 Question 52 of Summa Theologica Terziapars, Trietis 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, Trietis on the Saviour, by St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 52 of Christ's Descent into Hell, in eight articles. We have now to consider Christ's Descent into Hell, considering which there are eight points of inquiry. First, whether it was fitting for Christ to descend into hell. Second, into which hell did he descend? Third, whether he was entirely in hell? Fourth, whether he made any stay there? Fifth, whether he delivered the Holy Fathers from hell? Sixth, whether he delivered the lost from hell? Seventh, whether he delivered the children who died in original sin? Eighth, whether he delivered men from purgatory? First, article, whether it was fitting for Christ to descend into hell? Objection one, it would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to descend into hell, because Augustine says in his letter 154 to Evodius, nor could I find anywhere in the scriptures hell mentioned as something good. But Christ's soul did not descend into any evil place, for neither do the souls of the just. Therefore it does not seem fitting for Christ's soul to descend into hell. Objection two further, it cannot belong to Christ to descend into hell according to his divine nature, which is altogether immovable, but only according to his assumed nature. But that which Christ did or suffered in his assumed nature is ordained for man's salvation, and to secure this it does not seem necessary for Christ to descend into hell, since he delivered us both from guilt and penalty by his passion, which he endured in this world as stated above in Question 49, Articles 1 and 3. Consequently it was not fitting that Christ should descend into hell. Objection three further, by Christ's death his soul was separated from his body, and this was laid in the sepulcher as stated above in Question 51. But it seems that he descended into hell, not according to his soul only, because seemingly the soul being incorporeal cannot be a subject of local motion, for this belongs to bodies as is proved in Physics 6, Number 32. While descent implies corporeal motion, therefore it was not fitting for Christ to descend into hell. On the contrary it is said in the Creed, he descended into hell, and the Apostle says in Ephesians 4-9, Now that he ascended, what is it? But because he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth, and a gloss adds, that is, into hell. I answer that it was fitting for Christ to descend into hell. First of all, because he came to bear our penalty in order to free us from penalty, according to Isaiah 53-4, surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows. But through sin, man had incurred not only the death of the body, but also descent into hell. Consequently, since it was fitting for Christ to die in order to deliver us from death, so it was fitting for him to descend into hell in order to deliver us also from going down to hell. Hence it is written in Isaiah 13-14, O death I will be thy death, O hell I will be thy bite. Secondly, because it was fitting when the devil was overthrown by the passion that Christ should deliver the captives detained in hell, according to Zechariah 9-11, Thou also by the blood of thy testament hast sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit. And it is written in Colossians 2-15, Despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently. Thirdly, that as he showed forth his power on earth by living and dying, so also he might manifest it in hell by visiting it and enlightening it. Accordingly it is written in Psalm 23-7, Lift up your gates, O ye princes, which the gloss thus interprets. That is, ye princes of hell, take away your power, whereby hitherto you held men fast in hell. And so, at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, not only of them that are in heaven, but likewise of them that are in hell, as it is said in Philippians 2-10. Reply to Objection 1. The name of hell stands for an evil of penalty, and not for an evil of guilt. Hence it was becoming that Christ should descend into hell, not as liable to punishment himself, but to deliver them who were. Reply to Objection 2. Christ's passion was a kind of universal cause of men's salvation, both of the living and of the dead. But a general cause is applied to particular effects by means of something special. Hence, as the power of the passion is applied to the living through the sacraments which make us like unto Christ's passion, so likewise it is applied to the dead through his descent into hell. On which account it is written in Zechariah 9.11 that he sent forth prisoners out of the pit in the blood of his testament, that is, by the power of his passion. Reply to Objection 3. Christ's soul descended into hell not by the same kind of motion as that whereby bodies are moved, but by that kind whereby the angels are moved, as was said in the first part. Question 53, Article 1. Second article. Whether Christ went down into the hell of the lost? Objection 1. It would seem that Christ went down into the hell of the lost, because it is said by the mouth of divine wisdom in Ecclesiasticus 24-45, I will penetrate to all the lower parts of the earth. But the hell of the lost is computed among the lower parts of the earth according to Psalm 62-10, they shall go into the lower parts of the earth. Therefore Christ who is the wisdom of God went down even into the hell of the lost. Objection 2 further. Peter says in Acts 224 that God hath raced up Christ, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that he should be holden by it. But there are no sorrows in the hell of the fathers, nor in the hell of the children, since they are not punished with sensible pain on account of any actual sin, but only with the pain of loss on account of original sin. Therefore Christ went down into the hell of the lost, or else into purgatory, where men are tormented with sensible pain on account of actual sins. Objection 3 further. It is written in 1 Peter 319 that Christ coming in spirit preached to those spirits that were in prison, which had some time been incredulous. And this is understood of Christ's descent into hell, as Athanasius says, for he says that Christ's body was laid in the sepulchre when he went to preach to those spirits who were in bondage, as Peter said. But it is clear the unbelievers were in the hell of the lost. Therefore Christ went down into the hell of the lost. Objection 5 further. As Augustine says in a sermon upon the resurrection, Christ descending into hell set free all the just who were held in the bonds of original sin. But among them was Job, who says of himself in Job 1716, All that I have shall go down into the deepest pit. Therefore Christ descended into the deepest pit. On the contrary, regarding the hell of the lost, it is written in Job 1021. Before I go and return no more to a land that is dark and covered with the mist of death. Now there is no fellowship of light with darkness according to 2 Corinthians 614. Therefore Christ, who is the light, did not descend into the hell of the lost. I answer that a thing is said to be a place in two ways. First of all through its effect and in this way Christ descended into each of the hells but in a different manner. For going down into the hell of the lost he wrought this effect that by descending thither he put them to shame for their unbelief and wickedness. But to them who were detained in purgatory he gave hope of attaining to glory. While upon the holy fathers detained in hell solely on account of original sin, he shed the light of glory everlasting. In another way a thing is said to be in a place through its essence and in this way Christ's soul descended only into that part of hell wherein the just were detained so that he visited them in place according to his soul whom he visited interiorly by grace according to his godhead. Accordingly while remaining in one part of hell he brought this effect in a measure in every part of hell just as while suffering in one part of the earth he delivered the whole world by his passion. Reply to objection one Christ who is the wisdom of God penetrated to all the lower parts of the earth not passing through them locally with his soul but by spreading the effects of his power in a measure to them all yet so that he enlightened only the just because the text quoted continues and I will enlighten all that hope in the Lord. Reply to objection two. Sorrow is twofold. One is the suffering of pain which men endure for actual sin according to Psalm 17.6. The sorrows of hell encompassed me. Another sorrow comes of hoped for glory being deferred according to Proverbs 13.12. Hope that is deferred afflicteth the soul and such was the sorrow which the Holy Father suffered in hell and Augustine refers to it in a sermon on the passion saying that they be sought Christ with tearful entreaty. Now by descending into hell Christ took away both sorrows yet in different ways for he did away with the sorrows of pains by preserving souls from them just as a physician is said to free a man from sickness by warding it off by means of physics. Likewise he removed the sorrows caused by glory deferred by bestowing glory. Reply to objection three. These words of Peter are referred by some to Christ's descent into hell and they explain it in this sense. Christ preached to them who formerly were unbelievers and who were shut up into prison that is in hell in spirit that is by his soul. Hence Damascene says in On the True Faith 3, as he evangelized them who were upon the earth so did he those who were in hell not in order to convert unbelievers unto belief but to put them to shame for their unbelief since preaching cannot be understood otherwise than as the open manifesting of his Godhead which was laid bare before them in the lower regions by his descending in power into hell. Augustine however furnishes a better exposition of the text in his epistle to Avodius quoted above namely that the preaching is not to be referred to Christ's descent into hell but to the operation of his Godhead to which he gave effect from the beginning of the world. Consequently the sense is that to those spirits that were in prison that is living in the mortal body which is as it were the soul's prison house by the spirit of his Godhead he came and preached by internal inspirations and from without by the admonition spoken by the righteous. To those I say he preached which had been sometime incredulous that is not believing in the preaching of Noah when they waited for the patience of God whereby the chastisement of the deluge was put off accordingly Peter adds in the days of Noah when the ark was being built reply to objection for the expression Abraham's bosom Abraham's bosom may be taken in two senses first of all as implying that restfulness existing there from sensible pain so that in this sense it cannot be called hell nor are there any sorrows there in another way it can be taken as implying the privation of longed for glory in this sense it has the character of hell and sorrow. Consequently that rest of the blessed is now called Abraham's bosom yet it is not styled hell nor are sorrows said to be now in Abraham's bosom reply to objection five as Gregory says in his commentary on Job 13 even the higher regions of hell he calls the deepest hell for if if relatively to the height of heaven this dark some air is infernal then relatively to the height of this same air the earth lying beneath can be considered as infernal and deep and again in comparison with the height of the same earth those parts of hell which are higher than the other infernal mansions may in this way be designated as the deepest hell third article whether the whole Christ was in hell objection one it would seem that the whole Christ was not in hell for Christ's body is one of his parts but his body was not in hell therefore the whole Christ was not in hell objection two further nothing can be termed whole when its parts are severed but the soul and body which are the parts of human nature were separated at his death as stated above in question fifty articles three and four and it was after death that he descended into hell therefore the whole Christ could not be in hell objection three further the whole of a thing is said to be in a place when no part of it is outside such a place but there were parts of Christ outside of hell for instance his body was in the grave and his godhead everywhere therefore the whole Christ was not in hell on the contrary Augustine says in on the creed to the catacumans three the whole son is with the father the whole son in heaven on earth in the virgin's womb on the cross in hell in paradise into which he brought the robber i answer that it is evident from what was said in the first part question thirty one article two fourth reply the masculine gender is referred to the hypothesis or person while the neuter belongs to the nature now in the death of christ although the soul was separated from the body yet neither was separated from the person of the son of god as stated above in question fifty article two consequently it must be affirmed that during the three days of christ's death the whole christ was in the tomb because the whole person was there through the body united with him and likewise he was entirely in hell because the whole person of christ was there by reason of the soul united with him and the whole christ was then everywhere by reason of the divine nature reply to objection one the body which was then in the grave is not a part of the uncreated person but of the assumed nature consequently the fact of christ's body not being in hell does not prevent the whole christ from being there but proves that not everything appertaining to human nature was there reply to objection two the whole human nature is made up of the united soul and body not so the divine person consequently when death severed the union of the soul with the body the whole christ remained but his whole human nature did not remain reply to objection three christ's person is whole in each single place but not wholly because it is not circumscribed by any place indeed all places put together could not comprise his immensity rather it is his immensity that embraces all things but it happens in those things which are in a place corporeally and circumscriptively that if a whole be in some place then no part of it is outside that place but this is not the case with god hence augustin says in on the creed to catacumans three it is not according to times or places that we say that the whole christ is everywhere as if he were at one time whole in one place at another time whole in another but as being whole always and everywhere fourth article whether christ made any stay in hell objection one you would seem that christ did not make any stay in hell for christ went down into hell to deliver men from thence but he accomplished this deliverance at once by his descent for according to ecclesiasticus 1123 it is easy in the eyes of god on a sudden to make the poor man rich consequently he does not seem to have tarried in hell objection to further augustin says in a sermon on the passion that of a sudden at our lords and saviours bidding all the bars of iron were burst confer isaac 45 2 hence on behalf of the angels accompanying christ it is written in psalm 23 verses 7 and 9 lift up your gates oh ye princes now christ descended thither in order to break the bolts of hell therefore he did not make any stay in hell objection three further it is related in luke 2343 that our lord while hanging on the cross to said to the thief this day thou shalt be with me in paradise from which it is evident that christ was in paradise on that very day but he was not there with his body for that was in the grave therefore he was there with the soul which had gone down into hell and consequently it appears that he made no stay in hell on the contrary peter says in acts 224 whom god hath raised it up having loosed the sorrows of hell as it was impossible that he should be held by it therefore it seems that he remained in hell until the hour of the resurrection i answer that as christ in order to take our penalties upon himself willed his body to be laid in the tomb so likewise he willed his soul to descend into hell but the body lay in the tomb for a day and two nights so as to demonstrate the truth of his death consequently it is to be believed that his soul was in hell in order that it might be brought back out of hell simultaneously with his body from the tomb reply to objection one when christ descended into hell he delivered the saints who were there not by leading them out at once from the confines of hell but by enlightening them with the light of glory in hell itself nevertheless it was fitting that his soul should abide in hell as long as his body remained in the tomb reply to objection two by the expression bars of hell are understood the obstacles which kept the holy fathers from quitting hell through the guilt of our first parents sin at these bars christ burst asunder by the power of his passion on descending into hell nevertheless he chose to remain in hell for some time for the reason stated above reply to objection three our lord's expression is not to be understood of the earthly corporeal paradise but of a spiritual one in which all are said to be who enjoy the divine glory accordingly the thief descended locally into hell with christ because it was said to him this day thou shalt be with me in paradise still as to reward he was in paradise because he enjoyed christ's godhead just as the other saints did fifth article whether christ descending into hell delivered the holy fathers from thence objection one you would seem that christ descending into hell did not deliver the holy fathers from thence for augustin in his letter to avodius says i have not yet discovered what christ descending into hell bestowed upon those righteous ones who were in abraham's bosom from whom i failed to see that he ever departed according to the beatific presence of his godhead but had he delivered them he would have bestowed much upon them therefore it does not appear that christ delivered the holy fathers from hell objection two further no one is detained in hell except on account of sin but during life the holy fathers were justified from sin through faith in christ consequently they did not need to be delivered from hell on christ's descent thither objection three further if you remove the cause you remove the effect but that christ went down into hell was due to sin which was taken away by the passion as stated above in question forty nine article one consequently the holy fathers were not delivered on christ's descent into hell on the contrary augustin says in the sermon on the passion already quoted that when christ descended into hell he broke down the gate and iron bars of hell setting at liberty all the righteous who were held fast through original sin i answer that as stated above in article four second reply when christ descended into hell he worked through the power of his passion but through christ's passion the human race was delivered not only from sin but also from the debt of its penalty as was stated above in question 49 articles one and three now men were held fast by the debt of punishment in two ways first of all for actual sin which each had committed personally secondly for the sin of the whole human race which each one in his origin contracts from our first parent as stated in romans five of which sin the penalty is the death of the body as well as exclusion from glory as is evident from genesis two and three because god cast out man from paradise after sin having beforehand threatened him with death should he sin consequently when christ descended into hell by the power of his passion he delivered the saints from the penalty whereby they were excluded from the life of glory so as to be unable to see god in his essence wherein man's beatitude lies as stated in the second part in the paris prima secunde question three article eight but the holy fathers were detained in hell for the reason that owing to our first parent's sin the approach to the life of glory was not opened and so when christ descended into hell he delivered the holy fathers from thence and this is what is written in zakariah 9 11 thou also by the blood of thy testament hast sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water and in collosions 215 it is written that despoiling the principalities and powers that is of hell by taking out isaac and jacob and the other just souls he led them that is he brought them far from this kingdom of darkness into heaven as the gloss explains reply to objection one augustin is speaking there against such as maintained that the righteous of old were subject to penal sufferings before christ's descent into hell hence shortly before the passage quoted he says some add that this benefit was also bestowed upon the saints of old that on the lords coming into hell they were freed from their sufferings but i fail to see how abraham into whose bosom the poor man was received was ever in such sufferings consequently when he afterwards adds that he had not yet discovered what christ's descent into hell had brought to the righteous of old this must be understood as to their being freed from penal sufferings yet christ bestowed something upon them as to their attaining glory and in consequence he dispelled the suffering which they endured through their glory being delayed still they had great joy from the very hope thereof according to john eight fifty six abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day and therefore he adds i fail to see that he ever departed according to the beatific presence of his godhead that is in as much as even before christ's coming they were happy in hope although not yet fully happy in fact reply to objection to the holy fathers while yet living were delivered from original sin as well as actual sin through faith in christ also from the penalty of actual sins but not from the penalty of original sin whereby they were excluded from glory since the price of man's redemption was not yet paid just as the faithful are now delivered by baptism from the penalty of actual sins and from the penalty of original sin as to exclusion from glory yet still remain bound by the penalty of original sin as to the necessity of dying in the body because they are renewed in the spirit but not yet in the flesh according to roman's eight ten the body indeed is dead because of sin but the spirit liveth because of justification reply to objection three directly when christ died his soul went down into hell and bestowed the fruits of his passion on the saints detained there although they did not go out as long as christ remained in hell because his presence was part of the fullness of their glory sixth article whether christ delivered any of the lost from hell objection one you would seem that christ did deliver some of the lost from hell because it is written in isaii 24 22 and they shall be gathered together as in the gathering of one bundle into the pit and they shall be shot up there in prison and after many days they shall be visited but there he is speaking of the lost who had adored the host of heaven according to Jerome's commentary consequently it seems that even the lost were visited at christ's descent into hell and this seems to imply their deliverance objection two further on zachariah 9 11 thou also by the blood of thy testament has set forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein there is no water the gloss observes thou has delivered them who were held bound in prisons where no mercy refreshed them which that rich man prayed for but only the lost are shot up in merciless prisons therefore christ did deliver some from the hell of the lost objection three further christ's power was not less in hell than in this world because he worked in every place by the power of his godhead but in this world he delivered some persons of every state therefore in hell also he delivered some from the state of the lost on the contrary it is written in hosea 1314 oh death i will be thy death oh hell i will be thy bite upon which the gloss says by leading forth the elect and leaving there the reprobate but only the reprobate are in the hell of the lost therefore by christ's descent into hell none were delivered from the hell of the lost i answer that as stated above in article five when christ descended into hell he worked by the power of his passion consequently his descent into hell brought the fruits of deliverance to them only who were united to his passion through faith being quickened by charity whereby sins are taken away now those detained in the hell of the lost either had no faith in christ's passion as infidels or if they had faith they had no conformity with the charity of the suffering christ hence they could not be cleansed from their sins and on this account christ's descent into hell brought them no deliverance from the debt of punishment in hell reply to objection one when christ descended into hell all who were in any part of hell were visited in some respect some to their consolation and deliverance others namely the lost to their shame and confusion accordingly the passage continues and the moon shall blush and the sun be put to shame etc this can also be referred to the visitation which will come upon them in the day of judgment not for their deliverance but for their greater confusion according to suffonious 112 i will visit upon the men that are settled on their lease reply to objection two when the gloss says where no mercy refreshed them this is to be understood of the refreshing of full deliverance because the holy fathers could not yet be delivered from this prison of hell before christ's coming reply to objection three it was not due to any lack of power on christ's part that some were not delivered from every state in hell as out of every state among men in this world but it was owing to the very different condition of each state for so long as men live here below they can be converted to faith and charity because in this life men are not confirmed either in good or in evil as they are after quitting this life seventh article whether the children who died in original sin were delivered by christ objection one it would seem that the children who died in original sin were delivered from hell by christ's descending there for like the holy fathers the children were kept in hell simply because of original sin but the holy fathers were delivered from hell as stated above in article five therefore the children were similarly delivered from hell by christ objection two further the apostle says in romans five fifteen if by the offense of one many died much more the grace of god and the gift by the grace of one man jesus christ hath abounded unto many but the children who die with none but original sin are detained in hell owing to their first parent sin therefore much more were they delivered from hell through the grace of christ objection three further as baptism works in virtue of christ's passion so also does christ's descent into hell as is clear from what has been said in article four second reply and articles five and six but through baptism children are delivered from original sin in hell therefore they were similarly delivered by christ's descent into hell on the contrary the apostle says in romans three twenty five god hath proposed christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood but the children who had died with only original sin were in no wise sharers of faith in christ therefore they did not receive the fruits of christ's propitiation so as to be delivered by him from hell i answer that as stated above in article six christ's descent into hell had its effective deliverance on them only who through faith and charity were united to christ's passion in virtue whereof christ's descent into hell was one of deliverance but the children who had died in original sin were in no way united to christ's passion by faith and love for not having the use of free will they could not have faith of their own nor were they cleansed from original sin either by their parents faith or by any sacrament of faith consequently christ's descent into hell did not deliver the children from thence and furthermore the holy fathers were delivered from hell by being admitted to the glory of the vision of god to which no one can come except through grace according to roman six twenty three the grace of god is life everlasting therefore since children dying in original sin had no grace they were not delivered from hell reply to objection one the holy fathers although still held bound by the debt of original sin in so far as it touches human nature were nevertheless delivered from all stain of sin by faith in christ consequently they were capable of that deliverance which christ brought by descending into hell but the same cannot be said of the children as is evident from what was said above reply to objection two when the apostle says that the grace of god hath abounded unto many the word many is to be taken not comparatively as if more were saved by grace than lost by adam sin but absolutely as if he said that the grace of the one christ abounded unto many just as adam sin was contracted by many but as adam sin was contracted by those only who descended seminally from him according to the flesh so christ's grace reached those only who became his members by spiritual regeneration which does not apply to children dying in original sin reply to objection three baptism is applied to men in this life in which man's state can be changed from sin into grace but christ's descent into hell was vouchsafe to the souls after this life when they are no longer capable of the said change and consequently by baptism children are delivered from original sin and from hell but not by christ's descent into hell eighth article whether christ by his descent into hell delivered souls from purgatory objection one you would seem that christ by his descent into hell delivered souls from purgatory for augustin says in his letter to avidius because evident testimony speak of hell and its pains there is no reason for believing that the savior came there except to rescue men from those same pains but i still wish to know whether it was all whom he found there or some whom he deemed worthy of such a benefit yet i do not doubt that christ went into hell and granted this favor to them who were suffering from its pains but as stated above in article six he did not confer the benefit of deliverance upon the lost and there are no others in a state of penal suffering except those in purgatory consequently christ delivered souls from purgatory objection to further the very presence of christ's soul had no less effect than his sacraments have but souls are delivered from purgatory by the sacraments especially by the sacrament of the eucharist as shall be shown later in the supplementum question seventy one article nine therefore much more were souls delivered from purgatory by the presence of christ descending into hell objection three further as augustin says in on penance nine those whom christ healed in this life he healed completely also our lord says in john seven twenty three i have healed the whole man on the sabbath day but christ delivered them who were in purgatory from the punishment of the pain of loss whereby they were excluded from glory therefore he also delivered them from the punishment of purgatory on the contrary Gregory says in his commentary on Job 13 since our creator and redeemer penetrating the bars of hell brought out from thence the souls of the elect he does not permit us to go wither from whence he has already by descending set others free but he permits us to go to purgatory therefore by descending into hell he did not deliver souls from purgatory i answer that as we have stated more than once in article four second reply and in articles five six and seven christ's descent into hell was one of deliverance in virtue of his passion now christ's passion had a virtue which was neither temporal nor transitory but everlasting according to Hebrews 10 14 for by one oblation he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified and so it is evident that christ's passion had no greater efficacy then than it has now consequently they who were such as those who are now in purgatory were not set free from purgatory by christ's descent into hell but if any were found such as are now set free from purgatory by virtue of christ's passion then there was nothing to hinder them from being delivered from purgatory by christ's descent into hell reply to objection one from this passage of augustin it cannot be concluded that all who were in purgatory were delivered from it but that such a benefit was bestowed upon some persons that is to say upon such as were already cleansed sufficiently or who in life by their faith and devotion towards christ's death so merited that when he descended they were delivered from the temporal punishment of purgatory reply to objection two christ's power operates in the sacraments by way of healing and expiation consequently the sacrament of the Eucharist delivers men from purgatory in as much as it is a satisfactory sacrifice for sin but christ's descent into hell was not satisfactory yet it operated in virtue of the passion which was satisfactory as stated above in question 48 article 2 but satisfactory in general since its virtue had to be applied to each individual by something specially personal as stated in question 49 article 1 fourth and fifth replies consequently it does not follow of necessity that all were delivered from purgatory by christ's descent into hell reply to objection three those defects from which christ altogether delivered men in this world were purely personal and concerned the individual whereas exclusion from god's glory was a general defect and common to all human nature consequently there was nothing to prevent those detained in purgatory being delivered by christ from their privation of glory but not from the debt of punishment in purgatory which pertains to personal defect just as on the other hand the holy fathers before christ's coming were delivered from their personal defects but not from the common defect as was stated above in article 7 first reply and in question 49 article 5 first reply end of question 52 read by michael shane craig lambart lc question 53 of summa theologica tertia pars triates on the savior this is a lever vox recording all lever vox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit lever vox.org summa theologica tertia pars triates on the savior by saint thomas equinas translated by the fathers of the english dominican province question 53 of christ's resurrection in four articles we have now to consider those things that concern christ's exaltation and we shall deal with one his resurrection two his ascension three his sitting at the right hand of god the father four his judiciary power under the first head there is a fourfold consideration one christ's resurrection in itself two the quality of the person rising three the manifestation of the resurrection four its causality concerning the first there are four points of inquiry first the necessity of his resurrection second the time of the resurrection third its order fourth its cause first article whether it was necessary for christ to rise again objection one you would seem that it was not necessary for christ to rise again for damasin says in on the true faith four resurrection is the rising again of an animate being which was disintegrated and fallen but christ did not fall by sinning nor was his body dissolved as his manifest from what has been said above in question 51 article three therefore it does not properly belong to him to rise again objection to further whoever rises again is promoted to a higher state since to rise is to be uplifted but after death christ's body continued to be united with the godhead hence it could not be uplifted to any higher condition therefore it was not due to it to rise again objection three further all that befell christ's humanity was ordained for our salvation but christ's passion sufficed for our salvation since by it we were loosed from guilt and punishment as is clear from what has been said above in question 49 articles one and three consequently it was not necessary for christ to rise again from the dead on the contrary it is written in luke 24 46 it behooved christ to suffer and to rise again from the dead i answer that it behooved christ to rise again for five reasons first of all for the commendation of divine justice to which it belongs to exalt them who humble themselves for god's sake according to luke 152 he has put down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble consequently because christ humbled himself even to the death of the cross from love and obedience to god it behooved him to be uplifted by god to a glorious resurrection hence it is said in his person in psalm 138 verse 2 thou hast known that is approved my sitting down that is my humiliation and passion and my rising up that is my glorification in the resurrection as the gloss expounds secondly for our instruction in the faith since our belief in christ's godhead is confirmed by his rising again because according to 2nd Corinthians 13 4 although he was crucified through weakness yet he liveth by the power of god and therefore it is written in first Corinthians 15 14 if christ be not risen again then is our preaching vain and our faith is also vain and in psalm 29 verse 10 what profit is there in my blood that is in the shedding of my blood while i go down as by various degrees of evils intercorruption as though he were to answer none for if i do not at once rise again but my body be corrupted i shall preach to no one i shall gain no one as the gloss expounds thirdly for the raising of our hope since through seeing christ who is our head rise again we hope that we likewise shall rise again hence it is written in first Corinthians 15 12 now if christ be preached that he rose from the dead how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead and in Job chapter 19 verses 25 and 27 i know that is with certainty of faith that my redeemer that is christ liveth having risen from the dead and therefore in the last day i shall rise out of the earth this my hope is laid upon in my bosom fourthly to set in order the lives of the faithful according to roman 6 4 as christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the father so we also may walk in newness of life and further on christ rising from the dead dieth now no more so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin but alive to god fifthly in order to complete the work of our salvation because just as for this reason did he endure evil things in dying that he might deliver us from evil so was he glorified in rising again in order to advance us towards good things according to romans 4 25 he was delivered up for our sins and rose again for our justification reply to objection one although christ did not fall by sin yet he fell by death because as sin is a fall from righteousness so death is a fall from life hence the words of mica 7 8 can be taken as those spoken by christ rejoice not thou my enemy over me because i am fallen i shall rise again likewise although christ's body was not disintegrated by returning to dust yet the separation of his soul and body was a kind of disintegration reply to objection 2 the godhead was united with christ's flesh after death by personal union but not by natural union thus the soul is united with the body as its form so as to constitute human nature consequently by the union of the body and soul the body was lifted to a higher condition of nature but not to a higher personal state reply to objection 3 christ's passion wrought our salvation properly speaking by removing evils but the resurrection did so as the beginning and exemplar of all good things second article whether it was fitting for christ to rise again on the third day objection one it would seem unfitting that christ should have risen again on the third day for the members ought to be in conformity with their head but we who are his members do not rise from death on the third day since our rising is put off until the end of the world therefore it seems that christ who is our head should not have risen on the third day but that his resurrection ought to have been deferred until the end of the world objection to further peter said in acts 224 that it was impossible for christ to be held fast by hell and death therefore it seems that christ's rising ought not to have been deferred until the third day but that he ought to have risen at once on the same day especially since the gloss quoted above an article one says that there is no profit in the shedding of christ's blood if he did not rise at once objection 3 the day seems to start with the rising of the sun the presence of which causes the day but christ rose before sunrise for it is related in john 20 verse one that mary magdalene cometh early when it was yet dark unto the sepulchre but christ was already risen for it goes on to say and she saw the stone taken away from the sepulcher therefore christ did not rise on the third day on the contrary it is written in matthew 20 verse 19 they shall deliver him to the gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified and the third day he shall rise again i answer that as stated above in article one christ's resurrection was necessary for the instruction of our faith but our faith regards christ's godhead and humanity for it is not enough to believe the one without the other as is evident from what has been said in question 36 article 4 as well in the parse secunda secunde question 2 articles 7 and 8 consequently in order that our faith order that our faith in the truth of his godhead might be confirmed it was necessary that he should rise speedily and that his resurrection should not be deferred until the end of the world but to confirm our faith regarding the truth of his humanity and death it was needful that there should be some interval between his death and rising for if he had risen directly after death it might seem that his death was not genuine and consequently neither would his resurrection be true but to establish the truth of christ's death it was enough for his rising to be deferred until the third day for within that time some signs of life always appear in one who appears to be dead whereas he is alive furthermore by his rising on the third day the perfection of the number three is commended which is the number of everything as having beginning middle and end as is said in on the heavens one again in the mystical sense we are taught that christ by his one death that is of the body which was light by reason of his righteousness destroyed our two deaths that is of soul and body which are as darkness on account of sin consequently he remained in death for one day and two nights as augustin observes in on the trinity for and thereby is also signified that a third epic began with the resurrection for the first was before the law the second under the law and the third under grace moreover the third state of the saints began with the resurrection of christ for the first was under figures of the law the second under the truth of faith while the third will be in the eternity of glory which christ inaugurated by rising again reply to objection one the head and members are likened in nature but not in power because the power of the head is more excellent than that of the members according to show forth the excellence of christ's power it was fitting that he should rise on the third day while the resurrection of the rest is put off until the end of the world reply to objection to detention implies a certain compulsion but christ was not held fast by any necessity of death but was free among the dead and therefore he abode a while in death not as one held fast but of his own will just so long as he deemed necessary for the instruction of our faith and a task is said to be done at once which is performed within a short space of time reply to objection three as stated above in question 51 article 4 first and second replies christ rose early when the day was beginning to dawn to denote that by his resurrection he brought us to the light of glory just as he died when the day was drawing to its close and nearing to darkness in order to signify that by his death he would destroy the darkness of sin and its punishment nevertheless he is said to have risen on the third day taking day as a natural day which contains 24 hours and as augustin says in on the trinity four the night until the dawn when the lord's resurrection was proclaimed belongs to the third day because god who made the light to shine forth from darkness in order that by the grace of the new testament and partaking of christ's rising we might hear this once ye were darkness but now light in the lord insinuates in a measure to us that day draws its origin from night for as the first days are computed from light to darkness on account of man's coming fall so these days are reckoned from darkness to light owing to man's restoration and so it is evident that even if he had risen at midnight he could be said to have risen on the third day taking it as a natural day but now that he rose early it can be affirmed that he rose on the third day even taking the artificial day which is caused by the sun's presence because the sun had already begun to brighten the sky hence it is written in mark 16 verse 2 that the women come to the sepulcher the sun being now risen which is not contrary to john's statement when it was yet dark as augustin says because as the day advances the more the light rises the more are the remaining shadows dispelled but when mark says the sun being now risen it is not to be taken as if the sun were already apparent over the horizon but is coming presently into those parts third article whether christ was the first to rise from the dead objection one it would seem that christ was not the first to rise from the dead because we read in the old testament of some persons raised to life by alias and alitius according to hebrews 1135 women received their dead raised to life again also christ before his passion raised three dead persons to life therefore christ was not the first to rise from the dead objection two further among the other miracles which happened during the passion it is narrated in matthew 27 verse 52 that the monuments were opened and many bodies of the saints who had slept rose again therefore christ was not the first to rise from the dead objection three further as christ by his own rising is the cause of our resurrection so by his grace he is the cause of our grace according to john 116 of his fullness we have all received but at point of time some others had grace previous to christ for instance all the fathers of the old testament therefore some others came to the resurrection of the body before christ on the contrary it is written in first Corinthians 15 20 christ is risen from the dead the first fruits of them that sleep because says the gloss he rose first in point of time and dignity i answer that resurrection is a restoring from death to life now a man is snatched from death in two ways first of all from actual death so that he begins in any way to live anew after being actually dead in another way so that he has not only rescued from death but from the necessity name or from the possibility of dying again such is a true and perfect resurrection because so long as a man lives subject to the necessity of dying death has dominion over him in a measure according to romans 8 10 the body indeed is dead because of sin furthermore what has the possibility of existence is said to exist in some respect that is in potentiality thus it is evident that the resurrection whereby one is rescued from actual death only is but an imperfect one consequently speaking of perfect resurrection christ is the first of them who rise because by rising he was the first to attain life utterly immortal according to roman 6 9 christ rising from the dead dieth now no more but by an imperfect resurrection some others have risen before christ so as to be a kind of figure of his resurrection and thus the answer to the first objection is clear because both those raised from the dead in the Old Testament and those raised by christ so return to life that they had to die again reply to objection to there are two opinions regarding them who rose with christ some hold that they rose to life so as to die no more because it would be a greater torment for them to die a second time than not to rise at all according to this view as gerome observes on matthew 27 verses 52 and 53 we must understand that they had not risen before our lord rose hence the evangelist says that coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they came into the holy city and appeared to many but agustin in his letter to avodius while giving this opinion says i know that appears to some that by the death of christ the lord the same resurrection was bestowed upon the righteous as is promised to us in the end and if they slept not again by laying aside their bodies it remains to be seen how christ can be understood to be the firstborn of the dead if so many proceeded him unto that resurrection now if reply be made that this is said by anticipation so that the monuments be understood to have been opened by the earthquake while christ was still hanging on the cross but that the bodies of the just did not rise then but after he had risen the difficulty still arises how is it that peter asserts that it was predicted not of david but of christ that his body would not see corruption since david's tomb was in their midst and thus he did not convince them if david's body was no longer there for even if he had risen soon after his death and his flesh had not seen corruption his tomb might nevertheless remain now it seems hard that david from whose seed christ is descended was not in that rising of the just if an eternal rising was conferred upon them also that saying and the epistle to the hebros chapter 11 verse 40 regarding the ancient just would be hard to explain that they should not be perfected without us if they were already established in that incorruption of the resurrection which is promised at the end when we shall be made perfect so that augustin would seem to think that they rose to die again in this sense jerome also in commenting on matthew chapter 27 verses 52 and 53 says as Lazarus rose so also many of the bodies of the saints rose that they might bear witness to the risen christ nevertheless in a sermon for the assumption he seems to leave the matter doubtful but augustin's reasons seem to be much more cogent reply to objection three as everything preceding christ's coming was preparatory for christ so is grace a disposition for glory consequently it behooved all things appertaining to glory whether they regard the soul as the perfect fruition of god or whether they regard the body as the glorious resurrection to be first in christ as the author of glory but that grace should be first in those that were ordained unto christ fourth article whether christ was the cause of his own resurrection objection one it seems that christ was not the cause of his own resurrection for whoever is raised up by another is not the cause of his own rising but christ was raised up by another according to acts chapter 2 verse 24 whom god hath raised up having loosed the sorrows of hell and in romans 8 11 he that raised up jesus christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies therefore christ is not the cause of his own resurrection objection to further no one is said to merit or ask from another that of which he himself is the cause but christ by his passion merited the resurrection as augustin says the loneliness of the passion is the meritorious cause of the glory of the resurrection moreover he asked the father that he might be raised up again according to psalm 40 verse 11 but thou o lord have mercy on me and raised me up again therefore he was not the cause of his rising again objection three further as damasin proves in on the true faith for it is not the soul that rises again but the body which is stricken by death but the body could not unite the soul with itself since the soul is no blur therefore what rose in christ could not be the cause of his resurrection on the contrary our lord says in john 10 verse 18 no one taketh my soul from me but i lay it down and i take it up again but to rise is nothing else than to take the soul up again then consequently it appears that christ rose again of his own power i answer that as stated above in question 50 articles 2 and 3 in consequence of death christ's godhead was not separated from his soul nor from his flesh consequently both the soul and the flesh of the dead christ can be considered into respects first in respect of his godhead secondly in respect of his created nature therefore according to the virtue of the godhead united to it the body took back again the soul which it had laid aside and the soul took back again the body which it had abandoned and thus christ rose by his own power and this is precisely what is written in 2nd Corinthians 13 for for although he was crucified through our weakness yet he liveth by the power of god but if we consider the body and soul of the dead christ according to the power of created nature they could not thus be reunited but it was necessary for christ to be raised up by god reply to objection one the divine power is the same thing as the operation of the father and the son accordingly these two things are mutually consequent that christ was raised up by the divine power of the father and by his own power reply to objection two christ by praying besought and merited his resurrection as man and not as god reply to objection three according to its created nature christ's body is not more powerful than his soul yet according to its divine power it is more powerful again the soul by reason of the godhead united to it is more powerful than the body in respect of its created nature consequently it was by the divine power that the body and soul mutually resumed each other but not by the power of their created nature end of question 53 read by michael shane craig lambert lc question 54 of summa theologica tertia pars triates on the savior this is a libra vox recording all libra vox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit libra vox.org summa theologica tertia pars triates on the savior by saint thomas equinas translated by the fathers of the english dominican province question 54 of the quality of christ rising again in four articles we have now to consider the quality of the rising christ which presents four points of inquiry first whether christ had a true body after his resurrection second whether he rose with his complete body third whether his was a glorified body fourth of the scars which showed in his body first article whether christ had a true body after his resurrection objection one it would seem that christ did not have a true body after his resurrection for a true body cannot be in the same place at the same time with another body but after the resurrection christ's body was with another at the same time and in the same place since he entered among the disciples the doors being shot as is related in john 20 verse 26 therefore it seems that christ did not have a true body after his resurrection objection to further a true body does not vanish from the beholder site unless per chance it be corrupted but christ's body vanished out of the site of the disciples as they gazed upon him as is related in luke 24 verse 31 therefore it seems that christ did not have a true body after his resurrection objection three further every true body has its determinant shape but christ's body appeared before the disciples in another shape as is evident from mark 15 verse 12 therefore it seems that christ did not possess a true body after his resurrection on the contrary it is written in luke 24 verse 37 that when christ appeared to his disciples they being troubled and frightened supposed that they saw a spirit as if he had not a true but an imaginary body but to remove their fears he presently added handle and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me to have consequently he had not an imaginary but a true body i answer that as damasin says in on the true faith four that is said to rise which fell but christ's body fell by death namely in as much as the soul which was its formal perfection was separated from it hence in order for it to be a true resurrection it was necessary for the same body of christ to be once more united with the same soul and since the truth of the body's nature is from its form it follows that christ's body after his resurrection was a true body and of the same nature as it was before but had his been an imaginary body then his resurrection would not have been true but apparent reply to objection one christ's body after his resurrection not by miracle but from its glorified condition as some say entered in among the disciples while the doors were shut thus existing with another body in the same place but whether a glorified body can have this from some hidden property so as to be with another body at the same time in the same place will be discussed later in the supplementum question 83 article 4 when the common resurrection will be dealt with for the present let it suffice to say that it was not from any property within the body but by virtue of the godhead united to it that this body although a true one entered in among the disciples while the doors were shut accordingly auguston says in a sermon for easter that some men argue in this fashion if it were a body if what rose from the sepulchre were what hung upon the tree how could it enter through closed doors and he answers if you understand how it is no miracle where reason fails faith abounds and in his commentary on the gospel of john he says closed doors were no obstacle to the substance of a body wherein was the godhead for truly he could enter in by doors not open in whose birth his mother's virginity remained inviolate and Gregory says the same in a homily for the octave of easter replied to objection to as stated above in question 53 article 3 Christ rose to the immortal life of glory but such is the disposition of a glorified body that it is spiritual that is subject to the spirit as the apostle says in first Corinthians 1544 now in order for the body to be entirely subject to the spirit it is necessary for the body's every action to be subject to the will of the spirit again that an object be seen is due to the action of the visible object upon the sight as the philosopher shows in on the soul too consequently whoever has a glorified body has it in his power to be seen when he so wishes and not to be seen when he does not wish it moreover christ had this not only from the condition of his glorified body but also from the power of his godhead by which power it may happen that even bodies not glorified are miraculously unseen as was by a miracle bestowed on the blessed Bartholomew that if he wished he could be seen and not be seen if he did not wish it Christ then is said to have vanished from the eyes of the disciples not as though he were corrupted or dissolved into invisible elements but because he ceased of his own will to be seen by them either while he was present or while he was departing by the gift of agility reply to Objection 3 as Severianus says in a sermon for Easter let no one suppose that Christ changed his features at the resurrection this is to be understood of the outline of his members since there was nothing out of keeping or deformed in the body of Christ which was conceived of the Holy Ghost that had to be righted at the resurrection nevertheless he received the glory of clarity in the resurrection accordingly the same writer adds but the semblance is changed when ceasing to be mortal it becomes immortal so that it acquired the glory of continents without losing the substance of the continents yet he did not come to those disciples in glorified appearance but as it lay in his power for his body to be seen or not so it was within his power to present to the eyes of the beholders his form either glorified or not glorified or partly glorified and partly not or in any fashion whatsoever still it requires but a slight difference for anyone to seem to appear another shape second article whether Christ's body rose glorified Translators note some editions give this article as the third following the order of the introduction to the question but it is evident from the first sentence of the body of article 3 article 2 and the aforesaid editions that the order of the Leonine edition is correct Objection 1 it seems that Christ's body did not rise glorified for glorified bodies shine according to Matthew 1343 then shall the just shine as the son in the kingdom of the father but shining bodies are seen under the aspect of light but not of color therefore since Christ's body was beheld under the aspect of color as it had been hitherto it seems that it was not a glorified one objection to further a glorified body is incorruptible but Christ's body seems not to have been incorruptible because it was palpable as he himself says in Luke 24 39 handle and see now Gregory says that what is handled must be corruptible and that which is incorruptible cannot be handled consequently Christ's body was not glorified Objection 3 further a glorified body is not animal but spiritual as is clear from 1 Corinthians 15 but after the resurrection Christ's body seems to have been animal since he ate and drank with his disciples as we read in the closing chapters of Luke and John therefore it seems that Christ's body was not glorified on the contrary the apostle says in Philippians 3 21 he will reform the body of our lowliness made like to the body of his glory I answer that Christ's was a glorified body in his resurrection and this is evident from three reasons first of all because his resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours as is stated in 1 Corinthians 15 43 but in the resurrection the saints will have glorified bodies as is written in the same place it is sown in dishonour it shall rise in glory hence since the cause is mightier than the effect and the exemplar than the exemplet much more glorious than was the body of Christ in his resurrection secondly because he merited the glory of his resurrection by the lowliness of his passion hence he said in John 12 27 now my soul is troubled which refers to the passion and later he adds father glorify thy name whereby he asks for the glory of the resurrection thirdly because as stated above in question 34 article 4 Christ's soul was glorified from the instant of his conception by perfect fruition of the godhead but as stated above in question 14 article 1 second reply it was owing to the divine economy that the glory did not pass from his soul to his body in order that by the passion he might accomplish the mystery of our redemption consequently when this mystery of Christ's passion and death was finished straight away the soul communicated its glory to the risen body in the resurrection and so that body was made glorious reply to objection 1 whatever is received within a subject is received according to the subject's capacity therefore since glory flows from the soul into the body it follows that as Augustine says the brightness or splendor of a glorified body is after the manner of natural color in the human body just as variously colored glass derives its splendor from the sun's radiance according to the mode of the color but as it lies within the power of a glorified man whether his body be seen or not as stated above in article 1 second reply so is it in his power whether its splendor be seen or not accordingly it can be seen in its color without its brightness and it was in this way that Christ's body appeared to the disciples after the resurrection reply to objection 2 we say that a body can be handled not only because of its resistance but also an account of its density but from rarity and density follow weight and lightness heat and cold and similar contraries which are the principles of corruption in elementary bodies consequently a body that can be handled by human touch is naturally corruptible but if there be a body that resists touch and yet is not disposed according to the qualities mentioned which are the proper objects of human touch such as a heavenly body then such body cannot be said to be handled but Christ's body after the resurrection was truly made up of elements and had tangible qualities such as the nature of a human body requires and therefore it could be naturally handled and if it had nothing beyond the nature of a human body it would likewise be corruptible but it had something else which made it incorruptible and this was not the nature of a heavenly body as some maintain and into which we shall make further inquiry later in the supplementum question 82 article 1 but it was glory flowing from a beatified soul because as Augustine says God made the soul of such powerful nature that from its fullest beatitude the fullness of health overflows into the body that is the vigor of incorruption and therefore Gregory says in a homily Christ's body is shown to be of the same nature but of different glory after the resurrection reply to objection three as Augustine says in on the city of God 13 after the resurrection our savior in spiritual but true flesh partook of meat with the disciples not from need for food but because it lay in his power for as bead says on Luke 2441 the thirsty earth sucks in the water and the sun's burning ray absorbs it the former from need the latter by its power hence after the resurrection he ate not as needing food but in order thus to show the nature of his risen body nor does it follow that his was an animal body that stands in need of food third article whether Christ's body rose again entire objection one it would seem that Christ's body did not rise in tire for flesh and blood belonged to the integrity of the body whereas Christ seems not to have had both for it is written in first Corinthians 1550 flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God but Christ rose in the glory of the kingdom of God therefore it seems that he did not have flesh and blood objection to further blood is one of the four humours consequently if Christ had blood with equal reason he also had the other humours from which corruption is caused in animal bodies he would follow then that Christ's body was corruptible which is unseemly therefore Christ did not have flesh and blood objection three further the body of Christ which rose ascended into heaven but some of his blood is kept as relics in various churches therefore Christ's body did not rise with the integrity of all its parts on the contrary our Lord said in Luke 24 39 while addressing his disciples after the resurrection a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me to have I answer that as stated above in article two Christ's body in the resurrection was of the same nature but differed in glory accordingly whatever goes with the nature of a human body was entirely in the body of Christ when he rose again now it is clear that flesh bones blood and other such things are of the very nature of the human body consequently all these things were in Christ's body when he rose again and this also integrally without any diminution otherwise it would not have been a complete resurrection if whatever was lost by death had not been restored hence our Lord assured his faithful ones by saying in Matthew 10 30 the very hairs of your head are all numbered and in Luke 21 verse 18 a hair of your head shall not perish but to say that Christ's body had neither flesh nor bones nor the other natural parts of a human body belongs to the error of Utikus bishop of Constantinople who maintained that our body in that glory of the resurrection will be impelpable and more subtle than wind and air and that our Lord after the hearts of the disciples who handled him were confirmed brought back to subtlety whatever could be handled in him now Gregory condemns this in the same book because Christ's body was not changed after the resurrection according to Romans 6 verse 9 Christ's rising from the dead dieth now no more this in St. Gregory's commentary on Job 14 56 accordingly the very man who had said these things himself retracted them at his death for it be unbecoming for Christ to take a body of another nature in his conception a heavenly one for instance as Valentine asserted it is much more unbecoming for him at his resurrection to resume a body of another nature because in his resurrection he resumed unto an everlasting life the body which in his conception he had assumed to a mortal life reply to objection one flesh and blood are not to be taken there for the nature of flesh and blood but either for the guilt of flesh and blood as Gregory says again in his commentary on Job or else for the corruption of flesh and blood because as Augustine says there will be neither corruption there nor mortality of flesh and blood therefore flesh according to its substance possesses the kingdom of God according to Luke 24 39 a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me to have but flesh if understood as to its corruption will not possess it hence it is straight away added in the words of the apostle in the words of the apostle neither shall corruption possess incorruption reply to objection two as Augustine says in the same book perchance by reason of the blood some keener critic will press us and say if the blood was in the body of Christ when he rose why not the realm that is the phlegm why not also the yellow gall that is the gall proper and why not the black gall that is the bile with which the four humours of the body is tempered and medical science bears witness but whatever anyone may add let him take heed not to add all corruption lest he corrupt the health and purity of his own faith because divine power is equal to taking away such qualities as it wills from the visible and tractable body while allowing others to remain so that there be no defilement that is of corruption though the features be there motion without weariness the power to eat without need of food reply to objection three all the blood which flowed from Christ's body belonging as it does to the integrity of human nature rose again with his body and the same reason holds good for all the particles which belong to the truth and integrity of human nature but the blood preserved as relics and some churches did not flow from Christ's side but is said to have flowed from some maltreated image of Christ fourth article weather Christ's body ought to have risen with its scars objection one it would seem that Christ's body ought not to have risen with its scars for it is written in first Corinthians 1552 the dead shall rise in corrupt but scars and wounds imply corruption and defect therefore it was not fitting for Christ the author of the resurrection to rise again with scars as objection to further Christ's body rose entire as stated above in article three but open scars are opposed to bodily integrity since they interfere with the continuity of the tissue it does not therefore seem fitting for the open wounds to remain in Christ's body although the traces of the wounds might remain which would satisfy the beholder thus it was that thomas believed to whom it was said because thou hast seen me thomas thou hast believed john 20 29 objection three further damasin says in on the true faith for that some things are truly said of christ after the resurrection which he did not have from nature but from special dispensation such as the scars in order to make it sure that it was the body which had suffered that rose again now when the cause ceases the effect ceases therefore it seems that when the disciples were assured of the resurrection he bore the scars no longer but it ill became the unchangeableness of his glory that he should assume anything which was not to remain in him forever consequently it seems that he ought not at his resurrection to have resumed a body with scars on the contrary our lord said to thomas in john 20 verse 27 put in thy finger hither and see my hands and bring hither thy hand and put it into my side and be not faithless but believing i answer that it was fitting for christ's soul at his resurrection to resume the body with its scars in the first place for christ's own glory for bead says on luke 2440 that he kept his scars not from inability to heal them but to wear them as an everlasting trophy of his victory and sagustin says in on the city of god 22 perhaps in that kingdom we shall see on the bodies of the martyrs the traces of the wounds which they bore for christ's name because it will not be a deformity but a dignity in them and a certain kind of beauty will shine in them in the body though not of the body secondly to confirm the hearts of the disciples as to the faith in his resurrection again according to bead in his commentary on luke 2440 thirdly that when he pleads for us with the father he may always show the manner of death he endured for us fourthly that he may convince those redeemed in his blood how mercifully they have been helped as he exposes before them the traces of the same death lastly that in the judgment day he may upbraid them with their just condemnation hence as augustin says in his commentary on the creed to the catechumens too christ knew why he kept the scars in his body for as he showed them to thomas who would not believe except he handled and saw them so will he show his wounds to his enemies so that he who is the truth may convict them saying behold the man whom you crucified see the wounds you inflicted recognize the side you pierced since it was opened by you and for you yet you would not enter reply to objection one the scars that remained in christ's body belong neither to corruption nor defect but to the greater increase of glory in as much as they are the trophies of his power and a special comeliness will appear in the places scarred by the wounds reply to objection two although those openings of the wounds break the continuity of the tissue still the greater beauty of glory compensates for all of this so that the body is not less entire but more perfected thomas however not only saw but handled the wounds because as pope leo says it's a feist for his personal faith for him to have seen what he saw but it was on our behalf that he touched what he beheld reply to objection three christ willed the scars of his wounds to remain on his body not only to confirm the faith of his disciples but for other reasons also from these it seems that those scars will always remain on his body because as augustin says i believe our lord's body to be in heaven such as it was when he ascended into heaven and Gregory in his commentary on job 14 says that if art could be changed in christ's body after his resurrection contrary to paul's truthful teaching then the lord after his resurrection returned to death and what fool would dare to say this save that he denies the true resurrection of the flesh accordingly it is evident that the scars which christ showed on his body after his resurrection have never since been removed from his body end of question 54 read by michael shane greg lambert lc