 Question 55 of Summa Theologica Terziapars, Triatis on the Saviour. This is the LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Terziapars, Triatis on the Saviour, by St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 55 of the Manifestation of the Resurrection, in six articles. We have now to consider the Manifestation of the Resurrection, concerning which there are six points of inquiry. First, whether Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all men, or only to some special individuals. Second, whether it was fitting that they should see Him rise. Third, whether He ought to have lived with the disciples after the Resurrection. Fourth, whether it was fitting for Him to appeal to the disciples in another shape. Fifth, whether He ought to have demonstrated the Resurrection by proofs. Sixth, of the cogency of those proofs. First article, whether Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all. Objection one, it would seem that Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all. For just as a public penalty is due for public sin, according to 1st Timothy 5.20, then that sin reproved before all. So is a public reward due for public merit. But as Augustine says, the glory of the Resurrection is the reward of the humility of the Passion. Therefore, since Christ's Passion was manifested to all while He suffered in public, it seems that the glory of the Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all. Objection two further, as Christ's Passion is ordained for our salvation, so also is His Resurrection according to Romans 4.25. He rose again for our justification. But what belongs to the public wheel ought to be manifested to all. Therefore Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all, and not to some specially. Objection three further, they to whom it was manifested were witnesses of the Resurrection. Hence it is said in Acts 3.15, whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses. Now they bore witness by preaching in public, and this is unbecoming in women according to 1st Corinthians 1434, let women keep silence in the churches, and in 1st Timothy 2.12, I suffer not a woman to teach. Therefore it does not seem becoming for Christ's Resurrection to be manifested, first of all, to the women and afterwards to mankind in general. On the contrary, it is written in Acts 10 verse 40, Him God raised up the third day, and gave Him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses preordained by God. Some things come to our knowledge by nature's common law, others by special favour of grace as things divinely revealed. Now as Dionysius says on the Celestial Hierarchy 4, the divinely established law of things is that they be revealed immediately by God to higher persons through whom they are imparted to others, as is evident in the ordering of the heavenly spirits. But such things as concern future glory are beyond the common ken of mankind, according to Isaiah 64 verse 4, the eye hath not seen, O God, besides thee, what things thou hast prepared for them that wait for thee. Consequently, such things are not known by man except through divine revelation, as the apostle says in 1 Corinthians 2.10. God hath revealed them to us by His Spirit. Since then Christ rose by a glorious resurrection, consequently His resurrection was not manifested to everyone, but to some, by whose testimony it could be brought to the knowledge of others. Reply to Objection 1. Christ's passion was consummated in a body that still had a passable nature, which is known to all by general laws. Consequently His passion could be directly manifested to all. But the resurrection was accomplished through the glory of the Father, as the apostle says in Romans 6.4. Therefore it was manifested directly to some, but not to all. But that a public penance is imposed upon public sinners is to be understood of the punishment of this present life. And in like manner public merits should be rewarded in public, in order that others may be stirred to emulation. But the punishments and rewards of the future life are not publicly manifested to all, but to those specially who are preordained thereto by God. Reply to Objection 2. Just as Christ's resurrection is for the common salvation of all, so it came to the knowledge of all, yet not so that it was directly manifested to all, but only to some, through whose testimony it could be brought to the knowledge of all. Reply to Objection 3. A woman is not to be allowed to teach publicly in church, but she may be permitted to give familiar instruction to some privately. And therefore as Ambrose says on Luke 24-22, a woman is sent to them who are of her household, but not to the people to bear witness to the resurrection. But Christ appeared to the woman first for this reason, that as a woman was the first to bring the source of death to man, so she might be the first to announce the dawn of Christ's glorious resurrection. Hence Cyril says on John 20, verse 17, woman who formerly was the minister of death is the first to see and proclaim the adorable mystery of the resurrection. Thus womankind has procured absolution from ignonomy and removal of the curse. By moreover it is shown, so far as the state of glory is concerned, that the female sex shall suffer no hurt, but if women burn with greater charity, they shall also attain greater glory from the divine vision, because the women whose love for our Lord was more persistent, so much so that when even the disciples withdrew from this apocry, they did not depart. They were the first to see Him rising in glory. Second article Whether it was fitting that the disciples should see Him rise again. Objection one. It would seem fitting that the disciples should have seen Him rise again, because it was their office to bear witness to the resurrection, according to Acts 4, verse 33. With great power did the apostles give testimony to the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord. But the surest witness of all is an eyewitness. Therefore it would have been fitting for them to see the very resurrection of Christ. Objection two further. In order to have the certainty of faith, the disciples saw Christ ascend into heaven, according to Acts 1, verse 9. While they looked on, He was raised up. But it was also necessary for them to have faith in the resurrection. Therefore it seems that Christ ought to have risen in sight of the disciples. Objection three further. The raising of Lazarus was a sign of Christ's coming resurrection. But the Lord raised up Lazarus in the sight of the disciples. Consequently it seems that Christ ought to have risen in the sight of the disciples. On the contrary, it is written in Mark 16, 9. The Lord rising early the first day of the week appeared first to Mary Magdalene. Now Mary Magdalene did not see Him rise, but while searching for Him in the sepulchre, she heard from the angel, He is risen, He is not here. Therefore no one saw Him rise again. I answer that, as the Apostle says in Romans 13, 1. Those things that are of God are well-ordered. Now the divinely established order is this, that things above men's can are revealed to them by angels, as Dionysius says in On the Celestial Hierarchy 4. But Christ on rising did not return to the familiar manner of life, but to a kind of immortal and God-like condition, according to Romans 6, 10. For in He that liveth, He liveth unto God. And therefore it was fitting for Christ's resurrection not to be witnessed by men directly, but to be proclaimed to them by angels. Accordingly, Hilary says, An angel is therefore the first herald of the resurrection, that it might be declared out of obedience to the Father's will. Reply to Objection 1. The Apostles were able to testify to the resurrection even by sight, because from the testimony of their own eyes they saw Christ alive, whom they had known to be dead. But just as man comes from the hearing of faith to the viettific vision, so did man come to the sight of the risen Christ through the message already received from angels. Reply to Objection 2. Christ's ascension as to its term wherefrom was not above men's common knowledge, but only as to its term whereunto. Consequently, the disciples were able to behold Christ's ascension as to the term wherefrom, that is, according as he was uplifted from the earth. But they did not behold him as to the term whereunto, because they did not see how he was received into heaven. But Christ's resurrection transcended common knowledge as to the term wherefrom, according as his soul returned from hell and his body from the closed sepulchre. And likewise as to the term whereunto, according as he attained to the life of glory. Consequently, the resurrection ought not to be accomplished so as to be seen by man. Reply to Objection 3. Lazarus was raised so that he returned to the same life as before, which life is not beyond man's common can. Consequently, there is no parity. Third article. Whether Christ ought to have lived constantly with his disciples after the resurrection? Objection 1. You would seem that Christ ought to have lived constantly with his disciples because he appeared to them after his resurrection in order to confirm their faith in the resurrection and to bring them comfort in their disturbed estate, according to John 2020. The disciples were glad when they saw the Lord, but they would have been more assured and consoled that he constantly showed them his presence. Therefore, it seems that he ought to have lived constantly with them. Objection 2 further. Christ rising from the dead did not at once ascend into heaven, but after forty days as is narrated in Acts 1.3. But, meanwhile, he could have been in no more suitable place than where the disciples were met together. Therefore, it seems that he ought to have lived with them continually. Objection 3 further. As Augustine says, and on the consensus of the evangelists 3, we read how Christ appeared five times on the very day of his resurrection. First, to the women at the sepulchre. Secondly, to the same on the way from the sepulchre. Thirdly, to Peter. Fourthly, to the two disciples going to the town. Fifthly, to several of them in Jerusalem when Thomas was not present. Therefore, it also seems that he ought to have appeared several times on the other days before the ascension. Objection 4 further. Our Lord said to them before the Passion in Matthew 26.32. But after I shall be risen again, I will go before you intergalaly. Moreover, an angel and our Lord himself repeated the same to the women after the resurrection. Nevertheless, he was seen by them in Jerusalem on the very day of the resurrection as stated above in Objection 3. Also on the eighth day as we read in John 20 verse 26. It seems, therefore, that he did not live with the disciples in a fitting way after the resurrection. On the contrary, it is written in John 20 verse 26 that after eight days Christ appeared to the disciples. Therefore, he did not constantly live with them. I answer that concerning the resurrection two things had to be manifested to the disciples, namely the truth of the resurrection and the glory of him who rose. Now in order to manifest the truth of the resurrection it suffice for him to appear several times before them to speak familiarly with them, to eat and drink and to let them touch him. But in order to manifest the glory of the risen Christ he was not desirous of living with them constantly as he had done before lest it might seem that he rose unto the same life as before. Hence in Luke 24.44 he said to them these are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you for he was there with them by his bodily presence but hitherto he had been with them not merely by his bodily presence but also in mortal somblance. Hence Bede in explaining those words of Luke while I was with you says that is while I was still in mortal flesh in which you are yet for he had then risen in the same flesh but was not the same state of mortality as they. Reply to Objection 1 Christ's frequent appearing served to assure the disciples of the truth of the resurrection but continual intercourse might have led them into the error of believing that he had risen to the same life as was his before. Yet by his constant presence he promised them comfort in another life according to John 16.22 I will see you again and your heart shall rejoice and your joy no man shall take from you. Reply to Objection 2 that Christ did not stay continually with the disciples was not because he deemed it more expedient for them to be elsewhere but because he judged it to be more suitable for the apostles instruction that he should not abide continually with them for the reason given above but it is quite unknown in what places he was bodily present in the meantime since scripture is silent and his dominion is in every place Confer Psalm 102 verse 22 Reply to Objection 3 He appeared oftener on the first day because the disciples were to be admonished by many proofs to accept the faith in his resurrection from the very outset but after they had once accepted it they had no further need of being instructed by so many apparitions Accordingly one reads in the Gospel that after the first day he appeared again only five times for as Augustine says in on the Consensus of the Evangelists 3 after the first five apparitions he came again a sixth time when Thomas saw him a seventh time was by the sea of Tiberias at the capture of the fishes the eighth was on the mountain of Galilee according to Matthew the ninth occasion is expressed by Mark at length when they were at table because no more were they going to eat with him upon earth the tenth was on the very day when no longer upon the earth but uplifted into the cloud he was ascending into heaven but as John admits not all things were written down and he visited them frequently before he went up to heaven in order to comfort them hence it is written in 1 Corinthians 15 verses 6 and 7 that he was seen by more than 500 brethren at once after that he was seen by James of which apparitions no mention is made in the Gospels Reply to Objection 4 Chrysostom in explaining Matthew 26 32 after I shall be risen again I will go before you into Galilee says he goes not to some far-off region in order to appear to them but among his own people and in those very places in which for the most part they had lived with him in order that they might thereby believe that he who has crucified was the same as he who rose again and on this count he said that he would go into Galilee and they might be delivered from fear of the Jews consequently as Ambrose says in his commentary on the Gospel of Luke the Lord had sent word to the disciples that they were to see him in Galilee yet he showed himself first to them when they were assembled together now is there any breaking of a promise here but rather a hastened fulfilling out of kindness afterwards however when their minds were comforted they went into Galilee nor is there any reason to prevent us from supposing that there were few in the room and many more on the mountain for as Eusebius says two evangelists Luke and John write that he appeared in Jerusalem to the 11 only but the other two said that an angel and our Saviour commanded not merely the 11 but all the disciples and brethren to go into Galilee Paul makes mention of them when he says in 1 Corinthians 15 6 then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at once the truer solution however is this that while they were in hiding in Jerusalem he appeared to them at first in order to comfort them but in Galilee it was not secretly nor once or twice that he made himself known to them with great power showing himself to them alive after his passion by many proofs as Luke says in Acts 1 3 or as Augustine writes in his consensus of the evangelists 3 what was said by the angel and by our Lord that he would go before them into Galilee must be taken prophetically for if we take Galilee as meaning a passing we must understand that they were going to pass from the people of Israel to the Gentiles who would not believe in the preaching of the apostles unless he prepared the way for them in men's hearts and this is signified by the words he shall go before you into Galilee but if by Galilee we understand Revelation we are to understand this as applying to him not in the form of a servant but in that form wherein he is equal to the Father in which he has promised to them that love him although he has gone before us in this sense he has not abandoned us fourth article whether Christ should have appeared to the disciples in another shape objection one you would seem that Christ ought not to have appeared to the disciples in another shape for a thing cannot appear in very truth other than it is but there was only one shape in Christ therefore if he appeared under another it was not a true but a false apparition now this is not at all fitting because as Augustine says in his 83 questions question 14 if he deceives he is not the truth yet Christ is the truth consequently it seems that Christ ought not to have appeared to the disciples in another shape objection two further nothing can appear in another shape than the one it has except the beholder's eyes be captivated by some illusions but since such illusions are brought about by magical arts they are unbecoming in Christ according to what is written in 2 Corinthians 615 what concord hath Christ with Belial therefore it seems that Christ ought not to have appeared in another shape objection three further just as our faith receives its surety from Scripture so were the disciples assured of their faith in the resurrection by Christ appearing to them but as Augustine says in an epistle to Jerome if but one untruth be admitted into the sacred Scripture the whole authority of the Scriptures is weakened consequently if Christ appeared to the disciples in but one apparition otherwise than he was then whatever they saw in Christ after the resurrection will be of less import which is not fitting therefore he ought not to have appeared in another shape on the contrary it is written in Mark 1612 after that he appeared in another shape to two of them walking as they were going into the country I answer that as stated above in articles 1 and 2 Christ's resurrection was to be manifested to men in the same way as divine things are revealed but divine things are revealed to men in various ways according as they are variously disposed for those who have minds well disposed perceive divine things rightly whereas those not so disposed perceive them with a certain confusion of doubt or error for the sensual man perceiveth not those things that are of the spirit of God as is said in 1 Corinthians 214 consequently after his resurrection Christ appeared in his own shape to some who were well disposed to belief while he appeared in another shape to them who seemed to be already growing tepid in their faith hence these said in Luke 2421 we hoped that it was he that should have redeemed Israel hence Gregory says in a homily that he showed himself to them in body such as he was in their minds for because he was yet a stranger to faith in their hearts he made pretense of going on further that is as if he were a stranger reply to Objection 1 as Augustine says in his questions on the Gospels 2 not everything of which we make pretense is a falsehood but when what we pretend has no meaning then it is a falsehood but when our pretense has some signification it is not a lie but a figure of the truth otherwise everything said figuratively by wise and holy men or even by our Lord himself would be set down as a falsehood because it is not customary to take such expressions in the literal sense and deeds like words are feigned without falsehood in order to denote something else and so what happened here as has been said reply to Objection 2 as Augustine says in his consensus of the Evangelists 3 our Lord could change flesh so that his shape really was other than they were accustomed to behold for before his passion he was transfigured on the mountain so that his face shone like the sun but it did not happen thus now for not without reason do we understand this hindrance in their eyes to have been of Satan's doing lest Jesus might be recognized hence Luke says in chapter 24 verse 16 that their eyes were held that they should not know him reply to Objection 3 such an argument would prove if they had not been brought back from the sight of a strange shape to that of Christ's true continence for as Augustine says in his consensus of the Evangelists 3 the permission was granted by Christ namely that their eyes should be held fast in the aforesaid way until the sacrament of the bread that when they had shared in the unity of his body the enemy's hindrance may be understood to have been taken away so that Christ might be recognized hence he goes on to say that their eyes were opened and they knew him not that they were hitherto walking with their eyes shut but there was something in them whereby they were not permitted to recognize what they saw this could be caused by the darkness or by some kind of humor fifth article whether Christ should have demonstrated the truth of his resurrection by proofs Objection 1 you would seem that Christ should not have demonstrated the truth of his resurrection by proofs for Ambrose says in On the Faith let there be no proofs where faith is required but faith is required regarding the resurrection therefore proofs are out of place there Objection 2 further Gregory says in a homily faith has no merit or human reason supplies the test but it was no part of Christ's office to avoid the merit of faith consequently it was not for him to confirm the resurrection by proofs Objection 3 further Christ came into the world in order that men might attain beatitude through him according to John 10.10 I am come that they may have life and may have it more abundantly but supplying proofs seems to be a hindrance in the way of man's beatitude because our Lord himself said in John 20 verse 29 blessed are they that have not seen and have believed consequently it seems that Christ ought not to manifest his resurrection by any proofs On the contrary it is related in Acts 1 verse 3 that Christ appeared to his disciples for 40 days by many proofs speaking of the kingdom of God I answer that the word proof is susceptible of a twofold meaning sometimes it is employed to designate any sort of reason in confirmation of what is a matter of doubt and sometimes it means a sensible sign employed to manifest the truth thus also Aristotle occasionally uses the term in his works Taking proof in the first sense Christ did not demonstrate his resurrection to the disciples by proofs because such argumentative proof would have been to be grounded on some principles and if these were not known to the disciples nothing would thereby be demonstrated to them because nothing can be known from the unknown and if such principles were known to them they would not go beyond human reason and consequently would not be efficacious for establishing faith in the resurrection which is beyond human reason since principles must be assumed which are of the same order according to the first posterior analytics it was from the authority of the sacred scriptures that he proved to them the truth of his resurrection which authority is the basis of faith when he said all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law and in the prophets and in the Psalms concerning me as is set forth in Luke 24 verse 44 but if the term proof be taken in the second sense then Christ is said to have demonstrated his resurrection by proofs in as much as by most evident signs he showed that he was truly risen hence where our version has by many proofs the Greek text instead of proof has tecmerion that is an evident sign affording positive proof now Christ showed these signs of the resurrection to his disciples for two reasons first because their hearts were not disposed so as to accept readily the faith in the resurrection hence he says himself in Luke 24 25 O foolish and slow of heart to believe and in Mark 16 14 yet braided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart secondly that their testimony might be rendered more efficacious through the signs shown them according to first John 1 verses 1 and 3 that which we have seen and have heard and our hands have handled we declare reply to objection 1 Ambrose is speaking there of proofs drawn from human reason which are useless for demonstrating things of faith as was shown above reply to objection 2 the merit of faith arises from this that at God's bidding man believes what he does not see accordingly only that reason debars merit of faith which enables one to see by knowledge what is proposed for belief and this is demonstrative argument but Christ did not make use of any such argument for demonstrating his resurrection reply to objection 3 as already stated in the second reply the merit of beatitude which comes of faith is not entirely excluded except a man refused to believe whatever he does not see but for a man to believe from visible signs the things he does not see does not entirely deprive him of faith nor of the merit of faith just as Thomas to whom it was said in John 20 verse 29 because thou hast seen me Thomas thou hast believed saw one thing and believed another the wounds were what he saw God was the object of his belief but his is the more perfect faith who does not require such helps for belief hence to put to shame the faith of some men our Lord said in John 4.48 unless you see signs and wonders you believe not from this one can learn how they who are so ready to believe God even without beholding signs are blessed in comparison with them who do not believe except they see the like 6. article whether the proofs which Christ made use of manifested sufficiently the truth of his resurrection objection 1 it would seem that the proofs which Christ made use of did not sufficiently manifest the truth of his resurrection for after the resurrection Christ showed nothing to his disciples which angels appearing to men did not or could not show because angels have frequently shown themselves to men under human aspect have spoken and lived with them and eaten with them just as if they were truly men as is evident from Genesis 18 of the angels whom Abraham entertained and in the book of Tobias of the angel who conducted him and brought him back nevertheless angels have not true bodies natural united to them which is required for a resurrection consequently the signs which Christ showed his disciples were not sufficient for manifesting his resurrection objection 2 further Christ rose again gloriously that is having a human nature with glory but some of the things which Christ showed to his disciples seem contrary to human nature as for instance he vanished out of their sight and entered in among them when the doors were shut and some other things seem contrary to glory as for instance that he ate and drank and bore the scars of his wounds consequently it seems that those proofs were neither sufficient nor fitting for establishing faith in the resurrection objection 3 further after the resurrection Christ's body was such that it ought not to be touched by mortal man hence he said to Magdalene in John 20 verse 17 do not touch me for I am not yet ascended to my father consequently it was not fitting for manifesting the truth of his resurrection that he should permit himself to be handled by his disciples objection 4 further clarity seems to be the principle of the qualities of a glorified body yet he gave no sign thereof in his resurrection therefore it seems that those proofs were insufficient for showing the quality of Christ's resurrection objection 5 further the angels introduced as witnesses for the resurrection seem insufficient from the want of agreement on the part of the evangelists because in Matthew's account the angel is described as sitting upon the stone rolled back while Mark states that he was seen after the women had entered the tomb and again whereas these mention one angel John says that there were two sitting and Luke says that there were two standing consequently the arguments for the resurrection do not seem to agree on the contrary Christ who is the wisdom of God ordereth all things sweetly and in a fitting manner according to wisdom 8 1 I answer that Christ manifested his resurrection in two ways namely by testimony and by proof or sign and each manifestation was sufficient in its own class for an order to manifest his resurrection he made use of a double testimony neither of which can be rebutted the first of these was the angels testimony who announced the resurrection to the women as a scene in all the evangelists the other was the testimony of the scriptures which he set before them to show the truth of the resurrection as is narrated in the last chapter of Luke again the proofs were sufficient for showing that the resurrection was both true and glorious that it was a true resurrection he shows first on the part of the body and this he shows in three respects first of all that it was a true and solid body and not fantastic or rarefied like the air and he establishes this by offering his body to be handled hence he says in the last chapter of Luke at verse 39 handle and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me to have secondly he shows that it was a human body by presenting his true features for them to behold thirdly he shows that it was identically the same body which he had before by showing them the scars of the wounds hence as we read in the last chapter of Luke he said to them see my hands and feet that it is I myself secondly he showed them the truth of his resurrection on the part of his soul reunited with his body and he showed this by the works of the threefold life first of all in the operations of the nutritive life by eating and drinking with his disciples as we read in the last chapter of Luke secondly in the works of the sensitive life by replying to his disciples questions and by greeting them when they were in his presence showing thereby that he both saw and heard thirdly in the works of the intellect of life by their conversing with him and discoursing on the scriptures and in order that nothing might be wanting to make the manifestation complete he also showed that he had the divine nature by working the miracle of the Drata fishes and further by ascending into heaven while they were beholding him because according to John 3 verse 13 no man hath ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven the son of man who is in heaven he also showed his disciples the glory of his resurrection by entering in among them when the doors were closed as Gregory says in his homily our Lord allowed them to handle his flesh when he had brought through the closed doors to show that his body was of the same nature but of different glory it likewise was part of the property of glory that he vanished suddenly from their eyes as related in the last chapter of Luke because thereby it was shown that it lay in his power to be seen or not seen and this belongs to a glorified body as stated above in question 54 article 1 second reply and in article 2 first reply reply to objection 1 each separate argument would not suffice of itself for showing perfectly Christ's resurrection yet all taken collectively establish it completely especially owing to the testimonies of the scriptures the sayings of the angels and even Christ's own assertion supported by miracles as to the angels who appeared they did not say there were men as Christ asserted he was truly a man moreover the manner of eating was different in Christ and the angels for since the bodies assumed by the angels were neither living nor animated there was no true eating although the food was really masticated and passed into the interior of the assumed body hence the angels said to Tobias when I was with you I seemed indeed to eat and drink with you but I use an invisible meat but since Christ's body was truly animated his eating was genuine for as Augustine observes in On the City of God 13 it is not the power but the need of eating that shall be taken away from the bodies of them who rise again and speed says on Luke 24 verse 41 Christ ate because he could not because he needed reply to objection to as was observed above some proofs were employed by Christ to prove the truth of his human nature others to show forth his glory in rising again but the condition of human nature as considered in itself namely as to its present state is opposite to the condition of glory as is said in 1 Corinthians 1543 it is sown in weakness it shall rise in power consequently the proofs brought forward for showing the condition of glory seem to be in opposition to nature not absolutely but according to the present state and conversely hence Gregory says in a homily the Lord manifested two wonders which are mutually contrary according to human reason when after the resurrection he showed his body as incorruptible and at the same time palpable reply to objection 3 as Augustine says in his commentary on the Gospel of John these words of our Lord do not touch me for I am not yet assented to my Father show that in that woman there is a figure of the church of the Gentiles which did not believe in Christ until he was assented to the Father or Jesus would have men to believe in him that is to touch him spiritually as being himself one with the Father for to that man's innermost perceptions he is in some sense ascended unto the Father who has become so far proficient in him as to recognize in him the equal with the Father whereas she has yet believed in him but carnally since she wept for him as for a man but when one reads elsewhere of Mary having touched him when with the other women she came up and took hold of his feet that matters little as Severanus says for the first act relates to figure the other to sex the former is of divine grace the latter of human nature or as Chrysostom says in his commentary on the Gospel of John this woman wanted to converse with Christ just as before the Passion and out of joy was thinking of nothing great although Christ's flesh had become much nobler by rising again and therefore he said I have not yet ascended to my Father as if to say do not suppose I am leading an earthly life for if you see me upon earth it is because I have not yet ascended to my Father but I am going to ascend shortly hence he goes on to say I ascend to my Father and to your Father replied to objection for as Augustine says in his letter to Orozium our Lord rose in clarified flesh yet he did not wish to appear before the disciples in that condition of clarity because their eyes could not gaze upon that brilliancy for if before he died for us and rose again the disciples could not look upon him when he was transfigured upon the mountain how much less were they able to gaze upon him when our Lord's flesh was glorified it must also be borne in mind that after his resurrection our Lord wished especially to show that he was the same as had died which the manifestation of his brightness would have hindered considerably because change of features shows more than anything else the difference in the person seen and this is because sight especially judges of common sensibles among which is one and many or the same and different but before the passion lest his disciples might despise its weakness Christ meant to show them the glory of his majesty and this the brightness of the body specially indicates consequently before the passion he showed the disciples his glory by brightness but after the resurrection by other tokens reply to objection five as Augustine says in his consensus of the evangelists three we can understand one angel to have been seen by the women according to both Matthew and Mark if we take them as having entered the sepulchre that is into some sort of walled enclosure and that there they saw an angel sitting upon the stone which was rolled back from the monument as Matthew says and that this is Mark's expression sitting on the right side afterwards when they scan the spot where the Lord's body had lain they beheld two angels who were at first seated as John says and who afterwards rose so as to be seen standing as Luke relates End of question 55 read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC Question 56 of Summa Theologica Terzia Parz Treaties on the Saviour This is a LibriVox recording All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Summa Theologica Terzia Parz Treaties on the Saviour by St. Thomas Aquinas translated by the fathers of the English Dominican province Question 56 of the Causality of Christ's Resurrection in two articles We have now to consider the Causality of Christ's Resurrection concerning which there are two points of inquiry First, whether Christ's Resurrection is the cause of our Resurrection Second, whether it is the cause of our justification First article Whether Christ's Resurrection is the cause of the Resurrection of our bodies Objection 1 It would seem that Christ's Resurrection is not the cause of the Resurrection of our bodies because, given a sufficient cause the effect must follow of necessity If then Christ's Resurrection be the sufficient cause of the Resurrection of our bodies then all the dead should have risen again as soon as he rose Objection 2 further Divine Justice is the cause of the Resurrection of the dead so that the body may be rewarded or punished together with the soul since they shared in merit or sin as Dionysius says in On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 7 as well as Damocene in On the True Faith 4 But God's Justice must necessarily be accomplished even if Christ had not risen Therefore, the dead would rise again even though Christ did not Consequently, Christ's Resurrection is not the cause of the Resurrection of our bodies Objection 3 further If Christ's Resurrection be the cause of the Resurrection of our bodies it would be either the exemplar or the efficient or the meritorious cause No, it is not the exemplar cause because it is God who will bring about the Resurrection of our bodies according to John 521 The Father raises up the dead and God has no need to look at any exemplar cause outside Himself In like manner it is not the efficient cause because an efficient cause acts only through contact whether spiritual or corporal Now it is evident that Christ's Resurrection has no corporeal contact with the dead who shall rise again owing to distance of time and place and similarly it has no spiritual contact which is through faith and charity because even unbelievers and sinners shall rise again Nor again is it the meritorious cause because when Christ rose He was no longer a waferer and consequently not in a state of merit Therefore, Christ's Resurrection does not appear to be in any way the cause of ours Objection for further Since death is the privation of life then to destroy death seems to be nothing else than to bring life back again and this is Resurrection but by dying Christ destroyed our death as the preface of the Mass in Paschal Time says Consequently Christ's death Not His Resurrection is the cause of our Resurrection On the contrary On 1 Corinthians 15-12 Now if Christ be preached that He rose again from the dead the gloss says Who is the efficient cause of our Resurrection? I answer that as stated in metaphysics 2-4 Whatever is first in any order is the cause of all that shall come after it but Christ's Resurrection was the first in the order of our Resurrection as is evident from what has been stated above in question 53 article 3 Hence Christ's Resurrection must be the cause of ours and this is what the Apostles says in 1 Corinthians 15-20 and 21 Christ is risen from the dead the first fruits of them that sleep for by a man came death and by a man the Resurrection of the dead and this is reasonable because the principle of human life-giving is the word of God of whom it is said in Psalm 35-10 with Thee is the fountain of life Hence He Himself says in John 5-21 as the Father raises up the dead and giveth life so the Son also giveth life to whom He will Now the Divinely established natural order is that every cause operates first upon what is nearest to it and through it upon others which are most remote just as fire first heats the nearest air and through it it heats bodies that are further off and God Himself first enlightens those substances which are closer to Him and through them others that are more remote as Dionysius says in On the Celestial Hierarchy 13 Consequently the word of God first bestows immortal life upon that body which is naturally united with Himself and through it works the Resurrection in all other bodies Reply to Objection 1 As was stated above Christ's Resurrection is the cause of ours through the power of the United Word who operates according to His will and consequently it is not necessary for the effect to follow at once but according as the word of God disposes namely that first of all we be conformed to the suffering and dying Christ in this suffering and mortal life and afterwards may come to share in the likeness of His Resurrection Reply to Objection 2 God's Justice is the first cause of our Resurrection whereas Christ's Resurrection the secondary and as it were the instrumental cause but although the power of the principal cause is not restricted to one instrument determinately nevertheless since it works through this instrument such instrument causes the effect so then the Divine Justice in itself is not tied down to Christ's Resurrection as a means of bringing about our Resurrection because God could deliver us in some other way than through Christ's Passion and Resurrection as already stated in Question 46 Article 2 but having once decreed to deliver us in this way it is evident that Christ's Resurrection is the cause of ours Reply to Objection 3 Properly speaking Christ's Resurrection is not the meritorious cause but the efficient and exemplar cause of our Resurrection it is the efficient cause in as much as Christ's Humanity according to which He rose again is as it were the instrument of His Godhead and works by its power as stated above in Question 13 Articles 2 and 3 and therefore just as all other things which Christ did and endured in His Humanity are profitable to our Salvation through the power of the Godhead as already stated in Question 48 Article 6 so also is Christ's Resurrection the efficient cause of ours through the Divine Power whose office it is to quicken the dead and this power by its presence is in touch with all places and times and such virtual contact suffices for its efficiency and since as was stated above in the Second Reply the primary cause of Human Resurrection is Divine Justice from which Christ has the power of passing judgment He is Son of Man as stated in John 5.27 the efficient power of His Resurrection extends to the good and wicked alike who are subject to His judgment but just as the Resurrection of Christ's Body through its personal union with the Word is first in point of time so also is it first in dignity and perfection as the glass says on 1 Corinthians 15, 20, and 23 but whatever is most perfect is always the exemplar which the less perfect copies according to its mode consequently Christ's Resurrection is the exemplar of ours and this is necessary not on the part of Him who rose again who needs no exemplar but on the part of them who are raised up who must be likened to that Resurrection according to Philippians 3.21 He will reform the body of our lowness made like to the body of His glory now although the efficiency of Christ's Resurrection extends to the Resurrection of the good and wicked alike still its exemplarity extends properly only to the just who are made conformable with His Sonship according to Romans 8.29 Reply to Objection 4 Considered on the part of their efficiency which is dependent on the Divine Power both Christ's death and His Resurrection are the cause both of the destruction of death and of the renewal of life but considered as exemplar causes Christ's death by which He withdrew from mortal life is the cause of the destruction of our death while His Resurrection whereby He inaugurated immortal life is the cause of the repairing of our life but Christ's Passion is furthermore a meritorious cause as stated above in Question 48, Article 1 Second Article Whether Christ's Resurrection is the cause of the Resurrection of souls Objection 1 it would seem that Christ's Resurrection is not the cause of the Resurrection of souls because Augustine says in his commentary on John that bodies rise by His human dispensation but souls rise by the substance of God but Christ's Resurrection does not belong to God's substance but to the dispensation of His humanity therefore although Christ's Resurrection is the cause of bodies rising nevertheless it does not seem to be the cause of the Resurrection of souls Objection 2 further a body does not act upon a spirit but the Resurrection belongs to His body which death laid low therefore His Resurrection is not the cause of the Resurrection of souls Objection 3 further since Christ's Resurrection is the cause why bodies rise again the bodies of all men shall rise again according to 1 Corinthians 15-51 we shall all indeed rise again but the souls of all will not rise again because according to Matthew 25-46 some shall go into everlasting punishment therefore Christ's Resurrection is not the cause of the Resurrection of souls Objection 4 further the Resurrection of souls comes of the forgiveness of sins but this was effected by Christ's Passion according to Apocalypse 1-5 He washed us from our sins in His own blood consequently Christ's Passion even more than His Resurrection is the cause of the Resurrection of souls on the contrary the Apostle says in Romans 4-25 He rose again for our justification which is nothing else than the Resurrection of souls and on Psalm 29-6 in the evening weeping shall have place the Gloss says Christ's Resurrection is the cause of ours both of the souls at present and of the body in the future I answer that as stated above Christ's Resurrection works in virtue of the Godhead now this virtue extends not only to the Resurrection of bodies but also to that of souls for it comes of God that the soul lives by grace and that the body lives by the soul consequently Christ's Resurrection has instrumentally and effective power not only with regard to the Resurrection of bodies but also with respect to the Resurrection of souls in like fashion it is an exemplar cause with regard to the Resurrection of souls because even in our souls we must be conformed with the rising Christ as the Apostle says in Romans 6 verses 4-11 Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father so we also may walk in newness of life and as He rising again from the dead dieeth now no more so let us reckon that we are dead to sin that we may live together with Him Reply to Objection 1 Augustine says that the Resurrection of souls is wrought by God's substance as to participation because souls become good and just by sharing in the divine goodness but not by sharing in anything created accordingly after saying that souls rise by the divine substance He adds the soul is beatified by a participation with God and not by a participation with the Holy Soul but our bodies are made glorious by sharing in the glory of Christ's body Reply to Objection 2 The efficacy of Christ's Resurrection reaches souls not from any special virtue of His risen body but from the virtue of the Godhead personally united with it Reply to Objection 3 The Resurrection of souls pertains to merit which is the effect of justification but the Resurrection of bodies is ordained for punishment or reward which are the effects of Him who judges Now it belongs to Christ not to justify all men but to judge them and therefore He raises up all as to their bodies but not as to their souls Reply to Objection 4 Two things concur in the justification of souls namely forgiveness of sin and newness of life through grace Consequently as to efficacy which comes of the divine power the passion as well as the Resurrection of Christ is the cause of justification as to both the above but as to exemplarity properly speaking Christ's passion and death are the cause of the forgiveness of guilt by which forgiveness we die unto sin whereas Christ's Resurrection is the cause of newness of life which comes through grace or justice Consequently the Apostle says in Romans 4.25 that He was delivered up, that is to death for our sins that is to take them away and rose again for our justification but Christ's passion was also a meritorious cause as stated above in Article 1, 4th reply as well as in Question 48, Article 1 End of Question 56 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC Question 57 Of Summa Theologica Terziapars Treaties on the Saviour This is a LibriVox recording All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Summa Theologica Terziapars Treaties on the Saviour by St. Thomas Aquinas Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican province Question 57 Of the Ascension of Christ in 6 articles We have now to consider Christ's Ascension concerning which there are 6 points of inquiry First, whether it belonged for Christ to ascend into heaven Second, according to which nature did it become Him to ascend Third, whether He ascended by His own power Fourth, whether He ascended above all the corporeal heavens Fifth, whether He ascended above all spiritual creatures Sixth, of the effect of the Ascension First article, whether it was fitting for Christ to ascend into heaven Objection 1 It would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to ascend into heaven For the philosopher says in On the Heavens 2 that Things which are in a state of perfection possess their good without movement But Christ was in a state of perfection since He is the sovereign good in respect of His divine nature and sovereignly glorified in respect of His human nature Consequently, He has His good without movement But Ascension is movement therefore it was not fitting for Christ to ascend Objection 2 further Whatever is moved is moved on account of something better But it was no better thing for Christ to be in heaven than upon earth because He gained nothing either in soul or in body by being in heaven Therefore it seems that Christ should not have ascended into heaven Objection 3 further The Son of God took human flesh for our salvation But it would have been more beneficial for men if He had tarried always with us upon earth Thus He said to His disciples in Luke 17-22 The days will come when you shall desire to see one day of the Son of Man and you shall not see it Therefore it seems unfitting for Christ to have ascended into heaven Objection 4 further As Gregory says in the commentary on Job 14 Christ's body was in no way changed after the resurrection But He did not ascend into heaven immediately after rising again Therefore He said after the resurrection in John 20-17 I am not yet ascended to my Father Therefore it seems that neither should He have ascended after forty days On the contrary are the words of our Lord in John 20-17 I ascend to my Father and to your Father I answer that the place ought to be in keeping with what is contained therein Now by His resurrection Christ entered upon an immortal and incorruptible life But whereas our dwelling place is one of generation and corruption The heavenly place is one of incorruption And consequently it was not fitting that Christ should remain upon earth after the resurrection But it was fitting that He should ascend into heaven Reply to Objection 1 That which is best and possesses its good without movement is God Himself Because He is utterly unchangeable according to Malachi 3.6 I am the Lord and I change not But every creature is changeable in some respect as is evident from Augustine in On the Literal Meaning of Genesis 8 And since the nature assumed by the Son of God remained a creature As is clear from what was said above in Question 2 Article 7 Question 16 Articles 8 and 10 Question 20 Article 1 It is not unbecoming if some movement be attributed to it Reply to Objection 2 By ascending into heaven Christ acquired no addition to His essential glory Either in body or in soul Nevertheless He did acquire something as to the fittingness of place Which pertains to the well-being of glory Not that His body acquired anything from a heavenly body by way of perfection or preservation But merely out of a certain fittingness Now this in a measure belonged to His glory And He had a certain kind of joy from such fittingness Not indeed that He then began to derive joy from it when He ascended into heaven But that He rejoiced there at in a new way as that a thing completed Hence on Psalm 15 verse 11 At thy right hand are delights even unto the end The Gloss says I shall delight in sitting nigh to thee when I shall be taken away from the sight of men Reply to Objection 3 Although Christ's bodily presence was withdrawn from the faithful by the ascension Still the presence of His Godhead is ever with the faithful as He Himself says in Matthew 28 verse 20 Behold, I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world For by ascending into heaven He did not abandon those whom He adopted As Pope Leo says But Christ's ascension into heaven whereby He withdrew His bodily presence from us Was more profitable for us than His bodily presence would have been First of all, in order to increase our faith, which is of things unseen Hence our Lord said that the Holy Ghost shall come and convince the world of justice That is of the justice of those that believe, as Augustine says in his commentary on the Gospel of John For even to put the faithful beside the unbeliever is to put the unbeliever to shame Wherefore He goes on to say Because I go to the Father and you shall see me no longer For blessed are they that see not yet believe Hence it is of our justice that the world is reproved Because you will believe in me whom you shall not see Secondly to uplift our hope Hence he says in John 14 verse 3 If I shall go and prepare a place for you I will come again and will take you to myself That where I am you also may be For by placing in heaven the human nature which He assumed Christ gave us the hope of going thither Since wheresoever the body shall be There shall the eagles also be gathered together As is written in Matthew 24, 28 Hence it is written likewise in Micah 2, 13 He shall go up that shall open the way before them Thirdly, in order to direct the fervor of our charity to heavenly things Hence the Apostle says in Colossians 3 verses 1 and 2 Seek the things that are above where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God Mind the things that are above not the things that are upon the earth For as is said in Matthew 6, 21 Where thy treasure is there is thy heart also And since the Holy Ghost is love drawing us up to heavenly things Therefore our Lord said to His disciples in John 16, 7 It is expedient to you that I go For if I go not the Paraclete will not come to you But if I go I will send Him to you On which words Augustine says Ye cannot receive the Spirit So long as ye persist in knowing Christ according to the flesh But when Christ withdrew in body Not only the Holy Ghost but both Father and Son were present with them spiritually Reply to Objection 4 Although a heavenly place befitted Christ when He rose to immortal life Nevertheless He delayed the ascension in order to confirm the truth of His resurrection Hence it is written in Acts 1-3 that He showed Himself alive after His passion by many proofs for forty days appearing to them Upon which the Gloss says that Because He was dead for forty hours during forty days He established the fact of His being alive again For the forty days may be understood as a figure of this world wherein Christ dwells in His church Inasmuch as man is made out of the four elements and is cautioned not to transgress the decalogue Second article Whether Christ's ascension into heaven belonged to Him according to His divine nature Objection 1 You would seem that Christ's ascension into heaven belonged to Him according to His divine nature For it is written in Psalm 46 verse 6 God is ascended with Jubilee And in Deuteronomy 33-26 He that is mounted upon the heavens is thy helper But these words were spoken of God even before Christ's incarnation Therefore it belongs to Christ to ascend into heaven as God Objection 2 further It belongs to the same person to ascend into heaven as to descend from heaven according to John 3-13 No man hath ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven And in Ephesians 4-10 He that descended is the same also that ascended But Christ came down from heaven not as man but as God Because previously His nature in heaven was not human but divine Therefore it seems that Christ ascended into heaven as God Objection 3 further By His ascension Christ ascended to the Father But it was not as man that He rose to equality with the Father For in this respect He says He is greater than I As is said in John 14 verse 28 Therefore it seems that Christ ascended as God On the contrary on Ephesians 4-10 That He ascended what is it but because He also descended A gloss says It is clear that He descended and ascended according to His humanity I answer that The expression according to can denote two things The condition of the one who ascends and the cause of His ascension When taken to express the condition of the one ascending The ascension in no wise belongs to Christ according to the condition of His divine nature Both because there is nothing higher than the divine nature to which He can ascend And because ascension is a local motion A thing not in keeping with the divine nature Which is immovable and outside all place Yet the ascension is in keeping with Christ according to His human nature Which is limited by place and can be the subject of motion In this sense then we can say that Christ descended into heaven as man But not as God But if the phrase according to denote the cause of the ascension Since Christ ascended into heaven in virtue of His Godhead And not in virtue of His human nature Then it must be said that Christ ascended into heaven not as man but as God Hence Augustine says in a sermon on the ascension It was our doing that the Son of Man hung upon the cross But it was His own doing that He ascended Reply to Objection 1 These utterances were spoken prophetically of God who is one day to become incarnate Still it can be said that although to ascend does not belong to the divine nature properly Yet it can metaphorically As for instance it is said To ascend in the heart of man Confer Psalm 83 verse 6 When his heart submits and humbles itself before God And in the same way God is said to ascend metaphorically with regard to every creature Since he subjects it to himself Reply to Objection 2 He who ascended is the same as he who descended Augustine says in On the Creed to the Catechumens 4 Who is it that descends? The God-man Who is it that ascends? The self-same God-man Nevertheless a twofold descent is attributed to Christ One whereby he is said to have descended from heaven Which is attributed to the God-man according as he is God For he is not to be understood as having descended by any local movement But as having emptied himself Since when he was in the form of God he took the form of a servant For just as he is said to be emptied not by losing his fullness But because he took our littleness upon himself So likewise he is said to have descended from heaven Not that he deserted heaven But because he assumed human nature in unity of person And there is another descent whereby he descended into the lower regions of the earth As is written in Ephesians 4-9 And this is local descent Hence this belongs to Christ according to the condition of human nature Reply to Objection 3 Christ is said to ascend to the Father As much as he ascends to sit on the right hand of the Father And this is befitting Christ in a measure according to his divine nature And in a measure according to his human nature as will be stated later In Question 58 Article 3 Third Article Whether Christ ascended by his own power Objection 1 He would seem that Christ did not ascend by his own power Because it is written in Mark 1619 that The Lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was taken up to heaven And in Acts 1-9 that While they looked on he was raised up And a cloud received him out of their sight But what is taken up and lifted up appears to be moved by another Consequently he was not by his own power But by another's that Christ was taken up into heaven Objection 2 Further Christ's was an earthly body like to ours But it is contrary to the nature of an earthly body To be born upwards Moreover what is moved contrary to its nature Is no wise moved by its own power Therefore Christ did not ascend to heaven by his own power Objection 3 Further Christ's own power is divine But this motion does not seem to have been divine Because whereas the divine power is infinite Such motion would be instantaneous Consequently he would not have been uplifted into heaven While the disciples looked on as is stated in Acts 1-9 Therefore it seems that Christ did not ascend to heaven by his own power On the contrary it is written in Isaiah 63 verse 1 This beautiful one in his robe walking in the greatness of his strength Also Gregory says in a homily on the ascension It is to be noted that we read of Elias having ascended in a chariot That it might be shown that one who is mere man needed another's help But we do not read of our Savior being lifted up either in a chariot or by angels Because he who had made all things was taken up above all things by his own power I answer that there is a twofold nature in Christ To wit the divine and the human Hence his own power can be accepted according to both Likewise a twofold power can be accepted regarding his human nature One is natural flowing from the principles of nature And it is quite evident that Christ did not ascend into heaven by such power as this The other is the power of glory which is in Christ's human nature And it was according to this that he ascended into heaven Now there are some who endeavor to assign the cause of this power to the nature of the fifth essence This as they say is light which they make out to be of the composition of the human body And by which they contend that contrary elements are reconciled So that in the state of this mortality elemental nature is predominant in human bodies So that according to the nature of this predominating element The human body is born downwards by its own power But in the condition of glory the heavenly nature will predominate By whose tendency and power Christ's body and the bodies of the saints are lifted up to heaven But we have already treated of this opinion in the first part In question 76 article 7 And shall deal with it more fully in treating of the general resurrection In the supplementum question 84 article 1 Setting this opinion aside Others assign as the cause of this power the glorified soul itself From whose overflow the body will be glorified as Augustine writes to Diaz Corus For the glorified body will be so submissive to the glorified soul that As Augustine says in On the City of God 22 Wheresoever the spirit listeth Thither the body will be on the instant Nor will the spirit desire anything unbecoming to the soul or the body Now it is befitting the glorified and immortal body For it to be in a heavenly place as stated above in article 1 Consequently Christ's body ascended into heaven by the power of his soul willing it But as the body is made glorious by participation with the soul Even so as Augustine says in his commentary on the Gospel of John The soul is beatified by participating in God Consequently the divine power is the first source of this ascent into heaven Therefore Christ ascended into heaven by his own power First of all by his divine power And secondly by the power of his glorified soul moving his body at will Reply to Objection 1 As Christ is said to have risen by his own power Though he was raised to life by the power of the Father Since the Father's power is the same as the Son's So also Christ ascended into heaven by his own power And yet was raised up and taken up to heaven by the Father Reply to Objection 2 This argument proves that Christ did not ascend into heaven by his own power That is that which is natural to human nature Yet he did ascend by his own power that is his divine power As well as by his own power that is the power of his beatified soul And although to mount upwards is contrary to the nature of a human body In its present condition in which the body is not entirely dominated by the soul Still it will not be unnatural or forced in a glorified body Whose entire nature is utterly under the control of the spirit Reply to Objection 3 Although the divine power be infinite and to operate infinitely So far as the worker is concerned Still the effect thereof is received in things according to their capacity And as God disposes Now a body is incapable of being moved locally in an instant Because it must be commensurate with space According to the division of which time is reckoned as is proved in Physics 6 Consequently it is not necessary for a body moved by God To be moved instantaneously but with such speed as God disposes Fourth article Whether Christ ascended above all the heavens Objection 1 It would seem that Christ did not ascend above all the heavens For it is written in Psalm 10.5 The Lord is in his holy temple The Lord's throne is in heaven But what is in heaven is not above heaven Therefore Christ did not ascend above all the heavens Objection 2 Further there is no place above the heavens as is provided in on the heavens one But every body must occupy a place Therefore Christ's body did not ascend above all the heavens Objection 3 further Two bodies cannot occupy the same place Since then there is no passing from place to place Except through the middle space It seems that Christ could not have ascended above all the heavens Unless heaven were divided Which is impossible Objection 4 further It is narrated in Acts 1.9 that A cloud received him out of their sight But clouds cannot be uplifted beyond heaven Consequently Christ did not ascend above all the heavens Objection 5 further We believe that Christ will dwell forever in the place whether he has ascended But what is against nature cannot last forever Because what is according to nature is more prevalent and of more frequent occurrence Therefore, since it is contrary to nature for an earthly body to be above heaven It seems that Christ's body did not ascend above heaven On the contrary, it is written in Ephesians 4.10 He ascended above all the heavens that he might fill all things I answer that The more fully anything corporeal shares in the divine goodness The higher its place in the corporeal order Which is order of place Hence we see that the more formal bodies are naturally the higher As is clear from the philosopher in Physics 4 and in On the Heavens 2 Since it is by its form that everybody partakes of the divine essence As is shown in Physics 1 But through glory, the body derives a greater share in the divine goodness Than any other natural body does through its natural form While among other glorious bodies It is manifest that Christ's body shines with greater glory Hence it was most fitting for it to be set above all bodies Thus it is that on Ephesians 4.8 Ascending on high, the gloss says In place and dignity Reply to Objection 1 God's seat is said to be in heaven Not as though heaven contained him But rather because it is contained by him Hence it is not necessary for any part of heaven to be higher But for him to be above all the heavens According to Psalm 8.2 For thy magnificence is elevated above the heavens, O God Reply to Objection 2 A place implies the notion of containing Hence the first container has the formality of first place And such is the first heaven Therefore bodies need in themselves to be in a place Insofar as they are contained by a heavenly body But glorified bodies, Christ's especially Do not stand in need of being so contained Because they draw nothing from the heavenly bodies But from God through the soul So there is nothing to prevent Christ's body From being beyond the containing radius of the heavenly bodies And not in a containing place Nor is there any need for a vacuum to exist outside heaven Since there is no place there Nor is there any potentiality susceptible of a body But the potentiality of reaching thither lies in Christ So when Aristotle proves in On the Heavens 2 That there is no body beyond heaven This must be understood of bodies which are in a state of pure nature As is seen from the proofs Reply to Objection 3 Although it is not of the nature of a body For it to be in the same place with another body Yet God can bring it about miraculously That a body be with another in the same place as Christ did When he went forth from the virgin's sealed womb Also when he entered among the disciples through closed doors As Gregory says Therefore Christ's body can be in the same place with another body Not through some inherent property in the body But through the assistance and operation of the divine power Reply to Objection 4 That cloud afforded no support as a vehicle to the ascending Christ But it appeared as a sign of the Godhead Just as God's glory appeared to Israel in a cloud over the tabernacle Confer Exodus 40 verse 32 and Numbers 915 Reply to Objection 5 A glorified body has the power to be in heaven or above heaven Not from its natural principles but from the beatified soul From which it derives its glory And just as the upward motion of a glorified body is not violent So neither is its rest violent Consequently there is nothing to prevent it from being everlasting Fifth article Whether Christ's body ascended above every spiritual creature Objection 1 It would seem that Christ's body did not ascend above every spiritual creature For no fitting comparison can be made between things which have no common ratio But place is not predicated in the same ratio of bodies and of spiritual creatures As is evident from what was said in the first part Question 8 article 2 first reply Question 52 article 1 Therefore it seems that Christ's body cannot be said to have ascended above every spiritual creature Objection 2 further Augustine says in On True Religion 55 That a spirit always takes precedence over a body But the higher place is due to the higher things Therefore it does not seem that Christ ascended above every spiritual creature Objection 3 further In every place a body exists Since there is no such thing as a vacuum in nature Therefore if no body obtains a higher place than a spirit in the order of natural bodies Then there will be no place above every spiritual creature Consequently Christ's body could not ascend above every spiritual creature On the contrary it is written in Ephesians 1 21 God set him above all principality and power and every name that is named Not only in this world but also in that which is to come I answer that The more exalted place is due to the nobler subject Whether it be a place according to bodily contact as regards bodies Or whether it be by way of spiritual contact as regards spiritual substances Thus a heavenly place which is the highest of places Is becomingly due to spiritual substances Since they are highest in the order of substances But although Christ's body is beneath spiritual substances If we weigh the conditions of its corporeal nature Nevertheless it surpasses all spiritual substances in dignity When we call to mind its dignity of union Whereby it is united personally with God Consequently owing to this very fittingness A higher place is due to it above every spiritual creature Hence Gregory says in a homily on the ascension that He who had made all things was by his own power raised up above all things Reply to Objection 1 Although a place is differently attributed to corporeal and spiritual substances Still in either case this remains in common that the higher place is assigned to the worthier Reply to Objection 2 This argument holds good of Christ's body according to the conditions of its corporeal nature But not according to its formality of union Reply to Objection 3 This comparison may be considered either on the part of the places And thus there is no place so high as to exceed the dignity of a spiritual substance In this sense the objection runs Or it may be considered on the part of the dignity of the things to which a place is attributed And in this way it is due to the body of Christ to be above spiritual creatures 6th Article Whether Christ's ascension is the cause of our salvation Objection 1 It would seem that Christ's ascension is not the cause of our salvation For Christ was the cause of our salvation in so far as He merited it But He merited nothing for us by His ascension Because His ascension belongs to the reward of His exaltation And the same thing is not both merit and reward Just as neither are a road and its terminus the same Therefore it seems that Christ's ascension is not the cause of our salvation Objection 2 further If Christ's ascension be the cause of our salvation It seems that this is principally due to the fact that His ascension is the cause of ours But this was bestowed upon us by His passion For it is written in Hebrews 10 19 We have confidence in the entering into the holies by His blood Therefore it seems that Christ's ascension was not the cause of our salvation Objection 3 further The salvation which Christ bestows is an everlasting one according to Isaiah 51 6 My salvation shall be forever But Christ did not ascend into heaven to remain there eternally for it is written in Acts 111 He shall so come as you have seen Him going into heaven Besides we read of Him showing Himself to many holy people on earth after He went up to heaven To Paul for instance in Acts 9 Consequently it seems that Christ's ascension is not the cause of our salvation On the contrary He Himself said in John 16 verse 7 It is expedient to you that I go That is that I should leave you and ascend into heaven I answer that Christ's ascension is the cause of our salvation in two ways First of all on our part Secondly on His On our part insofar as by the ascension our souls are lifted up to Him Because as stated above in article 1 third reply His ascension fosters first faith Secondly hope Thirdly charity Fourthly our reverence for Him is thereby increased Since we no longer deem Him an earthly man but the God of heaven Thus the apostle says in 2 Corinthians 5 16 If we have known Christ according to the flesh That is as mortal whereby we reputed Him as a mere man as the gloss interprets the words But now we know Him so no longer On His part in regard to those things which in ascending He did for our salvation First He prepared the way for our ascent into heaven according to His own saying in John 14 2 I go to prepare a place for you And the words of Micas 2 13 He shall go up that shall open the way before them For since He is our head the members must follow whether the head has gone Hence He said in John 14 3 That where I am you also may be In sign whereof He took to heaven the souls of the saints delivered from hell according to Psalm 67 verse 19 Ascending on high He led captivity captive Because He took with Him to heaven those who had been held captives by the devil To heaven as to a place strange to human nature Captives indeed of a happy taking since they were acquired by His victory Secondly because as the high priest under the Old Testament entered the holy place to stand before God for the people So also Christ entered heaven to make intercession for us As is said in Hebrews 7 25 Because the very showing of Himself in the human nature which He took with Him to heaven is a pleading for us So that for the very reason that God so exalted human nature in Christ He may take pity on them for whom the Son of God took human nature Thirdly that being established in His heavenly seat as God and Lord He might send down gifts upon men according to Ephesians 4 10 He ascended above all the heavens that He might fill all things That is with His gifts according to the gloss Reply to Objection 1 Christ's ascension is the cause of our salvation by way not of merit but of efficiency As was stated above regarding His resurrection Confer question 56 article 1 third and fourth replies Reply to Objection 2 Christ's passion is the cause of our ascending to heaven properly speaking By removing the hindrance which is sin and also by way of merit Whereas Christ's ascension is the direct cause of our ascension as by beginning it in Him who is our head With whom the members must be united Reply to Objection 3 Christ by once ascending into heaven Acquired for Himself and for us in perpetuity the right and worthiness of a heavenly dwelling place Which worthiness suffers in no way if from some special dispensation He sometimes comes down in body to earth Either in order to show Himself to the whole world as at the judgment Or else to show Himself particularly to some individual For example in Paul's case as we read in Acts 9 And lest any man may think that Christ was not bodily present when this occurred The contrary is shown from what the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 14-8 To confirm faith in the resurrection Last of all he was seen also by me as by one born out of due time Which vision would not confirm the truth of the resurrection Except he had beheld Christ's very body End of question 57 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC