Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 82 (2/2)
But human flesh was never offered up in the sacrifices of the Old Law, which were figures of Christ: nay, such sacrifices were reputed as impious, according to Ps. 105:38: ”And they shed innocent blood: the blood of their sons and of their daughters, which they sacrificed to the idols of Chanaan.” It seems therefore that Christ's Pa.s.sion cannot be called a sacrifice.
Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x) that ”a visible sacrifice is a sacrament--that is, a sacred sign--of an invisible sacrifice.” Now Christ's Pa.s.sion is not a sign, but rather the thing signified by other signs. Therefore it seems that Christ's Pa.s.sion is not a sacrifice.
Obj. 3: Further, whoever offers sacrifice performs some sacred rite, as the very word ”sacrifice” shows. But those men who slew Christ did not perform any sacred act, but rather wrought a great wrong.
Therefore Christ's Pa.s.sion was rather a malefice than a sacrifice.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Eph. 5:2): ”He delivered Himself up for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to G.o.d for an odor of sweetness.”
_I answer that,_ A sacrifice properly so called is something done for that honor which is properly due to G.o.d, in order to appease Him: and hence it is that Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x): ”A true sacrifice is every good work done in order that we may cling to G.o.d in holy fellows.h.i.+p, yet referred to that consummation of happiness wherein we can be truly blessed.” But, as is added in the same place, ”Christ offered Himself up for us in the Pa.s.sion”: and this voluntary enduring of the Pa.s.sion was most acceptable to G.o.d, as coming from charity. Therefore it is manifest that Christ's Pa.s.sion was a true sacrifice. Moreover, as Augustine says farther on in the same book, ”the primitive sacrifices of the holy Fathers were many and various signs of this true sacrifice, one being prefigured by many, in the same way as a single concept of thought is expressed in many words, in order to commend it without tediousness”: and, as Augustine observe, (De Trin. iv), ”since there are four things to be noted in every sacrifice--to wit, to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered--that the same one true Mediator reconciling us with G.o.d through the peace-sacrifice might continue to be one with Him to whom He offered it, might be one with them for whom He offered it, and might Himself be the offerer and what He offered.”
Reply Obj. 1: Although the truth answers to the figure in some respects, yet it does not in all, since the truth must go beyond the figure. Therefore the figure of this sacrifice, in which Christ's flesh is offered, was flesh right fittingly, not the flesh of men, but of animals, as denoting Christ's. And this is a most perfect sacrifice. First of all, since being flesh of human nature, it is fittingly offered for men, and is partaken of by them under the Sacrament. Secondly, because being pa.s.sible and mortal, it was fit for immolation. Thirdly, because, being sinless, it had virtue to cleanse from sins. Fourthly, because, being the offerer's own flesh, it was acceptable to G.o.d on account of His charity in offering up His own flesh. Hence it is that Augustine says (De Trin. iv): ”What else could be so fittingly partaken of by men, or offered up for men, as human flesh? What else could be so appropriate for this immolation as mortal flesh? What else is there so clean for cleansing mortals as the flesh born in the womb without fleshly concupiscence, and coming from a virginal womb? What could be so favorably offered and accepted as the flesh of our sacrifice, which was made the body of our Priest?”
Reply Obj. 2: Augustine is speaking there of visible figurative sacrifices: and even Christ's Pa.s.sion, although denoted by other figurative sacrifices, is yet a sign of something to be observed by us, according to 1 Pet. 4:1: ”Christ therefore, having suffered in the flesh, be you also armed with the same thought: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sins: that now he may live the rest of his time in the flesh, not after the desires of men, but according to the will of G.o.d.”
Reply Obj. 3: Christ's Pa.s.sion was indeed a malefice on His slayers'
part; but on His own it was the sacrifice of one suffering out of charity. Hence it is Christ who is said to have offered this sacrifice, and not the executioners.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 48, Art. 3]
Whether Christ's Pa.s.sion Brought About Our Salvation by Way of Redemption?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's Pa.s.sion did not effect our salvation by way of redemption. For no one purchases or redeems what never ceased to belong to him. But men never ceased to belong to G.o.d according to Ps. 23:1: ”The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof: the world and all they that dwell therein.” Therefore it seems that Christ did not redeem us by His Pa.s.sion.
Obj. 2: Further, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): ”The devil had to be overthrown by Christ's justice.” But justice requires that the man who has treacherously seized another's property shall be deprived of it, because deceit and cunning should not benefit anyone, as even human laws declare. Consequently, since the devil by treachery deceived and subjugated to himself man, who is G.o.d's creature, it seems that man ought not to be rescued from his power by way of redemption.
Obj. 3: Further, whoever buys or redeems an object pays the price to the holder. But it was not to the devil, who held us in bondage, that Christ paid His blood as the price of our redemption. Therefore Christ did not redeem us by His Pa.s.sion.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Pet. 1:18): ”You were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers: but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled.” And (Gal.
3:13): ”Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” Now He is said to be a curse for us inasmuch as He suffered upon the tree, as stated above (Q. 46, A. 4). Therefore He did redeem us by His Pa.s.sion.
_I answer that,_ Man was held captive on account of sin in two ways: first of all, by the bondage of sin, because (John 8:34): ”Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin”; and (2 Pet. 2:19): ”By whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave.” Since, then, the devil had overcome man by inducing him to sin, man was subject to the devil's bondage. Secondly, as to the debt of punishment, to the payment of which man was held fast by G.o.d's justice: and this, too, is a kind of bondage, since it savors of bondage for a man to suffer what he does not wish, just as it is the free man's condition to apply himself to what he wills.
Since, then, Christ's Pa.s.sion was a sufficient and a superabundant atonement for the sin and the debt of the human race, it was as a price at the cost of which we were freed from both obligations. For the atonement by which one satisfies for self or another is called the price, by which he ransoms himself or someone else from sin and its penalty, according to Dan. 4:24: ”Redeem thou thy sins with alms.” Now Christ made satisfaction, not by giving money or anything of the sort, but by bestowing what was of greatest price--Himself--for us. And therefore Christ's Pa.s.sion is called our redemption.
Reply Obj. 1: Man is said to belong to G.o.d in two ways. First of all, in so far as he comes under G.o.d's power: in which way he never ceased to belong to G.o.d; according to Dan. 4:22: ”The Most High ruleth over the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” Secondly, by being united to Him in charity, according to Rom. 8:9: ”If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.” In the first way, then, man never ceased to belong to G.o.d, but in the second way he did cease because of sin. And therefore in so far as he was delivered from sin by the satisfaction of Christ's Pa.s.sion, he is said to be redeemed by the Pa.s.sion of Christ.
Reply Obj. 2: Man by sinning became the bondsman both of G.o.d and of the devil. Through guilt he had offended G.o.d, and put himself under the devil by consenting to him; consequently he did not become G.o.d's servant on account of his guilt, but rather, by withdrawing from G.o.d's service, he, by G.o.d's just permission, fell under the devil's servitude on account of the offense perpetrated. But as to the penalty, man was chiefly bound to G.o.d as his sovereign judge, and to the devil as his torturer, according to Matt. 5:25: ”Lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer”--that is, ”to the relentless avenging angel,” as Chrysostom says (Hom. xi). Consequently, although, after deceiving man, the devil, so far as in him lay, held him unjustly in bondage as to both sin and penalty, still it was just that man should suffer it, G.o.d so permitting it as to the sin and ordaining it as to the penalty. And therefore justice required man's redemption with regard to G.o.d, but not with regard to the devil.
Reply Obj. 3: Because, with regard to G.o.d, redemption was necessary for man's deliverance, but not with regard to the devil, the price had to be paid not to the devil, but to G.o.d. And therefore Christ is said to have paid the price of our redemption--His own precious blood--not to the devil, but to G.o.d.
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 48, Art. 5]
Whether It Is Proper to Christ to Be the Redeemer?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to be the Redeemer, because it is written (Ps. 30:6): ”Thou hast redeemed me, O Lord, the G.o.d of Truth.” But to be the Lord G.o.d of Truth belongs to the entire Trinity. Therefore it is not proper to Christ.
<script>