Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum per passionem Christi simus liberati a potestate diaboli Whether we were delivered from the devil’s power through Christ’s Passion? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod per passionem Christi non simus liberati a potestate Diaboli. Ille enim non habet potestatem super aliquos, in quibus nihil sine permissione alterius facere potest. Sed Diabolus nunquam potuit aliquid in nocumentum hominum facere nisi ex permissione divina, sicut patet Iob I et II quod, potestate divinitus accepta, eum primo in rebus, et postea in corpore laesit. Et similiter Matth. VIII dicitur quod Daemones, nisi Christo concedente, non potuerunt porcos intrare. Ergo Diabolus nunquam habuit in hominibus potestatem. Et ita per passionem Christi non sumus a potestate Diaboli liberati. 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 (1, 2), 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 (Matt 8:31, 32) that the devils could not enter into the swine except with Christ’s leave. Therefore the devil never had power over men: and hence we are not delivered from his power through Christ’s Passion. Praeterea, Diabolus potestatem suam in hominibus exercet tentando et corporaliter vexando. Sed hoc adhuc in hominibus operatur, post Christi passionem. Ergo non sumus per passionem Christi ab eius potestate liberati. Obj. 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. Praeterea, virtus passionis Christi in perpetuum durat, secundum illud Heb. X, una oblatione consummavit sanctificatos in sempiternum. Sed liberatio a potestate Diaboli nec est ubique, quia in multis partibus mundi adhuc sunt idololatrae, nec etiam erit semper, quia tempore Antichristi maxime suam potestatem exercebit in hominum nocumentum, de quo dicitur, II ad Thess. II, quod eius adventus erit secundum operationem Satanae in omni virtute et signis et prodigiis mendacibus, et in omni seductione iniquitatis. Ergo videtur quod passio Christi non sit causa liberationis humani generis a potestate Diaboli. Obj. 3: Further, the might of Christ’s Passion endures for ever, as, according to Heb. 10:14: By one oblation He hath perfected for ever 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 for ever, 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 (2 Thess 2:9): Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in 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. Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Ioan. XII, passione imminente, nunc princeps huius mundi eiicietur foras, et ego, si exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia traham ad meipsum. Est autem exaltatus a terra per crucis passionem. Ergo per eius passionem Diabolus est a potestate hominum eiectus. On the contrary, our Lord said (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. Respondeo dicendum quod circa potestatem quam Diabolus in homines exercebat ante Christi passionem, tria sunt consideranda. Primum quidem est ex parte hominis, qui suo peccato meruit ut in potestatem traderetur Diaboli, per cuius tentationem fuerat superatus. Aliud autem est ex parte Dei, quem homo peccando offenderat, qui, per suam iustitiam, hominem reliquerat potestati Diaboli. Tertium autem est ex parte ipsius Diaboli, qui sua nequissima voluntate hominem a consecutione salutis impediebat. 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, whom 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. Quantum igitur ad primum, homo est a potestate Diaboli liberatus per passionem Christi, inquantum passio Christi est causa remissionis peccatorum, ut dictum est. Quantum autem ad secundum, dicendum quod passio Christi nos a potestate Diaboli liberavit, inquantum nos Deo reconciliavit, ut infra dicetur. Quantum vero ad tertium, passio Christi nos a Diabolo liberavit, inquantum in passione Christi excessit modum potestatis sibi traditae a Deo, machinando in mortem Christi, qui non habebat meritum mortis, cum esset absque peccato. Unde Augustinus dicit, in XIII de Trin., iustitia Christi Diabolus victus est, quia, cum in eo nihil morte dignum inveniret, occidit eum tamen; et utique iustum est ut debitores quos tenebat, liberi dimittantur, in eum credentes quem sine ullo debito occidit. 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 (A. 1). As to the second, it must be said that Christ’s Passion freed us from the devil’s power, inasmuch as it reconciled us with God, as shall be shown later (A. 4). But as to the third, Christ’s Passion delivered us from the devil, inasmuch as in Christ’s Passion he exceeded 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 (De Trin. xiii, cap. xiv): 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non dicitur sic Diabolus in homines potestatem habuisse quasi posset eis nocere Deo non permittente. Sed quia iuste permittebatur nocere hominibus, quos tentando ad suum consensum perduxerat. Reply Obj. 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod Diabolus etiam nunc quidem potest, Deo permittente, homines tentare quantum ad animam, et vexare quantum ad corpus, sed tamen praeparatum est homini remedium ex passione Christi, quo se potest tueri contra hostis impugnationes, ne deducatur in interitum mortis aeternae. Et quicumque ante passionem Christi Diabolo resistebant, per fidem passionis Christi hoc facere poterant, licet, passione Christi nondum peracta, quantum ad aliquid nullus potuerit Diaboli manus evadere, ut scilicet non descenderet in Infernum. A quo, post passionem Christi, se possunt homines eius virtute tueri. Reply Obj. 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, i.e., so as not to descend into hell. But after Christ’s Passion, men can defend themselves from this by its power. Ad tertium dicendum quod Deus permittit Diabolo posse decipere homines certis personis, temporibus et locis, secundum occultam rationem iudiciorum suorum. Semper tamen per passionem Christi est paratum hominibus remedium se tuendi contra nequitias Daemonum, etiam tempore Antichristi. Sed si aliqui hoc remedio uti negligant, nil deperit efficaciae passionis Christi. Reply Obj. 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 Antichrist’s time. But if any man neglect to make use of this remedy, it detracts nothing from the efficacy of Christ’s Passion. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum per passionem Christi fuerunt homines liberati a poena peccati Whether men were freed from the punishment of sin through Christ’s Passion? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod per passionem Christi non fuerunt homines liberati a poena peccati. Praecipua enim poena peccati est aeterna damnatio. Sed illi qui damnati erant in Inferno pro suis peccatis, non sunt per Christi passionem liberati, quia in Inferno nulla est redemptio. Ergo videtur quod passio Christi non liberavit homines a poena. 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, that Christ’s Passion did not deliver men from the punishment of sin. Praeterea, illis qui sunt liberati a reatu poenae, non est aliqua poena iniungenda. Sed poenitentibus iniungitur poena satisfactoria. Non ergo per passionem Christi sunt homines liberati a reatu poenae. Obj. 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. Praeterea, mors est poena peccati, secundum illud Rom. VI, stipendia peccati mors. Sed adhuc post passionem Christi homines moriuntur. Ergo videtur quod per passionem Christi non sumus a reatu poenae liberati. Obj. 3: Further, death is a punishment of sin, according to Rom. 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. Sed contra est quod dicitur Isaiae LIII, vere languores nostros ipse tulit, et dolores nostros ipse portavit. On the contrary, It is written (Isa 53:4): Surely He hath borne our iniquities and carried our sorrows. Respondeo dicendum quod per passionem Christi liberati sumus a reatu poenae dupliciter. Uno modo, directe, inquantum scilicet passio Christi fuit sufficiens et superabundans satisfactio pro peccatis totius humani generis. Exhibita autem satisfactione sufficienti, tollitur reatus poenae. Alio modo, indirecte, inquantum scilicet passio Christi est causa remissionis peccati, in quo fundatur reatus poenae. 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—in so far as Christ’s Passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sin, upon which the debt of punishment rests. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod passio Christi sortitur effectum suum in illis quibus applicatur per fidem et caritatem, et per fidei sacramenta. Et ideo damnati in Inferno, qui praedicto modo passioni Christi non coniunguntur, effectum eius percipere non possunt. Reply Obj. 1: Christ’s Passion works its effect 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ad hoc quod consequamur effectum passionis Christi, oportet nos ei configurari. Configuramur autem ei in Baptismo sacramentaliter, secundum illud Rom. VI, consepulti sumus ei per Baptismum in mortem. Unde baptizatis nulla poena satisfactoria imponitur, quia sunt totaliter liberati per satisfactionem Christi. Quia vero Christus semel tantum pro peccatis nostris mortuus est, ut dicitur I Pet. III, ideo non potest homo secundario configurari morti Christi per sacramentum Baptismi. Unde oportet quod illi qui post Baptismum peccant, configurentur Christo patienti per aliquid poenalitatis vel passionis quam in seipsis sustineant. Quae tamen multo minor sufficit quam esset condigna peccato, cooperante satisfactione Christi. Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (A. 1, ad 4, 5), 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 Rom. 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 (1 Pet 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 suffering by some form of punishment or suffering which they endure in their own person; yet, by the co-operation of Christ’s satisfaction, much lighter penalty suffices than one that is proportionate to the sin. Ad tertium dicendum quod satisfactio Christi habet effectum in nobis inquantum incorporamur ei ut membra capiti, sicut supra dictum est. Membra autem oportet capiti esse conformia. Et ideo, sicut Christus primo quidem habuit gratiam in anima cum passibilitate corporis, et per passionem ad gloriam immortalitatis pervenit; ita et nos, qui sumus membra eius, per passionem ipsius liberamur quidem a reatu cuiuslibet poenae, ita tamen quod primo recipimus in anima spiritum adoptionis filiorum, quo adscribimur ad hereditatem gloriae immortalitatis, adhuc corpus passibile et mortale habentes; postmodum vero, configurati passionibus et morti Christi, in gloriam immortalem perducimur; secundum illud apostoli, Rom. VIII, si filii Dei, et heredes, heredes quidem Dei, coheredes autem Christi, si tamen compatimur, ut simul glorificemur. Reply Obj. 3: Christ’s satisfaction works its effect in us inasmuch as we are incorporated with Him, as the members with their head, as stated above (A. 1). Now the members must be conformed to their head. Consequently, as Christ first had grace in His soul with bodily passibility, and through the Passion attained to the glory of immortality, so we likewise, who are His members, are freed by His Passion from all debt 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 passible 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 (Rom 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. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum per passionem Christi simus Deo reconciliati Whether we were reconciled to God through Christ’s Passion? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod per passionem Christi non simus Deo reconciliati. Reconciliatio enim non habet locum inter amicos. Sed Deus semper dilexit nos, secundum illud Sap. XI, diligis omnia quae sunt, et nihil odisti eorum quae fecisti. Ergo passio Christi non reconciliavit nos Deo. 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 Wis. 11:25: Thou lovest all the things that are, and hatest none of the things which Thou hast made. Therefore Christ’s Passion did not reconcile us to God. Praeterea, non potest idem esse principium et effectus, unde gratia, quae est principium merendi, non cadit sub merito. Sed dilectio Dei est principium passionis Christi, secundum illud Ioan. III, sic Deus dilexit mundum ut filium suum unigenitum daret. Non ergo videtur quod per passionem Christi simus reconciliati Deo, ita quod de novo nos amare inciperet. Obj. 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. Praeterea, passio Christi impleta est per homines Christum occidentes, qui ex hoc graviter Deum offenderunt. Ergo passio Christi magis est causa indignationis quam reconciliationis Dei. Obj. 3: Further, Christ’s Passion was completed by men slaying Him; and thereby they offended God grievously. Therefore Christ’s Passion is rather the cause of wrath than of reconciliation to God. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. V, reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem filii eius. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom 5:10): We are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. Respondeo dicendum quod passio Christi est causa reconciliationis nostrae ad Deum dupliciter. Uno modo, inquantum removet peccatum, per quod homines constituuntur inimici Dei, secundum illud Sap. XIV, similiter odio sunt Deo impius et impietas eius; et in Psalmo, odisti omnes qui operantur iniquitatem. Alio modo, inquantum est Deo sacrificium acceptissimum. Est enim hoc proprie sacrificii effectus, ut per ipsum placetur Deus, sicut cum homo offensam in se commissam remittit propter aliquod obsequium acceptum quod ei exhibetur. Unde dicitur I Reg. XXVI, si dominus incitat te adversum me, odoretur sacrificium. Et similiter tantum bonum fuit quod Christus voluntarie passus est, quod propter hoc bonum in natura humana inventum, Deus placatus est super omni offensa generis humani, quantum ad eos qui Christo passo coniunguntur secundum modum praemissum. I answer that, Christ’s Passion is in two ways the cause of our reconciliation to God. In the first way, inasmuch as it takes away sin by which men became God’s enemies, according to Wis. 14:9: To God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike; and Ps. 5:7: Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity. In another way, inasmuch 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 committed against him on account of some pleasing act of homage shown him. Hence it is written (1 Kgs 26:19): If the Lord stir thee up against me, let Him accept of sacrifice. And in like 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 (A. 1, ad 4). Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus diligit omnes homines quantum ad naturam, quam ipse fecit. Odit tamen eos quantum ad culpam, quam contra eum homines committunt, secundum illud Eccli. XII, altissimus odio habet peccatores. Reply Obj. 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 Ecclus. 12:3: The Highest hateth sinners. Ad secundum dicendum quod Christus non dicitur quantum ad hoc nos Deo reconciliasse, quod de novo nos amare inciperet, cum scriptum sit, Ierem. XXXI, in caritate perpetua dilexi te. Sed quia per passionem Christi est sublata odii causa, tum propter ablutionem peccati; tum propter recompensationem acceptabilioris boni. Reply Obj. 2: Christ is not said to have reconciled us with God, as if God had begun anew to love us, since it is written (Jer 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut occisores Christi homines fuerunt, ita et Christus occisus. Maior autem fuit caritas Christi patientis quam iniquitas occisorum. Et ideo passio Christi magis valuit ad reconciliandum Deum toti humano generi, quam ad provocandum iram. Reply Obj. 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. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum Christus sua passione aperuerit nobis ianuam caeli Whether Christ opened the gate of heaven to us by his Passion? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus sua passione non aperuerit nobis ianuam caeli. Dicitur enim Proverb. XI, seminanti iustitiam merces fidelis. Sed merces iustitiae est introitus regni caelestis. Ergo videtur quod sancti patres, qui operati sunt opera iustitiae, fideliter consecuti essent introitum regni caelestis, etiam absque Christi passione. Non ergo passio Christi est causa apertionis ianuae regni caelestis. Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not open the gate of heaven to us by his Passion. For it is written (Prov 11:18): To him that soweth 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. Praeterea, ante passionem Christi, Elias raptus est in caelum, ut dicitur IV Reg. II. Sed effectus non praecedit causam. Ergo videtur quod apertio ianuae caelestis non sit effectus passionis Christi. Obj. 2: Further, Elias was caught up to heaven previous to Christ’s Passion (4 Kgs 2). 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. Praeterea, sicut legitur Matth. III, Christo baptizato aperti sunt caeli. Sed Baptismus praecessit passionem. Ergo apertio caeli non est effectus passionis Christi. Obj. 3: Further, as it is written (Matt 3:16), when Christ was baptized the heavens were opened to Him. But His baptism preceded the Passion. Consequently the opening of heaven is not the result of Christ’s Passion.