 Question 45 of Summa Theologica Terziapars, Trietis on the Saviour. This is the LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Terziapars, Trietis on the Saviour by St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 45 of Christ's Transfiguration in four articles. We now consider Christ's Transfiguration, and here there are four points of inquiry. First, whether it was fitting that Christ should be transfigured. Second, whether the clarity of the Transfiguration was the clarity of glory. Third, of the witnesses of the Transfiguration. Fourth, of the testimony of the Father's voice. First article, whether it was fitting that Christ should be transfigured. Objection one, it would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should be transfigured, for it is not fitting for a true body to be changed into various shapes, figuras, but only for an imaginary body. Now Christ's body was not imaginary but real, as stated above in Question 5 Article 1. Therefore it seems that it should not have been transfigured. Objection two further. Figure is in the fourth species of quality, whereas clarity is in the third, since it is a sensible quality. Therefore Christ's assuming clarity should not be called a Transfiguration. Objection three. Further, a glorified body has four gifts as we shall state further on in the Supplementum Question 82. Notably, impassibility, agility, subtlety and clarity. Therefore his Transfiguration should not have consisted in an assumption of clarity rather than of the other gifts. On the contrary, it is written in Matthew 17.2 that Jesus was transfigured in the presence of three of his disciples. By answer that, our Lord, after foretelling his passion to his disciples, had exhorted them to follow the path of his sufferings, as referred to, in Matthew 16 verses 21 and 24. Now in order that anyone goes straight along a road, he must have some knowledge of the end. Thus an archer will not shoot the arrow straight unless he first see the target. Hence Thomas said in John 14.5, Lord, we know not whither thou goest, and how can we know the way? Above all is this necessary, when hard and rough is the road, heavy the going, but delightful the end. Now by his passion Christ achieved glory, not only of his soul which he had from the first moment of his conception, but also of his body according to Luke 24.26. Christ ought to have suffered these things and so to enter into his glory, to which glory he brings those who follow the footsteps of his passion according to Acts 14.21. Through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. Therefore it was fitting that he should show his disciples the glory of his clarity, which is to be transfigured, to which he will configure those who are his, according to Philippians 3.21. Who will reform the body of our lowness configured to the body of his glory. Hence Bede says on Mark 8.39. By his loving foresight he allowed them to taste for a short time the contemplation of eternal joy so that they might bear persecution bravely. Reply to Objection 1. As Jerome says on Matthew 17.2. Let no one suppose that Christ, through being said to be transfigured, laid aside his natural shape and countenance, or substituted an imaginary or aerial body for his real body. The evangelist describes the manner of his transfiguration when he says, His face did shine as the sun, and his garments became white as snow. Brightness of face and whiteness of garments argued not a change of substance, but a putting on of glory. Reply to Objection 2. Figure is seen in the outline of a body, for it is that which is enclosed by one or more boundaries, according to Euclid, Book 1, Definition 14. Therefore, whatever has to do with the outline of a body seems to pertain to the figure. Now the clarity, just as the color of a non-transparent body, is seen on its surface, and consequently the assumption of clarity is called transfiguration. Reply to Objection 3. Of those four gifts, clarity alone is a quality of the very person in himself, whereas the other three are not perceptible, save in some action or movement or in some passion. Christ then did show in himself certain indications of those three gifts, of agility for instance, when he walked on the waves of the sea, of subtlety when he came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin, of impassibility when he escaped unhurt from the hands of the Jews who wished to hurl him down or to stone him. And yet he is not said on account of this to be transfigured, but only on account of clarity which pertains to the aspect of his person. Second article. Whether this clarity was the clarity of glory? Objection 1. That this clarity was not the clarity of glory. For a gloss of bead on Matthew 17.2, he was transfigured before them, says, In his mortal body he shows forth not the state of immortality, but clarity like that to future immortality. But the clarity of glory is the clarity of immortality. Therefore the clarity which Christ showed to his disciples was not the clarity of glory. Objection 2 further, on Luke 9.27, That shall not taste death unless they see the kingdom of God. Beads Gloss says, That is, the glorification of the body in an imaginary vision of future beatitude. But the image of a thing is not the thing itself. Therefore this was not the clarity of beatitude. Objection 3 further, the clarity of glory is only in a human body. But this clarity of the transfiguration was seen not only in Christ's body, but also in his garments and in the bright cloud which overshadowed the disciples. Therefore it seems that this was not the clarity of glory. On the contrary, Jerome says on the words, He was transfigured before them, Matthew 17.2, He appeared to the apostles such as he will appear on the day of judgment. And on Matthew 16.28, Till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom, Chrysostom says, Wishing to show with what kind of glory he is afterwards to come, so far as it was possible for them to learn it, he showed it to them in their present life that they may not grieve even over the death of their Lord. I answer that the clarity which Christ assumed in his transfiguration was the clarity of glory as to its essence, but not as to its mode of being. For the clarity of the glorified body is derived from that of the soul, as Augustine says in his letter 118. And in like manner, the clarity of Christ's body in his transfiguration was derived from his Godhead, as Damascene says, and from the glory of his soul. That the glory of his soul did not overflow into his body from the first moment of Christ's conception as due to a certain divine dispensation. That, as stated above in question 14, article 1, second reply, he might fulfill the mysteries of our redemption in a passable body. This did not, however, deprive Christ of his power of outpouring the glory of his soul into his body. And this he did as to clarity in his transfiguration, but otherwise than in the glorified body. For the clarity of the soul overflows into a glorified body by way of a permanent quality affecting the body. Hence bodily refulgence is not miraculous in a glorified body. But in Christ's transfiguration, clarity overflowed from his Godhead and from his soul into his body, not as an imminent quality affecting his very body, but rather after the manner of a transient passion as when the air is lit up by the sun. Consequently, the refulgence which appeared in Christ's body then was miraculous, just as was the fact of his walking on the waves of the sea. Hence Dionysius says, Christ excelled man in doing that which is proper to man. This is shown in his supernatural conception of a virgin and in the unstable waters bearing the weight of material and earthly feet. Therefore, we must not say, as Hugh of St. Victor said, that Christ assumed the gift of clarity in the transfiguration of agility in walking on the sea and of subtlety in coming forth from the version's closed womb, because the gifts are imminent qualities of a glorified body. On the contrary, whatever pertained to the gifts that he had miraculously. The same is to be said as to the soul of the vision in which Paul saw God in a rapture as we have stated in the second part. In the Parse Secunda Secunde, question 175, article 3, second reply. Reply to Objection 1. The words quoted prove not that the clarity of Christ was not that of glory, but that it was not the clarity of a glorified body, since Christ's body was not as yet immortal. And just as it was by dispensation that in Christ the glory of the soul should not overflow into the body, so was it possible that by dispensation it might overflow as to the gift of clarity and not as to that of impassibility? Reply to Objection 2. This clarity is said to have been imaginary, not as though it were not really the clarity of glory, but because it was a kind of image representing that perfection of glory in virtue of which the body will be glorious. Reply to Objection 3. Just as the clarity which was in Christ's body was a representation of his body's future clarity, so the clarity which was in his garments signified the future clarity of the saints, which will be surpassed by that of Christ just as the brightness of the snow is surpassed by that of the sun. Hence Gregory says in his commentary on Job 32 that Christ's garments became resplendent because in the height of heavenly clarity all the saints will cling to him in the refurgence of righteousness. For his garments signify the righteous because he will unite them to himself, Reply to Isaiah 49 verse 18. Thou shalt be clothed with all these as with an ornament. The bright cloud signifies the glory of the Holy Ghost or the power of the Father, as Origen says in his commentary on Matthew, by which in the glory to come the saints will be covered. Or again it may be said fittingly that it signifies the clarity of the world redeemed, which clarity will cover the saints as a tent. Hence when Peter proposed to make tents a bright cloud overshaded the disciples. Third article Whether the witnesses of the transfiguration were fittingly chosen. Objection one. It would seem that the witnesses of the transfiguration were unfittingly chosen. For everyone is a better witness of things that he knows. But at the time of Christ's transfiguration no one but the angels had as yet any knowledge from experience of the glory to come. Therefore the witnesses of the transfiguration should have been angels rather than men. Objection two. Further, truth, not fiction, is becoming in a witness of the truth. Now Moses and Elias were there not really but only in appearance. For a gloss on Luke 9.30 they were Moses and Elias, says it must be observed that Moses and Elias were there neither in body nor in soul but that those bodies were formed of some available matter. It is also credible that this was the result of the angelic ministries through the angels impersonating them. Therefore it seems that they were unsuitable witnesses. Objection three further. It is said in Acts 10.43 that all the prophets give testimony to Christ. Therefore not only Moses and Elias but also all the prophets should have been present as witnesses. Objection four further. Christ's glory is promised as a reward to all the faithful. According to 2 Corinthians 3.18 and Philippians 3.21 in whom he wished by his transfiguration to incandle a desire of that glory. Therefore he should have taken not only Peter, James and John but all his disciples to be witnesses of his transfiguration. On the contrary is the authority of the Gospel. I answer that Christ wished to be transfigured in order to show men his glory and to arouse men to a desire of it as stated above in Article 1. Now men are brought to the glory of eternal beatitude by Christ not only those who lived after him but also those who preceded him. Therefore when he was approaching his passion both the multitude that followed and that which went before cried saying Hosanna as related in Matthew 21 verse 9 beseeching him as it were to save them. Consequently it was fitting that witnesses should be present from among those who preceded him namely Moses and Elias and from those who followed after him namely Peter, James and John that in the mouth of two or three witnesses this word might stand. Reply to Objection 1 By his transfiguration Christ manifested to his disciples the glory of his body which belongs to men only. It was therefore fitting that he should choose men and not angels as witnesses. Reply to Objection 2 This gloss is said to be taken from a book entitled On the Marvels of Holy Scripture. It is not an authentic work but is wrongly ascribed to St. Augustine. Consequently we need not stand by it. For Jerome says on Matthew 17 verse 3 but that his soul appeared through some assumed body just as the angels do. But Elias appeared in his own body not that he was brought down from the Empyrean heaven but from some place on high whether he was taken up in the fiery chariot. Reply to Objection 3 As Chrysostom says on Matthew 17 verse 3 Because the multitude said he was Elias or Jeremiah or one of the prophets he brings the leaders of the prophets with him that hereby at least they might see the difference between the servants and their Lord. Another reason was that Moses gave the law while Elias was jealous for the glory of God. Therefore by appearing together with Christ they show how falsely the Jews accused him of transgressing the law and of blasphemously appropriating to himself the glory of God. A third reason was to show that he has power of death and life and that he is the judge of the dead and the living. By bringing with him Moses who had died and Elias who still lived. A fourth reason was because as Luke says in chapter 9 verse 31 they spoke with him of his decease that he should accomplish in Jerusalem that is of his passion and death. Therefore in order to strengthen the hearts of his disciples with a view to this he sets before them those who had exposed themselves to death for God's sake. Since Moses brave death in opposing Pharaoh and Elias in opposing Aqab a fifth reason was that he wished his disciples to imitate the meekness of Moses and the zeal of Elias. Hillary adds a sixth reason namely in order to signify that he had been foretold by the law which Moses gave them and by the prophets of whom Elias was the principal. Reply to Objection 4 Lofty mysteries should not be immediately explained to everyone but should be handed down through superiors to others in their proper turn. Consequently as Chrysostom says on Matthew 17 verse 3 he took these three as being superior to the rest. For Peter excelled in the love he bore to Christ and in the power bestowed on him. John in the privilege of Christ's love for him on account of his virginity and again on account of his being privileged to be an evangelist. James on account of the privilege of martyrdom. Nevertheless he did not wish them to tell others what they had seen before his resurrection. Lest as Jerome says on Matthew 17 verse 19 such a wonderful thing should seem incredible to them and lest after hearing of so great glory they should be scandalized at the cross that followed. Or again. Lest the cross should be entirely hindered by the people and in order that they might then be witnesses of spiritual things when they should be filled with the Holy Ghost. Fourth article. Whether the testimony of the Father's voice saying this is my beloved son was fittingly added. Objection 1 it would seem that the testimony of the Father's voice saying this is my beloved son was not fittingly added. For as it is written in Job 33 verse 14 God speaketh once and repeateth not the self-same thing the second time. But the Father's voice had testified to this at the time of Christ's baptism. Therefore it was not fitting that he should bear witness to it a second time. Objection 2 At the baptism the Holy Ghost appeared under the form of a dove at the same time as the Father's voice was heard. But this did not happen at the transfiguration. Therefore it seems that the testimony of the Father was made in an unfitting manner. Objection 3 Nevertheless the Father's voice did not then command men to hear him. Therefore neither should it have so commanded at the transfiguration. Objection 4 further things should not be said to those who cannot bear them according to John 16 verse 12. I have yet many things to say to you that you cannot bear them now. But the disciples could not bear the Father's voice for it is written in Matthew 17 verse 6 that the disciples hearing fell upon their face and were very much afraid. Therefore the Father's voice should not have been addressed to them. On the contrary is the authority of the Gospel. I answer that the adoption of the sons of God is through a certain conformity of the image to the natural son of God. Now this takes place in two ways. First by the grace of the wayfarer which is imperfect conformity. Secondly by glory which is perfect conformity according to 1st John 3 verse 2. We are now the sons of God and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that when he shall appear we shall be like to him because we shall see him as he is. Since therefore it is in baptism that we acquire grace while the clarity of the glory to come was foreshadowed in the transfiguration therefore both in his baptism and in his transfiguration the natural sonship of Christ was fittingly made known by the testimony of the Father because he alone with the Son and the Holy Ghost is perfectly conscious of that perfect generation. Reply to Objection 1 The words quoted are to be understood by God's eternal speaking by which God the Father uttered the only begotten and co-eternal word. Nevertheless it can be said that God uttered the same thing twice in a bodily voice yet not for the same purpose but in order to show the diverse modes in which men can be partakers of the likeness of the eternal sonship. Reply to Objection 2 Just as in the baptism where the mystery of the first regeneration was proclaimed the operation of the whole trinity was made manifest because the Son incarnate was there the Holy Ghost appeared under the form of a dove and the Father made himself known in the voice. So also in the transfiguration which is the mystery of the second regeneration the whole trinity appears the Father in the voice the Son in the man the Holy Ghost in the bright cloud. For just as in baptism he confers innocence signified by the simplicity of the dove so in the resurrection will he give his elect the clarity of glory and refreshment from all sorts of evil which are signified by the bright cloud. Reply to Objection 3 Christ came to give grace actually and to promise glory by his words. Therefore it was fitting at the time of his transfiguration and not at the time of his baptism that men should be commanded to hear him. Reply to Objection 4 It was fitting that the disciples should be afraid and fall down on hearing the voice of the Father to show that the glory which was then being revealed surpasses in excellence the sense and faculty of all mortal beings according to Exodus 33 verse 20 Man shall not see me and live. This is what Jerome says on Matthew 17 verse 6 Such is human frailty that it cannot bear to gaze on such great glory but men are healed of this frailty by Christ when he brings them into glory and this is signified by what he says to them Arise and fear not. End of question 45 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC Question 46 Part 1 of Summa Theologica Terziapars Triatis 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 Triatis on the Saviour by St. Thomas Aquinas Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican province Question 46 The Passion of Christ in 12 Articles Part 1 Articles 1-4 In proper sequence we have now to consider all that relates to Christ's leaving the world in the first place his passion secondly his death thirdly his burial and fourthly his descent into hell With regard to the passion there arises a threefold consideration 1. The passion itself 2. The efficient cause of the passion 3. The fruits of the passion Under the first heading there are 12 points of inquiry 1. Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for men's deliverance 2. Whether there was any other possible means of delivering men 3. Whether this was the more suitable means 4. Whether it was fitting for Christ to suffer on the cross 5. The extent of his sufferings 6. Whether the pain he endured was the greatest 7. Whether his entire soul suffered 8. Whether his passion hindered the joy of fruition 9. The time of the passion 10. The place 11. Whether it was fitting for him to be crucified with robbers 12. Whether Christ's passion is to be attributed to the Godhead First article Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race Objection one It would seem that it was not necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race For the human race could not be delivered except by God according to Isaiah 45 21 Am not I the Lord and there is no God else besides me? A just God and a Saviour there is none besides me But no necessity can compel God for this would be repugnant to his omnipotence Therefore it was not necessary for Christ to suffer Objection two further What is necessary is opposed to what is voluntary But Christ suffered of his own will for it is written in Isaiah 53 verse 7 He was offered because it was his own will Therefore it was not necessary for him to suffer Objection three further As is written in Psalm 24 verse 10 All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth But it does not seem necessary that he should suffer on the part of the divine mercy which as it bestows gifts freely so it appears to condone debts without satisfaction Nor again on the part of divine justice according to which man had deserved everlasting condemnation Therefore it does not seem necessary that Christ should have suffered for man's deliverance Objection four further The angelic nature is more excellent than the human as appears from Dionysius in On the Divine Names Four But Christ did not suffer to repair the angelic nature which had sin Therefore apparently neither was it necessary for him to suffer for the salvation of the human race On the contrary it is written in John 3 verse 14 As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert so must the Son of Man be lifted up that whosoever believeth in him may not perish but may have life everlasting I answer that As the philosopher teaches in Metaphysics 5 there are several acceptations of the word necessary In one way it means anything which of its nature cannot be otherwise and in this way it is evident that it was not necessary either on the part of God or on the part of man for Christ to suffer In another sense a thing may be necessary for some cause quite apart from itself and should this be either an efficient or a moving cause then it brings about the necessity of compulsion as for instance when a man cannot get away owing to the violence of someone else holding him But if the external factor which induces necessity be an end then it will be said to be necessary from presupposing such end namely when some particular end cannot exist at all or not conveniently except such end be presupposed It was not necessary then for Christ to suffer from necessity of compulsion either on God's part who ruled that Christ should suffer or on Christ's own part who suffered voluntarily Yet it was necessary from necessity of the end proposed and this can be accepted in three ways First of all, on our part who have been delivered by his passion according to John 3.14 The Son of Man must be lifted up that whosoever believeth in him may not perish but may have life everlasting Secondly, on Christ's part who merited the glory of being exalted through the lowliness of his passion and to this must be referred Ruk 24.26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and so to enter into his glory? Thirdly, on God's part whose determination regarding the passion of Christ foretold in the scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the Old Testament had to be fulfilled and this is what St. Luke says in chapter 22 verse 22 The Son of Man indeed goeth according to that which is determined and in Luke 24 verses 44 and 46 These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses and in the prophets and in the Psalms concerning me for it is thus written and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise again from the dead Reply to Objection 1 This argument is based on the necessity of compulsion on God's part Reply to Objection 2 This argument rests on the necessity of compulsion on the part of the man Christ Reply to Objection 3 That man should be delivered by Christ's passion was in keeping with both his mercy and his justice with his justice because by his passion Christ made satisfaction for the sin of the human race and so man was set free by Christ's justice and with his mercy for since man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature as was said above in question 1 article 2 God gave him his son to satisfy for him according to Romans 3 verses 24 and 25 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in his blood and this came of more copious mercy than if he had forgiven sins without satisfaction Hence it is said in Ephesians 2 verse 4 God who is rich in mercy for his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us even when we were dead in sins hath quickened us together in Christ Reply to Objection 4 The sin of the angels was irreparable Not so the sin of the first man Confer, Paras Prima, question 64 article 2 Second article Whether there was any other possible way of human deliverance besides the passion of Christ Objection 1 It would seem that there was no other possible way of human deliverance besides Christ's passion For our Lord says in John 12 verse 24 Amen, amen, I say to you unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground dyeth itself remaineth alone but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit Upon this St. Augustine observes that Christ called himself the seed Consequently unless he suffered death he would not otherwise have produced the fruit of our redemption Objection 2 further Our Lord addresses the Father in Matthew 26.42 My Father if this chalice may not pass away but I must drink it Thy will be done But he spoke there of the chalice of the passion Therefore Christ's passion could not pass away Hence Hilary says in his commentary on Matthew Therefore the chalice cannot pass except he drink of it because we cannot be restored except through his passion Objection 3 further God's justice required that Christ should satisfy by the passion in order that man might be delivered from sin But Christ cannot let his justice pass for it is written in 2 Timothy 2.13 If we believe not he continueth faithful he cannot deny himself But he would deny himself or he to deny his justice since he is justice itself It seems impossible then for man to be delivered otherwise than by Christ's passion Objection 4 further There can be no falsehood underlying faith But the fathers of old believe that Christ would suffer Consequently it seems that it had to be that Christ should suffer On the contrary Augustine says in on the Trinity 13 We assert that the way whereby God deigned to deliver us by the man Jesus Christ who is mediator between God and man is both good and befitting the divine dignity But let us also show that other possible means were not lacking on God's part to whose power all things are equally subordinate I answer that a thing may be said to be possible or impossible in two ways First of all simply and absolutely or secondly from supposition Therefore speaking simply and absolutely it was possible for God to deliver mankind otherwise than by the passion of Christ because no word shall be impossible with God according to Luke 1.37 Yet it was impossible if some supposition be made for since it is impossible for God's foreknowledge to be deceived and his will or ordinance to be frustrated then supposing God's foreknowledge and ordinance regarding Christ's passion it was not possible at the same time for Christ not to suffer and for mankind to be delivered otherwise than by Christ's passion and the same holds good of all things foreknown and preordained by God as was laid down in the first part Confirm Question 14, Article 13 Reply to Objection 1 Our Lord is speaking there presupposing God's foreknowledge and predetermination according to which it was resolved that the fruit of man's salvation should not follow unless Christ suffered Reply to Objection 2 In the same way we must understand what is here objected to in the second instance If this chalice may not pass away but I must drink of it that is to say because thou hast so ordained it hence he adds Thy will be done Reply to Objection 3 Even this justice depends on the divine will requiring satisfaction for sin from the human race but if he had willed to free man from sin without any satisfaction he would not have acted against justice For a judge, while preserving justice cannot pardon fault without penalty if he must visit fault committed against another for instance against another man or against the state or any prince in higher authority but God has no one higher than himself for he is the sovereign and common good of the whole universe Consequently, if he forgives sin which has the formality of faults in that it is committed against himself he wrongs no one just as anyone else overlooking a personal trespass without satisfaction acts mercifully and not unjustly and so David exclaimed when he sought mercy to thee only have I sinned in Psalm 50 verse 6 as if to say thou canst pardon me without injustice Reply to Objection 4 human faith and even the divine scriptures upon which faith is based are both based on the divine foreknowledge and ordinance and the same reason holds good that necessity which comes of supposition and of the necessity which arises of the divine foreknowledge and will Third article whether there was any more suitable way of delivering the human race than by Christ's passion Objection 1 it would seem that there was some other more suitable way of delivering the human race besides Christ's passion for nature in its operation imitates the divine work since it is moved and regulated by God but nature never employs two agents where one will suffice therefore since God could have liberated mankind solely by his divine will it does not seem fitting that Christ's passion should have been added for the deliverance of the human race Objection 2 further natural actions are more suitably performed than deeds of violence because violence is a severance or lapse from what is according to nature as is said in On the Heavens too but Christ's passion brought about his death by violence therefore it would have been more appropriate had Christ died a natural death rather than suffer for man's deliverance Objection 3 further it seems most fitting that whatsoever keeps something unjustly and by violence should be deprived of it by some superior power hence Isaiah says in chapter 52 verse 3 you are sold gratis and you shall be redeemed without money but the devil possessed no right over man whom he had deceived by guile and whom he held subject in servitude by a sort of violence therefore it seems most suitable that Christ should have despoiled the devil solely by his power and without the passion on the contrary Saint Augustine says in On the Trinity 13 there was no other more suitable way of healing our misery than by the passion of Christ I answer that means to an end that one is the more suitable whereby the various concurring means employed are themselves helpful to such end but in this that man was delivered by Christ's passion many other things besides deliverance from sin concurred for man's salvation in the first place man knows thereby how much God loves him and is thereby stirred to love him in return and herein lies the perfection of human salvation hence the apostle says in Romans 5 verse 8 God commended his charity towards us for when as yet we were sinners Christ died for us secondly, because thereby he sent us an example of obedience humility, constancy, justice and the other virtues displayed in the passion which are requisite for man's salvation hence it is written in 1 Peter 2 verse 21 Christ also suffered for us leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps thirdly, because Christ by his passion not only delivered man from sin but also merited justify and grace for him and the glory of bliss as shall be shown later in question 48 article 1 as well as in question 49 articles 1 and 5 fourthly, because by this man is all the more bound to refrain from sin according to 1 Corinthians 6 verse 20 you are bought with a great price glorify and bear God in your body fifthly, because it redounded to man's greater dignity that as man was overcome and deceived by the devil so also it should be a man that should overthrow the devil and as man deserved death so a man by dying should vanquish death hence it is written in 1 Corinthians 15 verse 57 thanks be to God who have given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ it was accordingly more fitting that we should be delivered by Christ's passion than simply by God's good will reply to objection 1 even nature uses several means to one intent in order to do something more fittingly as two eyes foreseeing and the same can be observed in other matters reply to objection 2 as Chrysostom says Christ had come in order to destroy death not his own, for since he is life itself death could not be his, but men's death hence it was not by reason of his being bound to die that he laid his body aside but because the death he endured was inflicted on him by men but even if his body had sickened and dissolved in the sight of all men it was not befitting him who healed the infirmities of others to have his own body afflicted with the same and even had he laid his body aside without any sickness and had then appeared men would not have believed him when he spoke of his resurrection for how could Christ's victory over death appear unless he endured it in the sight of all men and so proved that death was vanquished by the incorruption of his body reply to objection 3 although the devil assailed man unjustly nevertheless on account of sin man was justly left by God under the devil's bondage and therefore it was fitting that through justice man should be delivered from the devil's bondage by Christ making satisfaction on his behalf in the passion this was also a fitting means of overthrowing the pride of the devil who is a deserter from justice and covetous of sway in that Christ should vanquish him and deliver man not merely by the power of his Godhead but likewise by the justice and lowliness of the passion as Augustine says in On the Trinity 13 fourth article whether Christ ought to have suffered on the cross objection one it would seem that Christ ought not to have suffered on the cross for the truth ought to conform to the figure but in all the sacrifices of the Old Testament which prefigured Christ the beasts were slain with a sword and afterwards consumed by fire therefore it seems that Christ ought not to have suffered on a cross but rather by the sword or by fire objection two further Damascene says in On the True Faith 3 that Christ ought not to assume dishonoring afflictions but death on a cross was most dishonoring and ignominious hence it is written in Wisdom 220 let us condemn him to a most shameful death therefore it seems that Christ ought not to have undergone the death of the cross objection three further it was said of Christ in Matthew 21 9 blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord but death upon the cross was a death of malediction as we read in Deuteronomy 21 verse 23 he is a cursed of God that hangeth on a tree therefore it does not seem fitting for Christ to be crucified on the contrary it is written in Philippians 2 verse 8 he became obedient unto death even the death of the cross I answer that it was most fitting that Christ should suffer the death of the cross first of all as an example of virtue for Augustine thus writes in his 83 questions question 25 God's wisdom became man to give us an example in righteousness of living but it is part of righteous living not to stand in fear of things which ought not to be feared now there are some men who although they do not fear death in itself are yet troubled over the manner of their death in order then that no kind of death should trouble an upright man the cross of this man had to be set before him because among all kinds of death none was more execrable more fear inspiring than this secondly because this kind of death was especially suitable in order to atone for the sin of our first parent which was the plucking of the apple from the forbidden tree against God's command and so to atone for that sin it was fitting that Christ should suffer by being fastened to a tree as if restoring what Adam had perloined according to Psalm 68 verse 5 then did I pay that which I took not away hence Augustine says in a sermon on the passion Adam despised the command plucking the apple from the tree but all that Adam lost Christ found upon the cross the third reason is because as Chrysostom says in a sermon on the passion he suffered upon a high rude and not under a roof in order that the nature of the air might be purified and the earth felt alike benefit for it was cleansed by the flowing of the blood from his side and on John 3 verse 14 the son of man must be lifted up Théophileact says when you hear that he was lifted up understand his hanging on high that he might sanctify the air who had sanctified the earth by walking upon it the fourth reason is because by dying on it he prepares for us an ascent into heaven as Chrysostom says hence it is that he says in John 12 32 if I be lifted up from the earth I will draw all things to myself the fifth reason is because it is befitting the universal salvation of the entire world hence Gregory of Nisa observes the shape of the cross extending out into four extremes from their central point of contact denotes the power and the providence diffused everywhere of him who hung upon it Chrysostom also says that upon the cross he dies without stretched hands in order to draw with one hand the people of old and with the other those who spring from the Gentiles the sixth reason is because of the various virtues denoted by this class of death hence Augustine in his book on the grace of the old and New Testament says not without purpose did he choose this class of death that he might be a teacher of that breadth and height and length and depth of which the Apostle speaks in Ephesians 3 18 for breadth is in the beam which is fixed transversely above this appertains to good works since the hands are stretched out upon it length is the tree's extent from the beam to the ground and there it is planted that is it stands and abides which is the note of longannivity height in that portion of the tree which remains over from the transverse beam up towards the top and this is at the head of the crucified because he is the supreme desire of souls of good hope but that part of the tree which is hidden from view to hold it fixed and from which the entire rude springs denotes the depth of gratuitous grace and as Augustine says the tree upon which were fixed the members of him dying was even the chair of the master teaching the seventh reason is because this kind of death responds to very many figures for as Augustine says in a sermon on the passion an arc of wood preserved the human race from the waters of the deluge at the exodus of God's people from Egypt Moses with a rod divided the sea over through Pharaoh and saved the people of God the same Moses dipped his rod into the water changing it from bitter to sweet the touch of a wooden rod a salutary spring gushed forth from a spiritual rock likewise in order to overcome Amalek Moses stretched forth his arms with rod in hand lastly God's law is entrusted to the wooden arc of the covenant all of which are like steps by which we mount to the wood of the cross the altar of holocausts upon which the sacrifices of animals were immolated was constructed of timbers as is set forth in exodus 27 and in this respect the truth answers to the figure but it is not necessary for it to be likened in every respect otherwise it would not be a likeness but the reality as damasin says in on the faith 3 but in particular as chris hostam says his head is not cut off as was done to john nor was he sawn in twain like Isaiah in order that his entire and indivisible body might obey death and that there might be no excuse for them who want to divide the church while instead of material fire there was the spiritual fire of charity in Christ's holocaust reply to objection 2 Christ refused to undergo dishonorable sufferings which are allied with defects of knowledge or of grace or even of virtue but not those injuries inflicted from without nay more as is written in Hebrews 12 2 he endured the cross despising the shame reply to objection 3 as Augustine says in against Faustus 14 sin is a cursed and so is death and mortality which comes of sin but Christ's flesh was mortal having the resemblance of the flesh of sin and hence Moses calls it a cursed just as the apostle calls it sin saying in 2 Corinthians 5 21 him that knew no sin for us he hath made sin namely because of the penalty of sin nor is there greater ignimony on that account because he said he is a cursed of God for unless God had hated sin he would have never sent his son to take upon himself our death and to destroy it acknowledge then that it was for us he took the curse upon himself whom you confess to have died for us hence it is written in Galatians 3 verse 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us End of question 46 Part 1 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC Question 46 Part 2 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 46 The Passion of Christ in 12 Articles Part 2 Articles 5 through 8 Fifth Article Whether Christ endured all suffering Objection 1 It seems that Christ did endure all sufferings because Hilary in On the Trinity 10 says God's only begotten son testifies that he endured every kind of human sufferings in order to accomplish the sacrament of his death when with bowed head he gave up the ghost It seems therefore that he did endure all human sufferings Objection 2 Further, it is written in Isaiah 52-13 Behold my servant shall understand he shall be exalted and extolled and shall be exceeding high as many as have been astonished at him so shall his visage be inglorious among men and his form among the sons of men But Christ was exalted in that he had all grace and all knowledge at which many were astonished in admiration thereof Therefore it seems that he was inglorious by enduring every human suffering Objection 3 Further, Christ's passion was ordained for man's deliverance from sin as stated above in Article 3 But Christ came to deliver men from every kind of sin Therefore he ought to have endured every kind of suffering On the contrary, it is written in John 19 verse 32 The soldiers therefore came and they broke the legs of the first and of the other two who was crucified with him But after they were come to Jesus when they saw that he was already dead he did not break his legs Consequently, he did not endure every human suffering I answer that human sufferings may be considered under two aspects First of all specifically and in this way it was not necessary for Christ to endure them all since many are mutually exclusive as burning and drowning for we are dealing now with sufferings inflicted from without since it was not be seeming for him to endure those arising from within such as bodily ailments as already stated in Question 14 Article 4 But speaking generically he did endure every human suffering This admits of a threefold acceptance First of all on the part of men for he endured something from Gentiles and from Jews from men and from women as is clear from the women servants who accused Peter He suffered from the rulers from their servants and from the mob according to Psalm 2 verses 1 and 2 Why have the Gentiles raged and the people devised vain things the kings of the earth stood up and the princes met together against the Lord and against his Christ He suffered from friends and acquaintances as is manifest from Judas betraying and Peter denying him Secondly the same is evident on the part of the sufferings which a man can endure for Christ suffered from friends abandoning him in his reputation from the blasphemies hurled at him in his honor and glory from the mockeries and the insults heaped upon him in things for he was despoiled of his garments in his soul from sadness, weariness and fear in his body from wounds and scourgings Thirdly it may be considered with regard to his bodily members in his head he suffered from the crown of piercing thorns in his hands and feet from the fastening of the nails on his face from the blows and spittle and from the lashes over his entire body Moreover he suffered in all his bodily senses in touch by being scourged and nailed in taste by being given vinegar and gall to drink in smell by being fastened to the gibbet in a place reeking with the stench of corpses which is called Calvary in hearing by being tormented with the cries of blasphemers and scorners in sight by beholding the tears of his mother and of the disciple whom he loved Reply to Objection 1 Hillary's words are to be understood as to all classes of sufferings but not as to their kinds Reply to Objection 2 The likeness is sustained not as to the number of the sufferings and graces but as to their greatness for as he was uplifted above others in gifts of graces so was he lowered beneath others by the ignimony of his sufferings Reply to Objection 3 The very least one of Christ's sufferings was efficient of itself to redeem the human race from all sins but as to fittingness it's a feist that he should endure all classes of sufferings as stated above 6. Article Whether the pain of Christ's passion was greater than all other pains Objection 1 it would seem that the pain of Christ's passion was not greater than all other pains for the sufferer's pain is increased by the sharpness and the duration of the suffering but some of the martyrs endured sharper and more prolonged pains than Christ as is seen in St. Lawrence who was roasted upon a gridiron and in St. Vincent whose flesh was torn with iron pincers therefore it seems that the pain of the suffering Christ was not the greatest Objection 2 Further, Strength of Soul mitigates pain so much so that the Stoics held there was no sadness in the soul of a wise man and Aristotle in Ethics 2 holds that moral virtue fixes the mean in the passions but Christ had most perfect strength of soul therefore it seems that the greatest pain did not exist in Christ Objection 3, Further The more sensitive the sufferer is the more acute will be the pain but the soul is more sensitive than the body since the body feels in virtue of the soul Also, Adam in the State of Innocence seems to have had a body more sensitive than Christ had who assumed a human body with its natural defects Consequently it seems that the pain of a sufferer in Purgatory or in Hell or even Adam's pain if he suffered it all was greater than Christ's in the Passion Objection 4, Further The greater the good lost, the greater the pain but by sinning the sinner loses a greater good than Christ did when suffering since the life of grace is greater than the life of nature Also Christ who lost his life but was to rise again after three days seems to have lost less than those who lose their lives and abide in death therefore it seems that Christ's pain was not the greatest of all Objection 5, Further The victim's innocence lessens the sting of his sufferings but Christ died innocent according to Jeremiah 919 I was as a meek lamb that is carried to be a victim therefore it seems that the pain of Christ's passion was not the greatest Objection 6, Further There was nothing superfluous in Christ's conduct but the slightest pain would have sufficed to secure man's salvation because from his divine person it would have had infinite virtue therefore it would have been superfluous to choose the greatest of all pains On the contrary it is written in Lamentations 1 verse 12 on behalf of Christ's person O algae that pass by the way attend and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow I answer that as we have stated in treating of the defects assumed by Christ in question 15 articles 5 and 6 There was true and sensible pain in the suffering Christ which is caused by something hurtful to the body Also there was internal pain which is caused from the apprehension of something hurtful and this is termed sadness and in Christ each of these was the greatest in this present life This arose from four causes First of all from the sources of his pain For the cause of the sensitive pain was the wounding of his body and this wounding had its bitterness both from the extent of the suffering already mentioned in article 5 and from the kind of suffering since the death of the crucified is most bitter because they are pierced in nervous and highly sensitive parts to wit the hands and feet Moreover the weight of his suspended body intensifies the agony and besides this there is the duration of the suffering because they do not die at once like those slain by the sword The cause of the interior pain was first of all all the sins of the human race which he made satisfaction by suffering Hence he ascribes them so to speak to himself saying in Psalm 21 verse 2 the words of my sins Secondly, especially the fall of the Jews and of the others who sinned in his death chiefly of the apostles who were scandalized at his passion Thirdly, the loss of his bodily life which is naturally horrible to human nature The magnitude of his suffering may be considered secondly from the susceptibility of the sufferer as to both body and soul For his body was endowed with the most perfect constitution since it was fashioned miraculously by the operation of the Holy Ghost just as some other things made by miracles are better than others as Chrysostom says in his homily 22 on the Gospel of John respecting the wine into which Christ changed the water at the wedding feast and consequently Christ's sense of touch the sensitiveness of which is the reason for our feeling pain was most acute His soul likewise from its interior powers apprehended most vehemently all the causes of sadness Thirdly, the magnitude of Christ's suffering can be estimated from the singleness of his pain and sadness In other sufferers, the interior sadness is mitigated and even the exterior suffering from some consideration of reason by some derivation or redundance from the higher powers into the lower But it was not so with the suffering Christ because he permitted each one of his powers to exercise its proper function as Damascene says in On the True Faith 3 Fourthly, the magnitude of the pain of Christ's suffering can be reckoned by this that the pain and sorrow were accepted voluntarily to the end of men's deliverance from sin and consequently he embraced the amount of pain proportionate to the magnitude of the fruit which resulted therefrom From all these causes weighed together it follows that Christ's pain was the very greatest Reply to Objection 1 This argument follows from only one of the considerations adduced namely from the bodily injury which is the cause of a sensitive pain but the torment of the suffering Christ is much more intensified from other causes as above stated Reply to Objection 2 Moral virtue lessens interior sadness in one way an outward sensitive pain in quite another for it lessens interior sadness directly by fixing the mean as being its proper matter within limits But as was laid down in the second part in the parts Prima Secunde question 64 article 2 moral virtue fixes the mean in the passions not according to mathematical quantity but according to quantity of proportion so that the passion shall not go beyond the rule of reason and since the Stoics held all sadness to be unprofitable they accordingly believed it to be altogether discordant with reason and consequently to be shunned altogether by a wise man but in very truth some sadness is praiseworthy as Augustine proves in On the City of God 14 namely when it flows from holy love as for instance when a man is saddened over his own or other sins furthermore it is employed as a useful means for satisfying for sins according to the saying of the apostle in 2 Corinthians 7 10 the sorrow that is according to God worketh penance steadfast unto salvation and so to atone for the sins of all men Christ accepted sadness the greatest in absolute quantity yet not exceeding the rule of reason but moral virtue does not lessen outward sensitive pain because such pain is not subject to reason but follows the nature of the body yet it lessens it indirectly by redundance of the higher powers into the lower but this did not happen in Christ's case as stated above confer question 14 article 1 second reply as well as in question 45 article 2 reply to objection 3 the pain of a suffering separated soul belongs to the state of future condemnation which exceeds every evil of this life just as the glory of the saints surpasses every good of the present life accordingly when we say that Christ's pain was the greatest we make no comparison between his and the pain of a separated soul but Adam's body could not suffer except he sinned so that he would become mortal and passable and though actually suffering it would have felt less pain than Christ's body for the reasons already stated from all this it is clear that even if Adam had suffered in the state of innocence though this was impossible his pain would have been less than Christ's reply to objection 4 Christ grieved not only over the loss of his own bodily life but also over the sins of all others and this grief in Christ surpassed all grief of every contrite heart both because it flowed from a greater wisdom and charity by which the pang of contrition is intensified and because he grieved at the one time for all sins according to Isaiah 53 verse 4 surely he hath carried our sorrows but such was the dignity of Christ's life in the body especially on account of the Godhead united with it that its loss even for one hour would be a matter of greater grief than the loss of another man's life for how so ever long a time hence the philosopher says in ethics 3 that the man of virtue loves his life all the more in proportion as he knows it to be better and yet he exposes it for virtue's sake and in like fashion Christ laid down his most beloved life for the good of charity according to Jeremiah 12 verse 7 I have given my dear soul into the hands of her enemies reply to objection 5 the sufferer's innocence does lessen numerically the pain of the suffering since when a guilty man suffers he grieves not merely on account of the penalty but also because of the crime whereas the innocent man grieves only for the penalty yet this pain is more intensified by reason of his innocence insofar as he deems the hurt inflicted to be the more undeserved hence it is that even others are more deserving of blame if they do not compassionate him according to Isaiah 57.1 the just, parashith, and no man layeth it to heart reply to objection 6 Christ willed to deliver the human race from sins not merely by his power but also according to justice and therefore he did not simply weigh what great virtue his suffering would have from his union with the Godhead but also how much according to his human nature his pain would avail for so great a satisfaction seventh article whether Christ suffered in his whole soul objection one it would seem that Christ did not suffer in his whole soul for the soul suffers indirectly when the body suffers in as much as it is the act of the body but the soul is not as to its every part of the act of the body because the intellect is the act of no body as is said in on the soul three therefore it seems that Christ did not suffer in his whole soul objection two further every power of the soul is passive in regard to its proper object but the higher part of reason has for its object the eternal types the consideration and consultation of which it directs itself as Augustine says in on the Trinity 12 but Christ could not suffer any hurt from the eternal types since they are no wise opposed to him therefore it seems that he did not suffer in his whole soul objection three further a sensitive passion is said to be complete when it comes into contact with the reason but there was none such in Christ but only pro-passions as Jerome remarks on Matthew 26 verse 37 hence Dionysius says in a letter to John the Evangelist that he endured only mentally the sufferings inflicted upon him consequently it does not seem that Christ suffered in his whole soul objection four further suffering causes pain but there is no pain in the speculative intellect because as the philosopher says in topics one there is no sadness in opposition to the pleasure which comes of consideration therefore it seems that Christ did not suffer in his whole soul on the contrary it is written in Psalm 87 verse 4 on behalf of Christ my soul is filled with evils upon which the glass adds not with vices but with woes whereby the soul suffers with the flesh or with evils notably of a perishing people by compassionating them but his soul would not have been filled with these evils except he had suffered in his whole soul therefore Christ suffered in his entire soul I answer that a whole is so termed with respect to its parts but the parts of a soul are its faculties so then the whole soul is said to suffer in so far as it is afflicted as to its essence or as to all its faculties but it must be borne in mind that a faculty of the soul can suffer in two ways first of all by its own passion and this comes of its being afflicted by its proper object thus sight may suffer from superabundance of the visible object in another way a faculty suffers by a passion in the subject on which it is based as sight suffers when the sense of touch in the eye is affected upon which the sense of sight rests as for instance when the eye is pricked or is disaffected by heat so then we say that if the soul be considered with respect to its essence it is evident that Christ's whole soul suffered for the soul's whole essence is allied with the body so that it is entire in the whole body and in its every part consequently when the body suffered and was disposed to separate from the soul the entire soul suffered but if we consider the whole soul according to its faculties speaking thus of the proper passions of the faculties he suffered indeed as to all his lower powers because in all the soul's lower powers whose operations are but temporal there was something to be found which was a source of woe to Christ as is evident from what has been said above in Article 6 but Christ's higher reason did not suffer thereby on the part of its object which is God who was the cause not of grief but rather of delight and joy to the soul of Christ nevertheless all the powers of Christ's soul did suffer according as any faculty is said to be affected as regards its subject because all the faculties of Christ's soul were rooted in its essence to which suffering extended when the body whose act it is suffered reply to Objection 1 although the intellect as a faculty is not the act of the body still the soul's essence is the act of the body and in it the intellect of faculty is rooted as was shown in the first part Questions 77, Articles 6 and 8 reply to Objection 2 this argument proceeds from passion on the part of the proper object according to which Christ's higher reason did not suffer reply to Objection 3 grief is then said to be a true passion by which the soul is troubled when the passion in the sensitive part causes reason to deflect from the rectitude of its act so that it then follows the passion and has no longer free will with regard to it in this way passion of the sensitive part did not extend to reason in Christ but merely subjectively as was stated above reply to Objection 4 the speculative intellect can have no pain or sadness on the part of its object which is truth considered absolutely and which is its perfection nevertheless both grief and its cause can reach it in the way mentioned above 8th article whether Christ's entire soul enjoyed blessed fruition during the passion Objection 1 it would seem that Christ's entire soul did not enjoy blessed fruition during the passion for it is not possible to be sad and glad at the one time since sadness and gladness are contraries but Christ's whole soul suffered grief during the passion as was stated above in article 7 therefore his whole soul could not enjoy fruition Objection 2 further the philosopher says in Ethics 7 that if sadness be vehement it not only checks the contrary delight but every delight and conversely but the grief of Christ's passion was the greatest as shown above in article 6 and likewise the enjoyment of fruition is also the greatest as was laid down in the first volume of the second part the parts prima secunde question 34 article 3 consequently it was not possible for Christ's whole soul to be suffering and rejoicing at the one time Objection 3 further beatific fruition comes of the knowledge and love of divine things as Augustine says in on Christian doctrine 1 but all the soul's powers do not extend to the knowledge and love of God therefore Christ's whole soul did not enjoy fruition on the contrary in on the true faith 3 Christ's Godhead permitted his flesh to do and to suffer what was proper to it in like fashion since it belonged to Christ's soul in as much as it was blessed to enjoy fruition his passion did not impede fruition I answer that as stated above in article 7 the whole soul can be understood both according to its essence and according to all its faculties if it be understood according to its essence then his whole soul did enjoy fruition in as much as it is the subject of the higher part of the soul to which it belongs to enjoy the Godhead so that as passion by reason of the essence is attributed to the higher part of the soul so on the other hand by reason of the superior part of the soul fruition is attributed to the essence but if we take the whole soul as comprising all its faculties thus his entire soul did not enjoy fruition not directly indeed because fruition is not the act of any one part of the soul nor by any overflow of glory because since Christ was still upon the earth there was no overflowing of glory from the higher part into the lower nor from the soul into the body but since on the contrary the soul's higher part was not hindered in its proper acts by the lower it follows that the higher part of his soul enjoyed fruition perfectly while Christ was suffering reply to objection one the joy of fruition is not opposed directly to the grief of the passion because they have not the same object now nothing prevents contraries from being in the same subject but not according to the same and so the joy of fruition can appertain to the higher part of reason by its proper act but grief of the passion according to the subject grief of the passion belongs to the essence of the soul by reason of the body whose form the soul is whereas the joy of fruition belongs to the soul by reason of the faculty in which it is subjected reply to objection two the philosophers contention is true because of the overflow which takes place naturally of the one faculty of the soul into another but it was not so with Christ as was said above reply to objection three such argument holds good of the totality of the soul with regard to its faculties end of question 46 part 2 read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC