ should wish to fast before 
His temptation. First, in order to give us an example. For since we are 
all in urgent need of strengthening ourselves against temptation, as 
stated above (A[1]), by fasting before being tempted, He teaches us the 
need of fasting in order to equip ourselves against temptation. Hence the 
Apostle (2 Cor. 6:5,7) reckons "fastings" together with the "armor of 
justice."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] Body Para. 2/3

 Secondly, in order to show that the devil assails with temptations even 
those who fast, as likewise those who are given to other good works. And 
so Christ's temptation took place after His fast, as also after His 
baptism. Hence since rather Chrysostom says (Hom. xiii super Matth.): "To 
instruct thee how great a good is fasting, and how it is a most powerful 
shield against the devil; and that after baptism thou shouldst give 
thyself up, not to luxury, but to fasting; for this cause Christ fasted, 
not as needing it Himself, but as teaching us."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] Body Para. 3/3

 Thirdly, because after the fast, hunger followed, which made the devil 
dare to approach Him, as already stated (A[1], ad 1). Now, when "our Lord 
was hungry," says Hilary (Super Matth. iii), "it was not because He was 
overcome by want of food, but because He abandoned His manhood to its 
nature. For the devil was to be conquered, not by God, but by the flesh." 
Wherefore Chrysostom too says: "He proceeded no farther than Moses and 
Elias, lest His assumption of our flesh might seem incredible."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: It was becoming for Christ not to adopt an extreme form of 
austere life in order to show Himself outwardly in conformity with those 
to whom He preached. Now, no one should take up the office of preacher 
unless he be already cleansed and perfect in virtue, according to what is 
said of Christ, that "Jesus began to do and to teach" (Acts 1:1). 
Consequently, immediately after His baptism Christ adopted an austere 
form of life, in order to teach us the need of taming the flesh before 
passing on to the office of preaching, according to the Apostle (1 Cor. 
9:27): "I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection, lest perhaps 
when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 2: These words of Mark may be understood as meaning that "He 
was in the desert forty days and forty nights," and that He fasted during 
that time: and the words, "and He was tempted by Satan," may be taken as 
referring, not to the time during which He fasted, but to the time that 
followed: since Matthew says that "after He had fasted forty days and 
forty nights, afterwards He was  hungry," thus affording the devil a 
pretext for approaching Him. And so the words that follow, and the angels 
ministered to Him, are to be taken in sequence, which is clear from the 
words of Matthew (4:11): "Then the devil left Him," i.e. after the 
temptation, "and behold angels came and ministered to Him." And as to the 
words inserted by Mark, "and He was with the beasts," according to 
Chrysostom (Hom. xiii in Matth.), they are set down in order to describe 
the desert as being impassable to man and full of beasts.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2

 On the other hand, according to Bede's exposition of Mk. 1:12,13, our 
Lord was tempted forty days and forty nights. But this is not to be 
understood of the visible temptations which are related by Matthew and 
Luke, and occurred after the fast, but of certain other assaults which 
perhaps Christ suffered from the devil during that time of His fast.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As Ambrose says on Lk. 4:13, the devil departed from Christ 
"for a time, because, later on, he returned, not to tempt Him, but to 
assail Him openly"---namely, at the time of His Passion. Nevertheless, He 
seemed in this later assault to tempt Christ to dejection and hatred of 
His neighbor; just as in the desert he had tempted Him to gluttonous 
pleasure and idolatrous contempt of God.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the mode and order of the temptation were becoming?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that the mode and order of the temptation were 
unbecoming. For the devil tempts in order to induce us to sin. But if 
Christ had assuaged His bodily hunger by changing the stones into bread, 
He would not have sinned; just as neither did He sin when He multiplied 
the loaves, which was no less a miracle, in order to succor the hungry 
crowd. Therefore it seems that this was nowise a temptation.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, a counselor is inconsistent if he persuades the contrary 
to what he intends. But when the devil set Christ on a pinnacle of the 
Temple, he purposed to tempt Him to pride or vainglory. Therefore it was 
inconsistent to urge Him to cast Himself thence: for this would be 
contrary to pride or vainglory, which always seeks to rise.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, one temptation should lead to one sin. But in the 
temptation on the mountain he counseled two sins---namely, covetousness 
and idolatry. Therefore the mode of the temptation was unfitting.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, temptations are ordained to sin. But there are seven 
deadly sins, as we have stated in the FS, Q[84], A[4]. But the tempter 
only deals with three, viz. gluttony, vainglory, and covetousness. 
Therefore the temptation seems to have been incomplete.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 5: Further, after overcoming all the vices, man is still  tempted to 
pride or vainglory: since pride "worms itself in stealthily, and destroys 
even good works," as Augustine says (Ep. ccxi). Therefore Matthew 
unfittingly gives the last place to the temptation to covetousness on the 
mountain, and the second place to the temptation to vainglory in the 
Temple, especially since Luke puts them in the reverse order.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 6: Further, Jerome says on Mt. 4:4 that "Christ purposed to overcome 
the devil by humility, not by might." Therefore He should not have 
repulsed him with a haughty rebuke, saying: "Begone, Satan."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Obj. 7 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 7: Further, the gospel narrative seems to be false. For it seems 
impossible that Christ could have been set on a pinnacle of the Temple 
without being seen by others. Nor is there to be found a mountain so high 
that all the world can be seen from it, so that all the kingdoms of the 
earth could be shown to Christ from its summit. It seems, therefore, that 
Christ's temptation is unfittingly described.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary is the authority of Scripture.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, The temptation which comes from the enemy takes the form 
of a suggestion, as Gregory says (Hom. xvi in Evang.). Now a suggestion 
cannot be made to everybody in the same way; it must arise from those 
things towards which each one has an inclination. Consequently the devil 
does not straight away tempt the spiritual man to grave sins, but he 
begins with lighter sins, so as gradually to lead him to those of greater 
magnitude. Wherefore Gregory (Moral. xxxi), expounding Job 39:25, "He 
smelleth the battle afar off, the encouraging of the captains and the 
shouting of the army," says: "The captains are fittingly described as 
encouraging, and the army as shouting. Because vices begin by insinuating 
themselves into the mind under some specious pretext: then they come on 
the mind in such numbers as to drag it into all sorts of folly, deafening 
it with their bestial clamor."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Body Para. 2/3

 Thus, too, did the devil set about the temptation of the first man. For 
at first he enticed his mind to consent to the eating of the forbidden 
fruit, saying (Gn. 3:1): "Why hath God commanded you that you should not 
eat of every tree of paradise?" Secondly [he tempted him] to vainglory by 
saying: "Your eyes shall be opened." Thirdly, he led the temptation to 
the extreme height of pride, saying: "You shall be as gods, knowing good 
and evil." This same order did he observe in tempting Christ. For at 
first he tempted Him to that which men desire, however spiritual they may 
be---namely, the support of the corporeal nature by food. Secondly, he 
advanced to that matter in which spiritual men are sometimes found 
wanting, inasmuch as they do certain things for show, which pertains to 
vainglory. Thirdly, he led the temptation on to that in which no 
spiritual men, but only carnal men, have a part---namely, to desire 
worldly riches and fame, to the extent of holding God in contempt. And so 
in the first two temptations he said: "If Thou be the Son of God"; but 
not in the third, which is inapplicable to  spiritual men, who are sons 
of God by adoption, whereas it does apply to the two preceding 
temptations.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] Body Para. 3/3

 And Christ resisted these temptations by quoting the authority of the 
Law, not by enforcing His power, "so as to give more honor to His human 
nature and a greater punishment to His adversary, since the foe of the 
human race was vanquished, not as by God, but as by man"; as Pope Leo 
says (Serm. 1, De Quadrag. 3).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: To make use of what is needful for self-support is not the 
sin of gluttony; but if a man do anything inordinate out of the desire 
for such support, it can pertain to the sin of gluttony. Now it is 
inordinate for a man who has human assistance at his command to seek to 
obtain food miraculously for mere bodily support. Hence the Lord 
miraculously provided the children of Israel with manna in the desert, 
where there was no means of obtaining food otherwise. And in like fashion 
Christ miraculously provided the crowds with food in the desert, when 
there was no other means of getting food. But in order to assuage His 
hunger, He could have done otherwise than work a miracle, as did John the 
Baptist, according to Matthew (3:4); or He could have hastened to the 
neighboring country. Consequently the devil esteemed that if Christ was a 
mere man, He would fall into sin by attempting to assuage His hunger by a 
miracle.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: It often happens that a man seeks to derive glory from 
external humiliation, whereby he is exalted by reason of spiritual good. 
Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12): "It must be noted 
that it is possible to boast not only of the beauty and splendor of 
material things, but even of filthy squalor." And this is signified by 
the devil urging Christ to seek spiritual glory by casting His body down.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 3: It is a sin to desire worldly riches and honors in an 
inordinate fashion. And the principal sign of this is when a man does 
something wrong in order to acquire such things. And so the devil was not 
satisfied with instigating to a desire for riches and honors, but he went 
so far as to tempt Christ, for the sake of gaining possession of these 
things, to fall down and adore him, which is a very great crime, and 
against God. Nor does he say merely, "if Thou wilt adore me," but he 
adds, "if, falling down"; because, as Ambrose says on Lk. 4:5: "Ambition 
harbors yet another danger within itself: for, while seeking to rule, it 
will serve; it will bow in submission that it may be crowned with honor; 
and the higher it aims, the lower it abases itself."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2

 In like manner [the devil] in the preceding temptations tried to lead 
[Christ] from the desire of one sin to the commission of another; thus 
from the desire of food he tried to lead Him to the vanity of the 
needless working of a miracle; and from the desire of glory to tempt God 
by casting Himself headlong.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: As Ambrose says on Lk. 4:13, Scripture would not have said 
that "'all the temptation being ended, the devil departed  from Him,' 
unless the matter of all sins were included in the three temptations 
already related. For the causes of temptations are the causes of 
desires"---namely, "lust of the flesh, hope of glory, eagerness for 
power."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 5: As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii): "It is not 
certain which happened first; whether the kingdoms of the earth were 
first shown to Him, and afterwards He was set on the pinnacle of the 
Temple; or the latter first, and the former afterwards. However, it 
matters not, provided it be made clear that all these things did take 
place." It may be that the Evangelists set these things in different 
orders, because sometimes cupidity arises from vainglory, sometimes the 
reverse happens.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 6: When Christ had suffered the wrong of being tempted by the 
devil saying, "If Thou be the Son of God cast Thyself down," He was not 
troubled, nor did He upbraid the devil. But when the devil usurped to 
himself the honor due to God, saying, "All these things will I give Thee, 
if, falling down, Thou wilt adore me," He was exasperated, and repulsed 
him, saying, "Begone, Satan": that we might learn from His example to 
bear bravely insults leveled at ourselves, but not to allow ourselves so 
much as to listen to those which are aimed at God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 7 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 7: As Chrysostom says (Hom. v in Matth.): "The devil set Him" 
(on a pinnacle of the Temple) "that He might be seen by all, whereas, 
unawares to the devil, He acted in such sort that He was seen by none."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[41] A[4] R.O. 7 Para. 2/2

 In regard to the words, "'He showed Him all the kingdoms of the world, 
and the glory of them,' we are not to understand that He saw the very 
kingdoms, with the cities and inhabitants, their gold and silver: but 
that the devil pointed out the quarters in which each kingdom or city 
lay, and set forth to Him in words their glory and estate." Or, again, as 
Origen says (Hom. xxx in Luc.), "he showed Him how, by means of the 
various vices, he was the lord of the world."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] Out. Para. 1/2

OF CHRIST'S DOCTRINE (FOUR ARTICLES)

 We have now to consider Christ's doctrine, about which there are four 
points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether Christ should have preached to the Jews only, or to the 
Gentiles also?

 (2) Whether in preaching He should have avoided the opposition of the 
Jews?

 (3) Whether He should have preached in an open or in a hidden manner?

 (4) Whether He should have preached by word only, or also by writing?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] Out. Para. 2/2

 Concerning the time when He began to teach, we have spoken above when 
treating of His baptism (Q[29], A[3]).

 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ should have preached not only to the Jews, but also to the 
Gentiles?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should have preached not only to the 
Jews, but also to the Gentiles. For it is written (Is. 49:6): "It is a 
small thing that thou shouldst be My servant to raise up the tribes of 
Israel [Vulg.: 'Jacob'] and to convert the dregs of Jacob [Vulg.: 
'Israel']: behold, I have given thee to be the light of the Gentiles, 
that thou mayest be my salvation even to the farthest part of the earth." 
But Christ gave light and salvation through His doctrine. Therefore it 
seems that it was "a small thing" that He preached to Jews alone, and not 
to the Gentiles.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, as it is written (Mt. 7:29): "He was teaching them as 
one having power." Now the power of doctrine is made more manifest in the 
instruction of those who, like the Gentiles, have received no tidings 
whatever; hence the Apostle says (Rm. 15:20): "I have so preached the 
[Vulg.: 'this'] gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build 
upon another man's foundation." Therefore much rather should Christ have 
preached to the Gentiles than to the Jews.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, it is more useful to instruct many than one. But Christ 
instructed some individual Gentiles, such as the Samaritan woman (Jn. 4) 
and the Chananaean woman (Mt. 15). Much more reason, therefore, was there 
for Christ to preach to the Gentiles in general.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, our Lord said (Mt. 15:24): "I was not sent but to the 
sheep that are lost of the house of Israel." And (Rm. 10:15) it is 
written: "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" Therefore Christ 
should not have preached to the Gentiles.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] Body Para. 1/4

 I answer that, It was fitting that Christ's preaching, whether through 
Himself or through His apostles, should be directed at first to the Jews 
alone. First, in order to show that by His coming the promises were 
fulfilled which had been made to the Jews of old, and not to the 
Gentiles. Thus the Apostle says (Rm. 15:8): "I say that Christ . . . was 
minister of the circumcision," i.e. the apostle and preacher of the Jews, 
"for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] Body Para. 2/4

 Secondly, in order to show that His coming was of God; because, as is 
written Rm. 13:1: "Those things which are of God are well ordered [Vulg.: 
'those that are, are ordained of God']" [*See Scriptural Index on this 
passage]. Now the right order demanded that the doctrine of Christ should 
be made known first to the Jews, who, by believing in and worshiping one 
God, were nearer to God, and that it should be transmitted through them 
to the Gentiles: just as in the heavenly hierarchy the Divine 
enlightenment comes to the lower angels through the higher. Hence on Mt. 
15:24, "I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost in the house of 
Israel," Jerome  says: "He does not mean by this that He was not sent to 
the Gentiles, but that He was sent to the Jews first." And so we read 
(Is. 66:19): "I will send of them that shall be saved," i.e. of the Jews, 
"to the Gentiles . . . and they shall declare My glory unto the Gentiles."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] Body Para. 3/4

 Thirdly, in order to deprive the Jews of ground for quibbling. Hence on 
Mt. 10:5, "Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles." Jerome says: "It 
behooved Christ's coming to be announced to the Jews first, lest they 
should have a valid excuse, and say that they had rejected our Lord 
because He had sent His apostles to the Gentiles and Samaritans."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] Body Para. 4/4

 Fourthly, because it was through the triumph of the cross that Christ 
merited power and lordship over the Gentiles. Hence it is written (Apoc. 
2:26,28): "He that shall overcome . . . I will give him power over the 
nations . . . as I also have received of My Father"; and that because He 
became "obedient unto the death of the cross, God hath exalted Him . . . 
that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . ." and that "every 
tongue should confess Him" (Phil. 2:8-11). Consequently He did not wish 
His doctrine to be preached to the Gentiles before His Passion: it was 
after His Passion that He said to His disciples (Mt. 28:19): "Going, 
teach ye all nations." For this reason it was that when, shortly before 
His Passion, certain Gentiles wished to see Jesus, He said: "Unless the 
grain of wheat falling into the ground dieth, itself remaineth alone: but 
if it die it bringeth forth much fruit" (Jn. 12:20-25); and as Augustine 
says, commenting on this passage: "He called Himself the grain of wheat 
that must be mortified by the unbelief of the Jews, multiplied by the 
faith of the nations."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Christ was given to be the light and salvation of the 
Gentiles through His disciples, whom He sent to preach to them.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 2: It is a sign, not of lesser, but of greater power to do 
something by means of others rather than by oneself. And thus the Divine 
power of Christ was specially shown in this, that He bestowed on the 
teaching of His disciples such a power that they converted the Gentiles 
to Christ, although these had heard nothing of Him.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2

 Now the power of Christ's teaching is to be considered in the miracles 
by which He confirmed His doctrine, in the efficacy of His persuasion, 
and in the authority of His words, for He spoke as being Himself above 
the Law when He said: "But I say to you" (Mt. 5:22,28,32,34,39,44); and, 
again, in the force of His righteousness shown in His sinless manner of 
life.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Just as it was unfitting that Christ should at the outset 
make His doctrine known to the Gentiles equally with the Jews, in order 
that He might appear as being sent to the Jews, as to the first-born 
people; so neither was it fitting for Him to neglect the Gentiles 
altogether, lest they should be deprived of the hope of salvation. For 
this reason certain individual Gentiles  were admitted, on account of the 
excellence of their faith and devotedness.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ should have preached to the Jews without offending them?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should have preached to the Jews 
without offending them. For, as Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi): "In 
the Man Jesus Christ, a model of life is given us by the Son of God." But 
we should avoid offending not only the faithful, but even unbelievers, 
according to 1 Cor. 10:32: "Be without offense to the Jews, and to the 
Gentiles, and to the Church of God." Therefore it seems that, in His 
teaching, Christ should also have avoided giving offense to the Jews.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, no wise man should do anything that will hinder the 
result of his labor. Now through the disturbance which His teaching 
occasioned among the Jews, it was deprived of its results; for it is 
written (Lk. 11:53,54) that when our Lord reproved the Pharisees and 
Scribes, they "began vehemently to urge Him, end to oppress His mouth 
about many things; lying in wait for Him, and seeking to catch something 
from His mouth, that they might accuse Him." It seems therefore unfitting 
that He should have given them offense by His teaching.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the Apostle says (1 Tim. 5:1): "An ancient man rebuke 
not; but entreat him as a father." But the priests and princes of the 
Jews were the elders of that people. Therefore it seems that they should 
not have been rebuked with severity.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It was foretold (Is. 8:14) that Christ would be "for a 
stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to the two houses of Israel."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, The salvation of the multitude is to be preferred to the 
peace of any individuals whatsoever. Consequently, when certain ones, by 
their perverseness, hinder the salvation of the multitude, the preacher 
and the teacher should not fear to offend those men, in order that he may 
insure the salvation of the multitude. Now the Scribes and Pharisees and 
the princes of the Jews were by their malice a considerable hindrance to 
the salvation of the people, both because they opposed themselves to 
Christ's doctrine, which was the only way to salvation, and because their 
evil ways corrupted the morals of the people. For which reason our Lord, 
undeterred by their taking offense, publicly taught the truth which they 
hated, and condemned their vices. Hence we read (Mt. 15:12,14) that when 
the disciples of our Lord said: "Dost Thou know that the Pharisees, when 
they heard this word, were scandalized?" He answered: "Let them alone: 
they are blind and leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, 
both fall into the pit."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: A man ought so to avoid giving offense, as neither by wrong 
deed or word to be the occasion of anyone's  downfall. "But if scandal 
arise from truth, the scandal should be borne rather than the truth be 
set aside," as Gregory says (Hom. vii in Ezech.).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: By publicly reproving the Scribes and Pharisees, Christ 
promoted rather than hindered the effect of His teaching. Because when 
the people came to know the vices of those men, they were less inclined 
to be prejudiced against Christ by hearing what was said of Him by the 
Scribes and Pharisees, who were ever withstanding His doctrine.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: This saying of the Apostle is to be understood of those 
elders whose years are reckoned not only in age and authority, but also 
in probity; according to Num. 11:16: "Gather unto Me seventy men of the 
ancients of Israel, whom thou knowest to be ancients . . . of the 
people." But if by sinning openly they turn the authority of their years 
into an instrument of wickedness, they should be rebuked openly and 
severely, as also Daniel says (Dan. 13:52): "O thou that art grown old in 
evil days," etc.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ should have taught all things openly?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should not have taught all things 
openly. For we read that He taught many things to His disciples apart: as 
is seen clearly in the sermon at the Supper. Wherefore He said: "That 
which you heard in the ear in the chambers shall be preached on the 
housetops" [*St. Thomas, probably quoting from memory, combines Mt. 10:27 
with Lk. 12:3]. Therefore He did not teach all things openly.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the depths of wisdom should not be expounded save to the 
perfect, according to 1 Cor. 2:6: "We speak wisdom among the perfect." 
Now Christ's doctrine contained the most profound wisdom. Therefore it 
should not have been made known to the imperfect crowd.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, it comes to the same, to hide the truth, whether by 
saying nothing or by making use of a language that is difficult to 
understand. Now Christ, by speaking to the multitudes a language they 
would not understand, hid from them the truth that He preached; since 
"without parables He did not speak to them" (Mt. 13:34). In the same way, 
therefore, He could have hidden it from them by saying nothing at all.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, He says Himself (Jn. 18:20): "In secret I have spoken 
nothing."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, Anyone's doctrine may be hidden in three ways. First, on 
the part of the intention of the teacher, who does not wish to make his 
doctrine known to many, but rather to hide it. And this may happen in two 
ways---sometimes through envy on the part of the teacher, who desires to 
excel in his knowledge, wherefore he is unwilling to communicate it to 
others. But this was not the case  with Christ, in whose person the 
following words are spoken (Wis. 7:13): "Which I have learned without 
guile, and communicate without envy, and her riches I hide not." But 
sometimes this happens through the vileness of the things taught; thus 
Augustine says on Jn. 16:12: "There are some things so bad that no sort 
of human modesty can bear them." Wherefore of heretical doctrine it is 
written (Prov. 9:17): "Stolen waters are sweeter." Now, Christ's doctrine 
is "not of error nor of uncleanness" (1 Thess. 2:3). Wherefore our Lord 
says (Mk. 4:21): "Doth a candle," i.e. true and pure doctrine, "come in 
to be put under a bushel?"

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] Body Para. 2/3

 Secondly, doctrine is hidden because it is put before few. And thus, 
again, did Christ teach nothing in secret: for He propounded His entire 
doctrine either to the whole crowd or to His disciples gathered together. 
Hence Augustine says on Jn. 18:20: "How can it be said that He speaks in 
secret when He speaks before so many men? . . . especially if what He 
says to few He wishes through them to be made known to many?"

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] Body Para. 3/3

 Thirdly, doctrine is hidden, as to the manner in which it is propounded. 
And thus Christ spoke certain things in secret to the crowds, by 
employing parables in teaching them spiritual mysteries which they were 
either unable or unworthy to grasp: and yet it was better for them to be 
instructed in the knowledge of spiritual things, albeit hidden under the 
garb of parables, than to be deprived of it altogether. Nevertheless our 
Lord expounded the open and unveiled truth of these parables to His 
disciples, so that they might hand it down to others worthy of it; 
according to 2 Tim. 2:2: "The things which thou hast heard of me by many 
witnesses, the same command to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach 
others." This is foreshadowed, Num. 4, where the sons of Aaron are 
commanded to wrap up the sacred vessels that were to be carried by the 
Levites.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 1: As Hilary says, commenting on the passage quoted, "we do 
not read that our Lord was wont to preach at night, and expound His 
doctrine in the dark: but He says this because His speech is darkness to 
the carnal-minded, and His words are night to the unbeliever. His 
meaning, therefore, is that whatever He said we also should say in the 
midst of unbelievers, by openly believing and professing it."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2

 Or, according to Jerome, He speaks comparatively---that is to say, 
because He was instructing them in Judea, which was a small place 
compared with the whole world, where Christ's doctrine was to be 
published by the preaching of the apostles.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: By His doctrine our Lord did not make known all the depths 
of His wisdom, neither to the multitudes, nor, indeed, to His disciples, 
to whom He said (Jn. 16:12): "I have yet many things to say to you, but 
you cannot bear them now." Yet whatever things out of His wisdom He 
judged it right to make known to others, He expounded, not in secret, but 
openly; although He was not understood by all. Hence Augustine says on 
Jn. 18:20: "We must understand this, 'I have spoken openly to the world,' 
as though our  Lord had said, 'Many have heard Me' . . . and, again, it 
was not 'openly,' because they did not understand."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 3: As stated above, our Lord spoke to the multitudes in 
parables, because they were neither able nor worthy to receive the naked 
truth, which He revealed to His disciples.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2

 And when it is said that "without parables He did not speak to them," 
according to Chrysostom (Hom. xlvii in Matth.), we are to understand this 
of that particular sermon, since on other occasions He said many things 
to the multitude without parables. Or, as Augustine says (De Qq. Evang., 
qu. xvii), this means, "not that He spoke nothing literally, but that He 
scarcely ever spoke without introducing a parable, although He also spoke 
some things in the literal sense."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ should have committed His doctrine to writing?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should have committed His doctrine to 
writing. For the purpose of writing is to hand down doctrine to 
posterity. Now Christ's doctrine was destined to endure for ever, 
according to Lk. 21:33: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words 
shall not pass away." Therefore it seems that Christ should have 
committed His doctrine to writing.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the Old Law was a foreshadowing of Christ, according to 
Heb. 10:1: "The Law has [Vulg.: 'having'] a shadow of the good things to 
come." Now the Old Law was put into writing by God, according to Ex. 
24:12: "I will give thee" two "tables of stone and the law, and the 
commandments which I have written." Therefore it seems that Christ also 
should have put His doctrine into writing.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, to Christ, who came to enlighten them that sit in 
darkness (Lk. 1:79), it belonged to remove occasions of error, and to 
open out the road to faith. Now He would have done this by putting His 
teaching into writing: for Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. i) that 
"some there are who wonder why our Lord wrote nothing, so that we have to 
believe what others have written about Him. Especially do those pagans 
ask this question who dare not blame or blaspheme Christ, and who ascribe 
to Him most excellent, but merely human, wisdom. These say that the 
disciples made out the Master to be more than He really was when they 
said that He was the Son of God and the Word of God, by whom all things 
were made." And farther on he adds: "It seems as though they were 
prepared to believe whatever He might have written of Himself, but not 
what others at their discretion published about Him." Therefore it seems 
that Christ should have Himself committed His doctrine to writing.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, No books written by Him were to be found in the canon 
of Scripture.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] Body Para. 1/4

 I answer that, It was fitting that Christ should not commit  His 
doctrine to writing. First, on account of His dignity: for the more 
excellent the teacher, the more excellent should be his manner of 
teaching. Consequently it was fitting that Christ, as the most excellent 
of teachers, should adopt that manner of teaching whereby His doctrine is 
imprinted on the hearts of His hearers; wherefore it is written (Mt. 
7:29) that "He was teaching them as one having power." And so it was that 
among the Gentiles, Pythagoras and Socrates, who were teachers of great 
excellence, were unwilling to write anything. For writings are ordained, 
as to an end, unto the imprinting of doctrine in the hearts of the 
hearers.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] Body Para. 2/4

 Secondly, on account of the excellence of Christ's doctrine, which 
cannot be expressed in writing; according to Jn. 21:25: "There are also 
many other things which Jesus did: which, if they were written everyone, 
the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that 
should be written." Which Augustine explains by saying: "We are not to 
believe that in respect of space the world could not contain them . . . 
but that by the capacity of the readers they could not be comprehended." 
And if Christ had committed His doctrine to writing, men would have had 
no deeper thought of His doctrine than that which appears on the surface 
of the writing.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] Body Para. 3/4

 Thirdly, that His doctrine might reach all in an orderly manner: Himself 
teaching His disciples immediately, and they subsequently teaching 
others, by preaching and writing: whereas if He Himself had written, His 
doctrine would have reached all immediately.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] Body Para. 4/4

 Hence it is said of Wisdom (Prov. 9:3) that "she hath sent her maids to 
invite to the tower." It is to be observed, however, that, as Augustine 
says (De Consensu Evang. i), some of the Gentiles thought that Christ 
wrote certain books treating of the magic art whereby He worked miracles: 
which art is condemned by the Christian learning. "And yet they who claim 
to have read those books of Christ do none of those things which they 
marvel at His doing according to those same books. Moreover, it is by a 
Divine judgment that they err so far as to assert that these books were, 
as it were, entitled as letters to Peter and Paul, for that they found 
them in several places depicted in company with Christ. No wonder that 
the inventors were deceived by the painters: for as long as Christ lived 
in the mortal flesh with His disciples, Paul was no disciple of His."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says in the same book: "Christ is the head of 
all His disciples who are members of His body. Consequently, when they 
put into writing what He showed forth and said to them, by no means must 
we say that He wrote nothing: since His members put forth that which they 
knew under His dictation. For at His command they, being His hands, as it 
were, wrote whatever He wished us to read concerning His deeds and words."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Since the old Law was given under the form of sensible 
signs, therefore also was it fittingly written with  sensible signs. But 
Christ's doctrine, which is "the law of the spirit of life" (Rm. 8:2), 
had to be "written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; 
not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart," as the 
Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:3).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[42] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Those who were unwilling to believe what the apostles wrote 
of Christ would have refused to believe the writings of Christ, whom they 
deemed to work miracles by the magic art.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] Out. Para. 1/2

OF THE MIRACLES WORKED BY CHRIST, IN GENERAL (FOUR ARTICLES)

 We must now consider the miracles worked by Christ: (1) In general; (2) 
Specifically, of each kind of miracle; (3) In particular, of His 
transfiguration.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] Out. Para. 2/2

 Concerning the first, there are four points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether Christ should have worked miracles?

 (2) Whether He worked them by Divine power?

 (3) When did He begin to work miracles?

 (4) Whether His miracles are a sufficient proof of His Godhead?


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ should have worked miracles?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ should not have worked miracles. For 
Christ's deeds should have been consistent with His words. But He Himself 
said (Mt. 16:4): "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a 
sign; and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the 
prophet." Therefore He should not have worked miracles.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, just as Christ, at His second coming, is to come "with" 
great power and majesty, as is written Mt. 24:30, so at His first coming 
He came in infirmity, according to Is. 53:3: "A man of sorrows and 
acquainted with infirmity." But the working of miracles belongs to power 
rather than to infirmity. Therefore it was not fitting that He should 
work miracles in His first coming.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, Christ came that He might save men by faith; according 
to Heb. 12:2: "Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith." But 
miracles lessen the merit of faith; hence our Lord says (Jn. 4:48): 
"Unless you see signs and wonders you believe not." Therefore it seems 
that Christ should not have worked miracles.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It was said in the person of His adversaries (Jn. 
11:47): "What do we; for this man doth many miracles?"

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, God enables man to work miracles for two reasons. First 
and principally, in confirmation of the doctrine that a man teaches. For 
since those things which are of faith surpass human reason, they cannot 
be proved by human arguments, but need to be proved by the argument of 
Divine power: so that when a  man does works that God alone can do, we 
may believe that what he says is from God: just as when a man is the 
bearer of letters sealed with the king's ring, it is to be believed that 
what they contain expresses the king's will.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] Body Para. 2/3

 Secondly, in order to make known God's presence in a man by the grace of 
the Holy Ghost: so that when a man does the works of God we may believe 
that God dwells in him by His grace. Wherefore it is written (Gal. 3:5): 
"He who giveth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] Body Para. 3/3

 Now both these things were to be made known to men concerning 
Christ---namely, that God dwelt in Him by grace, not of adoption, but of 
union: and that His supernatural doctrine was from God. And therefore it 
was most fitting that He should work miracles. Wherefore He Himself says 
(Jn. 10:38): "Though you will not believe Me, believe the works"; and 
(Jn. 5:36): "The works which the Father hath given Me to perfect . . . 
themselves . . . give testimony to Me."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: These words, "a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of 
Jonas," mean, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xliii in Matth.), that "they did 
not receive a sign such as they sought, viz. from heaven": but not that 
He gave them no sign at all. Or that "He worked signs not for the sake of 
those whom He knew to be hardened, but to amend others." Therefore those 
signs were given, not to them, but to others.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Although Christ came "in the infirmity" of the flesh, which 
is manifested in the passions, yet He came "in the power of God" [*Cf. 2 
Cor. 13:4], and this had to be made manifest by miracles.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Miracles lessen the merit of faith in so far as those are 
shown to be hard of heart who are unwilling to believe what is proved 
from the Scriptures unless (they are convinced) by miracles. Yet it is 
better for them to be converted to the faith even by miracles than that 
they should remain altogether in their unbelief. For it is written (1 
Cor. 14:22) that signs are given "to unbelievers," viz. that they may be 
converted to the faith.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ worked miracles by Divine power?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not work miracles by Divine power. 
For the Divine power is omnipotent. But it seems that Christ was not 
omnipotent in working miracles; for it is written (Mk. 6:5) that "He 
could not do any miracles there," i.e. in His own country. Therefore it 
seems that He did not work miracles by Divine power.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, God does not pray. But Christ sometimes prayed when 
working miracles; as may be seen in the raising of Lazarus (Jn. 
11:41,42), and in the multiplication of the loaves, as related  Mt. 
14:19. Therefore it seems that He did not work miracles by Divine power.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, what is done by Divine power cannot be done by the power 
of any creature. But the things which Christ did could be done also by 
the power of a creature: wherefore the Pharisees said (Lk. 11:15) that He 
cast out devils "by Beelzebub the prince of devils." Therefore it seems 
that Christ did not work miracles by Divine power.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 14:10): "The Father who abideth in 
Me, He doth the works."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, as stated in the FP, Q[110], A[4], true miracles cannot 
be wrought save by Divine power: because God alone can change the order 
of nature; and this is what is meant by a miracle. Wherefore Pope Leo 
says (Ep. ad Flav. xxviii) that, while there are two natures in Christ, 
there is "one," viz. the Divine, which shines forth in miracles; and 
"another," viz. the human, "which submits to insults"; yet "each 
communicates its actions to the other": in as far as the human nature is 
the instrument of the Divine action, and the human action receives power 
from the Divine Nature, as stated above (Q[19], A[1]).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: When it is said that "He could not do any miracles there," 
it is not to be understood that He could not do them absolutely, but that 
it was not fitting for Him to do them: for it was unfitting for Him to 
work miracles among unbelievers. Wherefore it is said farther on: "And He 
wondered because of their unbelief." In like manner it is said (Gn. 
18:17): "Can I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?" and Gn. 19:22: 
"I cannot do anything till thou go in thither."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 2: As Chrysostom says on Mt. 14:19, "He took the five loaves 
and the two fishes, and, looking up to heaven, He blessed and brake: It 
was to be believed of Him, both that He is of the Father and that He is 
equal to Him . . . Therefore that He might prove both, He works miracles 
now with authority, now with prayer . . . in the lesser things, indeed, 
He looks up to heaven"---for instance, in multiplying the loaves---"but 
in the greater, which belong to God alone, He acts with authority; for 
example, when He forgave sins and raised the dead."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2

 When it is said that in raising Lazarus He lifted up His eyes (Jn. 
11:41), this was not because He needed to pray, but because He wished to 
teach us how to pray. Wherefore He said: "Because of the people who stand 
about have I said it: that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Christ cast out demons otherwise than they are cast out by 
the power of demons. For demons are cast out from bodies by the power of 
higher demons in such a way that they retain their power over the soul: 
since the devil does not work against his own kingdom. On the other hand, 
Christ cast out demons, not  only from the body, but still more from the 
soul. For this reason our Lord rebuked the blasphemy of the Jews, who 
said that He cast out demons by the power of the demons: first, by saying 
that Satan is not divided against himself; secondly, by quoting the 
instance of others who cast out demons by the Spirit of God; thirdly, 
because He could not have cast out a demon unless He had overcome Him by 
Divine power; fourthly, because there was nothing in common between His 
works and their effects and those of Satan; since Satan's purpose was to 
"scatter" those whom Christ "gathered" together [*Cf. Mt. 12:24-30; Mk. 
3:22; Lk. 11:15-32].


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ began to work miracles when He changed water into wine at 
the marriage feast?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not begin to work miracles when He 
changed water into wine at the marriage feast. For we read in the book De 
Infantia Salvatoris that Christ worked many miracles in His childhood. 
But the miracle of changing water into wine at the marriage feast took 
place in the thirtieth or thirty-first year of His age. Therefore it 
seems that it was not then that He began to work miracles.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Christ worked miracles by Divine power. Now He was 
possessed of Divine power from the first moment of His conception; for 
from that instant He was both God and man. Therefore it seems that He 
worked miracles from the very first.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, Christ began to gather His disciples after His baptism 
and temptation, as related Mt. 4:18 and Jn. 1:35. But the disciples 
gathered around Him, principally on account of His miracles: thus it is 
written (Lk. 5:4) that He called Peter when "he was astonished at" the 
miracle which He had worked in "the draught of fishes." Therefore it 
seems that He worked other miracles before that of the marriage feast.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 2:11): "This beginning of miracles 
did Jesus in Cana of Galilee."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, Christ worked miracles in order to confirm His doctrine, 
and in order to show forth His Divine power. Therefore, as to the first, 
it was unbecoming for Him to work miracles before He began to teach. And 
it was unfitting that He should begin to teach until He reached the 
perfect age, as we stated above, in speaking of His baptism (Q[39], A[3]
). But as to the second, it was right that He should so manifest His 
Godhead by working miracles that men should believe in the reality of His 
manhood. And, consequently, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxi in Joan.), "it 
was fitting that He should not begin to work wonders from His early 
years: for men would have deemed the Incarnation to be imaginary and 
would have crucified Him before the proper time."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xvii in Joan.), in regard to the 
saying of John the Baptist, "'That He may be made  manifest in Israel, 
therefore am I come baptizing with water,' it is clear that the wonders 
which some pretend to have been worked by Christ in His childhood are 
untrue and fictitious. For had Christ worked miracles from His early 
years, John would by no means have been unacquainted with Him, nor would 
the rest of the people have stood in need of a teacher to point Him out 
to them."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: What the Divine power achieved in Christ was in proportion 
to the needs of the salvation of mankind, the achievement of which was 
the purpose of His taking flesh. Consequently He so worked miracles by 
the Divine power as not to prejudice our belief in the reality of His 
flesh.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: The disciples were to be commended precisely because they 
followed Christ "without having seen Him work any miracles," as Gregory 
says in a homily (Hom. v in Evang.). And, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxiii 
in Joan.), "the need for working miracles arose then, especially when the 
disciples were already gathered around and attached to Him, and attentive 
to what was going on around them. Hence it is added: 'And His disciples 
believed in Him,'" not because they then believed in Him for the first 
time, but because then "they believed with greater discernment and 
perfection." Or they are called "disciples" because "they were to be 
disciples later on," as Augustine observes (De Consensu Evang. ii).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the miracles which Christ worked were a sufficient proof of His 
Godhead?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that the miracles which Christ worked were not a 
sufficient proof of His Godhead. For it is proper to Christ to be both 
God and man. But the miracles which Christ worked have been done by 
others also. Therefore they were not a sufficient proof of His Godhead.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, no power surpasses that of the Godhead. But some have 
worked greater miracles than Christ, for it is written (Jn. 14:12): "He 
that believeth in Me, the works that I do, he also shall do, and greater 
than these shall he do." Therefore it seems that the miracles which 
Christ worked are not sufficient proof of His Godhead.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the particular is not a sufficient proof of the 
universal. But any one of Christ's miracles was one particular work. 
Therefore none of them was a sufficient proof of His Godhead, by reason 
of which He had universal power over all things.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 5:36): "The works which the Father 
hath given Me to perfect . . . themselves . . . give testimony of Me."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, The miracles which Christ worked were a sufficient proof 
of His Godhead in three respects. First, as to the  very nature of the 
works, which surpassed the entire capability of created power, and 
therefore could not be done save by Divine power. For this reason the 
blind man, after his sight had been restored, said (Jn. 9:32,33): "From 
the beginning of the world it has not been heard, that any man hath 
opened the eyes of one born blind. Unless this man were of God, he could 
not do anything."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] Body Para. 2/3

 Secondly, as to the way in which He worked miracles---namely, because He 
worked miracles as though of His own power, and not by praying, as others 
do. Wherefore it is written (Lk. 6:19) that "virtue went out from Him and 
healed all." Whereby it is proved, as Cyril says (Comment. in Lucam) that 
"He did not receive power from another, but, being God by nature, He 
showed His own power over the sick. And this is how He worked countless 
miracles." Hence on Mt. 8:16: "He cast out spirits with His word, and all 
that were sick He healed," Chrysostom says: "Mark how great a multitude 
of persons healed, the Evangelists pass quickly over, not mentioning one 
by one . . . but in one word traversing an unspeakable sea of miracles." 
And thus it was shown that His power was co-equal with that of God the 
Father, according to Jn. 5:19: "What things soever" the Father "doth, 
these the Son doth also in like manner"; and, again (Jn. 5:21): "As the 
Father raiseth up the dead and giveth life, so the Son also giveth life 
to whom He will."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] Body Para. 3/3

 Thirdly, from the very fact that He taught that He was God; for unless 
this were true it would not be confirmed by miracles worked by Divine 
power. Hence it was said (Mk. 1:27): "What is this new doctrine? For with 
power He commandeth the unclean spirits, and they obey Him."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 1: This was the argument of the Gentiles. Wherefore Augustine 
says (Ep. ad Volusian. cxxxvii): "No suitable wonders; say they, show 
forth the presence of so great majesty, for the ghostly cleansing" 
whereby He cast out demons, "the cure of the sick, the raising of the 
dead to life, if other miracles be taken into account, are small things 
before God." To this Augustine answers thus: "We own that the prophets 
did as much . . . But even Moses himself and the other prophets made 
Christ the Lord the object of their prophecy, and gave Him great glory . 
. . He, therefore, chose to do similar things to avoid the inconsistency 
of failing to do what He had done through others. Yet still He was bound 
to do something which no other had done: to be born of a virgin, to rise 
from the dead, and to ascend into heaven. If anyone deem this a slight 
thing for God to do, I know not what more he can expect. Having become 
man, ought He to have made another world, that we might believe Him to be 
Him by whom the world was made? But in this world neither a greater world 
could be made nor one equal to it: and if He had made a lesser world in 
comparison with this, that too would have been deemed a small thing."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2

 As to the miracles worked by others, Christ did greater still. Hence on 
Jn. 15:24: "If I had not done in [Douay: 'among'] them the works that no 
other men hath done," etc., Augustine says: "None of the works of Christ 
seem to be greater than the raising of the  dead: which thing we know the 
ancient prophets also did . . . Yet Christ did some works 'which no other 
man hath done.' But we are told in answer that others did works which He 
did not, and which none other did . . . But to heal with so great a power 
so many defects and ailments and grievances of mortal men, this we read 
concerning none soever of the men of old. To say nothing of those, each 
of whom by His bidding, as they came in His way, He made whole . . . Mark 
saith (6:56): 'Whithersoever He entered, into towns or into villages or 
into cities, they laid the sick in the streets, and besought Him that 
they might touch but the hem of His garment: and as many as touched Him 
were made whole.' These things none other did in them; for when He saith 
'In them,' it is not to be understood to mean 'Among them,' or 'In their 
presence,' but wholly 'In them,' because He healed them . . . Therefore 
whatever works He did in them are works that none ever did; since if ever 
any other man did any one of them, by His doing he did it; whereas these 
works He did, not by their doing, but by Himself."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 2: Augustine explains this passage of John as follows (Tract. 
lxxi): "What are these 'greater works' which believers in Him would do? 
That, as they passed by, their very shadow healed the sick? For it is 
greater that a shadow should heal than the hem of a garment . . . When, 
however, He said these words, it was the deeds and works of His words 
that He spoke of: for when He said . . . 'The Father who abideth in Me, 
He doth the works,' what works did He mean, then, but the words He was 
speaking? . . . and the fruits of those same words was the faith of those 
(who believed): but when the disciples preached the Gospel, not some few 
like those, but the very nations believed . . . (Tract. lxxii). Did not 
that rich man go away from His presence sorrowful? . . . and yet 
afterwards, what one individual, having heard from Him, did not, that 
many did when He spake by the mouth of His disciples . . . Behold, He did 
greater works when spoken of by men believing than when speaking to men 
hearing. But there is yet this difficulty: that He did these 'greater 
works' by the apostles: whereas He saith as meaning not only them: . . . 
'He that believeth in Me' . . . Listen! . . . 'He that believeth in Me, 
the works that I do, he also shall do': first, 'I do,' then 'he also 
shall do,' because I do that he may do. What works---but that from 
ungodly he should be made righteous? . . . Which thing Christ worketh in 
him, truly, but not without him. Yes, I may affirm this to be altogether 
greater than to create" [*The words 'to create' are not in the text of 
St. Augustine] "heaven and earth . . . for 'heaven and earth shall pass 
away'; but the salvation and justification of the predestinate shall 
remain . . . But also in the heavens . . . the angels are the works of 
Christ: and does that man do greater works than these, who co-operates 
with Christ in the work of his justification? . . . let him, who can, 
judge whether it be greater to create a righteous being than to justify 
an ungodly one. Certainly if both are works of equal power, the latter is 
a work of greater mercy."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2

 "But there is no need for us to understand all the works of Christ, 
where He saith 'Greater than these shall he do.' For by 'these' He meant, 
perhaps, those which He was doing at that hour:  now at that time He was 
speaking words of faith: . . . and certainly it is less to preach words 
of righteousness, which thing He did without us, than to justify the 
ungodly, which thing He so doth in us that we also do it ourselves."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[43] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: When some particular work is proper to some agent, then 
that particular work is a sufficient proof of the whole power of that 
agent: thus, since the act of reasoning is proper to man, the mere fact 
that someone reasons about any particular proposition proves him to be a 
man. In like manner, since it is proper to God to work miracles by His 
own power, any single miracle worked by Christ by His own power is a 
sufficient proof that He is God.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] Out. Para. 1/1

OF (CHRIST'S) MIRACLES CONSIDERED SPECIFICALLY (FOUR ARTICLES)

 We have now to consider each kind of miracle:

 (1) The miracles which He worked in spiritual substances;

 (2) The miracles which He worked in heavenly bodies;

 (3) The miracles which He worked in man;

 (4) The miracles which He worked in irrational creatures.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether those miracles were fitting which Christ worked in spiritual 
substances?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that those miracles were unfitting which Christ 
worked in spiritual substances. For among spiritual substances the holy 
angels are above the demons; for, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii): "The 
treacherous and sinful rational spirit of life is ruled by the rational, 
pious, and just spirit of life." But we read of no miracles worked by 
Christ in the good angels. Therefore neither should He have worked 
miracles in the demons.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Christ's miracles were ordained to make known His 
Godhead. But Christ's Godhead was not to be made known to the demons: 
since this would have hindered the mystery of His Passion, according to 1 
Cor. 2:8: "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord 
of glory." Therefore He should not have worked miracles in the demons.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, Christ's miracles were ordained to the glory of God: 
hence it is written (Mt. 9:8) that "the multitudes seeing" that the man 
sick of the palsy had been healed by Christ, "feared, and glorified God 
that gave such power to men." But the demons have no part in glorifying 
God; since "praise is not seemly in the mouth of a sinner" (Ecclus. 
15:9). For which reason also "He suffered them not to speak" (Mk. 1:34; 
Lk. 4:41) those things which reflected glory on Him. Therefore it seems 
that it was unfitting for Him to work miracles in the demons.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, Christ's miracles are ordained to the salvation of 
mankind. But sometimes the casting out of demons from men was detrimental 
to man, in some cases to the body: thus it is  related (Mk. 9:24,25) that 
a demon at Christ's command, "crying out and greatly tearing" the man, 
"went out of him; and he became as dead, so that many said: He is dead"; 
sometimes also to things: as when He sent the demons, at their own 
request, into the swine, which they cast headlong into the sea; wherefore 
the inhabitants of those parts "besought Him that He would depart from 
their coasts" (Mt. 8:31-34). Therefore it seems unfitting that He should 
have worked such like miracles.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, this was foretold (Zach. 13:2), where it is written: "I 
will take away . . . the unclean spirit out of the earth."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

  I answer that, The miracles worked by Christ were arguments for the 
faith which He taught. Now, by the power of His Godhead He was to rescue 
those who would believe in Him, from the power of the demons; according 
to Jn. 12:31: "Now shall the prince of this world be cast out." 
Consequently it was fitting that, among other miracles, He should also 
deliver those who were obsessed by demons.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Just as men were to be delivered by Christ from the power 
of the demons, so by Him were they to be brought to the companionship of 
the angels, according to Col. 1:20: "Making peace through the blood of 
His cross, both as to the things on earth and the things that are in 
heaven." Therefore it was not fitting to show forth to men other miracles 
as regards the angels, except by angels appearing to men: as happened in 
His Nativity, His Resurrection, and His Ascension.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix): "Christ was known to 
the demons just as much as He willed; and He willed just as far as there 
was need. But He was known to them, not as to the holy angels, by that 
which is eternal life, but by certain temporal effects of His power." 
First, when they saw that Christ was hungry after fasting they deemed Him 
not to be the Son of God. Hence, on Lk. 4:3, "If Thou be the Son of God," 
etc., Ambrose says: "What means this way of addressing Him? save that, 
though He knew that the Son of God was to come, yet he did not think that 
He had come in the weakness of the flesh?" But afterwards, when he saw 
Him work miracles, he had a sort of conjectural suspicion that He was the 
Son of God. Hence on Mk. 1:24, "I know who Thou art, the Holy one of 
God," Chrysostom [*Victor of Antioch. Cf. Catena Aurea] says that "he had 
no certain or firm knowledge of God's coming." Yet he knew that He was 
"the Christ promised in the Law," wherefore it is said (Lk. 4:41) that 
"they knew that He was Christ." But it was rather from suspicion than 
from certainty that they confessed Him to be the Son of God. Hence Bede 
says on Lk. 4:41: "The demons confess the Son of God, and, as stated 
farther on, 'they knew that He was Christ.' For when the devil saw Him 
weakened by His fast, He knew Him to be a real man: but when He failed to 
overcome Him by temptation, He doubted lest He should be the Son of God. 
And now from the power of His miracles He either knew, or rather 
suspected that He was the Son of God. His reason therefore for persuading 
the Jews to crucify Him was not that he deemed Him not to be Christ or  
the Son of God, but because he did not foresee that he would be the loser 
by His death. For the Apostle says of this mystery" (1 Cor. 2:7,8), 
"which is hidden from the beginning, that 'none of the princes of this 
world knew it,' for if they had known it they would never have crucified 
the Lord of glory."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: The miracles which Christ worked in expelling demons were 
for the benefit, not of the demons, but of men, that they might glorify 
Him. Wherefore He forbade them to speak in His praise. First, to give us 
an example. For, as Athanasius says, "He restrained his speech, although 
he was confessing the truth; to teach us not to care about such things, 
although it may seem that what is said is true. For it is wrong to seek 
to learn from the devil when we have the Divine Scripture": Besides, it 
is dangerous, since the demons frequently mix falsehood with truth. Or, 
as Chrysostom [*Cyril of Alexandria, Comment. in Luc.] says: "It was not 
meet for them to usurp the prerogative of the apostolic office. Nor was 
it fitting that the mystery of Christ should be proclaimed by a corrupt 
tongue" because "praise is not seemly in the mouth of a sinner" [*Cf. 
Theophylact, Enarr. in Luc.]. Thirdly, because, as Bede says, "He did not 
wish the envy of the Jews to be aroused thereby" [*Bede, Expos. in Luc. 
iv, 41]. Hence "even the apostles are commanded to be silent about Him, 
lest, if His Divine majesty were proclaimed, the gift of His Passion 
should be deferred."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 4: Christ came specially to teach and to work miracles for the 
good of man, and principally as to the salvation of his soul. 
Consequently, He allowed the demons, that He cast out, to do man some 
harm, either in his body or in his goods, for the salvation of man's 
soul---namely, for man's instruction. Hence Chrysostom says on Mt. 8:32 
that Christ let the demons depart into the swine, "not as yielding to the 
demons, but first, to show . . . how harmful are the demons who attack 
men; secondly, that all might learn that the demons would not dare to 
hurt even the swine, except He allow them; thirdly, that they would have 
treated those men more grievously than they treated the swine, unless 
they had been protected by God's providence."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 2/2

 And for the same motives He allowed the man, who was being delivered 
from the demons, to suffer grievously for the moment; yet did He release 
him at once from that distress. By this, moreover, we are taught, as Bede 
says on Mk. 9:25, that "often, when after falling into sin we strive to 
return to God, we experience further and more grievous attacks from the 
old enemy. This he does, either that he may inspire us with a distaste 
for virtue, or that he may avenge the shame of having been cast out." For 
the man who was healed "became as dead," says Jerome, "because to those 
who are healed it is said, 'You are dead; and your life is hid with 
Christ in God'" (Col. 3:3)


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it was fitting that Christ should work miracles in the heavenly 
bodies?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1 

 OBJ 1: It would seem that it was unfitting that Christ should work 
miracles in the heavenly bodies. For, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), 
"it beseems Divine providence not to destroy, but to preserve, nature." 
Now, the heavenly bodies are by nature incorruptible and unchangeable, as 
is proved De Coelo i. Therefore it was unfitting that Christ should cause 
any change in the order of the heavenly bodies.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the course of time is marked out by the movement of the 
heavenly bodies, according to Gn. 1:14: "Let there be lights made in the 
firmament of heaven . . . and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and 
for days and years." Consequently if the movement of the heavenly bodies 
be changed, the distinction and order of the seasons is changed. But 
there is no report of this having been perceived by astronomers, "who 
gaze at the stars and observe the months," as it is written (Is. 47:13). 
Therefore it seems that Christ did not work any change in the movements 
of the heavenly bodies.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, it was more fitting that Christ should work miracles in 
life and when teaching, than in death: both because, as it is written (2 
Cor. 13:4), "He was crucified through weakness, yet He liveth by the 
power of God," by which He worked miracles; and because His miracles were 
in confirmation of His doctrine. But there is no record of Christ having 
worked any miracles in the heavenly bodies during His lifetime: nay, 
more; when the Pharisees asked Him to give "a sign from heaven," He 
refused, as Matthew relates (12,16). Therefore it seems that neither in 
His death should He have worked any miracles in the heavenly bodies.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 23:44,45): "There was darkness over 
all the earth until the ninth hour; and the sun was darkened."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (Q[43], A[4]) it behooved Christ's 
miracles to be a sufficient proof of His Godhead. Now this is not so 
sufficiently proved by changes wrought in the lower bodies, which changes 
can be brought about by other causes, as it is by changes wrought in the 
course of the heavenly bodies, which have been established by God alone 
in an unchangeable order. This is what Dionysius says in his epistle to 
Polycarp: "We must recognize that no alteration can take place in the 
order end movement of the heavens that is not caused by Him who made all 
and changes all by His word." Therefore it was fitting that Christ should 
work miracles even in the heavenly bodies.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Just as it is natural to the lower bodies to be moved by 
the heavenly bodies, which are higher in the order of nature, so is it 
natural to any creature whatsoever to be changed by God, according to His 
will. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi; quoted by the gloss on 
Rm. 11:24: "Contrary to nature thou wert grafted," etc.): "God, the 
Creator and Author of all natures, does nothing contrary to nature: for 
whatsoever He does in each thing, that is its nature." Consequently the 
nature of a heavenly  body is not destroyed when God changes its course: 
but it would be if the change were due to any other cause.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/4

 Reply OBJ 2: The order of the seasons was not disturbed by the miracle 
worked by Christ. For, according to some, this gloom or darkening of the 
sun, which occurred at the time of Christ's passion, was caused by the 
sun withdrawing its rays, without any change in the movement of the 
heavenly bodies, which measures the duration of the seasons. Hence Jerome 
says on Mt. 27:45: "It seems as though the 'greater light' withdrew its 
rays, lest it should look on its Lord hanging on the Cross, or bestow its 
radiancy on the impious blasphemers." And this withdrawal of the rays is 
not to be understood as though it were in the sun's power to send forth 
or withdraw its rays: for it sheds its light, not from choice, but by 
nature, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). But the sun is said to withdraw 
its rays in so far as the Divine power caused the sun's rays not to reach 
the earth. On the other hand, Origen says this was caused by clouds 
coming between (the earth and the sun). Hence on Mt. 27:45 he says: "We 
must therefore suppose that many large and very dense clouds were massed 
together over Jerusalem and the land of Judea; so that it was exceedingly 
dark from the sixth to the ninth hour. Hence I am of opinion that, just 
as the other signs which occurred at the time of the Passion"---namely, 
"the rending of the veil, the quaking of the earth," etc.---"took place 
in Jerusalem only, so this also: . . . or if anyone prefer, it may be 
extended to the whole of Judea," since it is said that "'there was 
darkness over the whole earth,' which expression refers to the land of 
Judea, as may be gathered from 3 Kgs. 18:10, where Abdias says to Elias: 
'As the Lord thy God liveth, there is no nation or kingdom whither my 
lord hath not sent to seek thee': which shows that they sought him among 
the nations in the neighborhood of Judea."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 2/4

 On this point, however, credence is to be given rather to Dionysius, who 
is an eyewitness as to this having occurred by the moon eclipsing the 
sun. For he says (Ep. ad Polycarp): "Without any doubt we saw the moon 
encroach on the sun," he being in Egypt at the time, as he says in the 
same letter. And in this he points out four miracles. The first is that 
the natural eclipse of the sun by interposition of the moon never takes 
place except when the sun and moon are in conjunction. But then the sun 
and moon were in opposition, it being the fifteenth day, since it was the 
Jewish Passover. Wherefore he says: "For it was not the time of 
conjunction."---The second miracle is that whereas at the sixth hour the 
moon was seen, together with the sun, in the middle of the heavens, in 
the evening it was seen to be in its place, i.e. in the east, opposite 
the sun. Wherefore he says: "Again we saw it," i.e. the moon, "return 
supernaturally into opposition with the sun," so as to be diametrically 
opposite, having withdrawn from the sun "at the ninth hour," when the 
darkness ceased, "until evening." From this it is clear that the wonted 
course of the seasons was not disturbed, because the Divine power caused 
the moon both to approach the sun supernaturally at an unwonted season, 
and to withdraw from the sun and return to its proper place according to  
the season. The third miracle was that the eclipse of the sun naturally 
always begins in that part of the sun which is to the west and spreads 
towards the east: and this is because the moon's proper movement from 
west to east is more rapid than that of the sun, and consequently the 
moon, coming up from the west, overtakes the sun and passes it on its 
eastward course. But in this case the moon had already passed the sun, 
and was distant from it by the length of half the heavenly circle, being 
opposite to it: consequently it had to return eastwards towards the sun, 
so as to come into apparent contact with it from the east, and continue 
in a westerly direction. This is what he refers to when he says: 
"Moreover, we saw the eclipse begin to the east and spread towards the 
western edge of the sun," for it was a total eclipse, "and afterwards 
pass away." The fourth miracle consisted in this, that in a natural 
eclipse that part of the sun which is first eclipsed is the first to 
reappear (because the moon, coming in front of the sun, by its natural 
movement passes on to the east, so as to come away first from the western 
portion of the sun, which was the first part to be eclipsed), whereas in 
this case the moon, while returning miraculously from the east to the 
west, did not pass the sun so as to be to the west of it: but having 
reached the western edge of the sun returned towards the east: so that 
the last portion of the sun to be eclipsed was the first to reappear. 
Consequently the eclipse began towards the east, whereas the sun began to 
reappear towards the west. And to this he refers by saying: "Again we 
observed that the occultation and emersion did not begin from the same 
point," i.e. on the same side of the sun, "but on opposite sides."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 3/4

 Chrysostom adds a fifth miracle (Hom. lxxxviii in Matth.), saying that 
"the darkness in this case lasted for three hours, whereas an eclipse of 
the sun lasts but a short time, for it is soon over, as those know who 
have seen one." Hence we are given to understand that the moon was 
stationary below the sun, except we prefer to say that the duration of 
the darkness was measured from the first moment of occultation of the sun 
to the moment when the sun had completely emerged from the eclipse.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 4/4

 But, as Origen says (on Mt. 27:45), "against this the children of this 
world object: How is it such a phenomenal occurrence is not related by 
any writer, whether Greek or barbarian?" And he says that someone of the 
name of Phlegon "relates in his chronicles that this took place during 
the reign of Tiberius Caesar, but he does not say that it occurred at the 
full moon." It may be, therefore, that because it was not the time for an 
eclipse, the various astronomers living then throughout the world were 
not on the look-out for one, and that they ascribed this darkness to some 
disturbance of the atmosphere. But in Egypt, where clouds are few on 
account of the tranquillity of the air, Dionysius and his companions were 
considerably astonished so as to make the aforesaid observations about 
this darkness.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Then, above all, was there need for miraculous proof of 
Christ's Godhead, when the weakness of human nature was  most apparent in 
Him. Hence it was that at His birth a new star appeared in the heavens. 
Wherefore Maximus says (Serm. de Nativ. viii): "If thou disdain the 
manger, raise thine eyes a little and gaze on the new star in the 
heavens, proclaiming to the world the birth of our Lord." But in His 
Passion yet greater weakness appeared in His manhood. Therefore there was 
need for yet greater miracles in the greater lights of the world. And, as 
Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxviii in Matth.): "This is the sign which He 
promised to them who sought for one saying: 'An evil and adulterous 
generation seeketh a sign; and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign 
of Jonas the prophet,' referring to His Cross . . . and Resurrection . . 
. For it was much more wonderful that this should happen when He was 
crucified than when He was walking on earth."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ worked miracles fittingly on men?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ worked miracles unfittingly on men. For 
in man the soul is of more import than the body. Now Christ worked many 
miracles on bodies, but we do not read of His working any miracles on 
souls: for neither did He convert any unbelievers to the faith mightily, 
but by persuading and convincing them with outward miracles, nor is it 
related of Him that He made wise men out of fools. Therefore it seems 
that He worked miracles on men in an unfitting manner.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, as stated above (Q[43], A[2]), Christ worked miracles by 
Divine power: to which it is proper to work suddenly, perfectly, and 
without any assistance. Now Christ did not always heal men suddenly as to 
their bodies: for it is written (Mk. 8:22-25) that, "taking the blind man 
by the hand, He led him out of the town; and, spitting upon his eyes, 
laying His hands on him, He asked him if he saw anything. And, looking 
up, he said: I see men as it were trees walking. After that again He laid 
His hands upon his eyes, and he began to see, and was restored, so that 
he saw all things clearly." It is clear from this that He did not heal 
him suddenly, but at first imperfectly, and by means of His spittle. 
Therefore it seems that He worked miracles on men unfittingly.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, there is no need to remove at the same time things which 
do not follow from one another. Now bodily ailments are not always the 
result of sin, as appears from our Lord's words (Jn. 9:3): "Neither hath 
this man sinned, nor his parents, that he should be born blind." It was 
unseemly, therefore, for Him to forgive the sins of those who sought the 
healing of the body, as He is related to have done in the case of the man 
sick of the palsy (Mt. 9:2): the more that the healing of the body, being 
of less account than the forgiveness of sins, does not seem a sufficient 
argument for the power of forgiving sins.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, Christ's miracles were worked in order to confirm His 
doctrine, and witness to His Godhead, as stated above (Q[43], A[4]). Now 
no man should hinder the purpose of his own work. Therefore it seems 
unfitting that Christ commanded those who had  been healed miraculously 
to tell no one, as appears from Mt. 9:30 and Mk. 8:26: the more so, since 
He commanded others to proclaim the miracles worked on them; thus it is 
related (Mk. 5:19) that, after delivering a man from the demons, He said 
to him: "Go into thy house to thy friends, and tell them, how great 
things the Lord hath done for thee."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Mk. 7:37): "He hath done all things 
well: He hath made both the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, The means should be proportionate to the end. Now Christ 
came into the world and taught in order to save man, according to Jn. 
3:17: "For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world, but 
that the world may be saved by Him." Therefore it was fitting that 
Christ, by miraculously healing men in particular, should prove Himself 
to be the universal and spiritual Saviour of all.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/3

 Reply OBJ 1: The means are distinct from the end. Now the end for which 
Christ's miracles were worked was the health of the rational part, which 
is healed by the light of wisdom, and the gift of righteousness: the 
former of which presupposes the latter, since, as it is written (Wis. 
1:4): "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body 
subject to sins." Now it was unfitting that man should be made righteous 
unless he willed: for this would be both against the nature of 
righteousness, which implies rectitude of the will, and contrary to the 
very nature of man, which requires to be led to good by the free-will, 
not by force. Christ, therefore, justified man inwardly by the Divine 
power, but not against man's will. Nor did this pertain to His miracles, 
but to the end of His miracles. In like manner by the Divine power He 
infused wisdom into the simple minds of His disciples: hence He said to 
them (Lk. 21:15): "I will give you a mouth and wisdom" which "all your 
adversaries will not be able to resist and gainsay." And this, in so far 
as the enlightenment was inward, is not to be reckoned as a miracle, but 
only as regards the outward action---namely, in so far as men saw that 
those who had been unlettered and simple spoke with such wisdom and 
constancy. Wherefore it is written (Acts 4:13) that the Jews, "seeing the 
constancy of Peter and of John, understanding that they were illiterate 
and ignorant men . . . wondered."---And though such like spiritual 
effects are different from visible miracles, yet do they testify to 
Christ's doctrine and power, according to Heb. 2:4: "God also bearing 
them witness by signs and wonders and divers miracles, and distributions 
of the Holy Ghost."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 2/3

 Nevertheless Christ did work some miracles on the soul of man, 
principally by changing its lower powers. Hence Jerome, commenting on Mt. 
9:9, "He rose up and followed Him," says: "Such was the splendor and 
majesty of His hidden Godhead, which shone forth even in His human 
countenance, that those who gazed on it were drawn to Him at first 
sight." And on Mt. 21:12, "(Jesus) cast out all them that sold and 
bought," the same Jerome says: "Of all the signs  worked by our Lord, 
this seems to me the most wondrous---that one man, at that time despised, 
could, with the blows of one scourge, cast out such a multitude. For a 
fiery and heavenly light flashed from His eyes, and the majesty of His 
Godhead shone in His countenance." And Origen says on Jn. 2:15 that "this 
was a greater miracle than when He changed water into wine, for there He 
shows His power over inanimate matter, whereas here He tames the minds of 
thousands of men." Again, on Jn. 18:6, "They went backward and fell to 
the ground," Augustine says: "Though that crowd was fierce in hate and 
terrible with arms, yet did that one word . . . without any weapon, smite 
them through, drive them back, lay them prostrate: for God lay hidden in 
that flesh." Moreover, to this must be referred what Luke says (4:30) 
---namely, that Jesus, "passing through the midst of them, went His way," 
on which Chrysostom observes (Hom. xlviii in Joan.): "That He stood in 
the midst of those who were lying in wait for Him, and was not seized by 
them, shows the power of His Godhead"; and, again, that which is written 
Jn. 8:59, "Jesus hid Himself and went out of the Temple," on which 
Theophylact says: "He did not hide Himself in a corner of the Temple, as 
if afraid, or take shelter behind a wall or pillar; but by His heavenly 
power making Himself invisible to those who were threatening Him, He 
passed through the midst of them."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 3/3

 From all these instances it is clear that Christ, when He willed, 
changed the minds of men by His Divine power, not only by the bestowal of 
righteousness and the infusion of wisdom, which pertains to the end of 
miracles, but also by outwardly drawing men to Himself, or by terrifying 
or stupefying them, which pertains to the miraculous itself.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/3

 Reply OBJ 2: Christ came to save the world, not only by Divine power, 
but also through the mystery of His Incarnation. Consequently in healing 
the sick He frequently not only made use of His Divine power, healing by 
way of command, but also by applying something pertaining to His human 
nature. Hence on Lk. 4:40, "He, laying His hands on every one of them, 
healed them," Cyril says: "Although, as God, He might, by one word, have 
driven out all diseases, yet He touched them, showing that His own flesh 
was endowed with a healing virtue." And on Mk. 8:23, "Spitting upon his 
eyes, laying His hands on him," etc., Chrysostom [*Victor of Antioch] 
says: "He spat and laid His hands upon the blind man, wishing to show 
that His Divine word, accompanied by His operation, works wonders: for 
the hand signifies operation; the spittle signifies the word which 
proceeds from the mouth." Again, on Jn. 9:6, "He made clay of the 
spittle, and spread the clay upon the eyes of the blind man," Augustine 
says: "Of His spittle He made clay---because 'the Word was made flesh.'" 
Or, again, as Chrysostom says, to signify that it was He who made man of 
"the slime of the earth."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 2/3

 It is furthermore to be observed concerning Christ's miracles that 
generally what He did was most perfect. Hence on Jn. 2:10, "Every man at 
first setteth forth good wine," Chrysostom says: "Christ's miracles are 
such as to far surpass the works of nature  in splendor and usefulness." 
Likewise in an instant He conferred perfect health on the sick. Hence on 
Mt. 8:15, "She arose and ministered to them," Jerome says: "Health 
restored by our Lord returns wholly and instantly."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 3/3

 There was, however, special reason for the contrary happening in the 
case of the man born blind, and this was his want of faith, as Chrysostom 
[*Victor of Antioch] says. Or as Bede observes on Mk. 8:23: "Whom He 
might have healed wholly and instantly by a single word, He heals little 
by little, to show the extent of human blindness, which hardly, and that 
only by degrees, can come back to the light: and to point out that each 
step forward in the way of perfection is due to the help of His grace."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[43], A[2]), Christ worked miracles by 
Divine power. Now "the works of God are perfect" (Dt. 32:4). But nothing 
is perfect except it attain its end. Now the end of the outward healing 
worked by Christ is the healing of the soul. Consequently it was not 
fitting that Christ should heal a man's body without healing his soul. 
Wherefore on Jn. 7:23, "I have healed the whole man on a Sabbath day," 
Augustine says: "Because he was cured, so as to be whole in body; he 
believed, so as to be whole in soul." To the man sick of the palsy it is 
said specially, "Thy sins are forgiven thee," because, as Jerome observes 
on Mt. 9:5,6: "We are hereby given to understand that ailments of the 
body are frequently due to sin: for which reason, perhaps, first are his 
sins forgiven, that the cause of the ailment being removed, health may 
return." Wherefore, also (Jn. 4:14), it is said: "Sin no more, lest some 
worse thing happen to thee." Whence, says Chrysostom, "we learn that his 
sickness was the result of sin."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2

 Nevertheless, as Chrysostom says on Mt. 9:5: "By how much a soul is of 
more account than a body, by so much is the forgiving of sins a greater 
work than healing the body; but because the one is unseen He does the 
lesser and more manifest thing in order to prove the greater and more 
unseen."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: On Mt. 9:30, "See that no man know this," Chrysostom says: 
"If in another place we find Him saying, 'Go and declare the glory of 
God' (cf. Mk. 5:19; Lk. 8:39), that is not contrary to this. For He 
instructs us to forbid them that would praise us on our own account: but 
if the glory be referred to God, then we must not forbid, but command, 
that it be done."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ worked miracles fittingly on irrational creatures?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ worked miracles unfittingly on 
irrational creatures. For brute animals are more noble than plants. But 
Christ worked a miracle on plants as when the fig-tree withered away at 
His command (Mt. 21:19). Therefore Christ should have worked miracles 
also on brute animals.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, punishment is not justly inflicted save for  fault. But 
it was not the fault of the fig-tree that Christ found no fruit on it, 
when fruit was not in season (Mk. 11:13). Therefore it seems unfitting 
that He withered it up.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, air and water are between heaven and earth. But Christ 
worked some miracles in the heavens, as stated above (A[2]), and likewise 
in the earth, when it quaked at the time of His Passion (Mt. 27:51). 
Therefore it seems that He should also have worked miracles in the air 
and water, such as to divide the sea, as did Moses (Ex. 14:21); or a 
river, as did Josue (Josue 3:16) and Elias (4 Kgs. 2:8); and to cause 
thunder to be heard in the air, as occurred on Mount Sinai when the Law 
was given (Ex. 19:16), and like to what Elias did (3 Kgs. 18:45).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, miraculous works pertain to the work of Divine 
providence in governing the world. But this work presupposes creation. It 
seems, therefore, unfitting that in His miracles Christ made use of 
creation: when, to wit, He multiplied the loaves. Therefore His miracles 
in regard to irrational creatures seem to have been unfitting.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Christ is "the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24), of whom it 
is said (Wis. 8:1) that "she ordereth all things sweetly."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above, Christ's miracles were ordained to the 
end that He should be recognized as having Divine power, unto the 
salvation of mankind. Now it belongs to the Divine power that every 
creature be subject thereto. Consequently it behooved Him to work 
miracles on every kind of creature, not only on man, but also on 
irrational creatures.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Brute animals are akin generically to man, wherefore they 
were created on the same day as man. And since He had worked many 
miracles on the bodies of men, there was no need for Him to work miracles 
on the bodies of brute animals. and so much the less that, as to their 
sensible and corporeal nature, the same reason applies to both men and 
animals, especially terrestrial. But fish, from living in water, are more 
alien from human nature; wherefore they were made on another day. On them 
Christ worked a miracle in the plentiful draught of fishes, related Lk. 5 
and Jn. 21; and, again, in the fish caught by Peter, who found a stater 
in it (Mt. 17:26). As to the swine who were cast headlong into the sea, 
this was not the effect of a Divine miracle, but of the action of the 
demons, God permitting.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: As Chrysostom says on Mt. 21:19: "When our Lord does any 
such like thing" on plants or brute animals, "ask not how it was just to 
wither up the fig-tree, since it was not the fruit season; to ask such a 
question is foolish in the extreme," because such things cannot commit a 
fault or be punished: "but look at the miracle, and wonder at the 
worker." Nor does the Creator "inflict" any hurt on the owner, if He 
choose to make use of His own creature for the salvation of others; 
rather, as Hilary says on Mt. 21:19,  "we should see in this a proof of 
God's goodness, for when He wished to afford an example of salvation as 
being procured by Him, He exercised His mighty power on the human body: 
but when He wished to picture to them His severity towards those who 
wilfully disobey Him, He foreshadows their doom by His sentence on the 
tree." This is the more noteworthy in a fig-tree which, as Chrysostom 
observes (on Mt. 21:19), "being full of moisture, makes the miracle all 
the more remarkable."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 3: Christ also worked miracles befitting to Himself in the air 
and water: when, to wit, as related Mt. 8:26, "He commanded the winds, 
and the sea, and there came a great calm." But it was not befitting that 
He who came to restore all things to a state of peace and calm should 
cause either a disturbance in the atmosphere or a division of waters. 
Hence the Apostle says (Heb. 12:18): "You are not come to a fire that may 
be touched and approached [Vulg.: 'a mountain that might be touched, and 
a burning fire'], and a whirlwind, and darkness, and storm."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2

 At the time of His Passion, however, the "veil was rent," to signify the 
unfolding of the mysteries of the Law; "the graves were opened," to 
signify that His death gave life to the dead; "the earth quaked and the 
rocks were rent," to signify that man's stony heart would be softened, 
and the whole world changed for the better by the virtue of His Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[44] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: The multiplication of the loaves was not effected by way of 
creation, but by an addition of extraneous matter transformed into 
loaves; hence Augustine says on Jn. 6:1-14: "Whence He multiplieth a few 
grains into harvests, thence in His hands He multiplied the five loaves": 
and it is clearly by a process of transformation that grains are 
multiplied into harvests.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] Out. Para. 1/1

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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it was fitting that Christ should be transfigured?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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 (Q[5], A[1]). Therefore 
it seems that it should not have been transfigured.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, a glorified body has four gifts, as we shall state 
farther on (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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, Our Lord, after foretelling His Passion to His disciples, 
had exhorted them to follow the path of His sufferings (Mt. 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As Jerome says on Mt. 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether this clarity was the clarity of glory?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that this clarity was not the clarity of glory. For 
a gloss of Bede on Mt. 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Jerome says on the words "He was transfigured before 
them" (Mt. 17:2): "He appeared to the Apostles such as He will appear on 
the day of judgment." And on Mt. 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] Body Para. 1/2

 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 (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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] Body Para. 2/2

 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 SS, Q[175], A[3], ad 2.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2

 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the witnesses of the transfiguration were fittingly chosen?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary is the authority of the Gospel.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] Body Para. 1/1

 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 (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 Mt. 
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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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 Mt. 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As Chrysostom says on Mt. 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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 Mt. 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 Mt. 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].


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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 (Mt. 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary is the authority of the Gospel.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] Body Para. 1/1

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[45] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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 Mt. 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."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] Out. Para. 1/3

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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] Out. Para. 2/3

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] Out. Para. 3/3

 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?


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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 (Q[1], A[2]), God gave him His Son to satisfy for him, 
according to Rm. 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

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


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, our Lord addresses the Father (Mt. 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 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 FP, Q[14], A[13].

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] Body Para. 1/1

 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 (Rm. 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 
Pt. 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 (Q[48], A[1]; 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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?"

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ ought to have suffered on the cross?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, it was said of Christ (Mt. 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Body Para. 1/8

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Body Para. 2/8

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Body Para. 3/8

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Body Para. 4/8

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Body Para. 5/8

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Body Para. 6/8

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Body Para. 7/8

 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] Body Para. 8/8

 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 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." 
Hence it is written (Gal. 3:13): "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse 
of the law, being made a curse for us."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ endured all suffering?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did endure all sufferings, because 
Hilary (De Trin. x) says: "God's only-begotten Son testifies that He 
endured every kind of human sufferings in order to accomplish the 
sacrament of His death, when with bowed head He gave up the ghost." It 
seems, therefore, that He did endure all human sufferings.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Is. 52:13): "Behold My servant shall 
understand, He shall be exalted and extolled, and shall be exceeding 
high; as many as have been astonished at Him [Vulg.: 'thee'], so shall 
His visage be inglorious among men, and His form  among the sons of men." 
But Christ was exalted in that He had all grace and all knowledge, at 
which many were astonished in admiration thereof. Therefore it seems that 
He was "inglorious," by enduring every human suffering.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, Christ's Passion was ordained for man's deliverance from 
sin, as stated above (A[3]). But Christ came to deliver men from every 
kind of sin. Therefore He ought to have endured every kind of suffering.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 19:32): "The soldiers therefore 
came: and they broke the legs of the first, and of the other who was 
crucified with Him; but after they were come to Jesus, when they saw that 
He was already dead, they did not break His legs." Consequently, He did 
not endure every human suffering.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] Body Para. 1/3

 I answer that, Human sufferings may be considered under two aspects. 
First of all, specifically, and in this way it was not necessary for 
Christ to endure them all, since many are mutually exclusive, as burning 
and drowning; for we are dealing now with sufferings inflicted from 
without, since it was not beseeming for Him to endure those arising from 
within, such as bodily ailments, as already stated (Q[14], A[4]). But, 
speaking generically, He did endure every human suffering. This admits of 
a threefold acceptance. First of all, on the part of men: for He endured 
something from Gentiles and from Jews; from men and from women, as is 
clear from the women servants who accused Peter. He suffered from the 
rulers, from their servants and from the mob, according to Ps. 2:1,2: 
"Why have the Gentiles raged, and the people devised vain things? The 
kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the 
Lord and against His Christ." He suffered from friends and acquaintances, 
as is manifest from Judas betraying and Peter denying Him.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] Body Para. 2/3

 Secondly, the same is evident on the part of the sufferings which a man 
can endure. For Christ suffered from friends abandoning Him; in His 
reputation, from the blasphemies hurled at Him; in His honor and glory, 
from the mockeries and the insults heaped upon Him; in things, for He was 
despoiled of His garments; in His soul, from sadness, weariness, and 
fear; in His body, from wounds and scourgings.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] Body Para. 3/3

 Thirdly, it may be considered with regard to His bodily members. In His 
head He suffered from the crown of piercing thorns; in His hands and 
feet, from the fastening of the nails; on His face from the blows and 
spittle; and from the lashes over His entire body. Moreover, He suffered 
in all His bodily senses: in touch, by being scourged and nailed; in 
taste, by being given vinegar and gall to drink; in smell, by being 
fastened to the gibbet in a place reeking with the stench of corpses, 
"which is called Calvary"; in hearing, by being tormented with the cries 
of blasphemers and scorners; in sight, by beholding the tears of His 
Mother and of the disciple whom He loved.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1 

 Reply OBJ 1: Hilary's words are to be understood as to all classes of 
sufferings, but not as to their kinds.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: The likeness is sustained, not as to the number of the 
sufferings and graces, but as to their greatness; for, as He was uplifted 
above others in gifts of graces, so was He lowered beneath others by the 
ignominy of His sufferings.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: The very least one of Christ's sufferings was sufficient of 
itself to redeem the human race from all sins; but as to fittingness, it 
sufficed that He should endure all classes of sufferings, as stated above.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the pain of Christ's Passion was greater than all other pains?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that the pain of Christ's Passion was not greater 
than all other pains. For the sufferer's pain is increased by the 
sharpness and the duration of the suffering. But some of the martyrs 
endured sharper and more prolonged pains than Christ, as is seen in St. 
Lawrence, who was roasted upon a gridiron; and in St. Vincent, whose 
flesh was torn with iron pincers. Therefore it seems that the pain of the 
suffering Christ was not the greatest.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, strength of soul mitigates pain, so much so that the 
Stoics held there was no sadness in the soul of a wise man; and Aristotle 
(Ethic. ii) holds that moral virtue fixes the mean in the passions. But 
Christ had most perfect strength of soul. Therefore it seems that the 
greatest pain did not exist in Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the more sensitive the sufferer is, the more acute will 
the pain be. But the soul is more sensitive than the body, since the body 
feels in virtue of the soul; also, Adam in the state of innocence seems 
to have had a body more sensitive than Christ had, who assumed a human 
body with its natural defects. Consequently, it seems that the pain of a 
sufferer in purgatory, or in hell, or even Adam's pain, if he suffered at 
all, was greater than Christ's in the Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, the greater the good lost, the greater the pain. But by 
sinning the sinner loses a greater good than Christ did when suffering; 
since the life of grace is greater than the life of nature: also, Christ, 
who lost His life, but was to rise again after three days, seems to have 
lost less than those who lose their lives and abide in death. Therefore 
it seems that Christ's pain was not the greatest of all.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 5: Further, the victim's innocence lessens the sting of his 
sufferings. But Christ died innocent, according to Jer. 9:19: "I was as a 
meek lamb, that is carried to be a victim." Therefore it seems that the 
pain of Christ's Passion was not the greatest.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 6: Further, there was nothing superfluous in Christ's  conduct. But 
the slightest pain would have sufficed to secure man's salvation, because 
from His Divine Person it would have had infinite virtue. Therefore it 
would have been superfluous to choose the greatest of all pains.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Lam. 1:12) on behalf of Christ's Person: 
"O all ye that pass by the way attend, and see if there be any sorrow 
like unto My sorrow."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Body Para. 1/5

 I answer that, As we have stated, when treating of the defects assumed 
by Christ (Q[15], AA[5],6), there was true and sensible pain in the 
suffering Christ, which is caused by something hurtful to the body: also, 
there was internal pain, which is caused from the apprehension of 
something hurtful, and this is termed "sadness." And in Christ each of 
these was the greatest in this present life. This arose from four causes. 
First of all, from the sources of His pain. For the cause of the 
sensitive pain was the wounding of His body; and this wounding had its 
bitterness, both from the extent of the suffering already mentioned (A[5]
) and from the kind of suffering, since the death of the crucified is 
most bitter, because they are pierced in nervous and highly sensitive 
parts---to wit, the hands and feet; moreover, the weight of the suspended 
body intensifies the agony. and besides this there is the duration of the 
suffering because they do not die at once like those slain by the sword. 
The cause of the interior pain was, first of all, all the sins of the 
human race, for which He made satisfaction by suffering; hence He 
ascribes them, so to speak, to Himself, saying (Ps. 21:2): "The words of 
my sins." Secondly, especially the fall of the Jews and of the others who 
sinned in His death chiefly of the apostles, who were scandalized at His 
Passion. Thirdly, the loss of His bodily life, which is naturally 
horrible to human nature.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Body Para. 2/5

 The magnitude of His suffering may be considered, secondly, from the 
susceptibility of the sufferer as to both soul and body. For His body was 
endowed with a most perfect constitution, since it was fashioned 
miraculously by the operation of the Holy Ghost; just as some other 
things made by miracles are better than others, as Chrysostom says (Hom. 
xxii in Joan.) respecting the wine into which Christ changed the water at 
the wedding-feast. And, consequently, Christ's sense of touch, the 
sensitiveness of which is the reason for our feeling pain, was most 
acute. His soul likewise, from its interior powers, apprehended most 
vehemently all the causes of sadness.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Body Para. 3/5

 Thirdly, the magnitude of Christ's suffering can be estimated from the 
singleness of His pain and sadness. In other sufferers the interior 
sadness is mitigated, and even the exterior suffering, from some 
consideration of reason, by some derivation or redundance from the higher 
powers into the lower; but it was not so with the suffering Christ, 
because "He permitted each one of His powers to exercise its proper 
function," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Body Para. 4/5 

 Fourthly, the magnitude of the pain of Christ's suffering can be 
reckoned by this, that the pain and sorrow were accepted voluntarily, to 
the end of men's deliverance from sin; and consequently He embraced the 
amount of pain proportionate to the magnitude of the fruit which resulted 
therefrom.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] Body Para. 5/5

 From all these causes weighed together, it follows that Christ's pain 
was the very greatest.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: This argument follows from only one of the considerations 
adduced---namely, from the bodily injury, which is the cause of sensitive 
pain; but the torment of the suffering Christ is much more intensified 
from other causes, as above stated.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Moral virtue lessens interior sadness in one way, and 
outward sensitive pain in quite another; for it lessens interior sadness 
directly by fixing the mean, as being its proper matter, within limits. 
But, as was laid down in the FS, Q[64], A[2], moral virtue fixes the mean 
in the passions, not according to mathematical quantity, but according to 
quantity of proportion, so that the passion shall not go beyond the rule 
of reason. And since the Stoics held all sadness to be unprofitable, they 
accordingly believed it to be altogether discordant with reason, and 
consequently to be shunned altogether by a wise man. But in very truth 
some sadness is praiseworthy, as Augustine proves (De Civ. Dei 
xiv)---namely, when it flows from holy love, as, for instance, when a man 
is saddened over his own or others' sins. Furthermore, it is employed as 
a useful means of satisfying for sins, according to the saying of the 
Apostle (2 Cor. 7:10): "The sorrow that is according to God worketh 
penance, steadfast unto salvation." And so to atone for the sins of all 
men, Christ accepted sadness, the greatest in absolute quantity, yet not 
exceeding the rule of reason. But moral virtue does not lessen outward 
sensitive pain, because such pain is not subject to reason, but follows 
the nature of the body; yet it lessens it indirectly by redundance of the 
higher powers into the lower. But this did not happen in Christ's case, 
as stated above (cf. Q[14], A[1], ad 2; Q[45], A[2]).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: The pain of a suffering, separated soul belongs to the 
state of future condemnation, which exceeds every evil of this life, just 
as the glory of the saints surpasses every good of the present life. 
Accordingly, when we say that Christ's pain was the greatest, we make no 
comparison between His and the pain of a separated soul. But Adam's body 
could not suffer, except he sinned. so that he would become mortal, and 
passible. And, though actually suffering, it would have felt less pain 
than Christ's body, for the reasons already stated. From all this it is 
clear that even if by impassibility Adam had suffered in the state of 
innocence, his pain would have been less than Christ's.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: Christ grieved not only over the loss of His own bodily 
life, but also over the sins of all others. And this grief in Christ 
surpassed all grief of every contrite heart, both because it flowed from 
a greater wisdom and charity, by which the pang of  contrition is 
intensified, and because He grieved at the one time for all sins, 
according to Is. 53:4: "Surely He hath carried our sorrows." But such was 
the dignity of Christ's life in the body, especially on account of the 
Godhead united with it, that its loss, even for one hour, would be a 
matter of greater grief than the loss of another man's life for howsoever 
long a time. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii) that the man of 
virtue loves his life all the more in proportion as he knows it to be 
better; and yet he exposes it for virtue's sake. And in like fashion 
Christ laid down His most beloved life for the good of charity, according 
to Jer. 12:7: "I have given My dear soul into the hands of her enemies."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 5: The sufferer's innocence does lessen numerically the pain 
of the suffering, since, when a guilty man suffers, he grieves not merely 
on account of the penalty, but also because of the crime. whereas the 
innocent man grieves only for the penalty: yet this pain is more 
intensified by reason of his innocence, in so far as he deems the hurt 
inflicted to be the more undeserved. Hence it is that even others are 
more deserving of blame if they do not compassionate him. according to 
Is. 57:1: "The just perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[6] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 6: Christ willed to deliver the human race from sins not 
merely by His power, but also according to justice. And therefore He did 
not simply weigh what great virtue His suffering would have from union 
with the Godhead, but also how much, according to His human nature, His 
pain would avail for so great a satisfaction.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ suffered in His whole soul?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not suffer in His whole soul. For 
the soul suffers indirectly when the body suffers, inasmuch as it is the 
"act of the body." But the soul is not, as to its every part, the "act of 
the body"; because the intellect is the act of no body, as is said De 
Anima iii. Therefore it seems that Christ did not suffer in His whole 
soul.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, every power of the soul is passive in regard to its 
proper object. But the higher part of reason has for its object the 
eternal types, "to the consideration and consultation of which it directs 
itself," as Augustine says (De Trin. xii). But Christ could suffer no 
hurt from the eternal types, since they are nowise opposed to Him. 
Therefore it seems that He did not suffer in His whole soul.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, a sensitive passion is said to be complete when it comes 
into contact with the reason. But there was none such in Christ, but only 
"pro-passions"; as Jerome remarks on Mt. 26:37. Hence Dionysius says in a 
letter to John the Evangelist that "He endured only mentally the 
sufferings inflicted upon Him." Consequently it does not seem that Christ 
suffered in His whole soul. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, suffering causes pain: but there is no pain in the 
speculative intellect, because, as the Philosopher says (Topic. i), 
"there is no sadness in opposition to the pleasure which comes of 
consideration." Therefore it seems that Christ did not suffer in His 
whole soul.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 87:4) on behalf of Christ: "My soul 
is filled with evils": upon which the gloss adds: "Not with vices, but 
with woes, whereby the soul suffers with the flesh; or with evils, viz. 
of a perishing people, by compassionating them." But His soul would not 
have been filled with these evils except He had suffered in His whole 
soul. Therefore Christ suffered in His entire soul.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, A whole is so termed with respect to its parts. But the 
parts of a soul are its faculties. So, then, the whole soul is said to 
suffer in so far as it is afflicted as to its essence, or as to all its 
faculties. But it must be borne in mind that a faculty of the soul can 
suffer in two ways: first of all, by its own passion; and this comes of 
its being afflicted by its proper object; thus, sight may suffer from 
superabundance of the visible object. In another way a faculty suffers by 
a passion in the subject on which it is based; as sight suffers when the 
sense of touch in the eye is affected, upon which the sense of sight 
rests, as, for instance, when the eye is pricked, or is disaffected by 
heat.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] Body Para. 2/2

 So, then, we say that if the soul be considered with respect to its 
essence, it is evident that Christ's whole soul suffered. For the soul's 
whole essence is allied with the body, so that it is entire in the whole 
body and in its every part. Consequently, when the body suffered and was 
disposed to separate from the soul, the entire soul suffered. But if we 
consider the whole soul according to its faculties, speaking thus of the 
proper passions of the faculties, He suffered indeed as to all His lower 
powers; because in all the soul's lower powers, whose operations are but 
temporal, there was something to be found which was a source of woe to 
Christ, as is evident from what was said above (A[6]). But Christ's 
higher reason did not suffer thereby on the part of its object, which is 
God, who was the cause, not of grief, but rather of delight and joy, to 
the soul of Christ. Nevertheless, all the powers of Christ's soul did 
suffer according as any faculty is said to be affected as regards its 
subject, because all the faculties of Christ's soul were rooted in its 
essence, to which suffering extended when the body, whose act it is, 
suffered.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Although the intellect as a faculty is not the act of the 
body, still the soul's essence is the act of the body, and in it the 
intellective faculty is rooted, as was shown in the FP, Q[77], AA[6],8.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: This argument proceeds from passion on the part of the 
proper object, according to which Christ's higher reason did  not suffer.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Grief is then said to be a true passion, by which the soul 
is troubled, when the passion in the sensitive part causes reason to 
deflect from the rectitude of its act, so that it then follows the 
passion, and has no longer free-will with regard to it. In this way 
passion of the sensitive part did not extend to reason in Christ, but 
merely subjectively, as was stated above.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[7] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: The speculative intellect can have no pain or sadness on 
the part of its object, which is truth considered absolutely, and which 
is its perfection: nevertheless, both grief and its cause can reach it in 
the way mentioned above.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ's entire soul enjoyed blessed fruition during the Passion?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's entire soul did not enjoy blessed 
fruition during the Passion. For it is not possible to be sad and glad at 
the one time, since sadness and gladness are contraries. But Christ's 
whole soul suffered grief during the Passion, as was stated above (A[7]). 
Therefore His whole soul could not enjoy fruition.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii) that, if sadness be 
vehement, it not only checks the contrary delight, but every delight; and 
conversely. But the grief of Christ's Passion was the greatest, as shown 
above (A[6]); and likewise the enjoyment of fruition is also the 
greatest, as was laid down in the first volume of the FS, Q[34], A[3]. 
Consequently, it was not possible for Christ's whole soul to be suffering 
and rejoicing at the one time.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, beatific "fruition" comes of the knowledge and love of 
Divine things, as Augustine says (Doctr. Christ. i). But all the soul's 
powers do not extend to the knowledge and love of God. Therefore Christ's 
whole soul did not enjoy fruition.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): Christ's Godhead 
"permitted His flesh to do and to suffer what was proper to it." In like 
fashion, since it belonged to Christ's soul, inasmuch as it was blessed, 
to enjoy fruition, His Passion did not impede fruition.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (A[7]), the whole soul can be understood 
both according to its essence and according to all its faculties. If it 
be understood according to its essence, then His whole soul did enjoy 
fruition, inasmuch as it is the subject of the higher part of the soul, 
to which it belongs, to enjoy the Godhead: so that as passion, by reason 
of the essence, is attributed to the higher part of the soul, so, on the 
other hand, by reason of the superior part of the soul, fruition is 
attributed to the essence. But if we take the whole soul as comprising 
all its faculties, thus His entire soul did not enjoy fruition: not 
directly, indeed,  because fruition is not the act of any one part of the 
soul; nor by any overflow of glory, because, since Christ was still upon 
earth, there was no overflowing of glory from the higher part into the 
lower, nor from the soul into the body. But since, on the contrary, the 
soul's higher part was not hindered in its proper acts by the lower, it 
follows that the higher part of His soul enjoyed fruition perfectly while 
Christ was suffering.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: The joy of fruition is not opposed directly to the grief of 
the Passion, because they have not the same object. Now nothing prevents 
contraries from being in the same subject, but not according to the same. 
And so the joy of fruition can appertain to the higher part of reason by 
its proper act; but grief of the Passion according to the subject. Grief 
of the Passion belongs to the essence of the soul by reason of the body, 
whose form the soul is; whereas the joy of fruition (belongs to the soul) 
by reason of the faculty in which it is subjected.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: The Philosopher's contention is true because of the 
overflow which takes place naturally of one faculty of the soul into 
another; but it was not so with Christ, as was said above.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Such argument holds good of the totality of the soul with 
regard to its faculties.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ suffered at a suitable time?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not suffer at a suitable time. For 
Christ's Passion was prefigured by the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb: 
hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:7): "Christ our Pasch is sacrificed." 
But the paschal lamb was slain "on the fourteenth day at eventide," as is 
stated in Ex. 12:6. Therefore it seems that Christ ought to have suffered 
then; which is manifestly false: for He was then celebrating the Pasch 
with His disciples, according to Mark's account (14:12): "On the first 
day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Pasch"; whereas it 
was on the following day that He suffered.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Christ's Passion is called His uplifting, according to 
Jn. 3:14: "So must the Son of man be lifted up." And Christ is Himself 
called the Sun of Justice, as we read Mal. 4:2. Therefore it seems that 
He ought to have suffered at the sixth hour, when the sun is at its 
highest point, and yet the contrary appears from Mk. 15:25: "It was the 
third hour, and they crucified Him."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, as the sun is at its highest point in each day at the 
sixth hour, so also it reaches its highest point in every year at the 
summer solstice. Therefore Christ ought to have suffered about the time 
of the summer solstice rather than about the vernal equinox.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, the world was enlightened by Christ's presence  in it, 
according to Jn. 9:5: "As long as I am in the world I am the light of the 
world." Consequently it was fitting for man's salvation that Christ 
should have lived longer in the world, so that He should have suffered, 
not in young, but in old, age.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 13:1): "Jesus, knowing that His hour 
was come for Him to pass out of this world to the Father"; and (Jn. 2:4): 
"My hour is not yet come." Upon which texts Augustine observes: "When He 
had done as much as He deemed sufficient, then came His hour, not of 
necessity, but of will, not of condition, but of power." Therefore Christ 
died at an opportune time.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As was observed above (A[1]), Christ's Passion was 
subject to His will. But His will was ruled by the Divine wisdom which 
"ordereth all things" conveniently and "sweetly" (Wis. 8:1). Consequently 
it must be said that Christ's Passion was enacted at an opportune time. 
Hence it is written in De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. lv: "The Saviour 
did everything in its proper place and season."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 1/5

 Reply OBJ 1: Some hold that Christ did die on the fourteenth day of the 
moon, when the Jews sacrificed the Pasch: hence it is stated (Jn. 18:28) 
that the Jews "went not into Pilate's hall" on the day of the Passion, 
"that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Pasch." Upon 
this Chrysostom observes (Hom. lxxxii in Joan.): "The Jews celebrated the 
Pasch then; but He celebrated the Pasch on the previous day, reserving 
His own slaying until the Friday, when the old Pasch was kept." And this 
appears to tally with the statement (Jn. 13:1-5) that "before the 
festival day of the Pasch . . . when supper was done" . . . Christ washed 
"the feet of the disciples."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 2/5

 But Matthew's account (26:17) seems opposed to this; that "on the first 
day of the Azymes the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt Thou 
that we prepare for Thee to eat the Pasch?" From which, as Jerome says, 
"since the fourteenth day of the first month is called the day of the 
Azymes, when the lamb was slain, and when it was full moon," it is quite 
clear that Christ kept the supper on the fourteenth and died on the 
fifteenth. And this comes out more clearly from Mk. 14:12: "On the first 
day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Pasch," etc.; and 
from Lk. 22:7: "The day of the unleavened bread came, on which it was 
necessary that the Pasch should be killed."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 3/5

 Consequently, then, others say that Christ ate the Pasch with His 
disciples on the proper day---that is, on the fourteenth day of the 
moon---"showing thereby that up to the last day He was not opposed to the 
law," as Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxi in Matth.): but that the Jews, being 
busied in compassing Christ's death against the law, put off celebrating 
the Pasch until the following day. And on this account it is said of them 
that on the day of Christ's Passion they were unwilling to enter Pilate's 
hall, "that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the 
Pasch." 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 4/5

 But even this solution does not tally with Mark, who says: "On the first 
day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Pasch." 
Consequently Christ and the Jews celebrated the ancient Pasch at the one 
time. And as Bede says on Lk. 22:7,8: "Although Christ who is our Pasch 
was slain on the following day---that is, on the fifteenth day of the 
moon---nevertheless, on the night when the Lamb was sacrificed, 
delivering to the disciples to be celebrated, the mysteries of His body 
and blood, and being held and bound by the Jews, He hallowed the opening 
of His own immolation---that is, of His Passion."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 5/5

 But the words (Jn. 13:1) "Before the festival day of the Pasch" are to 
be understood to refer to the fourteenth day of the moon, which then fell 
upon the Thursday: for the fifteenth day of the moon was the most solemn 
day of the Pasch with the Jews: and so the same day which John calls 
"before the festival day of the Pasch," on account of the natural 
distinction of days, Matthew calls the first day of the unleavened bread, 
because, according to the rite of the Jewish festivity, the solemnity 
began from the evening of the preceding day. When it is said, then, that 
they were going to eat the Pasch on the fifteenth day of the month, it is 
to be understood that the Pasch there is not called the Paschal lamb, 
which was sacrificed on the fourteenth day, but the Paschal food---that 
is, the unleavened bread---which had to be eaten by the clean. Hence 
Chrysostom in the same passage gives another explanation, that the Pasch 
can be taken as meaning the whole feast of the Jews, which lasted seven 
days.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. iii): "'It was about 
the sixth hour' when the Lord was delivered up by Pilate to be 
crucified," as John relates. For it "was not quite the sixth hour, but 
about the sixth---that is, it was after the fifth, and when part of the 
sixth had been entered upon until the sixth hour was ended---that the 
darkness began, when Christ hung upon the cross. It is understood to have 
been the third hour when the Jews clamored for the Lord to be crucified: 
and it is most clearly shown that they crucified Him when they clamored 
out. Therefore, lest anyone might divert the thought of so great a crime 
from the Jews to the soldiers, he says: 'It was the third hour, and they 
crucified Him,' that they before all may be found to have crucified Him, 
who at the third hour clamored for His crucifixion. Although there are 
not wanting some persons who wish the Parasceve to be understood as the 
third hour, which John recalls, saying: 'It was the Parasceve, about the 
sixth hour.' For 'Parasceve' is interpreted 'preparation.' But the true 
Pasch, which was celebrated in the Lord's Passion, began to be prepared 
from the ninth hour of the night---namely, when the chief priests said: 
'He is deserving of death.'" According to John, then, "the sixth hour of 
the Parasceve" lasts from that hour of the night down to Christ's 
crucifixion; while, according to Mark, it is the third hour of the day.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2

 Still, there are some who contend that this discrepancy is due  to the 
error of a Greek transcriber: since the characters employed by them to 
represent 3 and 6 are somewhat alike.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: According to the author of De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. 
lv, "our Lord willed to redeem and reform the world by His Passion, at 
the time of year at which He had created it---that is, at the equinox. It 
is then that day grows upon night; because by our Saviour's Passion we 
are brought from darkness to light." And since the perfect enlightening 
will come about at Christ's second coming, therefore the season of His 
second coming is compared (Mt. 24:32,33) to the summer in these words: 
"When the branch thereof is now tender, and the leaves come forth, you 
know that summer is nigh: so you also, when you shall see all these 
things, know ye that it is nigh even at the doors." And then also shall 
be Christ's greatest exaltation.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[9] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: Christ willed to suffer while yet young, for three reasons. 
First of all, to commend the more His love by giving up His life for us 
when He was in His most perfect state of life. Secondly, because it was 
not becoming for Him to show any decay of nature nor to be subject to 
disease, as stated above (Q[14], A[4]). Thirdly, that by dying and rising 
at an early age Christ might exhibit beforehand in His own person the 
future condition of those who rise again. Hence it is written (Eph. 
4:13): "Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge 
of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the 
fulness of Christ."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ suffered in a suitable place?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not suffer in a suitable place. For 
Christ suffered according to His human nature, which was conceived in 
Nazareth and born in Bethlehem. Consequently it seems that He ought not 
to have suffered in Jerusalem, but in Nazareth or Bethlehem.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the reality ought to correspond with the figure. But 
Christ's Passion was prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Law, and 
these were offered up in the Temple. Therefore it seems that Christ ought 
to have suffered in the Temple, and not outside the city gate.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the medicine should correspond with the disease. But 
Christ's Passion was the medicine against Adam's sin: and Adam was not 
buried in Jerusalem, but in Hebron; for it is written (Josue 14:15): "The 
name of Hebron before was called Cariath-Arbe: Adam the greatest in the 
land of [Vulg.: 'among'] the Enacims was laid there."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 13:33): "It cannot be that a prophet 
perish out of Jerusalem." Therefore it was fitting that He should die in 
Jerusalem.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] Body Para. 1/1 

 I answer that, According to the author of De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. 
lv, "the Saviour did everything in its proper place and season," because, 
as all things are in His hands, so are all places: and consequently, 
since Christ suffered at a suitable time, so did He in a suitable place.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 1/4

 Reply OBJ 1: Christ died most appropriately in Jerusalem. First of all, 
because Jerusalem was God's chosen place for the offering of sacrifices 
to Himself: and these figurative sacrifices foreshadowed Christ's 
Passion, which is a true sacrifice, according to Eph. 5:2: "He hath 
delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor 
of sweetness." Hence Bede says in a Homily (xxiii): "When the Passion 
drew nigh, our Lord willed to draw nigh to the place of the 
Passion"---that is to say, to Jerusalem---whither He came five days 
before the Pasch; just as, according to the legal precept, the Paschal 
lamb was led to the place of immolation five days before the Pasch, which 
is the tenth day of the moon.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 2/4

 Secondly, because the virtue of His Passion was to be spread over the 
whole world, He wished to suffer in the center of the habitable 
world---that is, in Jerusalem. Accordingly it is written (Ps. 73:12): 
"But God is our King before ages: He hath wrought salvation in the midst 
of the earth"---that is, in Jerusalem, which is called "the navel of the 
earth" [*Cf. Jerome's comment on Ezech. 5:5].

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 3/4

 Thirdly, because it was specially in keeping with His humility: that, as 
He chose the most shameful manner of death, so likewise it was part of 
His humility that He did not refuse to suffer in so celebrated a place. 
Hence Pope Leo says (Serm. I in Epiph.): "He who had taken upon Himself 
the form of a servant chose Bethlehem for His nativity and Jerusalem for 
His Passion."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 4/4

 Fourthly, He willed to suffer in Jerusalem, where the chief priests 
dwelt, to show that the wickedness of His slayers arose from the chiefs 
of the Jewish people. Hence it is written (Acts 4:27): "There assembled 
together in this city against Thy holy child Jesus whom Thou hast 
anointed, Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of 
Israel."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 1/3

 Reply OBJ 2: For three reasons Christ suffered outside the gate, and not 
in the Temple nor in the city. First of all, that the truth might 
correspond with the figure. For the calf and the goat which were offered 
in most solemn sacrifice for expiation on behalf of the entire multitude 
were burnt outside the camp, as commanded in Lev. 16:27. Hence it is 
written (Heb. 13:27): "For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is 
brought into the holies by the high-priest for sin, are burned without 
the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people by His 
own blood, suffered without the gate."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 2/3

 Secondly, to set us the example of shunning worldly conversation. 
Accordingly the passage continues: "Let us go forth  therefore to Him 
without the camp, bearing His reproach."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 3/3

 Thirdly, as Chrysostom says in a sermon on the Passion (Hom. i De Cruce 
et Latrone): "The Lord was not willing to suffer under a roof, nor in the 
Jewish Temple, lest the Jews might take away the saving sacrifice, and 
lest you might think He was offered for that people only. Consequently, 
it was beyond the city and outside the walls, that you may learn it was a 
universal sacrifice, an oblation for the whole world, a cleansing for 
all."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: According to Jerome, in his commentary on Mt. 27:33, 
"someone explained 'the place of Calvary' as being the place where Adam 
was buried; and that it was so called because the skull of the first man 
was buried there. A pleasing interpretation indeed, and one suited to 
catch the ear of the people, but, still, not the true one. For the spots 
where the condemned are beheaded are outside the city and beyond the 
gates, deriving thence the name of Calvary---that is, of the beheaded. 
Jesus, accordingly, was crucified there, that the standards of martyrdom 
might be uplifted over what was formerly the place of the condemned. But 
Adam was buried close by Hebron and Arbe, as we read in the book of Jesus 
Ben Nave." But Jesus was to be crucified in the common spot of the 
condemned rather than beside Adam's sepulchre, to make it manifest that 
Christ's cross was the remedy, not only for Adam's personal sin, but also 
for the sin of the entire world.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it was fitting for Christ to be crucified with thieves?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem unfitting for Christ to have been crucified with 
thieves, because it is written (2 Cor. 6:14): "What participation hath 
justice with injustice?" But for our sakes Christ "of God is made unto us 
justice" (1 Cor. 1:30); whereas iniquity applies to thieves. Therefore it 
was not fitting for Christ to be crucified with thieves.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, on Mt. 26:35, "Though I should die with Thee, I will not 
deny Thee," Origen (Tract. xxxv in Matth.) observes: "It was not men's 
lot to die with Jesus, since He died for all." Again, on Lk. 22:33, "I am 
ready to go with Thee, both into prison and death," Ambrose says: "Our 
Lord's Passion has followers, but not equals." It seems, then, much less 
fitting for Christ to suffer with thieves.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, it is written (Mt. 27:44) that "the thieves who were 
crucified with Him reproached Him." But in Lk. 22:42 it is stated that 
one of them who were crucified with Christ cried out to Him: "Lord, 
remember me when Thou shalt come into Thy kingdom." It seems, then, that 
besides the blasphemous thieves there was another man who did not 
blaspheme Him: and so the Evangelist's account does not seem to be 
accurate when it says that Christ was crucified with thieves.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It was foretold by Isaias (53:12): "And He  was reputed 
with the wicked."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, Christ was crucified between thieves from one intention 
on the part of the Jews, and from quite another on the part of God's 
ordaining. As to the intention of the Jews, Chrysostom remarks (Hom. 
lxxxvii in Matth.) that they crucified the two thieves, one on either 
side, "that He might be made to share their guilt. But it did not happen 
so; because mention is never made of them; whereas His cross is honored 
everywhere. Kings lay aside their crowns to take up the cross: on their 
purple robes, on their diadems, on their weapons, on the consecrated 
table, everywhere the cross shines forth."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] Body Para. 2/2

 As to God's ordinance, Christ was crucified with thieves, because, as 
Jerome says on Mt. 27:33: "As Christ became accursed of the cross for us, 
so for our salvation He was crucified as a guilty one among the guilty." 
Secondly, as Pope Leo observes (Serm. iv de Passione): "Two thieves were 
crucified, one on His right hand and one on His left, to set forth by the 
very appearance of the gibbet that separation of all men which shall be 
made in His hour of judgment." And Augustine on Jn. 7:36: "The very 
cross, if thou mark it well, was a judgment-seat: for the judge being set 
in the midst, the one who believed was delivered, the other who mocked 
Him was condemned. Already He has signified what He shall do to the quick 
and the dead; some He will set on His right, others on His left hand." 
Thirdly, according to Hilary (Comm. xxxiii in Matth.): "Two thieves are 
set, one upon His right and one upon His left, to show that all mankind 
is called to the sacrament of His Passion. But because of the cleavage 
between believers and unbelievers, the multitude is divided into right 
and left, those on the right being saved by the justification of faith." 
Fourthly, because, as Bede says on Mk. 15:27: "The thieves crucified with 
our Lord denote those who, believing in and confessing Christ, either 
endure the conflict of martyrdom or keep the institutes of stricter 
observance. But those who do the like for the sake of everlasting glory 
are denoted by the faith of the thief on the right; while others who do 
so for the sake of human applause copy the mind and behavior of the one 
on the left."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Just as Christ was not obliged to die, but willingly 
submitted to death so as to vanquish death by His power: so neither 
deserved He to be classed with thieves; but willed to be reputed with the 
ungodly that He might destroy ungodliness by His power. Accordingly, 
Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxiv in Joan.) that "to convert the thief upon 
the cross, and lead him into paradise, was no less a wonder than to shake 
the rocks."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: It was not fitting that anyone else should die with Christ 
from the same cause as Christ: hence Origen continues thus in the same 
passage: "All had been under sin, and all required that another should 
die for them, not they for others."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[11] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. iii): We can 
understand Matthew "as putting the plural for the singular"  when he said 
"the thieves reproached Him." Or it may be said, with Jerome, that "at 
first both blasphemed Him, but afterwards one believed in Him on 
witnessing the wonders."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ's Passion is to be attributed to His Godhead?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion is to be attributed to His 
Godhead; for it is written (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had known it, they 
would never have crucified the Lord of glory." But Christ is the Lord of 
glory in respect of His Godhead. Therefore Christ's Passion is attributed 
to Him in respect of His Godhead.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the principle of men's salvation is the Godhead Itself, 
according to Ps. 36:39: "But the salvation of the just is from the Lord." 
Consequently, if Christ's Passion did not appertain to His Godhead, it 
would seem that it could not produce fruit in us.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the Jews were punished for slaying Christ as for 
murdering God Himself; as is proved by the gravity of the punishment. Now 
this would not be so if the Passion were not attributed to the Godhead. 
Therefore Christ's Passion should be so attributed.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Athanasius says (Ep. ad Epict.): "The Word is 
impassible whose Nature is Divine." But what is impassible cannot suffer. 
Consequently, Christ's Passion did not concern His Godhead.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (Q[2], AA[1],2,3,6), the union of the 
human nature with the Divine was effected in the Person, in the 
hypostasis, in the suppositum, yet observing the distinction of natures; 
so that it is the same Person and hypostasis of the Divine and human 
natures, while each nature retains that which is proper to it. And 
therefore, as stated above (Q[16], A[4]), the Passion is to be attributed 
to the suppositum of the Divine Nature, not because of the Divine Nature, 
which is impassible, but by reason of the human nature. Hence, in a 
Synodal Epistle of Cyril [*Act. Conc. Ephes., P. i, cap. 26] we read: "If 
any man does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and 
was crucified in the flesh, let him be anathema." Therefore Christ's 
Passion belongs to the "suppositum" of the Divine Nature by reason of the 
passible nature assumed, but not on account of the impassible Divine 
Nature.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: The Lord of glory is said to be crucified, not as the Lord 
of glory, but as a man capable of suffering.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: As is said in a sermon of the Council of Ephesus [*P. iii, 
cap. 10], "Christ's death being, as it were, God's death"---namely, by 
union in Person---"destroyed death"; since He who suffered "was both God 
and man. For God's Nature was not wounded, nor did It undergo any change 
by those sufferings."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[46] A[12] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As the passage quoted goes on to say: "The Jews  did not 
crucify one who was simply a man; they inflicted their presumptions upon 
God. For suppose a prince to speak by word of mouth, and that his words 
are committed to writing on a parchment and sent out to the cities, and 
that some rebel tears up the document, he will be led forth to endure the 
death sentence, not for merely tearing up a document, but as destroying 
the imperial message. Let not the Jew, then, stand in security, as 
crucifying a mere man; since what he saw was as the parchment, but what 
was hidden under it was the imperial Word, the Son by nature, not the 
mere utterance of a tongue."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] Out. Para. 1/1

OF THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF CHRIST'S PASSION (SIX ARTICLES)

 We have now to consider the efficient cause of Christ's Passion, 
concerning which there are six points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether Christ was slain by others, or by Himself?

 (2) From what motive did He deliver Himself up to the Passion?

 (3) Whether the Father delivered Him up to suffer?

 (4) Whether it was fitting that He should suffer at the hands of the 
Gentiles, or rather of the Jews?

 (5) Whether His slayers knew who He was?

 (6) Of the sin of them who slew Christ.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ was slain by another or by Himself?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ was not slain by another, but by 
Himself. For He says Himself (Jn. 10:18): "No men taketh My life from Me, 
but I lay it down of Myself." But he is said to kill another who takes 
away his life. Consequently, Christ was not slain by others, but by 
Himself.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, those slain by others sink gradually from exhausted 
nature, and this is strikingly apparent in the crucified: for, as 
Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "Those who were crucified were tormented 
with a lingering death." But this did not happen in Christ's case, since 
"crying out, with a loud voice, He yielded up the ghost" (Mt. 27:50). 
Therefore Christ was not slain by others, but by Himself.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, those slain by others suffer a violent death, and hence 
die unwillingly, because violent is opposed to voluntary. But Augustine 
says (De Trin. iv): "Christ's spirit did not quit the flesh unwillingly, 
but because He willed it, when He willed it, and as He willed it." 
Consequently Christ was not slain by others, but by Himself.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 18:33): "After they have scourged 
Him, they will put him to death."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, A thing may cause an effect in two ways: in the first 
instance by acting directly so as to produce the effect; and in this 
manner Christ's persecutors slew Him because they inflicted on Him what 
was a sufficient cause of death, and with the intention  of slaying Him, 
and the effect followed, since death resulted from that cause. In another 
way someone causes an effect indirectly---that is, by not preventing it 
when he can do so; just as one person is said to drench another by not 
closing the window through which the shower is entering: and in this way 
Christ was the cause of His own Passion and death. For He could have 
prevented His Passion and death. Firstly, by holding His enemies in 
check, so that they would not have been eager to slay Him, or would have 
been powerless to do so. Secondly, because His spirit had the power of 
preserving His fleshly nature from the infliction of any injury; and 
Christ's soul had this power, because it was united in unity of person 
with the Divine Word, as Augustine says (De Trin. iv). Therefore, since 
Christ's soul did not repel the injury inflicted on His body, but willed 
His corporeal nature to succumb to such injury, He is said to have laid 
down His life, or to have died voluntarily.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: When we hear the words, "No man taketh away My life from 
Me," we must understand "against My will": for that is properly said to 
be "taken away" which one takes from someone who is unwilling and unable 
to resist.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: In order for Christ to show that the Passion inflicted by 
violence did not take away His life, He preserved the strength of His 
bodily nature, so that at the last moment He was able to cry out with a 
loud voice: and hence His death should be computed among His other 
miracles. Accordingly it is written (Mk. 15:39): "And the centurion who 
stood over against Him, seeing that crying out in this manner, He had 
given up the ghost, said: Indeed, this man was the Son of God." It was 
also a subject of wonder in Christ's death that He died sooner than the 
others who were tormented with the same suffering. Hence John says 
(19:32) that "they broke the legs of the first, and of the other that was 
crucified with Him," that they might die more speedily; "but after they 
were come to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not 
break His legs." Mark also states (15:44) that "Pilate wondered that He 
should be already dead." For as of His own will His bodily nature kept 
its vigor to the end, so likewise, when He willed, He suddenly succumbed 
to the injury inflicted.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Christ at the same time suffered violence in order to die, 
and died, nevertheless, voluntarily; because violence was inflicted on 
His body, which, however, prevailed over His body only so far as He 
willed it.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ died out of obedience?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not die out of obedience. For 
obedience is referred to a command. But we do not read that Christ was 
commanded to suffer. Therefore He did not suffer out of obedience.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, a man is said to do from obedience what he  does from 
necessity of precept. But Christ did not suffer necessarily, but 
voluntarily. Therefore He did not suffer out of obedience.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, charity is a more excellent virtue than obedience. But 
we read that Christ suffered out of charity, according to Eph. 5:2: "Walk 
in love, as Christ also has loved us, and delivered Himself up for us." 
Therefore Christ's Passion ought to be ascribed rather to charity than to 
obedience.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, It was befitting that Christ should suffer out of 
obedience. First of all, because it was in keeping with human 
justification, that "as by the disobedience of one man, many were made 
sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just," as is 
written Rm. 5:19. Secondly, it was suitable for reconciling man with God: 
hence it is written (Rm. 5:10): "We are reconciled to God by the death of 
His Son," in so far as Christ's death was a most acceptable sacrifice to 
God, according to Eph. 5:2: "He delivered Himself for us an oblation and 
a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness." Now obedience is preferred 
to all sacrifices. according to 1 Kgs. 15:22: "Obedience is better than 
sacrifices." Therefore it was fitting that the sacrifice of Christ's 
Passion and death should proceed from obedience. Thirdly, it was in 
keeping with His victory whereby He triumphed over death and its author; 
because a soldier cannot conquer unless he obey his captain. And so the 
Man-Christ secured the victory through being obedient to God, according 
to Prov. 21:28: "An obedient man shall speak of victory."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Christ received a command from the Father to suffer. For it 
is written (Jn. 10:18): "I have power to lay down My life, and I have 
power to take it up again: (and) this commandment have I received of My 
Father"---namely, of laying down His life and of resuming it again. "From 
which," as Chrysostom says (Hom. lix in Joan.), it is not to be 
understood "that at first He awaited the command, and that He had need to 
be told, but He showed the proceeding to be a voluntary one, and 
destroyed suspicion of opposition" to the Father. Yet because the Old Law 
was ended by Christ's death, according to His dying words, "It is 
consummated" (Jn. 19:30), it may be understood that by His suffering He 
fulfilled all the precepts of the Old Law. He fulfilled those of the 
moral order which are founded on the precepts of charity, inasmuch as He 
suffered both out of love of the Father, according to Jn. 14:31: "That 
the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father hath given 
Me commandment, so do I: arise, let us go hence"---namely, to the place 
of His Passion: and out of love of His neighbor, according to Gal. 2:20: 
"He loved me, and delivered Himself up for me." Christ likewise by His 
Passion fulfilled the ceremonial precepts of the Law, which are chiefly 
ordained for sacrifices and oblations, in so far as all the ancient 
sacrifices were figures of that true sacrifice which the dying Christ 
offered  for us. Hence it is written (Col. 2:16,17): "Let no man judge 
you in meat or drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new 
moon, or of the sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the 
body is Christ's," for the reason that Christ is compared to them as a 
body is to a shadow. Christ also by His Passion fulfilled the judicial 
precepts of the Law, which are chiefly ordained for making compensation 
to them who have suffered wrong, since, as is written Ps. 68:5: He "paid 
that which" He "took not away," suffering Himself to be fastened to a 
tree on account of the apple which man had plucked from the tree against 
God's command.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Although obedience implies necessity with regard to the 
thing commanded, nevertheless it implies free-will with regard to the 
fulfilling of the precept. And, indeed, such was Christ's obedience, for, 
although His Passion and death, considered in themselves, were repugnant 
to the natural will, yet Christ resolved to fulfill God's will with 
respect to the same, according to Ps. 39:9: "That I should do Thy will: O 
my God, I have desired it." Hence He said (Mt. 26:42): "If this chalice 
may not pass away, but I must drink it, Thy will be done."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: For the same reason Christ suffered out of charity and out 
of obedience; because He fulfilled even the precepts of charity out of 
obedience only; and was obedient, out of love, to the Father's command.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether God the Father delivered up Christ to the Passion?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that God the Father did not deliver up Christ to 
the Passion. For it is a wicked and cruel act to hand over an innocent 
man to torment and death. But, as it is written (Dt. 32:4): "God is 
faithful, and without any iniquity." Therefore He did not hand over the 
innocent Christ to His Passion and death.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, it is not likely that a man be given over to death by 
himself and by another also. But Christ gave Himself up for us, as it is 
written (Is. 53:12): "He hath delivered His soul unto death." 
Consequently it does not appear that God the Father delivered Him up.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, Judas is held to be guilty because he betrayed Christ to 
the Jews, according to Jn. 6:71: "One of you is a devil," alluding to 
Judas, who was to betray Him. The Jews are likewise reviled for 
delivering Him up to Pilate; as we read in Jn. 18:35: "Thy own nation, 
and the chief priests have delivered Thee up to me." Moreover, as is 
related in Jn. 19:16: Pilate "delivered Him to them to be crucified"; and 
according to 2 Cor. 6:14: there is no "participation of justice with 
injustice." It seems, therefore, that God the Father did not deliver up 
Christ to His Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Rm. 8:32): "God hath not spared His own 
Son, but delivered Him up for us all."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] Body Para. 1/1 

 I answer that, As observed above (A[2]), Christ suffered voluntarily out 
of obedience to the Father. Hence in three respects God the Father did 
deliver up Christ to the Passion. In the first way, because by His 
eternal will He preordained Christ's Passion for the deliverance of the 
human race, according to the words of Isaias (53:6): "The Lord hath laid 
on Him the iniquities of us all"; and again (Is. 53:10): "The Lord was 
pleased to bruise Him in infirmity." Secondly, inasmuch as, by the 
infusion of charity, He inspired Him with the will to suffer for us; 
hence we read in the same passage: "He was offered because it was His own 
will" (Is. 53:7). Thirdly, by not shielding Him from the Passion, but 
abandoning Him to His persecutors: thus we read (Mt. 27:46) that Christ, 
while hanging upon the cross, cried out: "My God, My God, why hast Thou 
forsaken Me?" because, to wit, He left Him to the power of His 
persecutors, as Augustine says (Ep. cxl).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: It is indeed a wicked and cruel act to hand over an 
innocent man to torment and to death against his will. Yet God the Father 
did not so deliver up Christ, but inspired Him with the will to suffer 
for us. God's "severity" (cf. Rm. 11:22) is thereby shown, for He would 
not remit sin without penalty: and the Apostle indicates this when (Rm. 
8:32) he says: "God spared not even His own Son." Likewise His "goodness" 
(Rm. 11:22) shines forth, since by no penalty endured could man pay Him 
enough satisfaction: and the Apostle denotes this when he says: "He 
delivered Him up for us all": and, again (Rm. 3:25): "Whom"---that is to 
say, Christ---God "hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in 
His blood."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Christ as God delivered Himself up to death by the same 
will and action as that by which the Father delivered Him up; but as man 
He gave Himself up by a will inspired of the Father. Consequently there 
is no contrariety in the Father delivering Him up and in Christ 
delivering Himself up.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: The same act, for good or evil, is judged differently, 
accordingly as it proceeds from a different source. The Father delivered 
up Christ, and Christ surrendered Himself, from charity, and consequently 
we give praise to both: but Judas betrayed Christ from greed, the Jews 
from envy, and Pilate from worldly fear, for he stood in fear of Caesar; 
and these accordingly are held guilty.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it was fitting for Christ to suffer at the hands of the Gentiles?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should suffer at the hands of 
the Gentiles. For since men were to be freed from sin by Christ's death, 
it would seem fitting that very few should sin in His death. But the Jews 
sinned in His death, on whose behalf it is said (Mt. 21:38): "This is the 
heir; come, let us kill him." It seems fitting, therefore, that the 
Gentiles should not be implicated in the sin of Christ's slaying.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1 

 OBJ 2: Further, the truth should respond to the figure. Now it was not 
the Gentiles but the Jews who offered the figurative sacrifices of the 
Old Law. Therefore neither ought Christ's Passion, which was a true 
sacrifice, to be fulfilled at the hands of the Gentiles.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, as related Jn. 5:18, "the Jews sought to kill" Christ 
because "He did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was His 
Father, making Himself equal to God." But these things seemed to be only 
against the Law of the Jews: hence they themselves said (Jn. 19:7): 
"According to the Law He ought to die because He made Himself the Son of 
God." It seems fitting, therefore, that Christ should suffer, at the 
hands not of the Gentiles, but of the Jews, and that what they said was 
untrue: "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death," since many 
sins are punishable with death according to the Law, as is evident from 
Lev. 20.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, our Lord Himself says (Mt. 20:19): "They shall deliver 
Him to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, The effect of Christ's Passion was foreshown by the very 
manner of His death. For Christ's Passion wrought its effect of salvation 
first of all among the Jews, very many of whom were baptized in His 
death, as is evident from Acts 2:41 and Acts 4:4. Afterwards, by the 
preaching of Jews, Christ's Passion passed on to the Gentiles. 
Consequently it was fitting that Christ should begin His sufferings at 
the hands of the Jews, and, after they had delivered Him up, finish His 
Passion at the hands of the Gentiles.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: In order to demonstrate the fulness of His love, on account 
of which He suffered, Christ upon the cross prayed for His persecutors. 
Therefore, that the fruits of His petition might accrue to Jews and 
Gentiles, Christ willed to suffer from both.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Christ's Passion was the offering of a sacrifice, inasmuch 
as He endured death of His own free-will out of charity: but in so far as 
He suffered from His persecutors it was not a sacrifice, but a most 
grievous sin.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says (Tract. cxiv in Joan.): "The Jews said 
that 'it is not lawful for us to put any man to death,' because they 
understood that it was not lawful for them to put any man to death" owing 
to the sacredness of the feast-day, which they had already begun to 
celebrate. or, as Chrysostom observes (Hom. lxxxiii in Joan.), because 
they wanted Him to be slain, not as a transgressor of the Law, but as a 
public enemy, since He had made Himself out to be a king, of which it was 
not their place to judge. Or, again, because it was not lawful for them 
to crucify Him (as they wanted to), but to stone Him, as they did to 
Stephen. Better still is it to say that the power of putting to death was 
taken from them by the Romans, whose subjects they were.

 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ's persecutors knew who He was?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's persecutors did know who He was. For 
it is written (Mt. 21:38) that the husbandmen seeing the son said within 
themselves: "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." On this Jerome 
remarks: "Our Lord proves most manifestly by these words that the rulers 
of the Jews crucified the Son of God, not from ignorance, but out of 
envy: for they understood that it was He to whom the Father says by the 
Prophet: 'Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy 
inheritance.'" It seems, therefore, that they knew Him to be Christ or 
the Son of God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, our Lord says (Jn. 15:24): "But now they have both seen 
and hated both Me and My Father." Now what is seen is known manifestly. 
Therefore the Jews, knowing Christ, inflicted the Passion on Him out of 
hatred.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, it is said in a sermon delivered in the Council of 
Ephesus (P. iii, cap. x): "Just as he who tears up the imperial message 
is doomed to die, as despising the prince's word; so the Jew, who 
crucified Him whom he had seen, will pay the penalty for daring to lay 
his hands on God the Word Himself." Now this would not be so had they not 
known Him to be the Son of God, because their ignorance would have 
excused them. Therefore it seems that the Jews in crucifying Christ knew 
Him to be the Son of God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had known it, they 
would never have crucified the Lord of glory." And (Acts 3:17), Peter, 
addressing the Jews, says: "I know that you did it through ignorance, as 
did also your rulers." Likewise the Lord hanging upon the cross said: 
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Lk. 23:34).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, Among the Jews some were elders, and others of lesser 
degree. Now according to the author of De Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu. 
lxvi, the elders, who were called "rulers, knew," as did also the devils, 
"that He was the Christ promised in the Law: for they saw all the signs 
in Him which the prophets said would come to pass: but they did not know 
the mystery of His Godhead." Consequently the Apostle says: "If they had 
known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." It must, 
however, be understood that their ignorance did not excuse them from 
crime, because it was, as it were, affected ignorance. For they saw 
manifest signs of His Godhead; yet they perverted them out of hatred and 
envy of Christ; neither would they believe His words, whereby He avowed 
that He was the Son of God. Hence He Himself says of them (Jn. 15:22): 
"If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now 
they have no excuse for their sin." And afterwards He adds (Jn. 15:24): 
"If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they 
would not have sin." And so the expression employed by Job (21:14) can be 
accepted on their behalf: "(Who) said to God: depart from us, we desire 
not the knowledge of Thy ways." 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] Body Para. 2/2

 But those of lesser degree---namely, the common folk---who had not 
grasped the mysteries of the Scriptures, did not fully comprehend that He 
was the Christ or the Son of God. For although some of them believed in 
Him, yet the multitude did not; and if they doubted sometimes whether He 
was the Christ, on account of the manifold signs and force of His 
teaching, as is stated Jn. 7:31,41, nevertheless they were deceived 
afterwards by their rulers, so that they did not believe Him to be the 
Son of God or the Christ. Hence Peter said to them: "I know that you did 
it through ignorance, as did also your rulers"---namely, because they 
were seduced by the rulers.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2

 Reply OBJ 1: Those words are spoken by the husbandmen of the vineyard; 
and these signify the rulers of the people, who knew Him to be the heir, 
inasmuch as they knew Him to be the Christ promised in the Law, but the 
words of Ps. 2:8 seem to militate against this answer: "Ask of Me, and I 
will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance"; which are addressed to 
Him of whom it is said: "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee." 
If, then, they knew Him to be the one to whom the words were addressed: 
"Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance," it 
follows that they knew Him to be the Son of God. Chrysostom, too, says 
upon the same passage that "they knew Him to be the Son of God." Bede 
likewise, commenting on the words, "For they know not what they do" (Lk. 
23:34), says: "It is to be observed that He does not pray for them who, 
understanding Him to be the Son of God, preferred to crucify Him rather 
than acknowledge Him." But to this it may be replied that they knew Him 
to be the Son of God, not from His Nature, but from the excellence of His 
singular grace.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2

 Yet we may hold that they are said to have known also that He was verily 
the Son of God, in that they had evident signs thereof: yet out of hatred 
and envy, they refused credence to these signs, by which they might have 
known that He was the Son of God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: The words quoted are preceded by the following: "If I had 
not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not 
have sin"; and then follow the words: "But now they have both seen and 
hated both Me and My Father." Now all this shows that while they beheld 
Christ's marvelous works, it was owing to their hatred that they did not 
know Him to be the Son of God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Affected ignorance does not excuse from guilt, but seems, 
rather, to aggravate it: for it shows that a man is so strongly attached 
to sin that he wishes to incur ignorance lest he avoid sinning. The Jews 
therefore sinned, as crucifiers not only of the Man-Christ, but also as 
of God.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether the sin of those who crucified Christ was most grievous?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that the sin of Christ's crucifiers was not the 
most grievous. Because the sin which has some excuse cannot  be most 
grievous. But our Lord Himself excused the sin of His crucifiers when He 
said: "Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do" (Lk. 23:34). 
Therefore theirs was not the most grievous sin.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, our Lord said to Pilate (Jn. 19:11): "He that hath 
delivered Me to thee hath the greater sin." But it was Pilate who caused 
Christ to be crucified by his minions. Therefore the sin of Judas the 
traitor seems to be greater than that of those who crucified Him.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v): "No one suffers 
injustice willingly"; and in the same place he adds: "Where no one 
suffers injustice, nobody works injustice." Consequently nobody wreaks 
injustice upon a willing subject. But Christ suffered willingly, as was 
shown above (AA[1],2). Therefore those who crucified Christ did Him no 
injustice; and hence their sin was not the most grievous.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Chrysostom, commenting on the words, "Fill ye up, then, 
the measure of your fathers" (Mt. 23:32), says: "In very truth they 
exceeded the measure of their fathers; for these latter slew men, but 
they crucified God."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (A[5]), the rulers of the Jews knew that 
He was the Christ: and if there was any ignorance in them, it was 
affected ignorance, which could not excuse them. Therefore their sin was 
the most grievous, both on account of the kind of sin, as well as from 
the malice of their will. The Jews also of the common order sinned most 
grievously as to the kind of their sin: yet in one respect their crime 
was lessened by reason of their ignorance. Hence Bede, commenting on Lk. 
23:34, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," says: "He 
prays for them who know not what they are doing, as having the zeal of 
God, but not according to knowledge." But the sin of the Gentiles, by 
whose hands He was crucified, was much more excusable, since they had no 
knowledge of the Law.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: As stated above, the excuse made by our Lord is not to be 
referred to the rulers among the Jews, but to the common people.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Judas did not deliver up Christ to Pilate, but to the chief 
priests who gave Him up to Pilate, according to Jn. 18:35: "Thy own 
nation and the chief priests have delivered Thee up to me." But the sin 
of all these was greater than that of Pilate, who slew Christ from fear 
of Caesar; and even greater than the sin of the soldiers who crucified 
Him at the governor's bidding, not out of cupidity like Judas, nor from 
envy and hate like the chief priests.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[47] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Christ, indeed willed His Passion just as the Father willed 
it; yet He did not will the unjust action of the Jews. Consequently 
Christ's slayers are not excused of their  injustice. Nevertheless, 
whoever slays a man not only does a wrong to the one slain, but likewise 
to God and to the State; just as he who kills himself, as the Philosopher 
says (Ethic. v). Hence it was that David condemned to death the man who 
"did not fear to lay hands upon the Lord's anointed," even though he 
(Saul) had requested it, as related 2 Kgs. 1:5-14.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] Out. Para. 1/1

OF THE EFFICIENCY OF CHRIST'S PASSION (SIX ARTICLES)

 We now have to consider Christ's Passion as to its effect; first of all, 
as to the manner in which it was brought about; and, secondly, as to the 
effect in itself. Under the first heading there are six points for 
inquiry:

 (1) Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of merit?

 (2) Whether it was by way of atonement?

 (3) Whether it was by way of sacrifice?

 (4) Whether it was by way of redemption?

 (5) Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Redeemer?

 (6) Whether (the Passion) secured man's salvation efficiently?


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of merit?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion did not bring about our 
salvation by way of merit. For the sources of our sufferings are not 
within us. But no one merits or is praised except for that whose 
principle lies within him. Therefore Christ's Passion wrought nothing by 
way of merit.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, from the beginning of His conception Christ merited for 
Himself and for us, as stated above (Q[9], A[4]; Q[34], A[3]). But it is 
superfluous to merit over again what has been merited before. Therefore 
by His Passion Christ did not merit our salvation.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the source of merit is charity. But Christ's charity was 
not made greater by the Passion than it was before. Therefore He did not 
merit our salvation by suffering more than He had already.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, on the words of Phil. 2:9, "Therefore God exalted Him," 
etc., Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan.): "The lowliness" of the 
Passion "merited glory; glory was the reward of lowliness." But He was 
glorified, not merely in Himself, but likewise in His faithful ones, as 
He says Himself (Jn. 17:10). Therefore it appears that He merited the 
salvation of the faithful.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, As stated above (Q[7], AA[1],9; Q[8], AA[1],5), grace was 
bestowed upon Christ, not only as an individual, but inasmuch as He is 
the Head of the Church, so that it might overflow into His members; and 
therefore Christ's works are referred to Himself and to His members in 
the same way as the works of any other man in a  state of grace are 
referred to himself. But it is evident that whosoever suffers for 
justice's sake, provided that he be in a state of grace, merits his 
salvation thereby, according to Mt. 5:10: "Blessed are they that suffer 
persecution for justice's sake." Consequently Christ by His Passion 
merited salvation, not only for Himself, but likewise for all His members.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Suffering, as such, is caused by an outward principle: but 
inasmuch as one bears it willingly, it has an inward principle.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: From the beginning of His conception Christ merited our 
eternal salvation; but on our side there were some obstacles, whereby we 
were hindered from securing the effect of His preceding merits: 
consequently, in order to remove such hindrances, "it was necessary for 
Christ to suffer," as stated above (Q[46], A[3]).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Christ's Passion has a special effect, which His preceding 
merits did not possess, not on account of greater charity, but because of 
the nature of the work, which was suitable for such an effect, as is 
clear from the arguments brought forward above all the fittingness of 
Christ's Passion (Q[46], AA, 3,4).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of atonement?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion did not bring about our 
salvation by way of atonement. For it seems that to make the atonement 
devolves on him who commits the sin; as is clear in the other parts of 
penance, because he who has done the wrong must grieve over it and 
confess it. But Christ never sinned, according to 1 Pt. 2:22: "Who did no 
sin." Therefore He made no atonement by His personal suffering.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, no atonement is made to another by committing a graver 
offense. But in Christ's Passion the gravest of all offenses was 
perpetrated, because those who slew Him sinned most grievously, as stated 
above (Q[47], A[6]). Consequently it seems that atonement could not be 
made to God by Christ's Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, atonement implies equality with the trespass, since it 
is an act of justice. But Christ's Passion does not appear equal to all 
the sins of the human race, because Christ did not suffer in His Godhead, 
but in His flesh, according to 1 Pt. 4:1: "Christ therefore having 
suffered in the flesh." Now the soul, which is the subject of sin, is of 
greater account than the flesh. Therefore Christ did not atone for our 
sins by His Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 68:5) in Christ's person: "Then did 
I pay that which I took not away." But he has not paid who has not fully 
atoned. Therefore it appears that Christ by His suffering has fully 
atoned for our sins.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] Body Para. 1/1 

 I answer that, He properly atones for an offense who offers something 
which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the 
offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to 
God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human 
race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He 
suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid 
down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; 
thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of 
the grief endured, as stated above (Q[46], A[6]). And therefore Christ's 
Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the 
sins of the human race; according to 1 Jn. 2:2: "He is the propitiation 
for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole 
world."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: The head and members are as one mystic person; and 
therefore Christ's satisfaction belongs to all the faithful as being His 
members. Also, in so far as any two men are one in charity, the one can 
atone for the other as shall be shown later (XP, Q[13], A[2]). But the 
same reason does not hold good of confession and contrition, because 
atonement consists in an outward action, for which helps may be used, 
among which friends are to be computed.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Christ's love was greater than His slayers' malice: and 
therefore the value of His Passion in atoning surpassed the murderous 
guilt of those who crucified Him: so much so that Christ's suffering was 
sufficient and superabundant atonement for His murderer's crime.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: The dignity of Christ's flesh is not to be estimated solely 
from the nature of flesh, but also from the Person assuming it---namely, 
inasmuch as it was God's flesh, the result of which was that it was of 
infinite worth.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ's Passion operated by way of sacrifice?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion did not operate by way of 
sacrifice. For the truth should correspond with the figure. But human 
flesh was never offered up in the sacrifices of the Old Law, which were 
figures of Christ: nay, such sacrifices were reputed as impious, 
according to Ps. 105:38: "And they shed innocent blood: the blood of 
their sons and of their daughters, which they sacrificed to the idols of 
Chanaan." It seems therefore that Christ's Passion cannot be called a 
sacrifice.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x) that "a visible sacrifice 
is a sacrament---that is, a sacred sign---of an invisible sacrifice." Now 
Christ's Passion is not a sign, but rather the thing signified by other 
signs. Therefore it seems that Christ's Passion is not a sacrifice.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, whoever offers sacrifice performs some sacred  rite, as 
the very word "sacrifice" shows. But those men who slew Christ did not 
perform any sacred act, but rather wrought a great wrong. Therefore 
Christ's Passion was rather a malefice than a sacrifice.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, The Apostle says (Eph. 5:2): "He delivered Himself up 
for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, A sacrifice properly so called is something done for that 
honor which is properly due to God, in order to appease Him: and hence it 
is that Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x): "A true sacrifice is every good 
work done in order that we may cling to God in holy fellowship, yet 
referred to that consummation of happiness wherein we can be truly 
blessed." But, as is added in the same place, "Christ offered Himself up 
for us in the Passion": and this voluntary enduring of the Passion was 
most acceptable to God, as coming from charity. Therefore it is manifest 
that Christ's Passion was a true sacrifice. Moreover, as Augustine says 
farther on in the same book, "the primitive sacrifices of the holy 
Fathers were many and various signs of this true sacrifice, one being 
prefigured by many, in the same way as a single concept of thought is 
expressed in many words, in order to commend it without tediousness": 
and, as Augustine observe, (De Trin. iv), "since there are four things to 
be noted in every sacrifice---to wit, to whom it is offered, by whom it 
is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered---that the same 
one true Mediator reconciling us with God through the peace-sacrifice 
might continue to be one with Him to whom He offered it, might be one 
with them for whom He offered it, and might Himself be the offerer and 
what He offered."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Although the truth answers to the figure in some respects, 
yet it does not in all, since the truth must go beyond the figure. 
Therefore the figure of this sacrifice, in which Christ's flesh is 
offered, was flesh right fittingly, not the flesh of men, but of animals, 
as denoting Christ's. And this is a most perfect sacrifice. First of all, 
since being flesh of human nature, it is fittingly offered for men, and 
is partaken of by them under the Sacrament. Secondly, because being 
passible and mortal, it was fit for immolation. Thirdly, because, being 
sinless, it had virtue to cleanse from sins. Fourthly, because, being the 
offerer's own flesh, it was acceptable to God on account of His charity 
in offering up His own flesh. Hence it is that Augustine says (De Trin. 
iv): "What else could be so fittingly partaken of by men, or offered up 
for men, as human flesh? What else could be so appropriate for this 
immolation as mortal flesh? What else is there so clean for cleansing 
mortals as the flesh born in the womb without fleshly concupiscence, and 
coming from a virginal womb? What could be so favorably offered and 
accepted as the flesh of our sacrifice, which was made the body of our 
Priest?"

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Augustine is speaking there of visible figurative 
sacrifices: and even Christ's Passion, although denoted by other 
figurative sacrifices, is yet a sign of something to be observed by  us, 
according to 1 Pt. 4:1: "Christ therefore, having suffered in the flesh, 
be you also armed with the same thought: for he that hath suffered in the 
flesh hath ceased from sins: that now he may live the rest of his time in 
the flesh, not after the desires of men, but according to the will of 
God."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Christ's Passion was indeed a malefice on His slayers' 
part; but on His own it was the sacrifice of one suffering out of 
charity. Hence it is Christ who is said to have offered this sacrifice, 
and not the executioners.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of redemption?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion did not effect our salvation 
by way of redemption. For no one purchases or redeems what never ceased 
to belong to him. But men never ceased to belong to God according to Ps. 
23:1: "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof: the world and all 
they that dwell therein." Therefore it seems that Christ did not redeem 
us by His Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "The devil had to be 
overthrown by Christ's justice." But justice requires that the man who 
has treacherously seized another's property shall be deprived of it, 
because deceit and cunning should not benefit anyone, as even human laws 
declare. Consequently, since the devil by treachery deceived and 
subjugated to himself man, who is God's creature, it seems that man ought 
not to be rescued from his power by way of redemption.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, whoever buys or redeems an object pays the price to the 
holder. But it was not to the devil, who held us in bondage, that Christ 
paid His blood as the price of our redemption. Therefore Christ did not 
redeem us by His Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (1 Pt. 1:18): "You were not redeemed with 
corruptible things as gold or silver from your vain conversation of the 
tradition of your fathers: but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a 
lamb unspotted and undefiled." And (Gal. 3:13): "Christ hath redeemed us 
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." Now He is said to 
be a curse for us inasmuch as He suffered upon the tree, as stated above 
(Q[46], A[4]). Therefore He did redeem us by His Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, Man was held captive on account of sin in two ways: first 
of all, by the bondage of sin, because (Jn. 8:34): "Whosoever committeth 
sin is the servant of sin"; and (2 Pt. 2:19): "By whom a man is overcome, 
of the same also he is the slave." Since, then, the devil had overcome 
man by inducing him to sin, man was subject to the devil's bondage. 
Secondly, as to the debt of punishment, to the payment of which man was 
held fast by God's justice: and this, too, is a kind of bondage, since it 
savors of bondage for a man to suffer what he does not wish, just as it 
is  the free man's condition to apply himself to what he wills.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] Body Para. 2/2

 Since, then, Christ's Passion was a sufficient and a superabundant 
atonement for the sin and the debt of the human race, it was as a price 
at the cost of which we were freed from both obligations. For the 
atonement by which one satisfies for self or another is called the price, 
by which he ransoms himself or someone else from sin and its penalty, 
according to Dan. 4:24: "Redeem thou thy sins with alms." Now Christ made 
satisfaction, not by giving money or anything of the sort, but by 
bestowing what was of greatest price---Himself---for us. And therefore 
Christ's Passion is called our redemption.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Man is said to belong to God in two ways. First of all, in 
so far as he comes under God's power: in which way he never ceased to 
belong to God; according to Dan. 4:22: "The Most High ruleth over the 
kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." Secondly, by being 
united to Him in charity, according to Rm. 8:9: "If any man have not the 
Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." In the first way, then, man never 
ceased to belong to God, but in the second way he did cease because of 
sin. And therefore in so far as he was delivered from sin by the 
satisfaction of Christ's Passion, he is said to be redeemed by the 
Passion of Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Man by sinning became the bondsman both of God and of the 
devil. Through guilt he had offended God, and put himself under the devil 
by consenting to him; consequently he did not become God's servant on 
account of his guilt, but rather, by withdrawing from God's service, he, 
by God's just permission, fell under the devil's servitude on account of 
the offense perpetrated. But as to the penalty, man was chiefly bound to 
God as his sovereign judge, and to the devil as his torturer, according 
to Mt. 5:25: "Lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and 
the judge deliver thee to the officer"---that is, "to the relentless 
avenging angel," as Chrysostom says (Hom. xi). Consequently, although, 
after deceiving man, the devil, so far as in him lay, held him unjustly 
in bondage as to both sin and penalty, still it was just that man should 
suffer it. God so permitting it as to the sin and ordaining it as to the 
penalty. And therefore justice required man's redemption with regard to 
God, but not with regard to the devil.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Because, with regard to God, redemption was necessary for 
man's deliverance, but not with regard to the devil, the price had to be 
paid not to the devil, but to God. And therefore Christ is said to have 
paid the price of our redemption---His own precious blood---not to the 
devil, but to God.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Redeemer?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to be the Redeemer, 
because it is written (Ps. 30:6): "Thou hast redeemed me, O Lord, the God 
of Truth." But to be the Lord God of Truth belongs  to the entire 
Trinity. Therefore it is not proper to Christ.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, he is said to redeem who pays the price of redemption. 
But God the Father gave His Son in redemption for our sins, as is written 
(Ps. 110:9): "The Lord hath sent redemption to His people," upon which 
the gloss adds, "that is, Christ, who gives redemption to captives." 
Therefore not only Christ, but the Father also, redeemed us.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, not only Christ's Passion, but also that of other saints 
conduced to our salvation, according to Col. 1:24: "I now rejoice in my 
sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the 
sufferings of Christ, in my flesh for His body, which is the Church." 
Therefore the title of Redeemer belongs not only to Christ, but also to 
the other saints.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Gal. 3:13): "Christ redeemed us from the 
curse of the Law, being made a curse for us." But only Christ was made a 
curse for us. Therefore only Christ ought to be called our Redeemer.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, For someone to redeem, two things are required---namely, 
the act of paying and the price paid. For if in redeeming something a man 
pays a price which is not his own, but another's, he is not said to be 
the chief redeemer, but rather the other is, whose price it is. Now 
Christ's blood or His bodily life, which "is in the blood," is the price 
of our redemption (Lev. 17:11,14), and that life He paid. Hence both of 
these belong immediately to Christ as man; but to the Trinity as to the 
first and remote cause, to whom Christ's life belonged as to its first 
author, and from whom Christ received the inspiration of suffering for 
us. Consequently it is proper to Christ as man to be the Redeemer 
immediately; although the redemption may be ascribed to the whole Trinity 
as its first cause.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: A gloss explains the text thus: "Thou, O Lord God of Truth, 
hast redeemed me in Christ, crying out, 'Lord, into Thy hands I commend 
my spirit.'" And so redemption belongs immediately to the Man-Christ, but 
principally to God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: The Man-Christ paid the price of our redemption 
immediately, but at the command of the Father as the original author.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: The sufferings of the saints are beneficial to the Church, 
as by way, not of redemption, but of example and exhortation, according 
to 2 Cor. 1:6: "Whether we be in tribulation, it is for your exhortation 
and salvation."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation efficiently?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion did not bring about our 
salvation efficiently. For the efficient cause of our salvation  is the 
greatness of the Divine power, according to Is. 59:1: "Behold the hand of 
the Lord is not shortened that it cannot save." But "Christ was crucified 
through weakness," as it is written (2 Cor. 13:4). Therefore, Christ's 
Passion did not bring about our salvation efficiently.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, no corporeal agency acts efficiently except by contact: 
hence even Christ cleansed the leper by touching him "in order to show 
that His flesh had saving power," as Chrysostom [*Theophylact, Enarr. in 
Luc.] says. But Christ's Passion could not touch all mankind. Therefore 
it could not efficiently bring about the salvation of all men.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, it does not seem to be consistent for the same agent to 
operate by way of merit and by way of efficiency, since he who merits 
awaits the result from someone else. But it was by way of merit that 
Christ's Passion accomplished our salvation. Therefore it was not by way 
of efficiency.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 1:18) that "the word of the cross 
to them that are saved . . . is the power of God." But God's power brings 
about our salvation efficiently. Therefore Christ's Passion on the cross 
accomplished our salvation efficiently.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, There is a twofold efficient agency---namely, the 
principal and the instrumental. Now the principal efficient cause of 
man's salvation is God. But since Christ's humanity is the "instrument of 
the Godhead," as stated above (Q[43], A[2]), therefore all Christ's 
actions and sufferings operate instrumentally in virtue of His Godhead 
for the salvation of men. Consequently, then, Christ's Passion 
accomplishes man's salvation efficiently.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Christ's Passion in relation to His flesh is consistent 
with the infirmity which He took upon Himself, but in relation to the 
Godhead it draws infinite might from It, according to 1 Cor. 1:25: "The 
weakness of God is stronger than men"; because Christ's weakness, 
inasmuch as He is God, has a might exceeding all human power.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Christ's Passion, although corporeal, has yet a spiritual 
effect from the Godhead united: and therefore it secures its efficacy by 
spiritual contact---namely, by faith and the sacraments of faith, as the 
Apostle says (Rm. 3:25): "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, 
through faith in His blood."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[48] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Christ's Passion, according as it is compared with His 
Godhead, operates in an efficient manner: but in so far as it is compared 
with the will of Christ's soul it acts in a meritorious manner: 
considered as being within Christ's very flesh, it acts by way of 
satisfaction, inasmuch as we are liberated by it from the debt of 
punishment; while inasmuch as we are freed from the servitude of guilt, 
it acts by way of redemption: but in so far as we are reconciled with God 
it acts by way of sacrifice, as shall  be shown farther on (Q[49]).


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] Out. Para. 1/1

OF THE EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S PASSION (SIX ARTICLES)

 We have now to consider what are the effects of Christ's Passion, 
concerning which there are six points of inquiry:

 (1) Whether we were freed from sin by Christ's Passion?

 (2) Whether we were thereby delivered from the power of the devil?

 (3) Whether we were freed thereby from our debt of punishment?

 (4) Whether we were thereby reconciled with God?

 (5) Whether heaven's gate was opened to us thereby?

 (6) Whether Christ derived exaltation from it?


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that we were not delivered from sin through 
Christ's Passion. For to deliver from sin belongs to God alone, according 
to Is. 43:25: "I am He who blot out your iniquities for My own sake." But 
Christ did not suffer as God, but as man. Therefore Christ's Passion did 
not free us from sin.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, what is corporeal does not act upon what is spiritual. 
But Christ's Passion is corporeal, whereas sin exists in the soul, which 
is a spiritual creature. Therefore Christ's Passion could not cleanse us 
from sin.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, one cannot be purged from a sin not yet committed, but 
which shall be committed hereafter. Since, then, many sins have been 
committed since Christ's death, and are being committed daily, it seems 
that we were not delivered from sin by Christ's death.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, given an efficient cause, nothing else is required for 
producing the effect. But other things besides are required for the 
forgiveness of sins, such as baptism and penance. Consequently it seems 
that Christ's Passion is not the sufficient cause of the forgiveness of 
sins.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 5: Further, it is written (Prov. 10:12): "Charity covereth all 
sins"; and (Prov. 15:27): "By mercy and faith, sins are purged away." But 
there are many other things of which we have faith, and which excite 
charity. Therefore Christ's Passion is not the proper cause of the 
forgiveness of sins.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, Christ's Passion is the proper cause of the forgiveness 
of sins in three ways. First of all, by way of exciting our charity, 
because, as the Apostle says (Rm. 5:8): "God commendeth His charity 
towards us: because when as yet we were sinners, according to the time, 
Christ died for us." But it is by  charity that we procure pardon of our 
sins, according to Lk. 7:47: "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath 
loved much." Secondly, Christ's Passion causes forgiveness of sins by way 
of redemption. For since He is our head, then, by the Passion which He 
endured from love and obedience, He delivered us as His members from our 
sins, as by the price of His Passion: in the same way as if a man by the 
good industry of his hands were to redeem himself from a sin committed 
with his feet. For, just as the natural body is one though made up of 
diverse members, so the whole Church, Christ's mystic body, is reckoned 
as one person with its head, which is Christ. Thirdly, by way of 
efficiency, inasmuch as Christ's flesh, wherein He endured the Passion, 
is the instrument of the Godhead, so that His sufferings and actions 
operate with Divine power for expelling sin.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Although Christ did not suffer as God, nevertheless His 
flesh is the instrument of the Godhead; and hence it is that His Passion 
has a kind of Divine Power of casting out sin, as was said above.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Although Christ's Passion is corporeal, still it derives a 
kind of spiritual energy from the Godhead, to which the flesh is united 
as an instrument: and according to this power Christ's Passion is the 
cause of the forgiveness of sins.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Christ by His Passion delivered us from our sins 
causally---that is, by setting up the cause of our deliverance, from 
which cause all sins whatsoever, past, present, or to come, could be 
forgiven: just as if a doctor were to prepare a medicine by which all 
sicknesses can be cured even in future.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: As stated above, since Christ's Passion preceded, as a kind 
of universal cause of the forgiveness of sins, it needs to be applied to 
each individual for the cleansing of personal sins. Now this is done by 
baptism and penance and the other sacraments, which derive their power 
from Christ's Passion, as shall be shown later (Q[62], A[5]).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[1] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 5: Christ's Passion is applied to us even through faith, that 
we may share in its fruits, according to Rm. 3:25: "Whom God hath 
proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood." But the faith 
through which we are cleansed from sin is not "lifeless faith," which can 
exist even with sin, but "faith living" through charity; that thus 
Christ's Passion may be applied to us, not only as to our minds, but also 
as to our hearts. And even in this way sins are forgiven through the 
power of the Passion of Christ.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that we were not delivered from the power of the 
devil through Christ's Passion. For he has no power over  others, who can 
do nothing to them without the sanction of another. But without the 
Divine permission the devil could never do hurt to any man, as is evident 
in the instance of Job (1,2), where, by power received from God, the 
devil first injured him in his possessions, and afterwards in his body. 
In like manner it is stated (Mt. 8:31,32) that the devils could not enter 
into the swine except with Christ's leave. Therefore the devil never had 
power over men: and hence we are not delivered from his power through 
Christ's Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the devil exercises his power over men by tempting them 
and molesting their bodies. But even after the Passion he continues to do 
the same to men. Therefore we are not delivered from his power through 
Christ's Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the might of Christ's Passion endures for ever, as, 
according to Heb. 10:14: "By one oblation He hath perfected for ever them 
that are sanctified." But deliverance rom the devil's power is not found 
everywhere, since there are still idolaters in many regions of the world; 
nor will it endure for ever, because in the time of Antichrist he will be 
especially active in using his power to the hurt of men; because it is 
said of him (2 Thess. 2:9): "Whose coming is according to the working of 
Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction 
of iniquity." Consequently it seems that Christ's Passion is not the 
cause of the human race being delivered from the power of the devil.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 12:31), when His Passion was drawing 
nigh: "Now shall the prince of this world be cast out; and I, if I be 
lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself." Now He was 
lifted up from the earth by His Passion on the cross. Therefore by His 
Passion the devil was deprived of his power over man.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, There are three things to be considered regarding the 
power which the devil exercised over men previous to Christ's Passion. 
The first is on man's own part, who by his sin deserved to be delivered 
over to the devil's power, and was overcome by his tempting. Another 
point is on God's part, whom man had offended by sinning, and who with 
justice left man under the devil's power. The third is on the devil's 
part, who out of his most wicked will hindered man from securing his 
salvation.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] Body Para. 2/2

 As to the first point, by Christ's Passion man was delivered from the 
devil's power, in so far as the Passion is the cause of the forgiveness 
of sins, as stated above (A[1]). As to the second, it must be said that 
Christ's Passion freed us from the devil's power, inasmuch as it 
reconciled us with God, as shall be shown later (A[4]). But as to the 
third, Christ's Passion delivered us from the devil, inasmuch as in 
Christ's Passion he exceeded the limit of power assigned him by God, by 
conspiring to bring about Christ's death, Who, being sinless, did not 
deserve to die. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, cap. xiv): "The 
devil was vanquished by  Christ's justice: because, while discovering in 
Him nothing deserving of death, nevertheless he slew Him. And it is 
certainly just that the debtors whom he held captive should be set at 
liberty since they believed in Him whom the devil slew, though He was no 
debtor."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: The devil is said to have had such power over men not as 
though he were able to injure them without God's sanction, but because he 
was justly permitted to injure men whom by tempting he had induced to 
give consent.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: God so permitting it, the devil can still tempt men's souls 
and harass their bodies: yet there is a remedy provided for man through 
Christ's Passion, whereby he can safeguard himself against the enemy's 
assaults, so as not to be dragged down into the destruction of 
everlasting death. And all who resisted the devil previous to the Passion 
were enabled to do so through faith in the Passion, although it was not 
yet accomplished. Yet in one respect no one was able to escape the 
devil's hands, i.e. so as not to descend into hell. But after Christ's 
Passion, men can defend themselves from this by its power.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: God permits the devil to deceive men by certain persons, 
and in times and places, according to the hidden motive of His judgments; 
still, there is always a remedy provided through Christ's Passion, for 
defending themselves against the wicked snares of the demons, even in 
Antichrist's time. But if any man neglect to make use of this remedy, it 
detracts nothing from the efficacy of Christ's Passion.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that men were not freed from the punishment of sin 
by Christ's Passion. For the chief punishment of sin is eternal 
damnation. But those damned in hell for their sins were not set free by 
Christ's Passion, because "in hell there is no redemption" [*Office of 
the Dead, Resp. vii]. It seems, therefore, that Christ's Passion did not 
deliver men from the punishment of sin.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, no punishment should be imposed upon them who are 
delivered from the debt of punishment. But a satisfactory punishment is 
imposed upon penitents. Consequently, men were not freed from the debt of 
punishment by Christ's Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, death is a punishment of sin, according to Rm. 6:23: 
"The wages of sin is death." But men still die after Christ's Passion. 
Therefore it seems that we have not been delivered from the debt of 
punishment.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, Through Christ's Passion we have been delivered from the 
debt of punishment in two ways. First of all, directly---namely, inasmuch 
as Christ's Passion was sufficient and superabundant satisfaction for the 
sins of the whole human race: but when sufficient satisfaction has been 
paid, then the debt of punishment is abolished. In another 
way---indirectly, that is to say---in so far as Christ's Passion is the 
cause of the forgiveness of sin, upon which the debt of punishment rests.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Christ's Passion works its effect in them to whom it is 
applied, through faith and charity and the sacraments of faith. And, 
consequently, the lost in hell cannot avail themselves of its effects, 
since they are not united to Christ in the aforesaid manner.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: As stated above (A[1], ad 4,5), in order to secure the 
effects of Christ's Passion, we must be likened unto Him. Now we are 
likened unto Him sacramentally in Baptism, according to Rm. 6:4: "For we 
are buried together with Him by baptism into death." Hence no punishment 
of satisfaction is imposed upon men at their baptism, since they are 
fully delivered by Christ's satisfaction. But because, as it is written 
(1 Pt. 3:18), "Christ died" but "once for our sins," therefore a man 
cannot a second time be likened unto Christ's death by the sacrament of 
Baptism. Hence it is necessary that those who sin after Baptism be 
likened unto Christ suffering by some form of punishment or suffering 
which they endure in their own person; yet, by the co-operation of 
Christ's satisfaction, much lighter penalty suffices than one that is 
proportionate to the sin.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: Christ's satisfaction works its effect in us inasmuch as we 
are incorporated with Him, as the members with their head, as stated 
above (A[1]). Now the members must be conformed to their head. 
Consequently, as Christ first had grace in His soul with bodily 
passibility, and through the Passion attained to the glory of 
immortality, so we likewise, who are His members, are freed by His 
Passion from all debt of punishment, yet so that we first receive in our 
souls "the spirit of adoption of sons," whereby our names are written 
down for the inheritance of immortal glory, while we yet have a passible 
and mortal body: but afterwards, "being made conformable" to the 
sufferings and death of Christ, we are brought into immortal glory, 
according to the saying of the Apostle (Rm. 8:17): "And if sons, heirs 
also: heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ; yet so if we 
suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that we were not reconciled to God through Christ's 
Passion. For there is no need of reconciliation between friends. But God 
always loved us, according to Wis. 11:25: "Thou lovest all the things 
that are, and hatest none of the things which Thou hast made." Therefore 
Christ's Passion did not reconcile  us to God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the same thing cannot be cause and effect: hence grace, 
which is the cause of meriting, does not come under merit. But God's love 
is the cause of Christ's Passion, according to Jn. 3:16: "God so loved 
the world, as to give His only-begotten Son." It does not appear, then, 
that we were reconciled to God through Christ's Passion, so that He began 
to love us anew.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, Christ's Passion was completed by men slaying Him; and 
thereby they offended God grievously. Therefore Christ's Passion is 
rather the cause of wrath than of reconciliation to God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, Christ's Passion is in two ways the cause of our 
reconciliation to God. In the first way, inasmuch as it takes away sin by 
which men became God's enemies, according to Wis. 14:9: "To God the 
wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike"; and Ps. 5:7: "Thou hatest 
all the workers of iniquity." In another way, inasmuch as it is a most 
acceptable sacrifice to God. Now it is the proper effect of sacrifice to 
appease God: just as man likewise overlooks an offense committed against 
him on account of some pleasing act of homage shown him. Hence it is 
written (1 Kgs. 26:19): "If the Lord stir thee up against me, let Him 
accept of sacrifice." And in like fashion Christ's voluntary suffering 
was such a good act that, because of its being found in human nature, God 
was appeased for every offense of the human race with regard to those who 
are made one with the crucified Christ in the aforesaid manner (A[1], ad 
4).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: God loves all men as to their nature, which He Himself 
made; yet He hates them with respect to the crimes they commit against 
Him, according to Ecclus. 12:3: "The Highest hateth sinners."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Christ is not said to have reconciled us with God, as if 
God had begun anew to love us, since it is written (Jer. 31:3): "I have 
loved thee with an everlasting love"; but because the source of hatred 
was taken away by Christ's Passion, both through sin being washed away 
and through compensation being made in the shape of a more pleasing 
offering.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As Christ's slayers were men, so also was the Christ slain. 
Now the charity of the suffering Christ surpassed the wickedness of His 
slayers. Accordingly Christ's Passion prevailed more in reconciling God 
to the whole human race than in provoking Him to wrath.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ did not open the gate of  heaven to us 
by His Passion. For it is written (Prov. 11:18): "To him that soweth 
justice, there is a faithful reward." But the reward of justice is the 
entering into the kingdom of heaven. It seems, therefore, that the holy 
Fathers who wrought works of justice, obtained by faith the entering into 
the heavenly kingdom even without Christ's Passion. Consequently Christ's 
Passion is not the cause of the opening of the gate of the kingdom of 
heaven.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Elias was caught up to heaven previous to Christ's 
Passion (4 Kgs. 2). But the effect never precedes the cause. Therefore it 
seems that the opening of heaven's gate is not the result of Christ's 
Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, as it is written (Mt. 3:16), when Christ was baptized 
the heavens were opened to Him. But His baptism preceded the Passion. 
Consequently the opening of heaven is not the result of Christ's Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, it is written (Mic. 2:13): "For He shall go up that 
shall open the way before them." But to open the way to heaven seems to 
be nothing else than to throw open its gate. Therefore it seems that the 
gate of heaven was opened to us, not by Christ's Passion, but by His 
Ascension.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, is the saying of the Apostle (Heb. 10:19): "We have 
[Vulg.: 'having a'] confidence in the entering into the Holies"---that 
is, of the heavenly places---"through the blood of Christ."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, The shutting of the gate is the obstacle which hinders 
men from entering in. But it is on account of sin that men were prevented 
from entering into the heavenly kingdom, since, according to Is. 35:8: 
"It shall be called the holy way, and the unclean shall not pass over 
it." Now there is a twofold sin which prevents men from entering into the 
kingdom of heaven. The first is common to the whole race, for it is our 
first parents' sin, and by that sin heaven's entrance is closed to man. 
Hence we read in Gn. 3:24 that after our first parents' sin God "placed . 
. . cherubim and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of 
the tree of life." The other is the personal sin of each one of us, 
committed by our personal act.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] Body Para. 2/2

 Now by Christ's Passion we have been delivered not only from the common 
sin of the whole human race, both as to its guilt and as to the debt of 
punishment, for which He paid the penalty on our behalf; but, 
furthermore, from the personal sins of individuals, who share in His 
Passion by faith and charity and the sacraments of faith. Consequently, 
then the gate of heaven's kingdom is thrown open to us through Christ's 
Passion. This is precisely what the Apostle says (Heb. 9:11,12): "Christ 
being come a high-priest of the good things to come . . . by His own 
blood entered once into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption." 
And this is foreshadowed (Num. 35:25,28), where it is said that the 
slayer* "shall abide there"---that is to say, in the city of  
refuge---"until the death of the high-priest, that is anointed with the 
holy oil: but after he is dead, then shall he return home." [*The 
Septuagint has 'slayer', the Vulgate, 'innocent'---i.e. the man who has 
slain 'without hatred and enmity'.]

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: The holy Fathers, by doing works of justice, merited to 
enter into the heavenly kingdom, through faith in Christ's Passion, 
according to Heb. 11:33: The saints "by faith conquered kingdoms, wrought 
justice," and each of them was thereby cleansed from sin, so far as the 
cleansing of the individual is concerned. Nevertheless the faith and 
righteousness of no one of them sufficed for removing the barrier arising 
from the guilt of the whole human race: but this was removed at the cost 
of Christ's blood. Consequently, before Christ's Passion no one could 
enter the kingdom of heaven by obtaining everlasting beatitude, which 
consists in the full enjoyment of God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Elias was taken up into the atmospheric heaven, but not in 
to the empyrean heaven, which is the abode of the saints: and likewise 
Enoch was translated into the earthly paradise, where he is believed to 
live with Elias until the coming of Antichrist.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: As was stated above (Q[39], A[5]), the heavens were opened 
at Christ's baptism, not for Christ's sake, to whom heaven was ever open, 
but in order to signify that heaven is opened to the baptized, through 
Christ's baptism, which has its efficacy from His Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: Christ by His Passion merited for us the opening of the 
kingdom of heaven, and removed the obstacle; but by His ascension He, as 
it were, brought us to the possession of the heavenly kingdom. And 
consequently it is said that by ascending He "opened the way before them."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether by His Passion Christ merited to be exalted?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It seems that Christ did not merit to be exalted on account of 
His Passion. For eminence of rank belongs to God alone, just as knowledge 
of truth, according to Ps. 112:4: "The Lord is high above all nations, 
and His glory above the heavens." But Christ as man had the knowledge of 
all truth, not on account of any preceding merit, but from the very union 
of God and man, according to Jn. 1:14: "We saw His glory . . . as it were 
of the only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth." 
Therefore neither had He exaltation from the merit of the Passion but 
from the union alone.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Christ merited for Himself from the first instant of His 
conception, as stated above (Q[34], A[3]). But His love was no greater 
during the Passion than before. Therefore, since charity is the principle 
of merit, it seems that He did not merit exaltation from the Passion more 
than before. 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the glory of the body comes from the glory of the soul, 
as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor.). But by His Passion Christ did not 
merit exaltation as to the glory of His soul, because His soul was 
beatified from the first instant of His conception. Therefore neither did 
He merit exaltation, as to the glory of His body, from the Passion.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written (Phil. 2:8): "He became obedient unto 
death, even the death of the cross; for which cause God also exalted Him."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, Merit implies a certain equality of justice: hence the 
Apostle says (Rm. 4:4): "Now to him that worketh, the reward is reckoned 
according to debt." But when anyone by reason of his unjust will ascribes 
to himself something beyond his due, it is only just that he be deprived 
of something else which is his due; thus, "when a man steals a sheep he 
shall pay back four" (Ex. 22:1). And he is said to deserve it, inasmuch 
as his unjust will is chastised thereby. So likewise when any man through 
his just will has stripped himself of what he ought to have, he deserves 
that something further be granted to him as the reward of his just will. 
And hence it is written (Lk. 14:11): "He that humbleth himself shall be 
exalted."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] Body Para. 2/2

 Now in His Passion Christ humbled Himself beneath His dignity in four 
respects. In the first place as to His Passion and death, to which He was 
not bound; secondly, as to the place, since His body was laid in a 
sepulchre and His soul in hell; thirdly, as to the shame and mockeries He 
endured; fourthly, as to His being delivered up to man's power, as He 
Himself said to Pilate (Jn. 19:11): "Thou shouldst not have any power 
against Me, unless it were given thee from above." And, consequently, He 
merited a four-fold exaltation from His Passion. First of all, as to His 
glorious Resurrection: hence it is written (Ps. 138:1): "Thou hast known 
my sitting down"---that is, the lowliness of My Passion---"and My rising 
up." Secondly, as to His ascension into heaven: hence it is written (Eph. 
4:9): "Now that He ascended, what is it, but because He also descended 
first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same 
also that ascended above all the heavens." Thirdly, as to the sitting on 
the right hand of the Father and the showing forth of His Godhead, 
according to Is. 52:13: "He shall be exalted and extolled, and shall be 
exceeding high: as many have been astonished at him, so shall His visage 
be inglorious among men." Moreover (Phil. 2:8) it is written: "He humbled 
Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross: 
for which cause also God hath exalted Him, and hath given Him a name 
which is above all names"---that is to say, so that He shall be hailed as 
God by all; and all shall pay Him homage as God. And this is expressed in 
what follows: "That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those 
that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth." Fourthly, as to His 
judiciary power: for it is written (Job 36:17): "Thy cause hath been 
judged as that of the wicked cause and judgment Thou shalt recover." 

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: The source of meriting comes of the soul, while the body is 
the instrument of the meritorious work. And consequently the perfection 
of Christ's soul, which was the source of meriting, ought not to be 
acquired in Him by merit, like the perfection of the body, which was the 
subject of suffering, and was thereby the instrument of His merit.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Christ by His previous merits did merit exaltation on 
behalf of His soul, whose will was animated with charity and the other 
virtues; but in the Passion He merited His exaltation by way of 
recompense even on behalf of His body: since it is only just that the 
body, which from charity was subjected to the Passion, should receive 
recompense in glory.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[49] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: It was owing to a special dispensation in Christ that 
before the Passion the glory of His soul did not shine out in His body, 
in order that He might procure His bodily glory with greater honor, when 
He had merited it by His Passion. But it was not beseeming for the glory 
of His soul to be postponed, since the soul was united immediately with 
the Word; hence it was beseeming that its glory should be filled by the 
Word Himself. But the body was united with the Word through the soul.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] Out. Para. 1/1

OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST (SIX ARTICLES)

 We have now to consider the death of Christ; concerning which there are 
six subjects of inquiry:

 (1) Whether it was fitting that Christ should die?

 (2) Whether His death severed the union of Godhead and flesh?

 (3) Whether His Godhead was separated from His soul?

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

 (5) Whether His was the same body, living and dead?

 (6) Whether His death conduced in any way to our salvation?


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether it was fitting that Christ should die?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should die. For 
a first principle in any order is not affected by anything contrary to 
such order: thus fire, which is the principle of heat, can never become 
cold. But the Son of God is the fountain-head and principle of all life, 
according to Ps. 35:10: "With Thee is the fountain of life." Therefore it 
does not seem fitting for Christ to die.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, death is a greater defect than sickness, because it is 
through sickness that one comes to die. But it was not beseeming for 
Christ to languish from sickness, as Chrysostom [*Athanasius, Orat. de 
Incarn. Verbi] says. Consequently, neither was it becoming for Christ to 
die.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, our Lord said (Jn. 10:10): "I am come that  they may 
have life, and may have it more abundantly." But one opposite does not 
lead to another. Therefore it seems that neither was it fitting for 
Christ to die.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, It is written, (Jn. 11:50): "It is expedient that one 
man should die for the people . . . that the whole nation perish not": 
which words were spoken prophetically by Caiphas, as the Evangelist 
testifies.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to die. First of all to satisfy 
for the whole human race, which was sentenced to die on account of sin, 
according to Gn. 2:17: "In what day soever ye shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt'] 
eat of it ye shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt'] die the death." Now it is a 
fitting way of satisfying for another to submit oneself to the penalty 
deserved by that other. And so Christ resolved to die, that by dying He 
might atone for us, according to 1 Pt. 3:18: "Christ also died once for 
our sins." Secondly, in order to show the reality of the flesh assumed. 
For, as Eusebius says (Orat. de Laud. Constant. xv), "if, after dwelling 
among men Christ were suddenly to disappear from men's sight, as though 
shunning death, then by all men He would be likened to a phantom." 
Thirdly, that by dying He might deliver us from fearing death: hence it 
is written (Heb. 2:14,15) that He communicated "to flesh and blood, that 
through death He might destroy him who had the empire of death and might 
deliver them who, through the fear of death, were all their lifetime 
subject to servitude." Fourthly, that by dying in the body to the 
likeness of sin---that is, to its penalty---He might set us the example 
of dying to sin spiritually. Hence it is written (Rm. 6:10): "For in that 
He died to sin, He died once, but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God: 
so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God." 
Fifthly, that by rising from the dead, and manifesting His power whereby 
He overthrew death, He might instill into us the hope of rising from the 
dead. Hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:12): "If Christ be preached that 
He rose again from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no 
resurrection from the dead?"

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Christ is the fountain of life, as God, and not as man: but 
He died as man, and not as God. Hence Augustine [*Vigilius Tapsensis] 
says against Felician: "Far be it from us to suppose that Christ so felt 
death that He lost His life inasmuch as He is life in Himself; for, were 
it so, the fountain of life would have run dry. Accordingly, He 
experienced death by sharing in our human feeling, which of His own 
accord He had taken upon Himself, but He did not lose the power of His 
Nature, through which He gives life to all things."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Christ did not suffer death which comes of sickness, lest 
He should seem to die of necessity from exhausted nature: but He endured 
death inflicted from without, to which He willingly surrendered Himself, 
that His death might be shown to be a voluntary one.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: One opposite does not of itself lead to the  other, yet it 
does so indirectly at times: thus cold sometimes is the indirect cause of 
heat: and in this way Christ by His death brought us back to life, when 
by His death He destroyed our death; just as he who bears another's 
punishment takes such punishment away.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that the Godhead was separated from the flesh when 
Christ died. For as Matthew relates (27:46), when our Lord was hanging 
upon the cross He cried out: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" 
which words Ambrose, commenting on Lk. 23:46, explains as follows: "The 
man cried out when about to expire by being severed from the Godhead; for 
since the Godhead is immune from death, assuredly death could not be 
there, except life departed, for the Godhead is life." And so it seems 
that when Christ died, the Godhead was separated from His flesh.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, extremes are severed when the mean is removed. But the 
soul was the mean through which the Godhead was united with the flesh, as 
stated above (Q[6], A[1]). Therefore since the soul was severed from the 
flesh by death, it seems that, in consequence, His Godhead was also 
separated from it.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, God's life-giving power is greater than that of the 
soul. But the body could not die unless the soul quitted it. Therefore, 
much less could it die unless the Godhead departed.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, As stated above (Q[16], AA[4],5), the attributes of 
human nature are predicated of the Son of God only by reason of the 
union. But what belongs to the body of Christ after death is predicated 
of the Son of God---namely, being buried: as is evident from the Creed, 
in which it is said that the Son of God "was conceived and born of a 
Virgin, suffered, died, and was buried." Therefore Christ's Godhead was 
not separated from the flesh when He died.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, What is bestowed through God's grace is never withdrawn 
except through fault. Hence it is written (Rm. 11:29): "The gifts and the 
calling of God are without repentance." But the grace of union whereby 
the Godhead was united to the flesh in Christ's Person, is greater than 
the grace of adoption whereby others are sanctified: also it is more 
enduring of itself, because this grace is ordained for personal union, 
whereas the grace of adoption is referred to a certain affective union. 
And yet we see that the grace of adoption is never lost without fault. 
Since, then there was no sin in Christ, it was impossible for the union 
of the Godhead with the flesh to be dissolved. Consequently, as before 
death Christ's flesh was united personally and hypostatically with the 
Word of God, it remained so after His death, so that the hypostasis of 
the Word of God was not different from that of Christ's flesh after 
death, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1 

 Reply OBJ 1: Such forsaking is not to be referred to the dissolving of 
the personal union, but to this, that God the Father gave Him up to the 
Passion: hence there "to forsake" means simply not to protect from 
persecutors. or else He says there that He is forsaken, with reference to 
the prayer He had made: "Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass 
away from Me," as Augustine explains it (De Gratia Novi Test.).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: The Word of God is said to be united with the flesh through 
the medium of the soul, inasmuch as it is through the soul that the flesh 
belongs to human nature, which the Son of God intended to assume; but not 
as though the soul were the medium linking them together. But it is due 
to the soul that the flesh is human even after the soul has been 
separated from it---namely, inasmuch as by God's ordinance there remains 
in the dead flesh a certain relation to the resurrection. And therefore 
the union of the Godhead with the flesh is not taken away.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: The soul formally possesses the life-giving energy, and 
therefore, while it is present, and united formally, the body must 
necessarily be a living one, whereas the Godhead has not the life-giving 
energy formally, but effectively; because It cannot be the form of the 
body: and therefore it is not necessary for the flesh to be living while 
the union of the Godhead with the flesh remains, since God does not act 
of necessity, but of His own will.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that there was a severance in death between 
Christ's Godhead and His soul, because our Lord said (Jn. 10:18): "No man 
taketh away My soul from Me: but I lay it down of Myself, and I have 
power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again." But it does 
not appear that the body can set the soul aside, by separating the soul 
from itself, because the soul is not subject to the power of the body, 
but rather conversely: and so it appears that it belongs to Christ, as 
the Word of God, to lay down His soul: but this is to separate it from 
Himself. Consequently, by death His soul was severed from the Godhead.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, Athanasius [*Vigilius Tapsensis, De Trin. vi; 
Bardenhewer assigns it to St. Athanasius: 45, iii. The full title is De 
Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto] says that he "is accursed who does not 
confess that the entire man, whom the Son of God took to Himself, after 
being assumed once more or delivered by Him, rose again from the dead on 
the third day." But the entire man could not be assumed again, unless the 
entire man was at one time separated from the Word of God: and the entire 
man is made of soul and body. Therefore there was a separation made at 
one time of the Godhead from both the body and the soul.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, the Son of God is truly styled a man because  of the 
union with the entire man. If then, when the union of the soul with the 
body was dissolved by death, the Word of God continued united with the 
soul, it would follow that the Son of God could be truly called a soul. 
But this is false, because since the soul is the form of the body, it 
would result in the Word of God being the form of the body; which is 
impossible. Therefore, in death the soul of Christ was separated from the 
Word of God.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 4: Further, the separated soul and body are not one hypostasis, but 
two. Therefore, if the Word of God remained united with Christ's soul and 
body, then, when they were severed by Christ's death, it seems to follow 
that the Word of God was two hypostases during such time as Christ was 
dead; which cannot be admitted. Therefore after Christ's death His soul 
did not continue to be united with the Word.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "Although Christ 
died as man, and His holy soul was separated from His spotless body, 
nevertheless His Godhead remained unseparated from both---from the soul, 
I mean, and from the body."

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] Body Para. 1/1

 I answer that, The soul is united with the Word of God more immediately 
and more primarily than the body is, because it is through the soul that 
the body is united with the Word of God, as stated above (Q[6], A[1]). 
Since, then, the Word of God was not separated from the body at Christ's 
death, much less was He separated from the soul. Accordingly, since what 
regards the body severed from the soul is affirmed of the Son of 
God---namely, that "it was buried"---so is it said of Him in the Creed 
that "He descended into hell," because His soul when separated from the 
body did go down into hell.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: Augustine (Tract. xlvii in Joan.), in commenting on the 
text of John, asks, since Christ is Word and soul and body, "whether He 
putteth down His soul, for that He is the Word? Or, for that He is a 
soul?" Or, again, "for that He is flesh?" And he says that, "should we 
say that the Word of God laid down His soul" . . . it would follow that 
"there was a time when that soul was severed from the Word"---which is 
untrue. "For death severed the body and soul . . . but that the soul was 
severed from the Word I do not affirm . . . But should we say that the 
soul laid itself down," it follows "that it is severed from itself: which 
is most absurd." It remains, therefore, that "the flesh itself layeth 
down its soul and taketh it again, not by its own power, but by the power 
of the Word dwelling in the flesh": because, as stated above (A[2]), the 
Godhead of the Word was not severed from the flesh in death.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: In those words Athanasius never meant to say that the whole 
man was reassumed---that is, as to all his parts---as if the Word of God 
had laid aside the parts of human nature by His death; but that the 
totality of the assumed nature was restored once more in the resurrection 
by the resumed union of soul and body.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1 

 Reply OBJ 2: Through being united to human nature, the Word of God is 
not on that account called human nature: but He is called a man---that 
is, one having human nature. Now the soul and the body are essential 
parts of human nature. Hence it does not follow that the Word is a soul 
or a body through being united with both, but that He is one possessing a 
soul or a body.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 4: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "In Christ's death 
the soul was separated from the flesh: not one hypostasis divided into 
two: because both soul and body in the same respect had their existence 
from the beginning in the hypostasis of the Word; and in death, though 
severed from one another, each one continued to have the one same 
hypostasis of the Word. Wherefore the one hypostasis of the Word was the 
hypostasis of the Word, of the soul, and of the body. For neither soul 
nor body ever had an hypostasis of its own, besides the hypostasis of the 
Word: for there was always one hypostasis of the Word, and never two."


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1

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

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ was a man during the three days of His 
death, because Augustine says (De Trin. iii): "Such was the assuming [of 
nature] as to make God to be man, and man to be God." But this assuming 
[of nature] did not cease at Christ's death. Therefore it seems that He 
did not cease to be a man in consequence of death.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix) that "each man is his 
intellect"; consequently, when we address the soul of Peter after his 
death we say: "Saint Peter, pray for us." But the Son of God after death 
was not separated from His intellectual soul. Therefore, during those 
three days the Son of God was a man.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1

 OBJ 3: Further, every priest is a man. But during those three days of 
death Christ was a priest: otherwise what is said in Ps. 109:4 would not 
be true: "Thou art a priest for ever." Therefore Christ was a man during 
those three days.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1

 On the contrary, When the higher [species] is removed, so is the lower. 
But the living or animated being is a higher species than animal and man, 
because an animal is a sensible animated substance. Now during those 
three days of death Christ's body was not living or animated. Therefore 
He was not a man.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] Body Para. 1/2

 I answer that, It is an article of faith that Christ was truly dead: 
hence it is an error against faith to assert anything whereby the truth 
of Christ's death is destroyed. Accordingly it is said in the Synodal 
epistle of Cyril [*Act. Conc. Ephes. P. I, cap. xxvi]: "If any man does 
not acknowledge that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and was 
crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh, let him be 
anathema." Now it belongs to the truth of the death of man or animal that 
by death the subject ceases to be man or animal; because the death of the 
man or animal results from the  separation of the soul, which is the 
formal complement of the man or animal. Consequently, to say that Christ 
was a man during the three days of His death simply and without 
qualification, is erroneous. Yet it can be said that He was "a dead man" 
during those three days.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] Body Para. 2/2

 However, some writers have contended that Christ was a man during those 
three days, uttering words which are indeed erroneous, yet without intent 
of error in faith: as Hugh of Saint Victor, who (De Sacram. ii) contended 
that Christ, during the three days that followed His death, was a man, 
because he held that the soul is a man: but this is false, as was shown 
in the FP, Q[75], A[4]. Likewise the Master of the Sentences (iii, D, 22) 
held Christ to be a man during the three days of His death for quite 
another reason. For he believed the union of soul and flesh not to be 
essential to a man, and that for anything to be a man it suffices if it 
have a soul and body, whether united or separated: and that this is 
likewise false is clear both from what has been said in the FP, Q[75], 
A[4], and from what has been said above regarding the mode of union (Q[2]
, A[5]).

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 1: The Word of God assumed a united soul and body: and the 
result of this assumption was that God is man, and man is God. But this 
assumption did not cease by the separation of the Word from the soul or 
from the flesh; yet the union of soul and flesh ceased.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 2: Man is said to be his own intellect, not because the 
intellect is the entire man, but because the intellect is the chief part 
of man, in which man's whole disposition lies virtually; just as the 
ruler of the city may be called the whole city, since its entire disposal 
is vested in him.

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

 Reply OBJ 3: That a man is competent to be a priest is by reason of the 
soul, which is the subject of the character of order: hence a man does 
not lose his priestly order by death, and much less does Christ, who is 
the fount of the entire priesthood.


Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1

Whether Christ's was identically the same body living and dead?

Aquin.: SMT TP Q[50] A[5] Obj. 1