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. Praeterea, Mich. II dicitur, ascendit pandens iter ante eos. Sed nihil aliud videtur pandere iter caeli quam eius ianuam aperire. Ergo videtur quod ianua caeli sit nobis aperta, non per passionem, sed per ascensionem Christi. Obj. 4: Further, it is written (Mic 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 opened to us, not by Christ’s Passion, but by His Ascension. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Heb. X, habemus fiduciam in introitu sanctorum, scilicet caelestium, in sanguine Christi. On the contrary, is the saying of the Apostle (Heb 10:19): We have confidence in the entering into the Holies—that is, of the heavenly places—through the blood of Christ. Respondeo dicendum quod clausio ianuae est obstaculum quoddam prohibens homines ab ingressu. Prohibebantur autem homines ab ingressu regni caelestis propter peccatum, quia, sicut dicitur Isaiae XXXV, via illa sancta vocabitur, et non transibit per eam pollutus. Est autem duplex peccatum impediens ab ingressu regni caelestis. Unum quidem commune totius humanae naturae, quod est peccatum primi parentis. Et per hoc peccatum praecludebatur homini aditus regni caelestis, unde legitur Gen. III quod, post peccatum primi hominis, collocavit Deus Cherubim, et flammeum gladium atque versatilem, ad custodiendam viam ligni vitae. Aliud autem est peccatum speciale uniuscuiusque personae, quod per proprium actum committitur uniuscuiusque hominis. 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 Isa. 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 parents’ sin, and by that sin heaven’s entrance is closed to man. Hence we read in Gen. 3:24 that after our first parents’ 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. Per passionem autem Christi liberati sumus non solum a peccato communi totius humanae naturae, et quantum ad culpam et quantum ad reatum poenae, ipso solvente pretium pro nobis, sed etiam a peccatis propriis singulorum qui communicant eius passioni per fidem et caritatem et fidei sacramenta. Et ideo per passionem Christi aperta est nobis ianua regni caelestis. Et hoc est quod apostolus dicit, Heb. IX, quod Christus, assistens pontifex futurorum bonorum, per proprium sanguinem introivit semel in sancta, aeterna redemptione inventa. Et hoc significatur Num. XXXV, ubi dicitur quod homicida manebit ibi, scilicet in civitate refugii, donec sacerdos magnus, qui oleo sancto unctus est, moriatur, quo mortuo, poterit in domum suam redire. 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 (Heb 9:11, 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 (Num 35:25, 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sancti patres, operando opera iustitiae, meruerunt introitum regni caelestis per fidem passionis Christi, secundum illud Heb. XI, sancti per fidem vicerunt regna, operati sunt iustitiam, per quam etiam unusquisque a peccato purgabatur quantum pertinet ad emundationem propriae personae. Non tamen alicuius fides vel iustitia sufficiebat ad removendum impedimentum quod erat per reatum totius humanae creaturae. Quod quidem remotum est pretio sanguinis Christi. Et ideo ante passionem Christi nullus intrare poterat regnum caeleste, adipiscendo scilicet beatitudinem aeternam, quae consistit in plena Dei fruitione. Reply Obj. 1: The holy Fathers, by doing works of justice, merited to enter into the heavenly kingdom, through faith in Christ’s Passion, according to Heb. 11:33: 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod Elias sublevatus est in caelum aereum, non autem in caelum Empyreum, qui est locus beatorum. Et similiter nec Henoch, sed raptus est ad Paradisum terrestrem, ubi cum Elia simul creditur vivere usque ad adventum Antichristi. Reply Obj. 2: Elias was taken up into the atmospheric heaven, but not in to the empyrean 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, Christo baptizato aperti sunt caeli, non propter ipsum Christum, cui semper caelum patuit, sed ad significandum quod caelum aperitur baptizatis Baptismo Christi, qui habet efficaciam ex passione ipsius. Reply Obj. 3: As was stated above (Q. 39, A. 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. Ad quartum dicendum quod Christus sua passione meruit nobis introitum regni caelestis, et impedimentum removit, sed per suam ascensionem nos quasi in possessionem regni caelestis introduxit. Et ideo dicitur quod ascendens pandit iter ante eos. Reply Obj. 4: 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. Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum Christus per suam passionem meruit exaltari Whether by his Passion Christ merited to be exalted? Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus per suam passionem non meruit exaltari. Sicut enim cognitio veritatis est proprium Deo, ita et sublimitas, secundum illud Psalmi, excelsus super omnes gentes dominus, et super caelos gloria eius. Sed Christus, secundum quod homo, habuit cognitionem omnis veritatis non ex aliquo merito praecedenti, sed ex ipsa unione Dei et hominis, secundum illud Ioan. I, vidimus gloriam eius quasi unigeniti a patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis. Ergo neque exaltationem habuit ex merito passionis, sed ex sola unione. Objection 1: It seems 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 Ps. 112:4: 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 1:14: We saw His glory . . . as it were of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth. Therefore neither had He exaltation from the merit of the Passion but from the union alone. Praeterea, Christus meruit sibi a primo instanti suae conceptionis, ut supra habitum est. Non autem maior caritas fuit in eo tempore passionis quam ante. Cum ergo caritas sit merendi principium, videtur quod non magis meruit per passionem suam exaltationem quam ante. Obj. 2: Further, Christ merited for Himself from the first instant of His conception, as stated above (Q. 34, A. 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. Praeterea, gloria corporis resultat ex gloria animae, ut Augustinus dicit, in epistola ad Dioscorum. Sed Christus per passionem suam non meruit exaltationem quantum ad gloriam animae, quia anima eius fuit beata a primo instanti suae conceptionis. Ergo neque etiam per passionem meruit exaltationem quantum ad gloriam corporis. Obj. 3: Further, the glory of the body comes from the glory of the soul, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor.). But by His Passion Christ did not merit 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. Sed contra est quod dicitur Philipp. II, factus est obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis, propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum. On the contrary, It is written (Phil 2:8): He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; for which cause God also exalted Him. Respondeo dicendum quod meritum importat quandam aequalitatem iustitiae, unde apostolus dicit, ei qui operatur, merces imputatur secundum debitum. Cum autem aliquis ex sua iniusta voluntate sibi attribuit plus quam debeatur, iustum est ut diminuatur etiam quantum ad id quod sibi debebatur, sicut, cum furatur quis unam ovem, reddet quatuor, ut dicitur Exod. XXII. Et hoc dicitur mereri, inquantum per hoc punitur cuius est iniqua voluntas. Ita etiam, cum aliquis sibi ex iusta voluntate subtrahit quod debebat habere, meretur ut sibi amplius aliquid superaddatur, quasi merces iustae voluntatis. Et inde est quod, sicut dicitur Luc. XIV, qui se humiliat, exaltabitur. I answer that, Merit implies a certain equality of justice: hence the Apostle says (Rom 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 four (Exod 22:1). And he is said to deserve it, inasmuch 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 (Luke 14:11): He that humbleth himself shall be exalted. Christus autem in sua passione seipsum humiliavit infra suam dignitatem, quantum ad quatuor. Primo quidem, quantum ad passionem et mortem, cuius debitor non erat. Secundo, quantum ad locum, quia corpus eius positum est in sepulcro, anima in Inferno. Tertio, quantum ad confusionem et opprobria quae sustinuit. Quarto, quantum ad hoc quod est traditus humanae potestati, secundum quod ipse dicit Pilato, Ioan. XIX, non haberes in me potestatem, nisi datum tibi fuisset desuper. Et ideo per suam passionem meruit exaltationem quantum ad quatuor. Primo quidem, quantum ad resurrectionem gloriosam. Unde dicitur in Psalmo, tu cognovisti sessionem meam, idest humilitatem meae passionis, et resurrectionem meam. Secundo, quantum ad ascensionem in caelum. Unde dicitur Ephes. IV, descendit primo in inferiores partes terrae, qui autem descendit, ipse est et qui ascendit super omnes caelos. Tertio, quantum ad consessum paternae dexterae, et manifestationem divinitatis ipsius, secundum illud Isaiae LII, exaltabitur et elevabitur, et sublimis erit valde, sicut obstupuerunt super eum multi, sic inglorius erit inter viros aspectus eius. Et Philipp. II dicitur, factus est obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis, propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum, et dedit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen, ut scilicet ab omnibus nominetur Deus, et omnes sibi reverentiam exhibeant sicut Deo. Et hoc est quod subditur, ut in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur, caelestium, terrestrium et Infernorum. Quarto, quantum ad iudiciariam potestatem. Dicitur enim Iob XXXVI, causa tua quasi impii iudicata est, iudicium causamque recipies. 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; second, as to the place, since His body was laid in a sepulchre and His soul in hell; third, as to the shame and mockeries He endured; fourth, as to His being delivered up to man’s power, as He Himself said to Pilate (John 19:11): Thou shouldst not have any power against Me, unless it were given thee from above. And, consequently, He merited a four-fold exaltation from His Passion. First of all, as to His glorious Resurrection: hence it is written (Ps 138:1): Thou hast known my sitting down—that is, the lowliness of My Passion—and My rising up. Second, as to His ascension into heaven: hence it is written (Eph 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. Third, as to the sitting on the right hand of the Father and the showing forth of His Godhead, according to Isa. 52:13: He shall be exalted and extolled, and shall be exceeding high: as many have been astonished at him, so shall His visage be inglorious among men. Moreover (Phil 2:8) it is written: He humbled Himself, becoming 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. Fourth, as to His judiciary power: for it is written (Job 36:17): Thy cause hath been judged as that of the wicked, cause and judgment Thou shalt recover. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod principium merendi est ex parte animae, corpus autem est instrumentum meritorii actus. Et ideo perfectio animae Christi, quae fuit merendi principium, non debuit in eo acquiri per meritum, sicut perfectio corporis, quod fuit passioni subiectum, et per hoc fuit ipsius meriti instrumentum. Reply Obj. 1: 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 was the subject of suffering, and was thereby the instrument of His merit. Ad secundum dicendum quod per priora merita Christus meruit exaltationem ex parte ipsius animae, cuius voluntas caritate et aliis virtutibus informabatur. Sed in passione meruit suam exaltationem, per modum cuiusdam recompensationis, etiam ex parte corporis, iustum enim est ut corpus, quod fuerat ex caritate passioni subiectum, acciperet recompensationem in gloria. Reply Obj. 2: 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: since it is only just that the body, which from charity was subjected to the Passion, should receive recompense in glory. Ad tertium dicendum quod dispensatione quadam factum est in Christo ut gloria animae, ante passionem, non redundaret ad corpus, ad hoc quod gloriam corporis honorabilius obtineret, quando eam per passionem meruisset. Gloriam autem animae differri non conveniebat, quia anima immediate uniebatur verbo, unde decens erat ut gloria repleretur ab ipso verbo. Sed corpus uniebatur verbo mediante anima. Reply Obj. 3: 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 beseeming for the glory of His soul to be postponed, since the soul was united immediately with the Word; hence it was beseeming that its glory should be filled by the Word Himself. But the body was united with the Word through the soul. Quaestio 50 Question 50 De morte Christi The Death of Christ