 Question 49 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 49 of the Effects of Christ's Passion in six articles. We have now to consider what are the effects of Christ's Passion, concerning which there are six points of inquiry. First, whether we were freed from sin by Christ's Passion. Second, whether we were thereby delivered from the power of the Devil. Third, whether we were freed thereby from our debt of punishment. Fourth, whether we were thereby reconciled with God. Fifth, whether heaven's gate was opened to us thereby. Sixth, whether Christ derived exaltation from it. First article, whether we were delivered from sin through Christ's Passion. Objection one, it would seem that we were not delivered from sin through Christ's Passion. For to deliver from sin belongs to God alone, according to Isaiah 43.25. I am he who blot out your iniquities for my own sake. But Christ did not suffer as God, but as man. Therefore Christ's Passion did not free us from sin. Objection two further. What is corporeal does not act upon what is spiritual. But Christ's Passion is corporeal, whereas sin exists in the soul, which is a spiritual creature. Therefore Christ's Passion could not cleanse us from sin. Objection three further. One cannot be purged from a sin not yet committed, but which shall be committed hereafter. Since then many sins have been committed since Christ's death and are being committed daily, it seems that we were not delivered from sin by Christ's death. Objection four further. Given an efficient cause, nothing else is required for producing the effect. But other things besides are required for the forgiveness of sins, such as baptism and penance. Consequently it seems that Christ's Passion is not the sufficient cause of the forgiveness of sins. Objection five further. It is written in Proverbs 10.12. Charity covereth all sins. And in Proverbs 15.27. By mercy and faith sins are purged away. But there are many other things of which we have faith and which excite charity. Therefore Christ's Passion is not the proper cause of the forgiveness of sins. On the contrary it is written in Apocalypse 1.5. He loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood. I answer that Christ's Passion is the proper cause of the forgiveness of sins in three ways. First of all, by way of exciting our charity because as the Apostle says in Romans 5.8 God commendeth his charity towards us because when as yet we were sinners according to the time Christ died for us. But it is by charity that we procure pardon of our sins according to Luke 7.47. Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much. Secondly, Christ's Passion causes forgiveness of sins by way of redemption. For since he is our head, then by the Passion which he endured from love and obedience he delivered us as his members from our sins as by the price of his Passion. In the same way as if a man by the good industry of his hands were to redeem himself from a sin committed with his feet. For just as the natural body is one though made up of diverse members so the whole church Christ's mystic body is reckoned as one person with its head which is Christ. Thirdly, by way of efficiency in as much as Christ's flesh wherein he endured the Passion is the instrument of the Godhead so that his sufferings and actions operate with divine power for expelling sin. Reply to Objection 1. Although Christ did not suffer as God nevertheless his flesh is the instrument of the Godhead and hence it is that his Passion has a kind of divine power of casting out sin as was said above. Reply to Objection 2. Although Christ's Passion is corporeal still it derives a kind of spiritual energy from the Godhead to which the flesh is united as an instrument and according to this power Christ's Passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sins. Reply to Objection 3. Christ by his Passion delivered us from our sins causally that is by setting up the cause of our deliverance from which cause all sins whatsoever past, present or to come could be forgiven just as if a doctor were to prepare a medicine by which all sicknesses can be cured even in future. Reply to Objection 4. As stated above since Christ's Passion preceded as a kind of universal cause of the forgiveness of sins it needs to be applied to each individual for the cleansing of personal sins. Now this is done by baptism and penance and the other sacraments which derive their power from Christ's Passion as shall be shown later in Question 62 Article 5. Reply to Objection 5. Christ's Passion is applied to us even through faith that we may share in its fruits according to Romans 3.25 whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in his blood but the faith through which we are cleansed from sin is not lifeless faith which can exist even with sin but faith living through charity that thus Christ's Passion may be applied to us not only as to our minds but also as to our hearts and even in this way sins are forgiven through the power of the Passion of Christ. 2. Whether we were delivered from the devil's power through Christ's Passion Objection 1. It would seem that we were not delivered from the power of the devil through Christ's Passion for he has no power over others who can do nothing to them without the sanction of another but without the divine permission the devil could never do hurt to any man as is evident in the instance of Job where by power received from God the devil first injured him in his possessions and afterwards in his body in like manner it is stated in Matthew 8 verses 31 and 32 that the devils could not enter into the swine except with Christ's leave therefore the devil never had a power over men and hence we are not delivered from his power through Christ's Passion Objection 2 further the devil exercises his power over men by tempting them and molesting their bodies but even after the Passion he continues to do the same to men therefore we are not delivered from his power through Christ's Passion Objection 3 further the might of Christ's Passion endures forever as according to Hebrews 10 14 by one oblation he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified but deliverance from the devil's power is not found everywhere since there are still idolaters in many regions of the world nor will it endure forever because in the time of Antichrist he will be especially active in using his power to the hurt of men because it is said of him in 2 Thessalonians 2 9 whose coming is according to the working of Satan in all power and signs and lying wonders and an all seduction of iniquity consequently it seems that Christ's Passion is not the cause of the human race being delivered from the power of the devil on the contrary our Lord said in John 12 31 when his Passion was drawing nigh now shall the Prince of this world be cast out and I if I be lifted up from the earth will draw all things to myself now he was lifted up from the earth by his Passion on the cross therefore by his Passion the devil was deprived of his power over man I answer that there are three things to be considered regarding the power which the devil exercised over men previous to Christ's Passion the first is on man's own part who by his sin deserved to be delivered over to the devil's power and was overcome by his tempting another point is on God's part who man had offended by sinning and who with justice left man under the devil's power the third is on the devil's part who out of his most wicked will hindered man from securing his salvation as to the first point by Christ's Passion man was delivered from the devil's power in so far as the Passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sins as stated above in Article 1 as to the second it must be said that Christ's Passion freed us from the devil's power in as much as it reconciled us with God as shall be shown later in Article 4 but as to the third Christ's Passion delivered us from the devil in as much as in Christ's Passion succeeded the limit of power assigned him by God by conspiring to bring about Christ's death who being sinless did not deserve to die hence Augustine says in on the Trinity 13 Chapter 14 the devil was vanquished by Christ's justice because while discovering in him nothing deserving of death nevertheless he slew him and it is certainly just that the debtors whom he held captive should be set at liberty since they believed in him whom the devil slew though he was no debtor Reply to Objection 1 the devil is said to have had such power over men not as though he were able to injure them without God's sanction but because he was justly permitted to injure men whom by tempting he had induced to give consent Reply to Objection 2 God so permitting it the devil can still tempt men's souls and harass their bodies yet there is a remedy provided for man through Christ's Passion whereby he can safeguard himself against the enemy's assaults so as not to be dragged down into the destruction of everlasting death and all who resisted the devil previous to the Passion were enabled to do so through faith in the Passion although it was not yet accomplished yet in one respect no one was able to escape the devil's hands that is so as not to descend into hell but after Christ's Passion men can defend themselves from this by its power Reply to Objection 3 God permits the devil to deceive men by certain persons and in times and places according to the hidden motive of his judgments still there is always a remedy provided through Christ's Passion for defending themselves against the wicked snares of the demons even in anti-Christ's time but if any man neglect to make use of this remedy it detracts nothing from the efficiency of Christ's Passion Third Article whether men were freed from the punishment of sin through Christ's Passion Objection 1 it would seem that men were not freed from the punishment of sin by Christ's Passion for the chief punishment of sin is eternal damnation but those damned in hell for their sins were not set free by Christ's Passion because in hell there is no redemption it seems therefore the Christ's Passion did not deliver men from the punishment of sin Objection 2 further no punishment should be imposed upon them who are delivered from the debt of punishment but a satisfactory punishment is imposed upon penitents Consequently men were not freed from the debt of punishment by Christ's Passion Objection 3 further Death is a punishment of sin according to Romans 6-23 The wages of sin is death but men still die after Christ's Passion therefore it seems that we have not been delivered from the debt of punishment on the contrary it is written in Isaiah 53-4 Surely he hath borne our iniquities and carried our sorrows I answer that through Christ's Passion we have been delivered from the debt of punishment in two ways First of all, directly namely, inasmuch as Christ's Passion was sufficient and superabundant satisfaction for the sins of the whole human race but when sufficient satisfaction has been paid then the debt of punishment is abolished in another way, indirectly that is to say, insofar as Christ's Passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sin upon which the debt of punishment rests Reply to Objection 1 Christ's Passion works its effects in them to whom it is applied through faith and charity and the sacraments of faith and consequently, the lost in hell cannot avail themselves of its effects since they are not united to Christ in the aforesaid manner Reply to Objection 2 As stated above in Article 1, 4th and 5th replies In order to secure the effects of Christ's Passion we must be likened unto him Now we are likened unto him sacramentally in baptism according to Roman 6.4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death hence no punishment of satisfaction is imposed upon men at their baptism since they are fully delivered by Christ's satisfaction But because as it is written in 1 Peter 3.18 Christ died but once for our sins therefore a man cannot a second time be likened unto Christ's death by the sacrament of baptism hence it is necessary that those who sin after baptism be likened unto Christ's suffering by some form of punishment or suffering which they endure in their own person yet by the cooperation of Christ's satisfaction much lighter penalty suffices than one that is proportionate to the sin Reply to Objection 3 Christ's satisfaction works its effect in us in as much as we are incorporated with him as the members with their head as stated above in Article 1 Now the members must be conformed to their head Consequently as Christ first had grace in his soul with bodily passability and through the passion attained to the glory of immortality so we likewise who are his members are freed by his passion from all dead of punishment yet so that we first receive in our souls the spirit of adoption of sons whereby our names are written down for the inheritance of immortal glory while we yet have a passable and mortal body but afterwards being made conformable to the sufferings and death of Christ we are brought into immortal glory according to the saying of the Apostle in Romans 8.17 And if sons heirs also heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ yet so if we suffer with him that we may be also glorified with him Fourth Article Whether we were reconciled to God through Christ's passion Objection 1 It would seem that we were not reconciled to God through Christ's passion for there is no need of reconciliation between friends but God always loved us according to Wisdom 11.25 Thou lovest all the things that are and hate us none of the things which thou hast made therefore Christ's passion did not reconcile us to God Objection 2 further the same thing cannot be cause and effect hence grace which is the cause of meriting does not come under merit but God's love is the cause of Christ's passion according to John 3.16 God so loved the world as to give his only begotten son it does not appear then that we were reconciled to God through Christ's passion so that he began to love us anew Objection 3 further Christ's passion was completed by men slaying him thereby they offended God grievously therefore Christ's passion is rather the cause of wrath than of reconciliation to God on the contrary the apostle says in Romans 5.10 we are reconciled to God by the death of his son I answer that Christ's passion is in two ways the cause of a reconciliation to God in the first way in as much as it takes away sin by which men became God's enemies according to wisdom 14.9 to God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike and in Psalm 5.7 thou hatest all the workers of iniquity in another way in as much as it is a most acceptable sacrifice to God now it is the proper effect of sacrifice to appease God just as man likewise overlooks an offense when committed against him on account of some pleasing act of homage shown him hence it is written in 1 Kings 26.19 if the Lord stir thee up against me let him accept of sacrifice and unlike fashion Christ's voluntary suffering was such a good act that because of its being found in human nature God was appeased for every offense of the human race with regard to those who are made one with the crucified Christ in the aforesaid manner reply to Objection 1 God loves all men as to their nature which he himself made yet he hates them with respect to the crimes they commit against him according to Ecclesiasticus 12.3 the highest hadith sinners reply to Objection 2 Christ is not said to have reconciled this with God as if God had begun a new to love us since it is written in Jeremiah 31.3 I have loved thee with an everlasting love but because the source of hatred was taken away by Christ's passion both through sin being washed away and through compensation being made in the shape of a more pleasing offering reply to Objection 3 as Christ's slayers were men so also was the Christ slain now the charity of the suffering Christ surpassed the wickedness of his slayers accordingly Christ's passion prevailed more in reconciling God to the whole human race than in provoking him to wrath 5th article whether Christ opened the gate of heaven to us by his passion Objection 1 you had seen that Christ did not open the gate of heaven to us by his passion for it is written in Proverbs 11.18 to him that so with justice there is a faithful reward but the reward of justice is the entering into the kingdom of heaven it seems therefore that the holy fathers who wrought works of justice obtained by faith the entering into the heavenly kingdom even without Christ's passion consequently Christ's passion is not the cause of the opening of the gate of the kingdom of heaven Objection 2 further Elias was caught up to heaven previous to Christ's passion but the effect never precedes the cause therefore it seems that the opening of heaven's gate is not the result of Christ's passion Objection 3 further as it is written in Matthew 3.16 when Christ was baptized the heavens were open to him but his baptism preceded the passion consequently the opening of heaven is not the result of Christ's passion Objection 4 further it is written in Micah 2.13 for he shall go up that shall open the way before them but to open the way to heaven seems to be nothing else than to throw open its gate therefore it seems that the gate of heaven was open to us not by Christ's passion but by his ascension on the contrary is the saying of the apostle in Hebrews 10.19 we have confidence in the entering into the holies that is of the heavenly places through the blood of Christ I answer that the shutting of the gate is the obstacle which hinders men from entering in but it is on account of sin that men were prevented from entering into the heavenly kingdom since according to Isaiah 35.8 it shall be called the holy way and the unclean shall not pass over it now there is a twofold sin which prevents men from entering into the kingdom of heaven the first is common to the whole race for it is our first parent's sin and by that sin heaven's entrance is closed to man hence we read in Genesis 3.24 that after our first parent's sin God placed cherubim and a flaming sword turning every way to keep the way of the tree of life the other is the personal sin of each one of us committed by our personal act now by Christ's passion we have been delivered not only from the common sin of the whole human race both as to its guilt and as to the debt of punishment for which he paid the penalty on our behalf but furthermore from the personal sins of individuals who share in his passion by faith and charity and the sacraments of faith consequently then the gate of heaven's kingdom is thrown open to us through Christ's passion this is precisely what the apostle says in Hebrews 9 verses 11 and 12 Christ being come a high priest of the good things to come by his own blood entered once into the holies having obtained eternal redemption and this is foreshadowed in Numbers 35 verses 25 and 28 where it is said that the slayer shall abide there that is to say in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest that is anointed with the holy oil but after he is dead then shall he return home reply to objection one the holy fathers by doing works of justice merited to enter into the heavenly kingdom through faith in Christ's passion according to Hebrews 1133 the saints by faith conquered kingdoms wrought justice and each of them was thereby cleansed from sin so far as the cleansing of the individual is concerned nevertheless the faith and righteousness of no one of them sufficed for removing the barrier arising from the guilt of the whole human race but this was removed at the cost of Christ's blood consequently before Christ's passion no one could enter the kingdom of heaven by obtaining everlasting beatitude which consists in the full enjoyment of God reply to objection two Elias was taken up into the atmospheric heaven but not into the imperian heaven which is the abode of the saints and likewise Enoch was translated into the earthly paradise where he is believed to live with Elias until the coming of Antichrist reply to objection three Elias was stated above in question 39 article 5 the heavens were opened at Christ's baptism not for Christ's sake to whom heaven was ever open but in order to signify that heaven is opened to the baptized through Christ's baptism which has its efficacy from his passion reply to objection four Christ by his passion merited for us the opening of the kingdom of heaven and removed the obstacle but by his ascension he as it were brought us to the possession of the heavenly kingdom and consequently it is said that by ascending he opened the way before them sixth article whether by his passion Christ merited to be exalted objection one it seemed that Christ did not merit to be exalted on account of his passion for eminence of rank belongs to God alone just as knowledge of truth according to Psalm 112 verse 4 the Lord is high above all nations and his glory above the heavens but Christ as man had the knowledge of all truth not on account of any preceding merit but from the very union of God and man according to John 114 we saw his glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth therefore neither had he exaltation from the merit of the passion but from the union alone objection two further Christ merited for himself from the first instant of his conception as stated above in question 34 article 3 but his love was no greater during the passion than before therefore since charity is the principle of merit it seems that he did not merit exaltation from the passion more than before objection three further the glory of the body comes from the glory of the soul as Augustine says but by his passion Christ did not merit exaltation exaltation as to the glory of his soul because his soul was beatified from the first instant of his conception therefore neither did he merit exaltation as to the glory of his body from the passion on the contrary it is written in Philippians 2.8 he became obedient unto death even the death of the cross for which cause God also exalted him I answer that merit implies a certain equality of justice hence the apostle says in Romans 4.4 now to him that worketh the reward is reckoned according to debt but when anyone by reason of his unjust will ascribes to himself something beyond his due it is only just that he be deprived of something else which is his due thus when a man steals a sheep he shall pay back for according to Exodus 22 verse 1 and he is said to deserve it in as much as his unjust will is chastised thereby so likewise when any man through his just will has stripped himself of what he ought to have he deserves that something further be granted to him as the reward of his just will and hence it is written in Luke 14.11 he that humbleth himself shall be exalted now in his passion Christ humbled himself beneath his dignity in four respects in the first place as to his passion and death to which he was not bound secondly as to the place since his body was laid in a sepulcher and his soul in hell thirdly as to the shame and mockeries he endured fourthly as to his being delivered up to man's power as he himself said to Pilate in John 19.11 thou shouldest not have any power against me unless it were given thee from above and consequently he merited a fourfold exaltation from his passion first of all as to his glorious resurrection and it is written in Psalm 138 verse 1 thou has known my sitting down that is the lowliness of my passion and my rising up secondly as to his ascension into heaven and it is written in Ephesians 4.9 now that he ascended what is it but because he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth he that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens thirdly as to the sitting on the right hand of the father and the showing forth of his Godhead according to Isaiah 52.13 he shall be exalted and extolled and shall be exceedingly high as many have been astonished at him so shall his visage be in glorious among men moreover in Philippians 2.8 it is written he humbled himself become obedient unto death even to the death of the cross for which cause also God hath exalted him and hath given him a name which is above all names that is to say so that he shall be hailed as God by all and all shall pay him homage as God and this is expressed in what follows that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow of those that are in heaven on earth and under the earth fourthly as to his judiciary power for it is written in Job 36.17 thy cause hath been judged as that of the wicked cause and judgment thou shalt recover reply to objection one the source of meriting comes of the soul while the body is the instrument of the meritorious work and consequently the perfection of Christ's soul which was the source of meriting ought not to be acquired in him by merit like the perfection of the body which is the subject of suffering and was thereby the instrument of his merit reply to objection two Christ by his previous merits did merit exaltation on behalf of his soul whose will was animated with charity and the other virtues but in the passion he merited his exaltation by way of recompense even on behalf of his body it is only just that the body from which charity was subjected to the passion should receive recompense in glory reply to objection three it was owing to a special dispensation in Christ that before the passion the glory of his soul did not shine out in his body in order that he might procure his bodily glory with greater honor when he had merited it by his passion but it was not be seeming for the glory of his soul to be postponed since the soul was united immediately with the word hence it was be seeming that his glory should be filled by the word himself but the body was united with the word through the soul End of question 49 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC Question 50 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, Triatis on the Saviour by St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican province Question 50 We have now to consider the death of Christ concerning which there are six subjects of inquiry First, whether it was fitting that Christ should die Second, whether his death severed the union of Godhead and flesh Third, whether his Godhead was separated from his soul Fourth, whether Christ was a man during the three days of his death Fifth, whether his was the same body living and dead Sixth, whether his death conduced in any way to our salvation First article, whether it was fitting that Christ should die Objection one, it would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should die For a first principle in any order is not affected by anything contrary to such order Thus fire, which is the principle of heat, can never become cold But the Son of God is the fountainhead and principle of all life According to Psalm 35 verse 10, with thee is the fountain of life Therefore it does not seem fitting for Christ to die Objection two further, death is a greater defect than sickness Because it is through sickness that one comes to die But it was not be seeming for Christ to languish from sickness As Chrysostom says, consequently neither was it becoming for Christ to die Objection three further, our Lord said in John 10.10 I am come that they may have life and may have it more abundantly But one opposite does not lead to another Therefore it seems that neither was it fitting for Christ to die On the contrary, it is written in John 11.50 It is expedient that one man should die for the people, that the whole nation perish not Which words were spoken prophetically by Caiaphas as the evangelist testifies I answer that it was fitting for Christ to die First of all, to satisfy for the whole human race Which was sentenced to die on account of sin according to Genesis 2.17 In what day soever ye shall eat of it, ye shall die the death Now it is a fitting way of satisfying for another to submit oneself to the penalty deserved by that other And so Christ resolved to die that by dying he might atone for us according to 1 Peter 3.18 Christ also died once for our sins Secondly, in order to show the reality of the flesh assumed For as Eusebius says, if after dwelling among men Christ were suddenly to disappear from men's sight as though shunning death Then by all men he would be likened to a phantom Thirdly, that by dying he might deliver us from fearing death Hence it is written in Hebrews 2 verses 14 and 15 that he communicated to flesh and blood That through death he might destroy him who had the empire of death and might deliver them who Through the fear of death were all their lifetimes subject to servitude Fourthly, that by dying in the body to the likeness of sin, that is to its penalty He might set us the example of dying to sin spiritually Hence it is written in Romans 6.10 For in that he died to sin, he died once But in that he liveth, he liveth unto God So do you also reckon that you are dead to sin but alive to God? Fifthly, that by rising from the dead and manifesting his power whereby he overthrew death He might instill into us the hope of rising from the dead Hence the apostle says in 1 Corinthians 15-12 If Christ be preached that he rose again from the dead How do some among you say that there is no resurrection from the dead? Reply to Objection 1 Christ is the fountain of life as God and not as man But he died as man and not as God Hence Augustine says against Felician Far be it from us to suppose that Christ so felt death that he lost his life in as much as he is life in himself For were it so, the fountain of life would have run dry Accordingly, he experienced death by sharing in our human feeling Which he of his own accord he had taken upon himself But he did not lose the power of his nature through which he gives life to all things Reply to Objection 2 Christ did not suffer death which comes of sickness lest he should seem to die of necessity from exhausted nature But he endured death inflicted from without to which he willingly surrendered himself that his death might be shown to be a voluntary one Reply to Objection 3 One opposite does not of itself lead to the other Yet it does so indirectly at times Thus cold sometimes is the indirect cause of heat And in this way Christ by his death brought us back to life when by his death he destroyed our death Just as he who bears another's punishment takes such punishment away Second Article Whether the Godhead was separated from the flesh when Christ died Objection 1 It would seem that the Godhead was separated from the flesh when Christ died For as Matthew relates in chapter 27 verse 46 When our Lord was hanging on the cross he cried out My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Which words Ambrose commenting on Luke 2346 explains as follows The man cried out when about to expire by being severed from the Godhead For since the Godhead is immune from death Assuredly death could not be there except life departed For the Godhead is life And so it seems that when Christ died the Godhead was separated from his flesh Objection 2 further Extremes are severed when the mean is removed But the soul was the mean through which the Godhead was united with the flesh As stated above in Question 6 Article 1 Therefore since the soul was severed from the flesh by death It seems that in consequence his Godhead was also separated from it Objection 3 further God's life-giving power is greater than that of the soul But the body could not die unless the soul quitted it Therefore much less could it die unless the Godhead departed On the contrary, as stated above in Question 16, Articles 4 and 5 The attributes of human nature are predicated of the Son of God only by reason of the union But what belongs to the body of Christ after death is predicated of the Son of God Namely being buried as is evident from the creed in which it is said that the Son of God Was conceived and born of a virgin, suffered, died and was buried Therefore Christ's Godhead was not separated from the flesh when he died I answer that what is bestowed through God's grace is never withdrawn except through fault Hence it is written in Romans 11-29 The gifts and the calling of God are without repentance But the grace of union whereby the Godhead was united to the flesh in Christ's person Is greater than the grace of adoption whereby others are sanctified It is also more enduring of itself because this grace is ordained for personal union Whereas the grace of adoption is referred to a certain affective union And yet we see that the grace of adoption is never lost without fault Since then there was no sin in Christ It was impossible for the union of the Godhead with the flesh to be dissolved Consequently, as before death Christ's flesh was united personally And hypothetically with the Word of God It remains so after his death so that the hypostasis of the Word of God Was not different from that of Christ's flesh after death as Danesine says In On the True Faith 3 Reply to Objection 1 Such forsaking is not to be referred to the dissolving of the personal union But to this, that God the Father gave him up to the passion Hence there, to forsake, means simply not to protect him from persecutors Or else he says that he is forsaken with reference to the prayer he had made Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass away from me As Augustine explains it in his letter 140 Reply to Objection 2 The Word of God is said to be united with the flesh through the medium of the soul Inasmuch as it is through the soul that the flesh belongs to human nature Which the Son of God intended to assume But not as though the soul were the medium linking them together But it is due to the soul that this flesh is human Even after the soul has been separated from it Namely, inasmuch as by God's ordinance There remains in the dead flesh a certain relation to the resurrection And therefore the union of the Godhead with the flesh is not taken away Reply to Objection 3 The soul formally possesses the life-giving energy And therefore while it is present and united formally The body must necessarily be a living one Whereas the Godhead has not the life-giving energy formally but effectively Because it cannot be the form of the body And therefore it is not necessary for the flesh to be living While the union of the Godhead with the flesh remains Since God does not act of necessity but of his own will Third Article Whether in Christ's death there was a severance between his Godhead and his soul Objection 1 It would seem that there was a severance in death between Christ's Godhead and his soul Because our Lord says in John 10.18 No man taketh my soul away from me But I lay it down of myself And I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it up again But it does not appear that the body can set the soul aside By separating the soul from itself Because the soul is not subject to the power of the body but rather conversely And so it appears that it belongs to Christ as the word of God to lay down his soul But this is to separate it from himself Consequently by death his soul was severed from the Godhead Objection 2 further Athanasia says that he is a cursed who does not confess that the entire man Whom the son of God took to himself after being assumed once more or delivered by him Rose again from the dead on the third day But the entire man could not be assumed again unless the entire man was at one time Separated from the word of God And the entire man is made of soul and body Therefore there was a separation made at one time of the Godhead from both the body and the soul Objection 3 further The son of God is truly styled a man because of the union with the entire man If then when the union of the soul with the body was dissolved by death The word of God continued united with the soul It would follow that the son of God could truly be called a soul But this is false because since the soul is the form of the body It would result in the word of God being the form of the body which is impossible Therefore in death the soul of Christ was separated from the word of God Objection 4 further The separated soul and body are not one hypothesis but two Therefore if the word of God remained united with Christ's soul and body Then when they were severed by Christ's death It would seem to follow that the word of God was two hypotheses during such time as Christ was dead Which cannot be admitted Therefore after Christ's death his soul did not continue to be united with the word On the contrary, Damascene says in On the True Faith 3 Although Christ died as man and his holy soul was separated from his spotless body Nevertheless his Godhead remained unseparated from both From the soul I mean and from the body I answer that the soul is united with the word of God more immediately and more primarily than the body is Because it is through the soul that the body is united with the word of God as stated above in Question 6 Article 1 Since then the word of God was not separated from the body at Christ's death Much less was he separated from the soul Accordingly, since what regards the body severed from the soul is affirmed of the Son of God namely that it was buried So it is said of him in the creed that he descended into hell Because his soul when separated from the body did go down to hell Reply to Objection 1 Augustine in commenting on the text of John asks Since Christ is word and soul and body Whether he put down his soul for that he is the word Or for that he is a soul Or again For that he is flesh and he says that Should we say that the word of God laid down his soul It would follow that there was a time when that soul was severed from the word which is untrue For death severed the body and soul but that the soul was severed from the word I do not affirm But should we say that the soul laid itself down it follows that it is severed from itself which is most absurd It remains therefore that the flesh itself layeth down its soul and taketh it again Not by its own power but by the power of the word dwelling in the flesh Because as stated above in Article 2 the Godhead of the word was not severed from the flesh in death Reply to Objection 2 In those words Athanasius never meant to say that the whole man was re-assumed That is as to all its parts as if the word of God had laid aside the parts of human nature by his death But that the totality of the assumed nature was restored once more in the resurrection by the resumed union of soul and body Reply to Objection 2 Through being united to human nature the word of God is not on that account called human nature But he is called a man that is one having human nature Now the soul and the body are essential parts of human nature Hence it does not follow that the word is a soul or a body through being united with both But that he is one possessing a soul or body Reply to Objection 4 As Damasin says in On the True Faith 3 In Christ's death the soul was separated from the flesh Not one hypostasis divided into two because both soul and body in the same respect had their existence from the beginning in the hypostasis of the word And in death though severed from one another each one continued to have the one same hypostasis of the word Wherefore the one hypostasis of the word was the one hypostasis of the word of the soul and of the body For neither soul nor body ever had a hypostasis of its own besides the hypostasis of the word For there was always one hypostasis of the word and never two Fourth Article Whether Christ was a man during the three days of his death Objection 1 It would seem that Christ was a man during the three days of his death Because Augustine says in On the Trinity 3 Such was the assuming of nature as to make God to be man and man to be God But this assuming of nature did not cease at Christ's death Therefore it seems that he did not cease to be a man in consequence of death Objection 2 further The philosopher says in Ethics 9 that each man is his intellect Consequently when we address the soul of Peter after his death we say Saint Peter pray for us But the son of God after death was not separated from his intellectual soul Therefore during those three days the son of God was a man Objection 3 further Every priest is a man But during those three days of death Christ was a priest Otherwise what is said in Psalm 109 verse 4 would not be true Thou art a priest forever Therefore Christ was a man during those three days On the contrary when the higher species is removed so is the lower But the living or animated being is a higher species than animal and man Because an animal is a sensible animated substance Now during those three days of death Christ's body was not living or animated Therefore he was not a man I answer that it is an article of faith that Christ was truly dead Hence it is an error against faith to assert anything whereby the truth of Christ's death is destroyed Accordingly it is said in the Synodal Epistle of Cyril If any man does not acknowledge that the word of God suffered in the flesh And was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh Let him be anathema Now it belongs to the truth of the death of man or animal That by death the subject ceases to be man or animal Because the death of the man or animal results from the separation of the soul Which is the formal complement of the man or animal Consequently to say that Christ was a man during the three days of his death Simply and without qualification is erroneous Yet it can be said that he was a dead man during those three days However some writers have contended that Christ was a man during those three days Uttering words which are indeed erroneous yet without intent of error in faith As Hugh of St. Victor who on the sacraments too contended that Christ During the three days that followed his death was a man Because he held that the soul is a man But this is false as was shown in the first part In the Pars Prima, Question 75, Article 4 Likewise the master of the sentences, Part 3, Division D, Number 22 Held Christ to be a man during the three days of his death for quite another reason For he believed the union of soul and flesh not to be essential to a man And that for anything to be a man it suffices if it have a soul and body Whether united or separated And that this is likewise false is clear both from what has been said in the first part In the Pars Prima, Question 75, Article 4 And from what has been said above regarding the mode of union In Question 2, Article 5 Reply to Objection 1 The word of God assumed a united soul and body And the result of this assumption was that God is man and man is God But this assumption did not cease by the separation of the word from the soul or from the flesh Yet the union of soul and flesh ceased Reply to Objection 2 Man is said to be his own intellect, not because the intellect is the entire man But because the intellect is the chief part of man in which man's whole disposition lies virtually Just as the ruler of the city may be called the whole city Since its entire disposal is vested in him Reply to Objection 3 That a man is competent to be a priest is by reason of the soul Which is the subject of the character of order Hence a man does not lose his priestly order by death And much less does Christ, who is the fount of the entire priesthood Fifth Article Whether Christ's was identically the same body, living and dead Objection 1 It would seem that Christ's was not identically the same body, living and dead For Christ truly died just as other men do But the body of everyone else is not simply identically the same dead and living Because there is an essential difference between them Therefore neither is the body of Christ identically the same dead and living Objection 2 further According to the philosopher in Metaphysics 512 Things specifically diverse are also numerically diverse But Christ's body, living and dead, was specifically diverse Because the eye or flesh of the dead is only called so equivocally As is evident from the philosopher in On the Soul 2.9 and in Metaphysics 7 Therefore Christ's body was not simply identically the same living and dead Objection 3 further Death is a kind of corruption But what is corrupted by substantial corruption after being corrupted exists no longer Since corruption is changed from being to non-being Therefore Christ's body after it was dead did not remain identically the same Because death is a substantial corruption On the contrary, Athanasius says In that body which was circumcised and carried Which ate and toiled and was nailed on the tree There was the impassable and incorporeal word of God The same was laid in the tomb But Christ's living body was circumcised and nailed on the tree And Christ's dead body was laid in the tomb Therefore it was the same body living and dead I answer that the expression simply can be taken in two senses In the first instance by taking simply to be the same as absolutely Thus that is said simply which is said without addition As the philosopher puts it in Topics 2 And in this way the dead and living body of Christ was simply identically the same Since a thing is said to be simply identically the same from the identity of the subject But Christ's body living and dead was identical in its suppositum Because alive and dead it had none other besides the word of God As was stated above in Article 2 And it is in this sense that Athanasius is speaking in the passage quoted In another way simply is the same as altogether or totally In which sense the body of Christ dead and alive was not simply the same identically Because it was not totally the same Since life is of the essence of a living body for it is an essential and not an accidental predicate Hence it follows that a body which ceases to be living does not remain totally the same Moreover if it were to be said that Christ's dead body did continue totally the same It would follow that it was not corrupted I mean by the corruption of death Which is the heresy of the Gaeonites as Isidor says in his Etymologies 8 And is to be found in the Decretals 24 3 And Damasin says in On the True Faith 3 that The term corruption denotes two things In one the complete dissolving into elements Consequently it is impious to say with Julian and Gaeon That the Lord's body was incorruptible after the first manner of corruption before the resurrection Because Christ's body would not be consubstantial with us nor truly dead Nor would we have been saved in very truth But in the second way Christ's body was incorrupt Reply to Objection 1 The dead body of everyone else does not continue united to an abiding hypothesis as Christ's dead body did Consequently the dead body of everyone else is not the same simply but only in some respect Because it is the same as to its matter but not the same as to its form But Christ's body remains the same simply on account of the identity of the suppositum as stated above Reply to Objection 2 Since a thing is said to be the same identically according to suppositum But the same specifically according to form Wherever the suppositum subsists in only one nature It follows of necessity that when the unity of species is taken away The unity of identity is also taken away But the hypothesis of the word of God subsists in two natures And consequently although in others the body does not remain the same according to the species of human nature Still it continues identically the same in Christ according to the suppositum of the word of God Reply to Objection 3 Corruption and death do not belong to Christ by reason of the suppositum From which suppositum follows the unity of identity But by reason of the human nature according to which is found the difference of death and of life in Christ's body 6th Article Whether Christ's death conduced in any way to our salvation Objection 1 It would seem that Christ's death did not conduce in any way to our salvation For death is a sort of privation since it is the privation of life But privation has not any power of activity because it is nothing positive Therefore it could not work anything for our salvation Objection 2 further Christ's passion wrought our salvation by way of merit But Christ's death could not operate in this way Because in death the body is separated from the soul which is the principle of meriting Consequently Christ's death did not accomplish anything towards our salvation Objection 3 further What is corporeal is not the cause of what is spiritual But Christ's death was corporeal Therefore it could not be the cause of our salvation which is something spiritual On the contrary, Augustine says in On the Trinity 4 The one death of our Savior, namely that of the body Saved us from our two deaths, that is of the soul and the body I answer that we may speak of Christ's death in two ways In becoming and in fact Death is said to be in becoming when anyone from natural or enforced suffering is tending towards death And in this way it is the same thing to speak of Christ's death as of his passion So that in this sense Christ's death is the cause of our salvation According to what has already been said of the passion in question 48 But death is considered in fact in as much as the separation of soul and body has already taken place And it is in this sense that we are now speaking of Christ's death In this way Christ's death cannot be the cause of our salvation by way of merit But only by way of causality, that is to say, in as much as the Godhead was not separated from Christ's flesh by death And therefore whatever befell Christ's flesh, even when the soul was departed Was conducive to salvation in virtue of the Godhead united But the effect of any cause is properly estimated according to its resemblance to the cause Consequently, since death is a kind of privation of one's own life The effect of Christ's death is considered in relation to the removal of the obstacles to our salvation And these are the death of the soul and of the body Hence Christ's death is said to have destroyed in us both the death of the soul caused by sin According to Romans 4.25 He was delivered up for our sins And the death of the body, consisting in the separation of the soul according to 1 Corinthians 15.54 Death is swallowed up in victory Reply to Objection 1 Christ's death wrought our salvation from the power of the Godhead united and not considered merely as his death Reply to Objection 2 Through Christ's death considered, in fact, did not affect our salvation by way of merit Yet it did so by way of causality, as stated above Reply to Objection 3 Christ's death was indeed corporeal But the body was the instrument of the Godhead united to him, working by its power, although dead End of Question 50 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC Question 51 Of Summa Theologica Terziapars Treaties on the Saviour This is a Librivox recording All Librivox recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer, please visit Librivox.org Summa Theologica Terziapars Treaties on the Saviour By St. Thomas Aquinas Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province Question 51 Of Christ's Burial In four articles We have now to consider Christ's Burial Concerning which there are four points of inquiry First, whether it was fitting for Christ to be buried Second, concerning the manner of his burial Third, whether his body was decomposed in the tomb Fourth, concerning the length of time he lay in the tomb First article, whether it was fitting for Christ to be buried Objection 1 It would seem unfitting for Christ to have been buried Because it is said of him in Psalm 87 verse 6 He has become as a man without help Free among the dead But the bodies of the dead are enclosed in a tomb Which seems contrary to liberty Therefore it does not seem fitting for Christ to have been buried Objection 2 further Nothing should be done to Christ except it was helpful to our salvation But Christ's Burial seems in no way to be conducive to our salvation Therefore it was not fitting for him to be buried Objection 3 further It seems out of place for God who is above the high heavens To be laid in the earth But what befalls the dead body of Christ is attributed to God by reason of the union Therefore it appears to be unbecoming for Christ to be buried On the contrary, our Lord said in Matthew 26 verse 10 Of the woman who anointed him She has wrought a good work upon me And then he added in Matthew 26 verse 12 For she, in pouring this ointment upon my body, hath done it for my burial I answer that it was fitting for Christ to be buried First of all, to establish the truth of his death For no one is laid in the grave unless there be certainty of death Hence we read in Mark 15 verses 44 and 45 Pilate by diligent inquiry assured himself of Christ's death before granting leave for his burial Secondly, because by Christ's rising from the grave to them who are in the grave Hope is given of rising again through him according to John 5 verses 25 through 28 All that there are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God And they that hear shall live Thirdly, as an example to them who dying spiritually to their sins are hidden away from the disturbance of men Psalm 30 verse 21 Hence it is said in Colossians 3 3 You are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God Wherefore the baptized likewise who through Christ's death die to sins Are as it were buried with Christ by immersion according to Romans 6-4 We are buried together with Christ by baptism into death Reply to Objection 1 Though buried, Christ proved himself free among the dead Since, although imprisoned in the tomb, he could not be hindered from going forth by rising again Reply to Objection 2 As Christ's death wrought our salvation, so likewise did his burial Hence Jerome says in his commentary on the Gospel of Mark chapter 14 By Christ's burial we rise again And on Isaiah 53-9 He shall give the ungodly for his burial A gloss says He shall give to God the Father the Gentiles who were without godliness Because he purchased them by his death and burial Reply to Objection 3 As is said in a discourse made at the Council of Ephesus Nothing that saves man is derogatory to God Showing him to be not passable but merciful And in another discourse of the same Council God does not repute anything as an injury which is an occasion of men's salvation Thus thou shalt not deem God's nature to be so vile as though it may sometimes be subject to injuries Second article Whether Christ was buried in a becoming manner Objection 1 It would seem that Christ was buried in an unbecoming manner For his burial should be in keeping with his death But Christ underwent a most shameful death according to Wisdom 220 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death It seems therefore unbecoming for honorable burial to be accorded to Christ In as much as he was buried by men of position Namely by Joseph of Arimathea who was a noble counselor to use Mark's expression in Mark 1543 And by Nicodemus who was a ruler of the Jews as John states in Chapter 3 verse 1 Objection 2 further Nothing should be done to Christ which might set an example of wastefulness But it seems to savor of waste that in order to bury Christ Nicodemus came Bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes about 100 pounds of weight As is recorded by John in Chapter 19 verse 39 Especially since a woman came beforehand to anoint his body for the burial As Mark relates in Chapter 14 verse 28 Consequently this was not done becomingly with regard to Christ Objection 3 further It is not becoming for anything done to be inconsistent with itself But Christ's burial on the one hand was simple Because Joseph wrapped his body in a clean linen cloth As is related by Matthew 27 verse 59 But not with gold or gems or silk As Jerome observes Yet on the other hand there appears to have been some display In as much as they buried him with fragrant spices according to John 1940 Consequently the manner of Christ's burial does not seem to have been seemly Objection 4 further What things so ever were written, especially of Christ Were written for our learning according to Romans chapter 15 verse 4 But some of the things written in the Gospels touching Christ's burial In no wise seem to pertain to our instruction as that he was buried In a garden, in a tomb which was not his own Which was new and hewed out in a rock Therefore the manner of Christ's burial was not becoming On the contrary it is written in Isaiah chapter 11 verse 10 And his sepulcher shall be glorious I answer that the manner of Christ's burial is shown to be seemly in three respects First to confirm faith in his death and resurrection Secondly to commend the devotion of those who gave him burial Hence Augustine says on the city of God 1 The Gospel mentions as praiseworthy the deed of those who received his body from the cross And with due care and reverence wrapped it up and buried it Thirdly as to the mystery whereby those are molded who are buried together with Christ into death According to Romans 6.4 Reply to Objection 1 With regard to Christ's death his patience and constancy in enduring death are commended And all the more that his death was the more despicable But in his honourable burial we can see the power of the dying man who even in death Frustrated the intent of his murderers and was buried with honour And thereby is foreshadowed the devotion of the faithful who in the time to come were to serve the dead Christ Reply to Objection 2 On that expression of the evangelist in John 1940 that they buried him As the manner of the Jews is to bury Augustine says in his commentary He admonishes us that in offices of this kind which are rendered to the dead The custom of each nation should be observed Now it was the custom of this people to anoint bodies with various spices In order the longer to preserve them from corruption Accordingly it is said in on Christian teaching 3 that In all such things it is not the use thereof but the luxury of the user that is at fault And further on what in other persons is frequently criminal In a divine or prophetic person is a sign of something great For myrrh and allos by their bitterness denote penance By which man keeps Christ within himself without the corruption of sin While the odor of the anointments expresses good report Reply to Objection 3 Myrrh and allos were used on Christ's body in order that it might be preserved from corruption And this seemed to imply a certain need in the body Hence the example is said us that we may lawfully use precious things medicinally From the need of preserving our body But the wrapping up of the body was merely a question of becoming propriety And we ought to content ourselves with simplicity in such things Yet as Jerome observes by this act was denoted that He swaths Jesus in clean linen who receives him with a pure soul Hence as Bede says on Mark 1546 The church's custom has prevailed for the sacrifice of the altar to be offered Not upon silk nor upon dyed cloth but on linen of the earth As the Lord's body was buried in a clean winding sheet Reply to Objection 4 Christ was buried in a garden to express that by his death in burial We are delivered from the death which we incur through Adam's sin Committed in the garden of paradise But for this was our Lord buried in the grave of a stranger As Augustine says in a sermon, number 248 Because he died for the salvation of others and a sepulchre is the abode of death Also the extent of the poverty endured for us can be thereby estimated Since he who while living had no home after death was laid to rest in another's tomb And being naked was clothed by Joseph But he is laid in a new sepulchre as Jerome observes on Matthew 2760 Lest after the resurrection it might be pretended that someone else had risen While the other corpses remained The sepulchre can also denote Mary's virginal womb And furthermore it may be understood that all of us are renewed by Christ's burial Death and corruption being destroyed Moreover he was buried in a monument hewn out of Iraq as Jerome says on Matthew 27 verse 64 Lest if it had been constructed of many stones We must say that he was stolen away by digging away the foundations of the tomb Hence the great stone which was set shows that the tomb could not be opened Except by the help of many hands Again if he had been buried in the earth they might have said They dug up the soil and stole him away As Augustine observes Hillary in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew chapter 33 Gives the mystical interpretation saying that By the teaching of the apostles Christ is born into the stony heart of the Gentile For it is hewn out by the process of teaching Unpolished and new, untenanted and open to the entrance of the fear of God And since not besides him must enter into our hearts A great stone is rolled against the floor Furthermore as Origen says in his commentary on Matthew 35 He was not written by hazard Joseph wrapped Christ's body in a clean winding sheet and placed it in a new monument And that he rolled a great stone As all things around the body of Jesus are clean and new and exceedingly great Third article Whether Christ's body was reduced to dust in the tomb Objection one It would seem that Christ's body was reduced to dust in the tomb For just as man dies in punishment for his first parent's sin So also does he return to dust Since it was said to the first man after his sin Dust thou art and into dust thou shalt return Genesis 319 But Christ endured death in order to deliver us from death Therefore his body ought to be made to return to dust So as to free us from the same penalty Objection two further Christ's body was of the same nature as ours But directly after death our bodies begin to dissolve into dust And are disposed towards putrefaction Because when the natural heat departs Their supervene's heat form without which causes corruption Therefore it seems that the same thing happened to Christ's body Objection three further as stated above in article one Christ willed to be buried in order to furnish man with the hope of rising Likewise from the grave Consequently he sought likewise to return to dust So as to give them who have returned to dust The hope of rising from the dust On the contrary it is written in Psalm 15 verse 10 Nor wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption And Damocene in On the True Faith 3 Expounds this of the corruption which comes of dissolving into elements I answer that it was not fitting for Christ's body to putrefy Or in any way be reduced to dust Since the putrefaction of any body Comes of that body's infirmity of nature Which can no longer hold the body together But as was said above in question 50 article one second reply Christ's death ought not to come from weakness of nature Lest it might not be believed to be voluntary And therefore he willed to die Not from sickness but from suffering inflicted on him To which he gave himself up willingly And therefore lest his death might be ascribed to infirmity of nature Christ did not wish his body to putrefy in any way Or dissolve no matter how But for the manifestation of his divine power He willed that his body should continue in corrupt Hence Chrysostom says that With other men especially with such as have wrought strenuously Their deeds shine forth in their lifetime But as soon as they die their deeds go with them But it is quite the contrary with Christ Because previous to the cross all is sadness and weakness But as soon as he is crucified everything comes to light In order that you may learn it was not an ordinary man that was crucified Reply to objection one Since Christ was not subject to sin Neither was he prone to die or to return to dust Yet of his own will he endured death for our salvation For the reasons alleged above in question 51 article one But had his body putrefied or dissolved This fact would have been detrimental to man's salvation For it would not have seemed credible That the divine power was in him Hence it is on his behalf that it is written in Psalm 19 verse 10 What prophet is there in my blood Willst I go down to corruption As if you were to say If my body corrupt the prophet of the blood shed will be lost Reply to objection two Christ's body was a subject of corruption According to the condition of its passable nature But not as to the deserving cause of putrefaction Which is sin But the divine power preserved Christ's body from putrefying Just as it raised it up from death Reply to objection three Christ rose from the tomb by divine power Which is not narrowed within bounds Consequently his rising from the grave Was a sufficient argument to prove that men are to be raised up By divine power not only from their graves But also from any dust whatever Fourth article Whether Christ was in the tomb only one day and two nights Objection one It would seem that Christ was not in the tomb during Only one day and two nights Because he said in Matthew 12 verse 40 As Jonas was in the Whales belly three days and three nights So shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth Three days and three nights But he was in the heart of the earth while he was in the grave Therefore he was not in the tomb for only one day and two nights Objection two Gregory says in a pascal homily number 21 As Samson carried off the gates of Gaza during the night Even so Christ rose in the night taking away the gates of hell But after rising he was not in the tomb Therefore he was not two whole nights in the grave Objection three further Light prevailed over darkness by Christ's death But night belongs to darkness and day to light Therefore it was more fitting for Christ's body to be in the tomb For two days and a night rather than conversely On the contrary Augustine says in On the Trinity four There were 36 hours from the evening of his burial to the dawn of the resurrection It is a whole night with a whole day and a whole night I answer that The very time during which Christ remained in the tomb Shows forth the effect of his death For it was said above in Question 50 Article 6 That by Christ's death we were delivered from a two-fold death Namely from the death of the soul and of the body And this is signified by the two nights during which he remained in the tomb But since his death did not come of sin but was endured from charity It has not the semblance of night but of day Consequently it is denoted by the whole day during which Christ was in the sepulchre And so it was fitting for Christ to be in the sepulchre during one day and two nights Reply to Objection 1 Augustine says in On the Consensus of the Evangelists 3 Some men ignorant of scriptural language wished to compute as night those three hours From the sixth to the ninth hour during which the sun was darkened And as day those other three hours during which it was restored to the earth That is from the ninth hour until its setting For the coming night of the Sabbath follows And if this be reckoned with its day there will already be two nights and two days Now after the Sabbath there follows the night of the first day of the Sabbath That is of the dawning Sunday on which the Lord rose Even so the reckoning of the three days and three nights will not stand It remains then to find the solution in the customary usage of the speech of the scriptures Whereby the whole is understood from the part So that we are able to take a day and a night as one natural day And so the first day is computed from its ending During which Christ died and was buried on the Friday While the second day is an entire day with 24 hours of night and day While the night following belongs to the third day For as the primitive days were computed from light to night on account of man's future fall So these days are computed from the darkness to the daylight on account of man's resurrection As Augustine says in On the Trinity 4 Reply to Objection 2 As Augustine says in On the Trinity 4 Christ rose with the dawn when light appears in part And still some part of the darkness of the night remains Hence it is said of the women that When it was dark they came to the sepulchre John 20 verse 1 Therefore in consequence of this darkness Gregory says in his homily 21 That Christ rose in the middle of the night Not that night is divided into two equal parts But during the night itself For the expression early Can be taken as partly night and partly day From its fittingness with both Reply to Objection 3 The light prevailed so far in Christ's death Which is denoted by the one day That it dispelled the darkness of the two nights That is of our twofold death as stated above End of question 51 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC