Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum mors Christi nihil operata fuerit ad nostram salutem Whether Christ’s death conduced in any way to our salvation? Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod mors Christi nihil operata fuerit ad nostram salutem. Mors enim est privatio quaedam, est enim privatio vitae. Sed privatio, cum non sit res aliqua, non habet aliquam virtutem agendi. Ergo non potuit aliquid operari ad nostram salutem. Objection 1: It would seem that Christ’s death did not conduce in any way to our salvation. For death is a sort of privation, since it is the privation of life. But privation has not any power of activity, because it is nothing positive. Therefore it could not work anything for our salvation. Praeterea, passio Christi operata est ad nostram salutem per modum meriti. Sic autem non potuit operari mors Christi, nam in morte separatur anima a corpore, quae est merendi principium. Ergo mors Christi non est operata aliquid ad nostram salutem. Obj. 2: Further, Christ’s Passion wrought our salvation by way of merit. But Christ’s death could not operate in this way, because in death the body is separated from the soul, which is the principle of meriting. Consequently, Christ’s death did not accomplish anything towards our salvation. Praeterea, corporale non est causa spiritualis. Sed mors Christi fuit corporalis. Non ergo potuit esse causa spiritualis nostrae salutis. Obj. 3: Further, what is corporeal is not the cause of what is spiritual. But Christ’s death was corporeal. Therefore it could not be the cause of our salvation, which is something spiritual. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in IV de Trin., una mors nostri salvatoris, scilicet corporalis, duabus mortibus nostris, idest animae et corporis, saluti fuit. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iv): The one death of our Savior, namely, that of the body, saved us from our two deaths, that is, of the soul and the body. Respondeo dicendum quod de morte Christi dupliciter loqui possumus, uno modo, secundum quod est in fieri; alio modo, secundum quod est in facto esse. Dicitur autem mors esse in fieri, quando aliquis per aliquam passionem, vel naturalem vel violentam, tendit in mortem. Et hoc modo, idem est loqui de morte Christi et de passione ipsius. Et ita, secundum hunc modum, mors Christi est causa salutis nostrae, secundum illud quod de passione supra dictum est. Sed in facto esse mors consideratur secundum quod iam facta est separatio corporis et animae. Et sic nunc loquimur de morte Christi. Hoc autem modo mors Christi non potest esse causa salutis nostrae per modum meriti, sed solum per modum efficientiae, inquantum scilicet nec per mortem divinitas separata est a carne Christi, et ideo quidquid contigit circa carnem Christi, etiam anima separata, fuit nobis salutiferum virtute divinitatis unitae. Consideratur autem proprie alicuius causae effectus secundum similitudinem causae. Unde, quia mors est quaedam privatio vitae propriae, effectus mortis Christi attenditur circa remotionem eorum quae contrariantur nostrae saluti, quae quidem sunt mors animae et mors corporis. Et ideo per mortem Christi dicitur esse destructa in nobis et mors animae, quae est per peccatum, secundum illud Rom. IV, traditus est, scilicet in mortem, propter delicta nostra; et mors corporis, quae consistit in separatione animae, secundum illud I Cor. XV, absorpta est mors in victoria. I answer that, We may speak of Christ’s death in two ways, in becoming and in fact. Death is said to be in becoming when anyone from natural or enforced suffering is tending towards death: and in this way it is the same thing to speak of Christ’s death as of His Passion: so that in this sense Christ’s death is the cause of our salvation, according to what has been already said of the Passion (Q. 48). But death is considered in fact, inasmuch as the separation of soul and body has already taken place: and it is in this sense that we are now speaking of Christ’s death. In this way Christ’s death cannot be the cause of our salvation by way of merit, but only by way of causality, that is to say, inasmuch as the Godhead was not separated from Christ’s flesh by death; and therefore, whatever befell Christ’s flesh, even when the soul was departed, was conducive to salvation in virtue of the Godhead united. But the effect of any cause is properly estimated according to its resemblance to the cause. Consequently, since death is a kind of privation of one’s own life, the effect of Christ’s death is considered in relation to the removal of the obstacles to our salvation: and these are the death of the soul and of the body. Hence Christ’s death is said to have destroyed in us both the death of the soul, caused by sin, according to Rom. 4:25: He was delivered up for our sins: and the death of the body, consisting in the separation of the soul, according to 1 Cor. 15:54: Death is swallowed up in victory. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod mors Christi est operata salutem nostram ex virtute divinitatis unitae, et non ex sola ratione mortis. Reply Obj. 1: Christ’s death wrought our salvation from the power of the Godhead united, and not considered merely as His death. Ad secundum dicendum quod mors Christi, secundum quod consideratur in facto esse, etsi non fuerit ad nostram salutem operata per modum meriti, fuit tamen operata per modum efficientiae, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 2: Though Christ’s death, considered in fact did not effect our salvation by way of merit, yet it did so by way of causality, as stated above. Ad tertium dicendum quod mors Christi fuit quidem corporalis, sed corpus illud fuit instrumentum divinitatis sibi unitae, operans in virtute eius etiam mortuum. Reply Obj. 3: Christ’s death was indeed corporeal; but the body was the instrument of the Godhead united to Him, working by Its power, although dead. Quaestio 51 Question 51 De sepultura Christi Christ’s Burial Deinde considerandum est de sepultura Christi. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. We have now to consider Christ’s burial, concerning which there are four points of inquiry: Primo, utrum conveniens fuerit Christum sepeliri. (1) Whether it was fitting for Christ to be buried? Secundo, de modo sepulturae eius. (2) Concerning the manner of His burial; Tertio, utrum corpus eius fuerit in sepulcro resolutum. (3) Whether His body was decomposed in the tomb? Quarto, de tempore quo iacuit in sepulcro. (4) Concerning the length of time He lay in the tomb. Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum fuerit conveniens Christum sepeliri Whether it was fitting for Christ to be buried? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit conveniens Christum sepeliri. De Christo enim dicitur in Psalmo, factus est sicut homo sine adiutorio, inter mortuos liber. Sed in sepulcro includuntur corpora mortuorum, quod videtur libertati esse contrarium. Ergo non videtur fuisse conveniens quod corpus Christi sepeliretur. Objection 1: It would seem unfitting for Christ to have been buried, because it is said of Him (Ps 87:6): He is become as a man without help, free among the dead. But the bodies of the dead are enclosed in a tomb; which seems contrary to liberty. Therefore it does not seem fitting for Christ to have been buried. Praeterea, nihil circa Christum fieri debuit quod non esset salutiferum nobis. Sed in nullo videtur ad salutem hominum pertinere quod Christus fuit sepultus. Ergo non fuit conveniens Christum sepeliri. Obj. 2: Further, nothing should be done to Christ except it was helpful to our salvation. But Christ’s burial seems in no way to be conducive to our salvation. Therefore, it was not fitting for Him to be buried. Praeterea, inconveniens esse videtur quod Deus, qui est super caelos excelsos, in terra sepeliretur. Sed illud quod convenit corpori Christi mortuo, attribuitur Deo, ratione unionis. Ergo inconveniens videtur Christum fuisse sepultum. Obj. 3: Further, it seems out of place for God who is above the high heavens to be laid in the earth. But what befalls the dead body of Christ is attributed to God by reason of the union. Therefore it appears to be unbecoming for Christ to be buried. Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Matth. XXVI, de muliere quae eum inunxit, opus bonum operata est in me, et postea subdit, mittens unguentum hoc in corpus meum, ad sepeliendum me fecit. On the contrary, our Lord said (Matt 26:10) of the woman who anointed Him: She has wrought a good work upon Me, and then He added (Matt 26:12)—for she, in pouring this ointment upon My body, hath done it for My burial. Respondeo dicendum quod conveniens fuit Christum sepeliri. Primo quidem, ad comprobandum veritatem mortis, non enim aliquis in sepulcro ponitur, nisi quando iam de veritate mortis constat. Unde et Marci XV legitur quod Pilatus, antequam concederet Christum sepeliri, diligenti inquisitione cognovit eum mortuum esse. Secundo, quia per hoc quod Christus de sepulcro resurrexit, datur spes resurgendi per ipsum his qui sunt in sepulcro, secundum illud Ioan. V, omnes qui in monumentis sunt, audient vocem filii Dei, et qui audierint, vivent. Tertio, ad exemplum eorum qui per mortem Christi spiritualiter moriuntur peccatis, qui scilicet absconduntur a conturbatione hominum. Unde dicitur Coloss. III, mortui estis, et vita vestra abscondita est cum Christo in Deo. Unde et baptizati, qui per mortem Christi moriuntur peccatis, quasi consepeliuntur Christo per immersionem, secundum illud Rom. VI, consepulti sumus cum Christo per Baptismum in mortem. I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to be buried. First of all, to establish the truth of His death; for no one is laid in the grave unless there be certainty of death. Hence we read (Mark 15:44, 45), that Pilate by diligent inquiry assured himself of Christ’s death before granting leave for His burial. Second, because by Christ’s rising from the grave, to them who are in the grave, hope is given of rising again through Him, according to John 5:25, 28: All that are in their graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God . . . and they that hear shall live. Third, as an example to them who dying spiritually to their sins are hidden away from the disturbance of men (Ps 30:21). Hence it is said (Col 3:3): You are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. Wherefore the baptized likewise who through Christ’s death die to sins, are as it were buried with Christ by immersion, according to Rom. 6:4: We are buried together with Christ by baptism into death. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus etiam sepultus ostendit se inter mortuos liberum fuisse, in hoc quod per inclusionem sepulcri non potuit impediri quin ab eo resurgendo exiverit. Reply Obj. 1: Though buried, Christ proved Himself free among the dead: since, although imprisoned in the tomb, He could not be hindered from going forth by rising again. Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Christi mors efficienter operata est nostram salutem, ita etiam et eius sepultura. Unde Hieronymus dicit, super Marc., sepultura Christi resurgimus. Et Isaiae LIII, super illud, dabit impios pro sepultura, dicit Glossa, idest, gentes, quae sine pietate erant, Deo patrique dabit, quia mortuus et sepultus eos acquisivit. Reply Obj. 2: As Christ’s death wrought our salvation, so likewise did His burial. Hence Jerome says (Super Marc. xiv): By Christ’s burial we rise again; and on Isa. 53:9: He shall give the ungodly for His burial, a gloss says: He shall give to God and the Father the Gentiles who were without godliness, because He purchased them by His death and burial. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dicitur in quodam sermone Concilii Ephesini, nihil horum quae salvant homines, iniuriam Deo facit, quae ostendunt eum, non passibilem, sed clementem. Et in alio sermone eiusdem Concilii legitur, nihil putat iniuriam Deus quod est occasio salutis hominibus. Tu quidem non ita vilem Dei naturam arbitreris, tanquam quae aliquando subiecta possit esse iniuriis. Reply Obj. 3: As is said in a discourse made at the Council of Ephesus, Nothing that saves man is derogatory to God; showing Him to be not passible, but merciful: and in another discourse of the same Council: God does not repute anything as an injury which is an occasion of men’s salvation. Thus thou shalt not deem God’s Nature to be so vile, as though It may sometimes be subjected to injuries. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum convenienti modo Christo fuerit sepultus Whether Christ was buried in a becoming manner? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur non convenienti modo Christum fuisse sepultum. Sepultura enim eius respondet morti ipsius. Sed Christus fuit passus mortem abiectissimam, secundum illud Sap. II, morte turpissima condemnemus eum. Ergo inconveniens videtur fuisse quod Christo exhibita fuit honorabilis sepultura, inquantum a magnatibus fuit tumulatus, scilicet a Ioseph ab Arimathaea, qui erat nobilis decurio, ut habetur Marci XV, et a Nicodemo, qui erat princeps Iudaeorum, ut habetur Ioan. III. Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was buried in an unbecoming manner. For His burial should be in keeping with His death. But Christ underwent a most shameful death, according to Wis. 2:20: Let us condemn Him to a most shameful death. It seems therefore unbecoming for honorable burial to be accorded to Christ, inasmuch as He was buried by men of position—namely, by Joseph of Arimathea, who was a noble counselor, to use Mark’s expression (Mark 15:43), and by Nicodemus, who was a ruler of the Jews, as John states (John 3:1). Praeterea, circa Christum non debuit aliquid fieri quod esset superfluitatis exemplum. Videtur autem superfluitatis fuisse quod ad sepeliendum Christum Nicodemus venit ferens mixturam myrrhae et aloes quasi libras centum, ut dicitur Ioan. XIX, praesertim cum mulier praevenerit corpus eius ungere in sepulturam, ut dicitur Marci XIV. Non ergo fuit hoc convenienter circa Christum factum. Obj. 2: Further, nothing should be done to Christ which might set an example of wastefulness. But it seems to savor of waste that in order to bury Christ Nicodemus came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes about a hundred pounds weight, as recorded by John (19:39), especially since a woman came beforehand to anoint His body for the burial, as Mark relates (Mark 14:28). Consequently, this was not done becomingly with regard to Christ. Praeterea, non est conveniens ut aliquod factum sibi ipsi dissonum sit. Sed sepultura Christi fuit simplex ex una parte, quia scilicet Ioseph involvit corpus eius in sindone munda, ut dicitur Matth. XXVII, non autem auro aut gemmis aut serico, ut Hieronymus ibidem dicit, ex alia vero parte videtur fuisse ambitiosa, inquantum eum cum aromatibus sepelierunt. Ergo videtur non fuisse conveniens modus sepulturae Christi. Obj. 3: Further, it is not becoming for anything done to be inconsistent with itself. But Christ’s burial on the one hand was simple, because Joseph wrapped His body in a clean linen cloth, as is related by Matthew (27:59), but not with gold or gems, or silk, as Jerome observes: yet on the other hand there appears to have been some display, inasmuch as they buried Him with fragrant spices (John 19:40). Consequently, the manner of Christ’s burial does not seem to have been seemly. Praeterea, quaecumque scripta sunt, et praecipue de Christo, ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt, ut dicitur Rom. XV. Sed quaedam scribuntur in Evangeliis circa sepulcrum quae in nullo videntur ad nostram doctrinam pertinere, sicut quod fuit sepultus in horto, quod in monumento alieno, et novo, et exciso in petra. Inconveniens igitur fuit modus sepulturae Christi. Obj. 4: Further, What things soever were written, especially of Christ, were written for our learning, according to Rom. 15:4. But some of the things written in the Gospels touching Christ’s burial in no wise seem to pertain to our instruction—as that He was buried in a garden . . . in a tomb which was not His own, which was new, and hewed out in a rock. Therefore the manner of Christ’s burial was not becoming. Sed contra est quod dicitur Isaiae XI, et erit sepulcrum eius gloriosum. On the contrary, It is written (Isa 11:10): And His sepulchre shall be glorious. Respondeo dicendum quod modus sepulturae Christi ostenditur esse conveniens quantum ad tria. Primo quidem, quantum ad confirmandam fidem mortis et resurrectionis ipsius. Secundo, ad commendandam pietatem eorum qui eum sepelierunt. Unde Augustinus dicit, in I de Civ. Dei, laudabiliter commemorantur in Evangelio qui corpus eius, de cruce acceptum, diligenter atque honorifice tegendum sepeliendumque curarunt. Tertio, quantum ad mysterium, per quod informantur illi qui Christo consepeliuntur in mortem. I answer that, The manner of Christ’s burial is shown to be seemly in three respects. First, to confirm faith in His death and resurrection. Second, to commend the devotion of those who gave Him burial. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i): The Gospel mentions as praiseworthy the deed of those who received His body from the cross, and with due care and reverence wrapped it up and buried it. Third, as to the mystery whereby those are molded who are buried together with Christ into death (Rom 6:4). Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, circa mortem Christi, commendantur patientia et constantia ipsius qui mortem est passus, et tanto magis, quanto mors fuit abiectior. Sed in sepultura honorifica consideratur virtus morientis, qui, contra intentionem occidentium, etiam mortuus honorifice sepelitur, et praefiguratur devotio fidelium, qui erant Christo mortuo servituri. Reply Obj. 1: With regard to Christ’s death, His patience and constancy in enduring death are commended, and all the more that His death was the more despicable: but in His honorable burial we can see the power of the dying Man, who, even in death, frustrated the intent of His murderers, and was buried with honor: and thereby is foreshadowed the devotion of the faithful who in the time to come were to serve the dead Christ.