 Question 46, Part 3 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 46, The Passion of Christ in Twelve Articles. Part 3, Articles 9 through 12. Ninth Article, Whether Christ Suffered at a Suitable Time. Objection 1. It would seem that Christ did not suffer at a suitable time. For Christ's Passion was prefigured by the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb. Once the apostle says in 1 Corinthians 5-7, Christ our Pasch is sacrificed. But the Paschal Lamb was slain on the fourteenth day at Eventide, as is stated in Exodus 12-6. Therefore, it seems that Christ ought to have suffered then, which is manifestly false. For he was then celebrating the Pasch with his disciples according to Mark's account in chapter 14 verse 12, on the first day of the unleavened bread when they sacrificed the Pasch. Whereas it was on the following day that he suffered. Objection 2 further, Christ's Passion is called his uplifting according to John 3-14. So must the Son of Man be lifted up. When Christ himself is called the Son of Justice as we read in Malachi 4-2. Therefore it seems that he ought to have suffered at the sixth hour when the Son is at its highest point, and yet the contrary appears from Mark 15-25. It was the third hour and they crucified him. Objection 3 further, as the Son is at its highest point in each day at the sixth hour, so also it reaches its highest point in every year at the summer solstice. Therefore Christ ought to have suffered about the time of the summer solstice rather than about the vernal equinox. Objection 4 further, the world was enlightened by Christ's presence in it according to John 9-5. As long as I am in the world I am the light of the world. Consequently it was fitting for man's salvation that Christ should have lived longer in the world so that he should have suffered not in young but in old age. On the contrary it is written in John 13 verse 1. In Jesus, knowing that his hour was come for him to pass out of this world to the Father, and in John 2 verse 4. My hour is not yet come, upon which texts Augustine observes. When he had done as much as he deemed sufficient, then came his hour, not of necessity but of will, not of condition but of power. Therefore Christ died at an opportune time. I answer that as was observed above in article 1. Christ's passion was subject to his will. But his will was ruled by the divine wisdom which ordereth all things conveniently and sweetly according to wisdom 8 verse 1. Anyway it must be said that Christ's passion was enacted at an opportune time. Hence it is written in the questions on the New and Old Testament, question 55. The Saviour did everything in its proper place and season. Reply to Objection 1. Some hold that Christ did die on the fourteenth day of the moon, when the Jews sacrificed the past. Hence it is stated in John 18 verse 28 that the Jews went not into Pilate's hall on the day of the Passion, that they might not be defiled but that they might eat the past. Upon this Chrysostom observes in his 82nd homily on the Gospel of John. The Jews celebrated the past then, but he celebrated the past on the previous day, reserving his own slaying until the Friday, when the old pasque was kept. And this appears to tally with the statement found in John 13 verses 1 through 5 that before the festival day of the pasque, when supper was done, Christ washed the feet of the disciples. But Matthew's account, found in chapter 26 verse 17, seems opposed to this that on the first day of the Azim's, the disciples came to Jesus saying, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pasque? From which, as Jerome says, since the fourteenth day of the first month is called the day of the Azim's, when the Lamb was slain and when it was full moon, it is quite clear that Christ kept the supper on the fourteenth and died on the fifteenth. And this comes out more clearly from Mark 14 verse 12, on the first day of the unleaven bread, when they sacrificed the pasque, etc. And from Luke 22 verse 7, the day of the unleaven bread came, on which it was necessary that the pasque should be killed. Consequently then, others say that Christ ate the pasque with his disciples on the proper day, that is, on the fourteenth day of the moon, showing thereby that up to the last day he was not opposed to the law, as Chrysostom says in his homily 81 on the Gospel of Matthew, but that the Jews, being busyed in compassing Christ's death against the law, put off celebrating the pasque until the following day. And on this account it is said of them that on the day of Christ's passion, they were unwilling to enter Pilate's hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasque. But even this solution does not tally with Mark who says, On the first day of the unleaven bread, when they sacrificed the pasque, consequently Christ and the Jews celebrated the ancient pasque at the one time. And as Bede says on Luke 22 verses 7 and 8, though Christ who is our pasque was slain on the following day, that is, on the fifteenth day of the moon, nevertheless on the night when the Lamb was sacrificed, delivering to the disciples to be celebrated, the mysteries of his body and blood and being held and bound by the Jews, he hallowed the opening of his own emulation, that is, of his passion. But the words in John 13 verse 1, before the festival day of the pasque, are to be understood to refer to the fourteenth day of the moon which then fell upon the Thursday. For the fifteenth day of the moon was the most solemn day of the pasque with the Jews, and so the same day which John calls, before the festival day of the pasque, on account of the natural distinction of days, Matthew calls the first day of the unleaven bread because according to the right of the Jewish festivity, the solemnity began from the evening of the preceding day. When it is said then that they were going to eat the pasque on the fifteenth day of the month, it is to be understood that the pasque there is not called the pascal lamb, which was sacrificed on the fourteenth day, but the pascal food, that is, the unleavened bread, which had to be eaten by the clean. Since Chrysostom in the same passage gives another explanation that the pasque can be taken as meaning the whole feast of the Jews, which lasted seven days. Reply to Objection 2, as Augustine says in his Consensus of the Evangelists 3. It was about the sixth hour when the Lord was delivered up by Pilate to be crucified as John relates. It was not quite the sixth hour, but about the sixth. That is, it was after the fifth, and when part of the sixth had been entered upon until the sixth hour was ended. That the darkness began when Christ hung upon the cross. It is understood to have been the third hour when the Jews clamored for the Lord to be crucified, and it is most clearly shown that they crucified him when they clamored out. Therefore, lest anyone might divert the thought of so great a crime from the Jews to the soldiers, he says, it was the third hour and they crucified him, that they went before all may be found to have crucified him, who at the third hour clamored for his crucifixion. Although they are not wanting some persons who wish the Parashèv to be understood as the third hour, which John recalls saying, it was the Parashèv about the sixth hour. For Parashèv is interpreted preparation. But the true pasque, which was celebrated in the Lord's passion, began to be prepared from the ninth hour of the night, namely, when the chief priest said, he is deserving of death. According to John then, the sixth hour of the Parashèv lasts from that hour of the night down to Christ's crucifixion. While according to Mark, it is the third hour of the day. Still, there are some who contend that this discrepancy is due to the error of a Greek transcriber, since the characters employed by them to represent three and six are somewhat alike. Reply to Objection 3. According to the author of Questions on the Old and New Testament, question 55, Our Lord willed to redeem and reform the world by his passion, at the time of year at which he had created it, that is, at the equinox. It is then that day grows upon night, because by our Saviour's passion we are brought from darkness to light, and since the perfect enlightening will come about at Christ's second coming, therefore the season of his second coming is compared in Matthew 24 verses 32 and 33 to the summer in these words. When the branch thereof is now tender, and the leaves come forth, you know that summer is nigh, so that also when you shall see all these things, know ye that it is nigh even at the doors, and then also shall be Christ's greatest exaltation. Reply to Objection 4. Christ willed to suffer while yet young for three reasons. First of all, to commend the more his love by giving up his life for us when he was in his most perfect state of life. Secondly, because it was not becoming for him to show any decay of nature, nor to be subject to disease, as stated above in Question 14, Article 4. Thirdly, that by dying and rising at an early age Christ might exhibit beforehand in his own person the future condition of those who rise again. Hence, it is written in Ephesians 4 verse 13. Until we all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ. Second article. Whether Christ suffered in a suitable place? Objection 1. It would seem that Christ did not suffer in a suitable place. For Christ suffered according to his human nature which was conceived in Nazareth and born in Bethlehem. Consequently, it seems that he ought not to have suffered in Jerusalem, but in Nazareth or Bethlehem. Objection 2. Further, the reality ought to correspond with the figure. But Christ's passion was prefigured by the sacrifices of the old law, and these were offered up in the temple. Therefore, it seems that Christ ought to have suffered in the temple and not outside the city gate. Objection 3. Further, the medicine should correspond with the disease. For Christ's passion was the medicine against Adam's sin, and Adam was not buried in Jerusalem, but in Hebron, for it is written in Joshua 14 verse 15. The name of Hebron was before called Kariath Arba. Adam, the greatest in the land of the Anishins, was laid there. On the contrary, it is written in Luke 13 verse 33. It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. Therefore, it was fitting that he should die in Jerusalem. I answer that according to the author of the Questions on the Old and New Testament, question 55. The Savior did everything in its proper place and season. Because as all things are in His hands, so are all places. And consequently, since Christ suffered at a suitable time, so did He in a suitable place. Reply to Objection 1. Christ died most appropriately in Jerusalem. First of all, because Jerusalem was God's chosen place for the offering of sacrifices to Himself, and these figurative sacrifices foreshadowed Christ's passion, which is a true sacrifice according to Ephesians 5 verse 2. He hath delivered Himself for us an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness. Hence Bede says in Homily, When the Passion drew nigh, our Lord willed to draw nigh to the place of the Passion. That is to say, to Jerusalem. Together He came five days before the Pask. Just as according to the legal precept, the Paskal Lamb was led to the place of emulation five days before the Pask, which is the tenth day of the moon. Secondly, because the virtue of His Passion was to be spread over the whole world. He wished to suffer in the center of the habitable world, that is in Jerusalem. Thirdly, it is written in Psalm 73 verse 12. But God is our King before ages. He hath wrought salvation in the midst of the earth. That is, in Jerusalem, which is called the navel of the earth. Confer Jerome's comment on Ezekiel 5.5. Thirdly, because it was specially in keeping with His humility, that as He chose the most shameful manner of death, so likewise it was part of His humility that He did not refuse to suffer in so celebrated a place. Hence Pope Leo says in his first homily on the Epiphany, He who had taken upon Himself the form of a servant chose Bethlehem for His nativity and Jerusalem for His Passion. Fourthly, He willed to suffer in Jerusalem, where the chief priests dwelt, to show that the wickedness of His slayers arose from the chiefs of the Jewish people. Hence it is written in Acts 4 verse 27. They are assembled together in this city against thy holy child Jesus whom thou hast anointed, Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the people of Israel. For three reasons Christ suffered outside the gate and not in the temple nor in the city. First of all that the truth might correspond with the figure. For the calf and the goat, which were offered in most solemn sacrifice for expiation on behalf of the entire multitude, were burnt outside the camp, as commanded in Leviticus 16 verse 27. Hence it is written in Hebrews 13 verse 27. For the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the holies by the high priest for sin are burnt without the camp, wherefore Jesus also that He might sanctify the people by His own blood suffered without the gate. Secondly, to set us the example of shunning worldly conversation. Accordingly the passage continues. Let us go forth therefore to Him without the camp, bearing His reproach. Thirdly, as Chrysostom says in a Sermon on the Passion. The Lord was not willing to suffer under a roof nor in the Jewish temple, lest the Jews might take away the saving sacrifice, unless you might think He was offered for that people only. Consequently it was beyond the city and outside the walls that you may learn it was a universal sacrifice, an ablation for the whole world, a cleansing for all. Reply to Objection 3. According to Jerome in his commentary on Matthew 27 verse 33. Someone explained the place of Calvary as being the place where Adam was buried, and that it was so called because the skull of the first man was buried there. A pleasing interpretation indeed, and one suited to catch the ear of the people, but still not the true one. For the spots where the condemned are beheaded are outside the city and beyond the gates, deriving thence the name of Calvary, that is, of the beheaded. Jesus accordingly was crucified there, that the standards of martyrdom might be uplifted over what was formerly the place of the condemned. That Adam was buried close by Hebron and Arba, as we read in the book of Jesus Ben-Navey. But Jesus was to be crucified in the common spot of the condemned, rather than beside Adam's sepulchre, to make it manifest that Christ's cross was the remedy not only for Adam's personal sin, but also for the sin of the entire world. 11. Whether it was fitting for Christ to be crucified with thieves. Objection 1. It would seem unfitting for Christ to have been crucified with thieves, because it is written in 2 Corinthians 6.14. What participation hath justice within justice? But for our sakes, Christ, of God is made unto us justice, according to 1 Corinthians 30. Whereas iniquity applies to thieves. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to be crucified with thieves. Objection 2 further, on Matthew 26 verse 35. Though I should die with thee, I will not deny thee. According to Origen, commenting on the Gospel of Matthew observes, it was not men's lot to die with Jesus, since he died for all. Again, on Luke 22 verse 33, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison and death. Ambrose says, Our Lord's passion has followers, but not equals. It seems then much less fitting for Christ to suffer with thieves. Objection 3 further, it is written in Matthew 27 verse 44 that the thieves who were crucified with him reproached him. But in Luke 22 verse 42 it is stated that one of them who were crucified with Christ cried out to him, Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. It seems then that, besides the blasphemous thieves, there was another man who did not blaspheme him, and so the evangelist's account does not seem to be accurate when it says that Christ was crucified with thieves. On the contrary, it was foretold by Isaiah 53 verse 12, and he was reputed with the wicked. I answer that Christ was crucified between thieves from one intention on the part of the Jews and from quite another on the part of God's ordaining. As to the intention of the Jews, Chrysostom remarks in his homily 87 on the Gospel of Matthew, that they crucified the two thieves, one on either side, that he might be made to share their guilt. But it did not happen so, because mention is never made of them, whereas his cross is honored everywhere. Kings lay aside their crowns to take up the cross, on their purple robes, on their diadems, on their weapons, on the consecrated table, everywhere the cross shines forth. As to God's ordinance, Christ was crucified with thieves because, as Jerome says on Matthew 27 verse 33, as Christ became accursed of the cross for us, so for our salvation he was crucified as a guilty one among the guilty, secondly as Pope Leo observes in his homily on the Passion. Two thieves were crucified, one on his right hand and one on his left, to set forth by the very appearance of the gibbet that separation of all men which shall be made in his hour of judgment, and Augustine on John 7 verse 36. The very cross, if thou mark it well, was a judgment seat. For the judge being set in the midst, the one who believed was delivered, the other who mocked him was condemned. Already he has signified what he shall do to the quick and the dead. Some he will set on his right, others on his left hand, thirdly according to Hilary in his commentary on Matthew. Two thieves are set, one upon his right and one upon his left, to show that all mankind is called to the sacrament of his Passion. But because of the cleavage between believers and unbelievers, the multitude is divided into right and left, those on the right being saved by the justification of faith, fourthly because as Veed says on Mark 15 verse 27. The thieves crucified with our Lord denote those who, believing in and confessing Christ, either endure the conflict of martyrdom or keep the institutes of stricter observance. But those who do the like for the sake of everlasting glory are denoted by the faith of the thief on the right, while others who do so for the sake of human applause copy the mind and behavior of the one on the left. Reply to Objection 1. Just as Christ was not obliged to die but willingly submitted to death so as to vanquish death by his power, so neither deserved he to be classed with thieves, but willed to be reputed with the ungodly that he might destroy ungodliness by his power. Accordingly, Chrysostom says, in his homily 84 on the Gospel of John that, To convert the thief upon the cross and lead him into paradise was no less a wonder than to shake the rocks. Reply to Objection 2. It was not fitting that anyone else should die with Christ from the same cause as Christ, hence origin continues thus in the same passage. All had been under sin and all required that another should die for them, not they for others. Reply to Objection 3. As Augustine says in his Consensus of the Evangelists 3, We can understand Matthew as putting the plural for the singular when he said, The thieves reproached him, or it may be said with Jerome that, At first both blasphemed him, but afterwards one believed in him on witnessing the wonders. 12. Whether Christ's passion is to be attributed to his Godhead. Objection 1. It would seem that Christ's passion is to be attributed to his Godhead, for it is written in 1 Corinthians 2.8. If they had known it, they would have never crucified the Lord of glory. But Christ is the Lord of glory in respect of his Godhead. Therefore Christ's passion is attributed to him in respect of his Godhead. Objection 2. Further, the principle of men's salvation is the Godhead itself according to Psalm 36 verse 39, but the salvation of the just is from the Lord. Consequently, if Christ's passion did not appertain to his Godhead, he would seem that it could not produce fruit in us. Objection 3. Further, the Jews were punished for slaying Christ as for murdering God himself, as is proved by the gravity of the punishment. Now this would not be so if the passion were not attributed to the Godhead. Therefore Christ's passion should be so attributed. On the contrary, Athanasius says, The word is impassable whose nature is divine, but what is impassable cannot suffer. Consequently, Christ's passion did not concern his Godhead. I answer that as stated above in question 2 articles 1, 2, 3, and 6. The union of the human nature with the divine was affected in the person, in the apostasys, in the suppositum, yet observing the distinction of natures, so that it is the same person and apostasys of the divine and human natures, while each nature retains that which is proper to it. And therefore, as stated above in question 16 article 4, the passion is to be attributed to the suppositum of the divine nature, not because of the divine nature which is impassable, but by reason of the human nature. Hence, in a synodal epistle of Cyril, we read, If any man does not confess that the word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh, let him be anathema. Therefore Christ's passion belongs to the suppositum of the divine nature by reason of the passable nature assumed, but not on account of the impassable divine nature. Reply to Objection 1. The Lord of glory is said to be crucified, not as the Lord of glory, but as a man capable of suffering. Reply to Objection 2. As is said in a sermon of the Council of Ephesus, Christ's death being, as it were, God's death, namely by union in person, destroyed death, since he who suffered was both God and man, for God's nature was not wounded, nor did it undergo any change by those sufferings. Reply to Objection 3. As the passage quoted goes on to say, The Jews did not crucify one who was simply a man. They inflicted their presumptions upon God. For suppose a prince to speak by word of mouth, and that his words are committed to writing on a parchment and sent out to the cities, and that some rebel tears up the document, he will be led forth to endure the death sentence. Not for merely tearing up a document, but as destroying the imperial message. Let not the Jew then stand in security as crucifying a mere man, since what he saw was as the parchment, but what was hidden under it was the imperial word, the son by nature, not the mere utterance of a tongue. End of Question 46. Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC. Question 47 of Summa Theologica Terziapars. Treaties on the Savior. 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 Savior by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 47 of the Efficient Cause of Christ's Passion in six articles. We have now to consider the Efficient Cause of Christ's Passion, concerning which there are six points of inquiry. First, whether Christ was slain by others or by himself. Second, from what motive did he deliver himself up to the Passion? Third, whether the Father delivered him up to suffer. Fourth, whether it was fitting that he should suffer at the hands of the Gentiles or rather of the Jews. Fifth, whether his slayers knew who he was. Sixth, of the sin of them who slew Christ. First article, whether Christ was slain by another or by himself. Objection one, it would seem that Christ was not slain by another, but by himself. For he says of himself, in John 10, 18, No man taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself. But he is said to kill another who takes away his life. Consequently, Christ was not slain by others, but by himself. Objection two, further. Those slain by others sink gradually from exhausted nature, and this is strikingly apparent in the crucified, for as Augustine says in On the Trinity Four, Those who were crucified were tormented with a lingering death. But this did not happen in Christ's case since, crying out with a loud voice, he yielded up the ghost. Matthew 27.50 Therefore, Christ was not slain by others, but by himself. Objection three, further. Those slain by others suffer a violent death, and hence die unwillingly, because violent is opposed to voluntary. But Augustine says, again in On the Trinity Four, Christ's spirit did not quit the flesh unwillingly, but because he willed it, and when he willed it, and as he willed it. Consequently, Christ was not slain by others, but by himself. On the contrary, it is written in Luke 1833. After they have scourged him, they will put him to death. I answer that. A thing may cause an effect in two ways. In the first instance, by acting directly, so as to produce the effect. And in this manner, Christ's persecutors slew him because they inflicted on him what was a sufficient cause of death, and with the intention of slaying him, and the effect followed, since death resulted from that cause. In another way, someone causes an effect indirectly, that is, by not preventing it when he can do so. Just as one person is said to drench another, not by closing the window through which the shower is entering, and in this way Christ was the cause of his own passion and death. For he could have prevented his passion and death. Firstly, by holding his enemies in check, so that they would not have been eager to slay him, or would have been powerless to do so. Secondly, because his spirit had the power of preserving his fleshly nature from the infliction of any injury. And Christ's soul had this power because it was united in unity of person with the divine word, as Augustine says on the Trinity 4. Therefore, since Christ's soul did not repel the injury inflicted on his body, but willed his corporal nature to succumb to such an injury, he is said to have laid down his life, or to have died voluntarily. Reply to Objection 1. When we hear the words, No man taketh away my life from me, we must understand against my will. For that is properly said to be taken away, which one takes from someone who is unwilling and unable to resist. Reply to Objection 2. In order for Christ to show that the passion inflicted by violence did not take away his life, he preserved the strength of his bodily nature, so that at the last moment he was able to cry out with a loud voice. And hence his death should be computed among his other miracles. Accordingly it is written in Mark 1539. And the Centurion who stood over against him, seeing that crying out in this manner he had given up the ghost said, Indeed this man was the Son of God. It was also a subject of wonder in Christ's death that he died sooner than the others who were tormented with the same suffering. Hence John says in chapter 19 verse 32 that they broke the legs of the first and of the other that was crucified with him, that they might die more speedily. But after they were come to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Mark also states in chapter 15 verse 44 that Pilate wondered that he should be already dead, for as of his own will his bodily nature kept its vigor to the end, so likewise when he willed he suddenly succumbed to the injury inflicted. Reply to objection three. Christ at the same time suffered violence in order to die and died, nevertheless voluntarily, because violence was inflicted on his body, which however prevailed over his body only so far as he willed it. Second article, whether Christ died out of obedience. Objection one. He would seem that Christ did not die out of obedience, for obedience is referred to a command, but we do not read that Christ was commanded to suffer, therefore he did not suffer out of obedience. Objection two further. A man is said to do from obedience what he does from necessity of precept. But Christ did not suffer necessarily, but voluntarily, therefore he did not suffer out of obedience. Objection three further. Charity is a more excellent virtue than obedience, but we read that Christ suffered out of charity according to Ephesians 5 to walk in love as Christ also has loved us and delivered himself up for us. Therefore Christ's passion ought to be ascribed rather to charity than to obedience. On the contrary, it is written in Philippians 2.8. He became obedient to the Father unto death. I answer that it was befitting that Christ should suffer out of obedience. First of all, because it was in keeping with human justification that as by the obedience of one man many were made sinners, so also by the obedience of one many shall be made just, as is written in Romans 5.19. Secondly, it was suitable for the reconciling of man with God, hence it is written in Romans 5.10. We are reconciled to God by the death of his Son. Insofar as Christ's death was a most acceptable sacrifice to God according to Ephesians 5 to. He delivered himself for us an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness. Now obedience is preferred to all sacrifices according to 1 Kings chapter 15 verse 22. Obedience is better than sacrifices. Therefore it was fitting that the sacrifice of Christ's passion and death should proceed from obedience. Thirdly, it was in keeping with his victory whereby he triumphed over death and its author, because a soldier cannot conquer unless he obey his captain. And so the man Christ secured the victory through being obedient to God according to Proverbs 21 verse 28. An obedient man shall speak of victory. Christ received a command from the Father to suffer, for it is written in John 10.18. I have power to lay down my life and I have power to take it up again, and this commandment I have received from my Father, namely of laying down his life and of resuming it again, from which, as Chrysostom says in his homily 59 on the gospel of John, it is not to be understood that at first he awaited the command and that he had need to be told, but he showed the preceding to be a voluntary one and destroyed suspicion of opposition to the Father. Yet because the old law was ended by Christ's death according to his dying words, it is consummated, John 19.30. It may be understood that by his suffering he fulfilled all the precepts of the old law. He fulfilled those of the moral order, which are founded on the precepts of charity, inasmuch as he suffered both out of love of the Father, according to John 14.31, that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father hath given me commandment, so I do. Arise, let us go hence, namely to the place of his passion, and out of love of his neighbor according to Galatians 2.20. He loved me and delivered himself up for me. Christ likewise, by his passion, fulfilled the ceremonial precepts of the law, which are chiefly ordained for sacrifices and oblations, insofar as all the ancient sacrifices were figures of that true sacrifice which the dying Christ offered for us. Hence it is written in Colossians 2 verses 16 and 17. Let no man judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ's, for the reason that Christ is compared to them as a body is to a shadow. Christ also, by his passion, fulfilled the judicial precepts of the law, which are chiefly ordained for making compensation to them who have suffered wrong, since, as is written in Psalm 68 verse 5, he paid that which he took not away, suffering himself to be fastened to a tree on account of the apple which man had plucked from the tree against God's command. Reply to Objection 2. Although obedience implies necessity with regard to the thing commanded, nevertheless it implies free will with regard to the fulfilling of the precept, and indeed so was Christ's obedience, for, although his passion and death considered in themselves was repugnant to the natural will, yet Christ resolved to fulfill God's will with respect to the same, according to Psalm 39.9, that I should do thy will, O my God, I have desired it. And he said in Matthew 26.42, If this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, thy will be done. Reply to Objection 3. For the same reason Christ suffered out of charity and out of obedience, because he fulfilled even the precepts of charity out of obedience only, and was obedient, out of love, to the Father's command. Third article. Whether God the Father delivered up Christ to the Passion Objection 1. It would seem that God the Father did not deliver up Christ to the Passion, for it is a wicked and cruel act to hand over an innocent man to torment and death. But as it is written in Deuteronomy 32.4, God is faithful and without any iniquity. Therefore he did not hand over the innocent Christ to his Passion and Death. Objection 2 further. It is not likely that a man be given over to death by himself and by another also. But Christ gave himself up for us as it is written in Isaiah 53.12. He hath delivered his soul unto death. Consequently it does not appear that God the Father delivered him up. Objection 3 further. Judas is held to be guilty, because he betrayed Christ to the Jews according to John 6.71. One of you is a devil, alluding to Judas who was to betray him. The Jews are likewise reviled for delivering him up to Pilate as we read in John 18.35. Thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee up to me. Moreover, as is related in John 19.16, Pilate delivered him to them to be crucified. And according to 2 Corinthians 6.14, there is no participation of justice within justice. It seems therefore that God the Father did not deliver up Christ to his Passion. On the contrary, it is written in Romans 8 verse 32. God hath not spared his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. I answer that, as observed above in article 2, Christ suffered voluntarily out of obedience to the Father. Hence, in three respects, God the Father did deliver up Christ to the Passion. In the first way, because by his eternal will he preordained Christ's Passion for the deliverance of the human race, according to the words of Isaiah 53.6, The Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all. And again in Isaiah 53.10, the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity. Secondly, inasmuch as, by the infusion of charity, he inspired him with the will to suffer for us. Hence, we read in the same passage. He was offered because it was his own will in Isaiah 53.7. Thirdly, why not shielding him from the Passion, but abandoning him to his persecutors? Thus we read in Matthew 27.46, that Christ while hanging on the cross cried out, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? Because to wit, he left him to the power of his persecutors, as Augustine says. Reply to Objection 1. It is indeed a wicked and cruel act to hand over an innocent man to torment and to death against his will. Yet God the Father did not so deliver up Christ, but inspired him with the will to suffer for us. God's severity, confer Romans 11.22, is thereby shown, for he would not remit sin without penalty. And the Apostle indicates this when, in Romans 8.32, he says, God spared not even his own son. Likewise, his goodness, Romans 11.22, shines forth. Since by no penalty, in Jordan, could man pay him enough satisfaction. And the Apostle denotes this when he says, He delivered him up for us all. And again, in Romans 3.25, Whom, that is to say Christ, God hath imposed to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. Reply to Objection 2. Christ as God delivered himself up to death by the same will and action as that by which the Father delivered him up. But as man, he gave himself up by a will inspired of the Father. Consequently, there is no contrariety in the Father delivering him up, and in Christ delivering himself up. Reply to Objection 3. The same act, for good or evil, is judged differently accordingly as it proceeds from a different source. The Father delivered up Christ, and Christ surrendered himself from charity, and consequently, we give praise to both. But Judas betrayed Christ from greed, the Jews from envy, and Pilate from worldly fear, for he stood in fear of Caesar. And these, accordingly, are held guilty. 4. Whether it was fitting for Christ to suffer at the hands of the Gentiles Objection 1. You would seem unfitting that Christ should suffer at the hands of the Gentiles. For since men were to be freed from sin by Christ's death, you would seem fitting that very few should sin in his death. But the Jews sinned in his death, on whose behalf it is said in Matthew 21, 38, This is the hare. Come, let us kill him. It seems fitting, therefore, that the Gentiles should not be implicated in the sin of Christ's slaying. Objection 2 further. The truth should respond to the figure. Now, it was not the Gentiles, but the Jews who offered the figurative sacrifices of the old law. Therefore, neither ought Christ's passion, which was a true sacrifice, to be fulfilled at the hands of the Gentiles. Objection 3 further. As related in John 5.18. The Jews sought to kill Christ because he did not only break the Sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God. But these things seemed to be only against the law of the Jews, hence they themselves said in John 19.7. According to the law he ought to die because he made himself the Son of God. It seems fitting, therefore, that Christ should suffer at the hands not of the Gentiles, but of the Jews, and that what they said was untrue. It is not lawful for us to put any man to death, since many sins are punishable with death according to the law, as is evident from the Leviticus 20. On the contrary, our Lord himself says in Matthew 2019. They shall deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified. I answer that the effect of Christ's passion was foreshown by the very manner of his death. For Christ's passion wrought its effect of salvation, first of all among the Jews, very many of whom were baptized in his death, as is evident from Acts 241 and Acts 4.4. Afterward, by the preaching of Jews, Christ's passion passed on to the Gentiles. Consequently, it was fitting that Christ should begin his sufferings at the hands of the Jews, and after they had delivered him up, finish his passion at the hands of the Gentiles. Reply to Objection 1. In order to demonstrate the fullness of his love, on account of which he suffered, Christ upon the cross prayed for his persecutors. Therefore, that the fruits of his petition might accrue to Jews and Gentiles, Christ willed to suffer from both. Reply to Objection 2. Christ's passion was the offering of a sacrifice, in as much as he endured death of his own free will out of charity. But insofar as he suffered from his persecutors, it was not a sacrifice, but a most grievous sin. Reply to Objection 3. As Augustine says in his commentary on the Gospel of John, The Jews said that it is not lawful for us to put any man to death, because they understood that it was not lawful for them to put any man to death, owing to the sacredness of the feast day, which they had already begun to celebrate. Or, as Chrysostom observes in his homily on the Gospel of John, because they wanted him to be slain not as a transgressor of the law, but as a public enemy, since he had made himself out to be a king of which it was not their place to judge. Or again, because it was not lawful for them to crucify him, as they wanted to, but to stone him, as they did to Stephen. Better still is it to say that the power of putting to death was taken from them by the Romans, who subjects they were. 5. Whether Christ's persecutors knew who he was Objection 1. He would seem that Christ's persecutors did know who he was, for it is written in Matthew 21-38 that the husband men seeing the Son said within themselves, this is the heir, come let us kill him. On this Jerome remarks, Our Lord proves most manifestly by these words that the rulers of the Jews crucified the Son of God, not from ignorance but out of envy, for they understood that it was he to whom the Father says by the Prophet, Ask of me and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance. It seems therefore that they knew him to be Christ or the Son of God. Objection 2 further, Our Lord says in John 15.24 But now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father. Now what is seen is known manifestly. Therefore the Jews knowing Christ inflicted the passion on him out of hatred. Objection 3 further, It is said in a sermon delivered in the Council of Ephesus, Just as he who tears up the imperial message is doomed to die, as despising the Prince's word, so the Jew who crucified him whom he had seen will pay the penalty for daring to lay his hand on God the Word himself. Now this would not be so had they not known him to be the Son of God, because their ignorance would have excused them. Therefore it seems that the Jews in crucifying Christ knew him to be the Son of God. On the contrary, it is written in 1 Corinthians 2.8 If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. And in Acts 3.17 Peter addressing the Jews says, I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers. Likewise the Lord hanging upon the cross said, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Luke 23.34 I answer that among the Jews some were elders and others of lesser degree. Now according to the author of the Questions on the Old and New Testament, the elders who were called rulers knew, as did also the devils. That he was the Christ promised in the law, for they saw all the signs in him which the prophets said would come to pass, but they did not know the mystery of his Godhead. Consequently the apostle says, If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. It must however be understood that their ignorance did not excuse them from crime, because it was as it were, affected ignorance. For they saw manifest signs of his Godhead, yet they perverted them out of hatred and envy of Christ. Never would they believe his words whereby he avowed that he was the Son of God. And see himself says of them in John 15.22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. And afterwards he adds in John 15.24 If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin. And so the expression employed by Job in chapter 21 verse 14 can be accepted on their behalf. Who said to God, Depart from us, We desire not the knowledge of thy ways. But those of lesser degree, namely the common folk, who had not grasped the mysteries of the scriptures, did not fully comprehend that he was the Christ or the Son of God. For although Son of them believed in him, yet the multitude did not. And if they doubted sometimes whether he was the Christ, on account of the manifold signs and force of his teaching, as is stated in John 7.31, nevertheless they were deceived afterwards by their rulers, so that they did not believe him to be the Son of God or the Christ. Hence Peter said to them, I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers, namely because they were seduced by the rulers. Reply to Objection 1. Those words are spoken by the husband men of the vineyard, and they signify the rulers of the people who knew him to be the heir, inasmuch as they knew him to be the Christ promised in the law. But the words of Psalm 2 verse 8 seem to militate against this answer. Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, which are addressed to him of whom it is said, Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee, if then they knew him to be the one whom the words were addressed. Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, it follows that they knew him to be the Son of God. Chrysostom 2 says upon the same passage that they knew him to be the Son of God. Be'd likewise, commenting on the words, for they know not what they do, Luke 23.34 says, It is to be observed that he does not pray for them who, understanding him to be the Son of God, preferred to crucify him rather than acknowledge him. But to this it may be replied that they knew him to be the Son of God, not from his nature, but from the excellence of his singular grace. Yet we may hold that they are said to have known also that he was verily the Son of God, in that they had evident signs thereof. Yet out of hatred and envy they refused credence to these signs, by which they might have known that he was the Son of God. Reply to Objection 2. The words quoted are preceded by the following. If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin. And then follow the words. But now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father. Now all this shows that while they beheld Christ's marvelous works, it was owing to their hatred that they did not know him to be the Son of God. Reply to Objection 3. Affected ignorance does not excuse from guilt, but seems rather to aggravate it, for it shows that a man is so strongly attached to sin that he wishes to incur ignorance lest he avoid sinning. The Jews therefore sinned as crucifiers not only of the man Christ, but also as of God. 6. Whether the sin of those who crucified Christ was most grievous. Objection 1. It would seem that the sin of Christ's crucifiers was not the most grievous, because the sin which has some excuse could not be most grievous. But our Lord himself excused the sin of his crucifiers when he said, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Luke 23.34 Therefore theirs was not the most grievous sin. Objection 2 further. Our Lord said to Pilate in John 19.11, He that hath delivered me to thee hath the greater sin. But it was Pilate who caused Christ to be crucified by his minions. Therefore the sin of Judas, the traitor, seems to be greater than that of those who crucified him. Objection 3 further. According to the philosopher in Ethics 5, no one suffers injustice willingly. And in the same place he adds, Where no one suffers injustice, nobody works injustice. Consequently, nobody reeks injustice upon a willing subject. But Christ suffered willingly, as was shown above in Articles 1 and 2. Therefore those who crucified Christ did him no injustice, and hence their sin was not the most grievous. On the contrary, Chrysostom, commenting on the words, In very truth they exceeded the measure of their fathers. For these latter slew men, but they crucified God. I answer that, as stated above in Article 5. The rulers of the Jews knew that he was the Christ, and if there was any ignorance in them, it was affected ignorance, which could not excuse them. Therefore their sin was the most grievous, both on account of the kind of sin, as well as from the malice of their will. The Jews also of the common order sinned most grievously as to the kind of their sin. Yet in one respect their crime was lessened by reason of their ignorance. Hence Bede, commenting on Luke 23.34, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do, says, He prays for them who know not what they are doing, as having the zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. But the sin of the Gentiles, by whose hands he was crucified, was much more excusable, since they had no knowledge of the law. Reply to Objection 1. As stated above, the excuse made by our Lord is not to be referred to the rulers among the Jews, but to the common people. Reply to Objection 2. Judas did not deliver up Christ to Pilate, but to the chief priests who gave him up to Pilate, according to John 1835. Thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee up to me, but the sin of all these was greater than that of Pilate, who swore Christ from fear of Caesar, and even greater than the sin of the soldiers who crucified him at the governor's bidding, not out of cupidity like Judas, nor from envy and hate like the chief priests. Reply to Objection 3. Christ indeed willed his passion just as the Father willed it, yet he did not will the unjust action of the Jews. Consequently, Christ's slayers are not excused of their injustice. Nevertheless, whoever slays a man not only does a wrong to the one slain, but likewise to God and to the State, just as he who kills himself as the philosopher says in Ethics 5. Hence it was that David condemned to death the man who did not fear to lay hands upon the Lord's anointed, even though he, Saul, had requested it, as related in 2 Kings 1 verses 5 through 14. L.C. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. L.C. We now have to consider Christ's passion as to its effect. First of all, as to the manner in which it was brought about, and secondly, as to the effect in itself. Under the first heading, there are six points for inquiry. First, whether Christ's passion brought about our salvation by way of merit. Second, whether it was by way of atonement. Third, whether it was by way of sacrifice. Fourth, whether it was by way of redemption. Fifth, whether it is proper to Christ to be the Redeemer. Sixth, whether the passion secured man's salvation efficiently. First article, whether Christ's passion brought about our salvation by way of merit. Objection one, you would seem that Christ's passion did not bring about our salvation by way of merit, for the sources of our sufferings are not within us. But no one merits or is appraised, except for that whose principle lies within him. Therefore Christ's passion brought nothing by way of merit. Objection two further, from the beginning of his conception, Christ merited for himself and for us as stated above in question nine article four and in question thirty-four article three. But it is superfluous to merit over and over again what has been merited before. Therefore, by his passion, Christ did not merit our salvation. Objection three further, the source of merit is charity. But Christ's charity was not made greater by the passion than it was before. Therefore, he did not merit our salvation by suffering more than he had already. On the contrary, on the words of Philippians 2.9, therefore God exalted him, etc. Augustine says in his commentary on the Gospel of John, The lowliness of the passion merited glory. Glory was the reward of lowliness. But he was glorified, not merely in himself, but likewise in his faithful ones as he says himself in John 17.10. Therefore it appears that he merited the salvation of the faithful. I answer that, as stated above in question seven articles one and nine, as well as in question eight articles one and five. Grace was bestowed upon Christ, not only as an individual, but in as much as he is the head of the church, so that it might overflow into his members. And therefore Christ's works are referred to himself and to his members in the same way as the works of any other man in a state of grace are referred to himself. But it is evident that whosoever suffers for justice's sake, provided that he be in a state of grace, merits his salvation thereby, according to Matthew 5.10. Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice's sake. Consequently, Christ by his passion merited salvation, not only for himself, but likewise for all his members. Reply to Objection One. Suffering, as such, is caused by an outward principle, but in as much as one bears it willingly, it has an inward principle. Reply to Objection Two. From the beginning of his conception Christ merited our eternal salvation, but on our side there were some obstacles, whereby we were hindered from securing the effect of his preceding merits. Consequently, in order to remove such hindrances, it was necessary for Christ to suffer, as stated above in Question 46 Article 3. Reply to Objection Three. Christ's passion has a special effect, which his preceding merits did not possess, not on account of greater charity, but because of the nature of the work, which was suitable for such an effect, as is clear from the arguments brought forward above all the fittingness of Christ's passion in Question 46 Articles 3 and 4. Second Article. Whether Christ's passion brought about our salvation by way of atonement. Objection One. He would seem that Christ's passion did not bring about our salvation by way of atonement, for it seems that to make the atonement devolves on him who commits the sin, as is clear in the other parts of penance, because he who has done the wrong must grieve over it and confess it. But Christ never sinned, according to 1 Peter 2.22, who did not sin. Therefore he made no atonement by his personal suffering. Objection Two further. No atonement is made to another by committing a graver offense. But in Christ's passion the gravest of all offenses was perpetrated, because those who slew him sinned most grievously, as stated above in Question 47 Article 6. Consequently, it seems that atonement could not be made to God by Christ's passion. Objection Three further. Atonement implies equality with the trespass, since it is an act of justice. But Christ's passion does not appear equal to all the sins of the human race, because Christ did not suffer in his Godhead, but in his flesh, according to 1 Peter 4.1. Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh. Now the soul, which is the subject of sin, is of greater account than the flesh. Therefore Christ did not atone for our sins by his passion. On the contrary, it is written in Psalm 68 verse 5 in Christ's person. Then did I pay that which I took not away, but he has not paid, who has not fully atoned. Therefore it appears that Christ by his suffering has fully atoned for our sins. I answer that. He properly atones for an offense, who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which he suffered. Secondly, on account of the dignity of his life, which he laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man. Thirdly, on account of the extent of the passion and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above in question 46 article 6. And therefore Christ's passion was not only as sufficient, but a super abundant atonement for the sins of the human race, according to 1 John 2.2. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. Reply to Objection 1. The head and members are as one mystic person, and therefore Christ's satisfaction belongs to all the faithful as being his members. Also, in so far as any two men are one in charity, the one can atone for the other as shall be shown later, in the supplementum, question 13 article 2. But the same reason does not hold good of confession and contrition, because atonement consists in an outward action, for which helps may be used, among which friends are to be computed. Reply to Objection 2. Christ's love was greater than his slayer's malice, and therefore the value of his passion in atoning surpassed the murderous guilt of those who crucified him, so much so that Christ's suffering was sufficient and super abundant atonement for his murderous crime. Reply to Objection 3. The dignity of Christ's flesh is not to be estimated solely from the nature of flesh, but also from the person assuming it. Namely, in as much as it was God's flesh, the result of which was that it was of infinite worth. Third article. Whether Christ's passion operated by way of sacrifice. Objection 1. It would seem that Christ's passion did not operate by way of sacrifice, for the truth should correspond with the figure. But human flesh was never offered up in the sacrifices of the old law, which were figures of Christ. Nay, such sacrifices were reputed as impious, according to Psalm 105 verse 38. And they shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and of their daughters, which they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan. It seems, therefore, that Christ's passion cannot be called a sacrifice. Objection 2 further. Augustine says in On the City of God 10 that a visible sacrifice is a sacrament, that is, a sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice. Now Christ's passion is not a sign, but rather the thing signified by other signs. Therefore, it seems that Christ's passion is not a sacrifice. Objection 3 further. Whoever offers sacrifice performs some sacred rite, as the very word sacrifice shows. But those men who slew Christ did not perform any sacred act, but rather wrought a great wrong. Therefore, Christ's passion was rather a malefice than a sacrifice. On the contrary, the apostle says in Ephesians 5-2, he delivered himself up for us an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an order of sweetness. I answer that a sacrifice properly so-called is something done for that honor which is properly due to God in order to appease him. And hence it is that Augustine says in On the City of God 10, A true sacrifice is every good work done in order that we may cling to God in holy fellowship, yet referred to that consummation of happiness wherein it can be truly blessed. But as is added in the same place, Christ offered himself for us in the passion. And this voluntary enduring of the passion was most acceptable to God as coming from charity. Therefore, it is manifest that Christ's passion was a true sacrifice. Moreover, as Augustine says farther on in the same book, the primitive sacrifices of the Holy Fathers were many and various signs of this true sacrifice, one being prefigured by many in the same way as a single concept of thought is expressed in many words, in order to commend it without tediousness, and as Augustine observes in On the Trinity Four. Since there are four things to be noted in every sacrifice, to wit, to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered. That the same one true mediator, reconciling us with God through the peace sacrifice, might continue to be one with him to whom he offered it, might be one with them for whom he offered it, and might himself be the Offerer and what he offered. Reply to Objection One. Although the truth answers to the figure in some respects, yet it does not in all, since the truth must go beyond the figure. Therefore the figure of this sacrifice, in which Christ's flesh is offered, was flesh right fittingly, not the flesh of men, but of animals as denoting Christ's. And this is a most perfect sacrifice. First of all, since being flesh of human nature, it is fittingly offered for men and is partaken of by them under the sacrament. Secondly, because being passable and mortal, it was fit for immolation. Thirdly, because being sinless, it had virtue to cleanse from sins. Fourthly, because being the Offerer's own flesh, it was acceptable to God on account of his charity in offering up his own flesh. Hence it is that Augustine says in On the 24, What else could be so fittingly partaken of by men or offered up for men as human flesh? What else could be so appropriate for this immolation as mortal flesh? What else is there so clean for cleansing mortals as the flesh born in the womb without fleshly concupiscence and coming from a virginal womb? What could be so favorably offered and accepted as the flesh of our sacrifice which was made the body of our priest? Reply to Objection 2. Augustine is speaking there of visible figurative sacrifices, and even Christ's passion, although denoted by other figurative sacrifices, is yet a sign of something to be observed by us according to 1 Peter 4.1. Christ therefore, having suffered in the flesh, be you also armed with the same thought, for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sins, that now he may live the rest of his time in the flesh not after the desires of men, but according to the will of God. Reply to Objection 3. Christ's passion was indeed a malefice on his slayers part, but on his own it was the sacrifice of one suffering out of charity. Hence it is Christ who is said to have offered this sacrifice, and not the executioners. Fourth Article Whether Christ's passion brought about our salvation by way of redemption Objection 1. He would seem that Christ's passion did not affect our salvation by way of redemption. For no one purchases or redeems what never ceased to belong to him, but men never ceased to belong to God according to Psalm 23.1. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and all they that dwell therein. Therefore it seems that Christ did not redeem us by his passion. Objection 2 further, as Augustine says in On the Trinity 13, The devil had to be overthrown by Christ's justice, but justice requires that the man who has treacherously seized another's property shall be deprived of it, because deceit and cunning should not benefit any one, as even human laws declare. Consequently, since the devil by treachery deceived and subjugated to himself man, who is God's creature, it seems that man ought not to be rescued from his power by way of redemption. Objection 3 further, Whoever buys or redeems an object pays the price to the holder. But it was not to the devil who held us in bondage that Christ paid his blood as the price of our redemption. Therefore Christ did not redeem us by his passion. On the contrary, it is written in 1 Peter 1.18, You were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled. And in Galatians 3.13, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. Now he is said to be a curse for us in as much as he suffered upon a tree, as stated above in Question 46, Article 4. Therefore he did redeem us by his passion. I answer that, man was held captive on account of sin in two ways. First of all, by the bondage of sin, because as we read in John 8.34, Whosoever commiteth sin is the servant of sin. And in 2 Peter 2.19, By whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave. Since then the devil had overcome man by inducing him to sin, man was subject to the devil's bondage. Secondly, as to the debt of punishment, to the payment of which man was held fast by God's justice. And this too is a kind of bondage, since it savers of bondage for a man to suffer what he does not wish, just as it is the free man's condition to apply himself to what he wills. Since then Christ's passion was a sufficient and a super abundant atonement for the sin and the debt of the human race. It was as a price at the cost of which we were freed from both obligations. For the atonement by which one satisfies for self or another is called the price by which he ransoms himself or someone else from sin and its penalty, according to Daniel 4.24. Redeem thou thy sins with alms. Now Christ made satisfaction not by giving money or any of the sort, but by bestowing what was of greatest price himself for us. And therefore Christ's passion is called our redemption. Reply to Objection 1. Man is said to belong to God in two ways. First of all, insofar as he comes under God's power, in which way he never ceased to belong to God, according to Daniel 4.22. The most high ruleth over the kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will. Secondly, by being united to him in charity, according to Romans 8.9. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. In the first way then, man never ceased to belong to God, but in the second way he did cease because of sin. And therefore, insofar as he was delivered from sin by the satisfaction of Christ's passion, he is said to be redeemed by the passion of Christ. Reply to Objection 2. Man by sinning became the bondsman both of God and of the devil. Through guilt he had offended God and put himself under the devil by consenting to him. And consequently he did not become God's servant on account of his guilt, but rather by withdrawing from God's service. He, by God's just permission, fell under the devil's servitude on account of the offense perpetrated. But as to the penalty, man was chiefly bound to God as his sovereign judge, and to the devil as his torturer, according to Matthew 5.25. Lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer. That is, to the relentless avenging angel, as Chrysostom says in his homily number 11. Consequently, although after deceiving man, the devil, so far as in him lay, held him unjustly in bondage as to both sin and penalty. Still it was just that man should suffer it, God so permitting it as to the sin and ordaining it as to the penalty. And therefore justice required man's redemption with regard to God, but not with regard to the devil. Reply to Objection 3. Because with regard to God redemption was necessary for man's deliverance, but not with regard to the devil. The price had to be paid not to the devil, but to God. And therefore Christ is said to have paid the price of our redemption, his own precious blood, not to the devil, but to God. Fifth article. Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Redeemer? Objection 1. You would seem that it is not proper to Christ to be the Redeemer, because it is written in Psalm 30, Verse 6. Thou hast redeemed me, O Lord, the God of truth. But to be the Lord God of truth belongs to the entire Trinity. Therefore it is not proper to Christ. Objection 2 further. He is said to redeem who pays the price of redemption. But God the Father gave his Son in redemption for our sins, as is written in Psalm 110, Verse 9. The Lord hath sent redemption to his people, upon which the gloss adds, that is Christ who gives redemption to captives. Therefore not only Christ, but the Father also redeemed us. Objection 3 further. Not only Christ's passion, but also that of other saints conduced to our salvation, according to Colossians 1.24. I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my own flesh for his body which is the Church. Therefore the title of Redeemer belongs not only to Christ, but also to the other saints. On the contrary, it is written in Galatians 3.13. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. But only Christ was made a curse for us. Therefore only Christ ought to be called our Redeemer. I answer that, for someone to redeem two things are required. Namely, the act of paying, and the price paid. For if in redeeming something a man pays a price, which is not his own, but another's, he is not said to be the Chief Redeemer, but rather the other is, whose price it is. Now Christ's blood, or his bodily life, which is in the blood, is the price of our redemption, according to Leviticus 17 verses 11 through 14. And that life he paid. Hence both of these belong immediately to Christ as man, but to the Trinity as to the first and remote cause to whom Christ's life belonged as to its first author, and from whom Christ received the inspiration of suffering for us. Consequently, it is proper to Christ as man to be the Redeemer immediately, although the redemption may be ascribed to the whole Trinity as its first cause. Reply to Objection 1. A glass explains the text thus. Thou, O Lord God of Truth, hast redeemed me in Christ crying out, Lord, into thy hands I commend my spirit. And so redemption belongs immediately to the man Christ, but principally to God. Reply to Objection 2. The man Christ paid the price of our redemption immediately, but at the command of the Father as the original author. Reply to Objection 3. The sufferings of the saints are beneficial to the Church as by way not of redemption, but of example and exhortation, according to 2 Corinthians 1-6. Whether we be in tribulation, it is for your exhortation and salvation. 6. Whether Christ's passion brought about our salvation efficiently. Objection 1. He would seem that Christ's passion did not bring about our salvation efficiently. For the efficient cause of our salvation is the greatness of the divine power, according to Isaiah 59-1. Behold, the hand of the Lord is not shortened that it cannot save. But Christ was crucified through weakness, as it is written in 2 Corinthians 13-4. Therefore Christ's passion did not bring about our salvation efficiently. Objection 2 further. No corporeal agency acts efficiently, except by contact. Hence even Christ cleansed the leper by touching him, in order to show that his flesh had saving power, as Chrysostom says. But Christ's passion could not touch all mankind. Therefore it could not efficiently bring about the salvation of all men. Objection 3 further. It does not seem to be consistent, for the same agent to operate by way of merit and by way of efficiency. Since he who merits awaits the result from someone else. But it was by way of merit that Christ's passion accomplished our salvation. Therefore it was not by way of efficiency. On the contrary, it is written in 1 Corinthians 118 that the word of the cross to them that are saved is the power of God. But God's power brings about our salvation efficiently. Therefore Christ's passion on the cross accomplished our salvation efficiently. I answer that there is a two-fold efficient agency. Namely, the principle and the instrumental. Now the principle efficient cause of man's salvation is God. But since Christ's humanity is the instrument of the Godhead, as stated above in question 43 article 2, therefore all Christ's actions and sufferings operate instrumentally in virtue of his Godhead for the salvation of man. Consequently then, Christ's passion accomplishes man's salvation efficiently. Reply to Objection 1. Christ's passion in relation to his flesh is consistent with the infirmity which he took upon himself, but in relation to the Godhead it draws infinite might from it, according to 1 Corinthians 125. The weakness of God is stronger than man. Because Christ's weakness in as much as he is God has a might exceeding all human power. Reply to Objection 2. Christ's passion, although corporeal, has yet a spiritual effect from the Godhead united, and therefore it secures its efficacy by spiritual contact, namely by faith and the sacraments of faith, as the Apostle says in Romans 3.25. Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. Reply to Objection 3. Christ's passion, according as it is compared with his Godhead, operates in an efficient manner. But insofar as it is compared with the will of Christ's soul, it acts in a meritorious manner, considered as being within Christ's very flesh, it acts by way of satisfaction, in as much as we are liberated by it from the debt of punishment. While in as much as we are freed from the servitude of guilt, it acts by way of redemption. But insofar as we are reconciled with God, it acts by way of sacrifice, as shall be shown further on in Question 49. End of Question 48. Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC.