Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 53 [<< | >>]
Consequenter considerandum est de his quae pertinent ad exaltationem Christi.
|
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 53 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit necessarium Christum resurgere. Dicit enim Damascenus, in IV libro, resurrectio est secunda eius quod dissolutum est et cecidit animalis surrectio. Sed Christus non cecidit per peccatum, nec corpus eius est dissolutum, ut ex supra dictis patet. Non ergo proprie convenit sibi resurgere. | Objection 1: It would seem that it was not necessary for Christ to rise again. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "Resurrection is the rising again of an animate being, which was disintegrated and fallen." But Christ did not fall by sinning, nor was His body dissolved, as is manifest from what was stated above (Question [51], Article [3]). Therefore, it does not properly belong to Him to rise again. |
| Praeterea, quicumque resurgit, ad aliquid altius promovetur, quia surgere est sursum moveri. Sed corpus Christi remansit post mortem divinitati unitum, et ita non potuit in aliquid altius promoveri. Ergo non competebat sibi resurgere. | Objection 2: Further, whoever rises again is promoted to a higher state, since to rise is to be uplifted. But after death Christ's body continued to be united with the Godhead, hence it could not be uplifted to any higher condition. Therefore, it was not due to it to rise again. |
| Praeterea, ea quae circa humanitatem Christi sunt acta, ad nostram salutem ordinantur. Sed sufficiebat ad salutem nostram passio Christi, per quam sumus liberati a culpa et poena, ut ex supra dictis patet. Non ergo fuit necessarium quod Christus a mortuis resurgeret. | Objection 3: Further, all that befell Christ's humanity was ordained for our salvation. But Christ's Passion sufficed for our salvation, since by it we were loosed from guilt and punishment, as is clear from what was said above (Question [49], Article [1],3). Consequently, it was not necessary for Christ to rise again from the dead. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Luc. ult., oportebat Christum pati et resurgere a mortuis. | On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 24:46): "It behooved Christ to suffer and to rise again from the dead." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod necessarium fuit Christum resurgere, propter quinque. Primo quidem, ad commendationem divinae iustitiae, ad quam pertinet exaltare illos qui se propter Deum humiliant, secundum illud Luc. I, deposuit potentes de sede, et exaltavit humiles. Quia igitur Christus, propter caritatem et obedientiam Dei, se humiliavit usque ad mortem crucis, oportebat quod exaltaretur a Deo usque ad gloriosam resurrectionem. Unde ex eius persona dicitur in Psalmo, tu cognovisti, idest approbasti, sessionem meam, idest humilitatem et passionem, et resurrectionem meam, idest glorificationem in resurrectione, sicut Glossa exponit. | I answer that, It behooved Christ to rise again, for five reasons. First of all; for the commendation of Divine Justice, to which it belongs to exalt them who humble themselves for God's sake, according to Lk. 1:52: "He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble." Consequently, because Christ humbled Himself even to the death of the Cross, from love and obedience to God, it behooved Him to be uplifted by God to a glorious resurrection; hence it is said in His Person (Ps. 138:2): "Thou hast known," i.e. approved, "my sitting down," i.e. My humiliation and Passion, "and my rising up," i.e. My glorification in the resurrection; as the gloss expounds. |
| Secundo, ad fidei nostrae instructionem. Quia per eius resurrectionem confirmata est fides nostra circa divinitatem Christi, quia, ut dicitur II Cor. ult., etsi crucifixus est ex infirmitate nostra, sed vivit ex virtute Dei. Et ideo I Cor. XV dicitur, si Christus non resurrexit, inanis est praedicatio nostra, inanis est et fides nostra. Et in Psalmo, quae utilitas erit in sanguine meo, idest in effusione sanguinis mei, dum descendo, quasi per quosdam gradus malorum, in corruptionem? Quasi dicat, nulla. Si enim statim non resurgo, corruptumque fuerit corpus meum, nemini annuntiabo, nullum lucrabor ut Glossa exponit. | Secondly, for our instruction in the faith, since our belief in Christ's Godhead is confirmed by His rising again, because, according to 2 Cor. 13:4, "although He was crucified through weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God." And therefore it is written (1 Cor. 15:14): "If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and our [Vulg.: 'your'] faith is also vain": and (Ps. 29:10): "What profit is there in my blood?" that is, in the shedding of My blood, "while I go down," as by various degrees of evils, "into corruption?" As though He were to answer: "None. 'For if I do not at once rise again but My body be corrupted, I shall preach to no one, I shall gain no one,'" as the gloss expounds. |
| Tertio, ad sublevationem nostrae spei. Quia, dum videmus Christum resurgere, qui est caput nostrum, speramus et nos resurrecturos. Unde dicitur I Cor. XV, si Christus praedicatur quod resurrexit a mortuis, quomodo quidam dicunt in vobis quoniam resurrectio mortuorum non est? Et Iob XIX dicitur, scio, scilicet per certitudinem fidei, quod redemptor meus, idest Christus, vivit, a mortuis resurgens, et ideo in novissimo die de terra surrecturus sum, reposita est haec spes mea in sinu meo. | Thirdly, for the raising of our hope, since through seeing Christ, who is our head, rise again, we hope that we likewise shall rise again. Hence it is written (1 Cor. 15:12): "Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection of the dead?" And (Job 19:25,27): "I know," that is with certainty of faith, "that my Redeemer," i.e. Christ, "liveth," having risen from the dead; "and" therefore "in the last day I shall rise out of the earth . . . this my hope is laid up in my bosom." |
| Quarto, ad informationem vitae fidelium, secundum illud Rom. VI, quomodo Christus resurrexit a mortuis per gloriam patris, ita et nos in novitate vitae ambulemus. Et infra, Christus resurgens ex mortuis iam non moritur, ita et vos existimate mortuos esse peccato, viventes autem Deo. | Fourthly, to set in order the lives of the faithful: according to Rm. 6:4: "As Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life": and further on; "Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more; so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive to God." |
| Quinto, ad complementum nostrae salutis. Quia sicut propter hoc mala sustinuit moriendo ut nos liberaret a malis, ita glorificatus est resurgendo ut nos promoveret ad bona, secundum illud Rom. IV, traditus est propter delicta nostra, et resurrexit propter iustificationem nostram. | Fifthly, in order to complete the work of our salvation: because, just as for this reason did He endure evil things in dying that He might deliver us from evil, so was He glorified in rising again in order to advance us towards good things; according to Rm. 4:25: "He was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet Christus non ceciderit per peccatum, cecidit tamen per mortem, quia sicut peccatum est casus a iustitia, ita mors est casus a vita. Unde ex persona Christi potest intelligi quod dicitur Mich. VII, ne laeteris, inimica mea, super me, quia cecidi, consurgam. Similiter etiam, licet corpus Christi non fuerit dissolutum per incinerationem, ipsa tamen separatio animae a corpore dissolutio quaedam fuit. | Reply to Objection 1: Although Christ did not fall by sin, yet He fell by death, because as sin is a fall from righteousness, so death is a fall from life: hence the words of Micheas 7:8 can be taken as though spoken by Christ: "Rejoice not thou, my enemy, over me, because I am fallen: I shall rise again." Likewise, although Christ's body was not disintegrated by returning to dust, yet the separation of His soul and body was a kind of disintegration. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod divinitas erat carni Christi post mortem unita unione personali, non autem unione naturae, sicut anima unitur corpori ut forma ad constituendam humanam naturam. Et ideo per hoc quod corpus eius unitum est animae, promotum est in altiorem statum naturae, non autem in altiorem statum personae. | Reply to Objection 2: The Godhead was united with Christ's flesh after death by personal union, but not by natural union; thus the soul is united with the body as its form, so as to constitute human nature. Consequently, by the union of the body and soul, the body was uplifted to a higher condition of nature, but not to a higher personal state. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod passio Christi operata est nostram salutem, proprie loquendo, quantum ad remotionem malorum, resurrectio autem quantum ad inchoationem et exemplar bonorum. | Reply to Objection 3: Christ's Passion wrought our salvation, properly speaking, by removing evils; but the Resurrection did so as the beginning and exemplar of all good things. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 53 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit conveniens Christum tertia die resurgere. Membra enim debent capiti conformari. Sed nos, qui sumus membra Christi, non resurgimus a morte tertia die, sed nostra resurrectio differtur usque ad finem mundi. Ergo videtur quod Christus, qui est caput nostrum, non debuit tertia die resurgere, sed debuit eius resurrectio differri usque ad finem mundi. | Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should have risen again on the third day. For the members ought to be in conformity with their head. But we who are His members do not rise from death on the third day, since our rising is put off until the end of the world. Therefore, it seems that Christ, who is our head, should not have risen on the third day, but that His Resurrection ought to have been deferred until the end of the world. |
| Praeterea, Act. II dicit Petrus quod impossibile erat Christum detineri ab Inferno et morte. Sed quandiu aliquis est mortuus, detinetur a morte. Ergo videtur quod Christi resurrectio non debuerit differri usque ad tertiam diem, sed statim eodem die resurgere, praecipue cum Glossa super inducta dicat nullam esse utilitatem in effusione sanguinis Christi si non statim resurgeret. | Objection 2: Further, Peter said (Acts 2:24) that "it was impossible for Christ to be held fast by hell" and death. Therefore it seems that Christ's rising ought not to have been deferred until the third day, but that He ought to have risen at once on the same day; especially since the gloss quoted above (Article [1]) says that "there is no profit in the shedding of Christ's blood, if He did not rise at once." |
| Praeterea, dies incipere videtur ab ortu solis, qui sua praesentia diem causat. Sed ante ortum solis Christus resurrexit, dicitur enim Ioan. XX, quod una sabbati Maria Magdalene venit mane, cum adhuc tenebrae essent, ad monumentum, et tunc Christus iam resurrexerat, quia sequitur, et vidit revolutum lapidem a monumento. Ergo non resurrexit Christus tertia die. | Objection 3: The day seems to start with the rising of the sun, the presence of which causes the day. But Christ rose before sunrise: for it is related (Jn. 20:1) that "Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre": but Christ was already risen, for it goes on to say: "And she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre." Therefore Christ did not rise on the third day. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. XX, tradent eum gentibus ad illudendum et flagellandum et crucifigendum, et tertia die resurget. | On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 20:19): "They shall deliver Him to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified, and the third day He shall rise again." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, resurrectio Christi necessaria fuit ad instructionem fidei nostrae. Est autem fides nostra et de divinitate et de humanitate Christi, non enim sufficit alterum sine altero credere, ut ex praedictis patet. Et ideo, ad hoc quod confirmaretur fides divinitatis ipsius, oportuit quod cito resurgeret, et eius resurrectio non differretur usque ad finem mundi, ad hoc autem quod confirmaretur fides de veritate humanitatis et mortis eius, oportuit moram esse inter mortem et resurrectionem; si enim statim post mortem resurrexisset videri posset quod eius mors vera non fuerit, et per consequens nec resurrectio vera. Ad veritatem autem mortis Christi manifestandam, sufficiebat quod usque ad tertiam diem eius resurrectio differretur, quia non contingit quin infra hoc tempus, in homine qui mortuus videtur cum vivat, appareant aliqua indicia vitae. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]) Christ's Resurrection was necessary for the instruction of our faith. But our faith regards Christ's Godhead and humanity, for it is not enough to believe the one without the other, as is evident from what has been said (Question [36], Article [4]; cf. SS, Question [2], Articles [7],8). Consequently, in order that our faith in the truth of His Godhead might be confirmed it was necessary that He should rise speedily, and that His Resurrection should not be deferred until the end of the world. But to confirm our faith regarding the truth of His humanity and death, it was needful that there should be some interval between His death and rising. For if He had risen directly after death, it might seem that His death was not genuine and consequently neither would His Resurrection be true. But to establish the truth of Christ's death, it was enough for His rising to be deferred until the third day, for within that time some signs of life always appear in one who appears to be dead whereas he is alive. |
| Per hoc etiam quod tertia die resurrexit, commendatur perfectio ternarii, qui est numerus omnis rei, utpote habens principium, medium et finem, ut dicitur in I de caelo. Ostenditur etiam, secundum mysterium, quod Christus una sua morte, quae fuit lux propter iustitiam, corporali scilicet, duas nostras mortes destruxit, scilicet corporis et animae, quae sunt tenebrosae propter peccatum, et ideo una die integra et duabus noctibus permansit in morte, ut Augustinus dicit, in IV de Trin. | Furthermore, by His rising on the third day, the perfection of the number "three" is commended, which is "the number of everything," as having "beginning, middle, and end," as is said in De Coelo i. Again in the mystical sense we are taught that Christ by "His one death" (i.e. of the body) which was light, by reason of His righteousness, "destroyed our two deaths" (i.e. of soul and body), which are as darkness on account of sin; consequently, He remained in death for one day and two nights, as Augustine observes (De Trin. iv). |
| Per hoc etiam significatur quod per resurrectionem Christi tertium tempus incipiebat. Nam primum fuit ante legem; secundum sub lege; tertium sub gratia. Incipit etiam in Christi resurrectione tertius status sanctorum. Nam primus fuit sub figuris legis; secundus, sub veritate fidei; tertius erit in aeternitate gloriae, quam Christus resurgendo inchoavit. | And thereby is also signified that a third epoch began with the Resurrection: for the first was before the Law; the second under the Law; and the third under grace. Moreover the third state of the saints began with the Resurrection of Christ: for, the first was under figures of the Law; the second under the truth of faith; while the third will be in the eternity of glory, which Christ inaugurated by rising again. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod caput et membra conformantur in natura, sed non in virtute, excellentior est enim virtus capitis quam membrorum. Et ideo, ad demonstrandam excellentiam virtutis Christi, conveniens fuit ipsum tertia die resurgere, aliorum resurrectione dilata usque ad finem mundi. | Reply to Objection 1: The head and members are likened in nature, but not in power; because the power of the head is more excellent than that of the members. Accordingly, to show forth the excellence of Christ's power, it was fitting that He should rise on the third day, while the resurrection of the rest is put off until the end of the world. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod detentio coactionem quandam importat. Christus autem nulla necessitate mortis tenebatur adstrictus, sed erat inter mortuos liber. Et ideo aliquandiu in morte mansit, non quasi detentus, sed propria voluntate, quandiu iudicavit hoc esse necessarium ad instructionem fidei nostrae. Dicitur autem statim fieri quod fit brevi interposito tempore. | Reply to Objection 2: Detention implies a certain compulsion. But Christ was not held fast by any necessity of death, but was "free among the dead": and therefore He abode a while in death, not as one held fast, but of His own will, just so long as He deemed necessary for the instruction of our faith. And a task is said to be done "at once" which is performed within a short space of time. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, Christus resurrexit circa diluculum, illucescente iam die, ad significandum quod per suam resurrectionem nos ad lucem gloriae inducebat, sicut mortuus est advesperascente iam die et tendente in tenebras, ad ostendendum quod per suam mortem destrueret tenebras culpae et poenae. Et tamen dicitur tertia die resurrexisse, accipiendo diem pro die naturali, quae continet spatium viginti quatuor horarum. Et, sicut dicit Augustinus, in IV de Trin., nox usque ad diluculum quo domini resurrectio declarata est, ad tertium pertinet diem. Quia Deus, qui dixit de tenebris lumen clarescere, ut per gratiam novi testamenti et participationem resurrectionis Christi audiremus, fuistis aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in domino, insinuat nobis quodammodo quod a nocte dies sumat initium. Sicut enim primi dies, propter futurum hominis lapsum, a luce in noctem, ita isti, propter hominis reparationem, a tenebris ad lucem computantur. Et ita patet quod, etiam si media nocte surrexisset, posset dici die tertia eum surrexisse, intelligendo de die naturali. Nunc autem, cum in diluculo surrexerit, potest dici quod die tertia surrexit, etiam accipiendo diem artificialem, quae causatur ex praesentia solis, quia iam sol incipiebat aerem illustrare. Unde et Marci ult. dicitur quod mulieres venerunt ad monumentum, orto iam sole. Quod non est contrarium ei quod Ioannes dicit, cum adhuc tenebrae essent, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de consensu Evang., quia, die surgente, reliquiae tenebrarum tanto magis extenuantur, quanto magis oritur lux; quod autem dicit Marcus, orto iam sole, non sic accipiendum est tanquam iam sol ipse videretur super terram, sed tanquam eo proximo veniente in has partes. | Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Question [51], Article [4], ad 1,2), Christ rose early when the day was beginning to dawn, to denote that by His Resurrection He brought us to the light of glory; just as He died when the day was drawing to its close, and nearing to darkness, in order to signify that by His death He would destroy the darkness of sin and its punishment. Nevertheless He is said to have risen on the third day, taking day as a natural day which contains twenty-four hours. And as Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "The night until the dawn, when the Lord's Resurrection was proclaimed, belongs to the third day. Because God, who made the light to shine forth from darkness, in order that by the grace of the New Testament and partaking of Christ's rising we might hear this---'once ye were darkness, but now light in the Lord'---insinuates in a measure to us that day draws its origin from night: for, as the first days are computed from light to darkness on account of man's coming fall, so these days are reckoned from darkness to light owing to man's restoration." And so it is evident that even if He had risen at midnight, He could be said to have risen on the third day, taking it as a natural day. But now that He rose early, it can be affirmed that He rose on the third day, even taking the artificial day which is caused by the sun's presence, because the sun had already begun to brighten the sky. Hence it is written (Mk. 16:2) that "the women come to the sepulchre, the sun being now risen"; which is not contrary to John's statement "when it was yet dark," as Augustine says (De Cons. Evang. iii), "because, as the day advances the more the light rises, the more are the remaining shadows dispelled." But when Mark says "'the sun being now risen,' it is not to be taken as if the sun were already apparent over the horizon, but as coming presently into those parts." |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 53 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non primo resurrexit. Nam in veteri testamento per Eliam et Elisaeum aliqui resuscitati leguntur, secundum illud Heb. XI, acceperunt mulieres de resurrectione mortuos suos. Similiter etiam Christus, ante passionem suam, tres mortuos suscitavit. Non ergo Christus fuit primus resurgentium. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was not the first to rise from the dead, because we read in the Old Testament of some persons raised to life by Elias and Eliseus, according to Heb. 11:35: "Women received their dead raised to life again": also Christ before His Passion raised three dead persons to life. Therefore Christ was not the first to rise from the dead. |
| Praeterea, Matth. XXVII, inter alia miracula quae in passione Christi acciderunt, narratur quod monumenta aperta sunt, et multa corpora sanctorum qui dormierant, surrexerunt. Non ergo Christus fuit primus resurgentium. | Objection 2: Further, among the other miracles which happened during the Passion, it is narrated (Mt. 27:52) that "the monuments were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had slept rose again." Therefore Christ was not the first to rise from the dead. |
| Praeterea, sicut Christus per suam resurrectionem est causa nostrae resurrectionis, ita per suam gratiam est causa nostrae gratiae, secundum illud Ioan. I, de plenitudine eius omnes accepimus. Sed alii prius tempore gratiam habuerunt quam Christus, sicut omnes patres veteris testamenti. Ergo etiam aliqui prius ad resurrectionem corporalem pervenerunt quam Christus. | Objection 3: Further, as Christ by His own rising is the cause of our resurrection, so by His grace He is the cause of our grace, according to Jn. 1:16: "Of His fulness we all have received." But in point of time some others had grace previous to Christ---for instance all the fathers of the Old Testament. Therefore some others came to the resurrection of the body before Christ. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur I Cor. XV, Christus resurrexit a mortuis primitiae dormientium, Glossa, quia prius tempore et dignitate surrexit. | On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 15:20): "Christ is risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that sleep---because," says the gloss, "He rose first in point of time and dignity." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod resurrectio est reparatio a morte in vitam. Dupliciter autem aliquis eripitur a morte. Uno modo, solum a morte in actu, ut scilicet aliquis vivere incipiat qualitercumque postquam mortuus fuerat. Alio modo, ut aliquis liberetur non solum a morte, sed etiam a necessitate et, quod plus est, a possibilitate moriendi. Et haec est vera et perfecta resurrectio. Quia quandiu aliquis vivit subiectus necessitati moriendi, quodammodo mors ei dominatur, secundum illud Rom. VIII, corpus quidem mortuum est propter peccatum. Illud etiam quod possibile est esse, secundum quid dicitur esse, idest potentialiter. Et sic patet quod illa resurrectio qua quis eripitur solum ab actuali morte, est resurrectio imperfecta. | I answer that, Resurrection is a restoring from death to life. Now a man is snatched from death in two ways: first of all, from actual death, so that he begins in any way to live anew after being actually dead: in another way, so that he is not only rescued from death, but from the necessity, nay more, from the possibility of dying again. Such is a true and perfect resurrection, because so long as a man lives, subject to the necessity of dying, death has dominion over him in a measure, according to Rm. 8:10: "The body indeed is dead because of sin." Furthermore, what has the possibility of existence, is said to exist in some respect, that is, in potentiality. Thus it is evident that the resurrection, whereby one is rescued from actual death only, is but an imperfect one. |
| Loquendo ergo de resurrectione perfecta, Christus est primus resurgentium, quia ipse resurgendo primo pervenit ad vitam penitus immortalem; secundum illud Rom. VI, Christus, resurgens ex mortuis, iam non moritur. Sed resurrectione imperfecta quidam alii surrexerunt ante Christum, ad praemonstrandum quasi in quodam signo resurrectionem ipsius. | Consequently, speaking of perfect resurrection, Christ is the first of them who rise, because by rising He was the first to attain life utterly immortal, according to Rm. 6:9: "Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more." But by an imperfect resurrection, some others have risen before Christ, so as to be a kind of figure of His Resurrection. |
| Et sic patet responsio ad primum. Quia et illi qui suscitati sunt in veteri testamento, et illi qui suscitati sunt a Christo, sic redierunt ad vitam ut iterum morerentur. | And thus the answer to the first objection is clear: because both those raised from the dead in the old Testament, and those raised by Christ, so returned to life that they had to die again. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod de illis qui resurrexerunt cum Christo, duplex est opinio. Quidam enim asserunt quod redierunt ad vitam tanquam non iterum morituri, quoniam maius illis esset tormentum si iterum morerentur, quam si non resurgerent. Et secundum hoc, intelligendum erit, sicut Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., quod non ante resurrexerunt quam resurgeret dominus. Unde et Evangelista dicit quod, exeuntes de monumentis post resurrectionem eius, venerunt in sanctam civitatem et apparuerunt multis. Sed Augustinus, in epistola ad Evodium, hanc opinionem commemorans, dicit, scio quibusdam videri morte domini Christi iam talem resurrectionem praestitam iustis, qualis nobis in fine promittitur quod si non iterum, repositis corporibus, dormierunt, videndum est quomodo intelligatur Christus primogenitus a mortuis, si eum in illam resurrectionem tot praecesserunt. Quod si respondetur hoc dictum esse per anticipationem, ut monumenta illo terrae motu aperta intelligantur cum Christus in cruce penderet, resurrexisse autem iustorum corpora non tunc, sed cum ille prior resurrexisset, sed adhuc restat quod moveat quomodo Petrus non de David sed de Christo asseruit fuisse praedictum carnem eius non vidisse corruptionem, scilicet per hoc quod apud eos erat monumentum David; et sic illos non convincebat, si corpus David ibi iam non erat; quia, etsi ante in recenti sua morte resurrexisset, nec caro eius vidisset corruptionem, posset monumentum illud manere. Durum autem videtur ut David non fuerit in illa resurrectione iustorum, si eis iam aeterna donata est, cuius Christus ex semine commendatur. Periclitabitur etiam illud quod ad Hebraeos de iustis antiquis dicitur, ne sine nobis perficerentur, si iam in illa resurrectionis incorruptione constituti sunt quae nobis perficiendis in fine promittitur. Sic ergo Augustinus sentire videtur quod resurrexerint iterum morituri. Ad quod etiam videtur pertinere quod Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., quod, sicut Lazarus resurrexit, sic et multa corpora sanctorum resurrexerunt, ut dominum ostenderent resurgentem. Quamvis hoc in sermone de assumptione sub dubio relinquat. Rationes tamen Augustini multo efficaciores videntur. | Reply to Objection 2: There are two opinions regarding them who rose with Christ. Some hold that they rose to life so as to die no more, because it would be a greater torment for them to die a second time than not to rise at all. According to this view, as Jerome observes on Mt. 27:52,53, we must understand that "they had not risen before our Lord rose." Hence the Evangelist says that "coming out of the tombs after His Resurrection, they came into the holy city, and appeared to many." But Augustine (Ep. ad Evod. clxiv) while giving this opinion, says: "I know that it appears some, that by the death of Christ the Lord the same resurrection was bestowed upon the righteous as is promised to us in the end; and if they slept not again by laying aside their bodies, it remains to be seen how Christ can be understood to be 'the first-born of the dead,' if so many preceded Him unto that resurrection. Now if reply be made that this is said by anticipation, so that the monuments be understood to have been opened by the earthquake while Christ was still hanging on the cross, but that the bodies of the just did not rise then but after He had risen, the difficulty still arises---how is it that Peter asserts that it was predicted not of David but of Christ, that His body would not see corruption, since David's tomb was in their midst; and thus he did not convince them, if David's body was no longer there; for even if he had risen soon after his death, and his flesh had not seen corruption, his tomb might nevertheless remain. Now it seems hard that David from whose seed Christ is descended, was not in that rising of the just, if an eternal rising was conferred upon them. Also that saying in the Epistle to the Hebrews (11:40) regarding the ancient just would be hard to explain, 'that they should not be perfected without us,' if they were already established in that incorruption of the resurrection which is promised at the end when we shall be made perfect": so that Augustine would seem to think that they rose to die again. In this sense Jerome also in commenting on Matthew (27:52,53) says: "As Lazarus rose, so also many of the bodies of the saints rose, that they might bear witness to the risen Christ." Nevertheless in a sermon for the Assumption [*Ep. ix ad Paul. et Eustoch.; among the supposititious works ascribed to St. Jerome] he seems to leave the matter doubtful. But Augustine's reasons seem to be much more cogent. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut ea quae praecesserunt Christi adventum, fuerunt praeparatoria ad Christum, ita gratia est dispositio ad gloriam. Et ideo ea quae sunt gloriae, sive quantum ad animam, sicut perfecta Dei fruitio, sive quantum ad corpus, sicut resurrectio gloriosa, prius tempore debuit esse in Christo, sicut in auctore gloriae. Gratiam vero conveniebat prius esse in his quae ordinabantur ad Christum. | Reply to Objection 3: As everything preceding Christ's coming was preparatory for Christ, so is grace a disposition for glory. Consequently, it behooved all things appertaining to glory, whether they regard the soul, as the perfect fruition of God, or whether they regard the body, as the glorious resurrection, to be first in Christ as the author of glory: but that grace should be first in those that were ordained unto Christ. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 53 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non fuerit causa suae resurrectionis. Quicumque enim suscitatur ab alio, non est suae resurrectionis causa. Sed Christus est suscitatus ab alio, secundum illud Act. II, quem Deus suscitavit, solutis doloribus Inferni; et Rom. VIII, qui suscitavit Iesum Christum a mortuis, vivificabit et mortalia corpora nostra, et cetera. Ergo Christus non est causa suae resurrectionis. | Objection 1: It seems that Christ was not the cause of His own Resurrection. For whoever is raised up by another is not the cause of his own rising. But Christ was raised up by another, according to Acts 2:24: "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell": and Rm. 8:11: "He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies." Therefore Christ is not the cause of His own Resurrection. |
| Praeterea, nullus dicitur mereri, vel ab alio petit, aliquid cuius ipse est causa. Sed Christus sua passione meruit resurrectionem, sicut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., quod humilitas passionis meritum est gloriae resurrectionis. Ipse etiam petit a patre se resuscitari, secundum illud Psalmi, tu autem, domine, miserere mei et resuscita me. Ergo Christus non fuit causa suae resurrectionis. | Objection 2: Further, no one is said to merit, or ask from another, that of which he is himself the cause. But Christ by His Passion merited the Resurrection, as Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan.): "The lowliness of the Passion is the meritorious cause of the glory of the Resurrection." Moreover He asked the Father that He might be raised up again, according to Ps. 40:11: "But thou, O Lord, have mercy on me, and raise me up again." Therefore He was not the cause of His rising again. |
| Praeterea, sicut Damascenus probat, in IV libro, resurrectio non est animae, sed corporis, quod per mortem cadit. Corpus autem non potuit sibi animam unire, quae est eo nobilior. Ergo id quod resurrexit in Christo, non potuit esse causa suae resurrectionis. | Objection 3: Further, as Damascene proves (De Fide Orth. iv), it is not the soul that rises again, but the body, which is stricken by death. But the body could not unite the soul with itself, since the soul is nobler. Therefore what rose in Christ could not be the cause of His Resurrection. |
| Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Ioan. X, nemo tollit animam meam a me, sed ego pono eam et iterum sumo eam. Sed nihil est aliud resurgere quam iterato animam sumere. Ergo videtur quod Christus propria virtute resurrexit. | On the contrary, Our Lord says (Jn. 10:18): "No one taketh My soul from Me, but I lay it down, and I take it up again." But to rise is nothing else than to take the soul up again. Consequently, it appears that Christ rose again of His own power. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, per mortem non fuit separata divinitas nec ab anima Christi, nec ab eius carne. Potest igitur tam anima Christi mortui, quam eius caro, considerari dupliciter, uno modo, ratione divinitatis; alio modo, ratione ipsius naturae creatae. Secundum igitur unitae divinitatis virtutem, et corpus resumpsit animam, quam deposuerat; et anima resumpsit corpus, quod dimiserat. Et hoc est quod de Christo dicitur II Cor. ult., quod, etsi crucifixus est ex infirmitate nostra, sed vivit ex virtute Dei. Si autem consideremus corpus et animam Christi mortui secundum virtutem naturae creatae, sic non potuerunt sibi invicem reuniri, sed oportuit Christum resuscitari a Deo. | I answer that, As stated above (Question [50], Articles [2],3) in consequence of death Christ's Godhead was not separated from His soul, nor from His flesh. Consequently, both the soul and the flesh of the dead Christ can be considered in two respects: first, in respect of His Godhead; secondly, in respect of His created nature. Therefore, according to the virtue of the Godhead united to it, the body took back again the soul which it had laid aside, and the soul took back again the body which it had abandoned: and thus Christ rose by His own power. And this is precisely what is written (2 Cor. 13:4): "For although He was crucified through" our "weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God." But if we consider the body and soul of the dead Christ according to the power of created nature, they could not thus be reunited, but it was necessary for Christ to be raised up by God. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod eadem est divina virtus et operatio patris et filii. Unde haec duo sese consequuntur, quod Christus sit suscitatus divina virtute patris, et sui ipsius. | Reply to Objection 1: The Divine power is the same thing as the operation of the Father and the Son; accordingly these two things are mutually consequent, that Christ was raised up by the Divine power of the Father, and by His own power. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod Christus orando petiit et meruit suam resurrectionem, inquantum homo, non autem inquantum Deus. | Reply to Objection 2: Christ by praying besought and merited His Resurrection, as man and not as God. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod corpus secundum naturam creatam non est potentius anima Christi, est tamen ea potentius secundum virtutem divinam. Quae etiam rursus, secundum divinitatem unitam, est potentior corpore secundum naturam creatam. Et ideo secundum virtutem divinam corpus et anima mutuo se resumpserunt, non autem secundum virtutem naturae creatae. | Reply to Objection 3: According to its created nature Christ's body is not more powerful than His soul; yet according to its Divine power it is more powerful. Again the soul by reason of the Godhead united to it is more powerful than the body in respect of its created nature. Consequently, it was by the Divine power that the body and soul mutually resumed each other, but not by the power of their created nature. |