Tertia Pars · The Life of Christ

Of Christ's Transfiguration

III, q. 45 · Four articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Deinde considerandum est de transfiguratione Christi. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum conveniens fuerit Christum transfigurari. Secundo, utrum claritas transfigurationis fuerit claritas gloriosa. Tertio, de testibus transfigurationis. Quarto, de testimonio paternae vocis.

We now consider Christ's transfiguration; and here there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether it was fitting that Christ should be transfigured?

(2) Whether the clarity of the transfiguration was the clarity of glory?

(3) Of the witnesses of the transfiguration;

(4) Of the testimony of the Father's voice.

1 Whether It Was Fitting That Christ Should Be Transfigured?
2 Whether This Clarity Was the Clarity of Glory?
3 Whether the Witnesses of the Transfiguration Were Fittingly Chosen?
4 Whether the Testimony of the Father's Voice, Saying, "This Is My Beloved Son," Was Fittingly Added?

Articulus I

Whether It Was Fitting That Christ Should Be Transfigured?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit conveniens Christum transfigurari. Non enim competit vero corpori ut in diversas figuras mutetur, sed corpori phantastico. Corpus autem Christi non fuit phantasticum, sed verum, ut supra habitum est. Ergo videtur quod transfigurari non debuit.

It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should be transfigured. For it is not fitting for a true body to be changed into various shapes (figuras), but only for an imaginary body. Now Christ's body was not imaginary, but real, as stated above (Q. 5, A. 1). Therefore it seems that it should not have been transfigured.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, figura est in quarta specie qualitatis, claritas autem est in tertia, cum sit sensibilis qualitas. Assumptio ergo claritatis a Christo transfiguratio dici non debet.

Further, figure is in the fourth species of quality, whereas clarity is in the third, since it is a sensible quality. Therefore Christ's assuming clarity should not be called a transfiguration.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, corporis gloriosi sunt quatuor dotes, ut infra dicetur, scilicet impassibilitas, agilitas, subtilitas et claritas. Non ergo magis debuit transfigurari secundum assumptionem claritatis, quam secundum assumptionem aliarum dotium.

Further, a glorified body has four gifts, as we shall state farther on (Suppl., Q. 82), viz. impassibility, agility, subtlety, and clarity. Therefore His transfiguration should not have consisted in an assumption of clarity rather than of the other gifts.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. XVII, quod Iesus transfiguratus est ante tres discipulorum suorum.

On the contrary, It is written (Matt. 17:2) that Jesus "was transfigured" in the presence of three of His disciples.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod dominus discipulos suos, praenuntiata sua passione, induxerat eos ad suae passionis sequelam. Oportet autem ad hoc quod aliquis directe procedat in via, quod finem aliqualiter praecognoscat, sicut sagittator non recte iaciet sagittam nisi prius signum prospexerit in quod iaciendum est. Unde et Thomas dixit, Ioan. XIV, domine, nescimus quo vadis, et quomodo possumus viam scire? Et hoc praecipue necessarium est quando via est difficilis et aspera, et iter laboriosum, finis vero iucundus. Christus autem per passionem ad hoc pervenit ut gloriam obtineret, non solum animae, quam habuit a principio suae conceptionis, sed etiam corporis, secundum illud Luc. ult., haec oportuit Christum pati, et ita intrare in gloriam suam. Ad quam etiam perducit eos qui vestigia suae passionis sequuntur, secundum illud Act. XIV, per multas tribulationes oportet nos intrare in regnum caelorum. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut discipulis suis gloriam suae claritatis ostenderet (quod est ipsum transfigurari), cui suos configurabit, secundum illud Philipp. III, reformabit corpus humilitatis nostrae, configuratum corpori claritatis suae. Unde Beda dicit, super Marcum, pia provisione factum est ut, contemplatione semper manentis gaudii ad breve tempus delibata fortius adversa tolerarent.

I answer that, Our Lord, after foretelling His Passion to His disciples, had exhorted them to follow the path of His sufferings (Matt. 16:21, 24). Now in order that anyone go straight along a road, he must have some knowledge of the end: thus an archer will not shoot the arrow straight unless he first see the target. Hence Thomas said (John 14:5): "Lord, we know not whither Thou goest; and how can we know the way?" Above all is this necessary when hard and rough is the road, heavy the going, but delightful the end. Now by His Passion Christ achieved glory, not only of His soul, not only of His soul, which He had from the first moment of His conception, but also of His body; according to Luke (24:26): "Christ ought [Vulg.: 'ought not Christ'] to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory (?)." To which glory He brings those who follow the footsteps of His Passion, according to Acts 14:21: "Through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God." Therefore it was fitting that He should show His disciples the glory of His clarity (which is to be transfigured), to which He will configure those who are His; according to Phil. 3:21: "(Who) will reform the body of our lowness configured [Douay: 'made like'] to the body of His glory." Hence Bede says on Mk. 8:39: "By His loving foresight He allowed them to taste for a short time the contemplation of eternal joy, so that they might bear persecution bravely."

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., nemo putet Christum per hoc quod transfiguratus dicitur, pristinam formam et faciem perdidisse, vel amisisse corporis veritatem et assumpsisse corpus spirituale vel aereum. Sed quomodo transformatus sit, Evangelista demonstrat, dicens, resplenduit facies eius sicut sol, vestimenta autem eius facta sunt alba sicut nix. Ubi splendor faciei ostenditur, et candor describitur vestium, non substantia tollitur, sed gloria commutatur.

As Jerome says on Matt. 17:2: "Let no one suppose that Christ," through being said to be transfigured, "laid aside His natural shape and countenance, or substituted an imaginary or aerial body for His real body. The Evangelist describes the manner of His transfiguration when he says: 'His face did shine as the sun, and His garments became white as snow.' Brightness of face and whiteness of garments argue not a change of substance, but a putting on of glory."

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod figura circa extremitatem corporis consideratur, est enim figura quae termino vel terminis comprehenditur. Et ideo omnia illa quae circa extremitatem corporis considerantur ad figuram quodammodo pertinere videntur. Sicut autem color, ita et claritas corporis non transparentis in eius superficie attenditur. Et ideo assumptio claritatis transfiguratio dicitur.

Figure is seen in the outline of a body, for it is "that which is enclosed by one or more boundaries" [Euclid, bk i, def. xiv]. Therefore whatever has to do with the outline of a body seems to pertain to the figure. Now the clarity, just as the color, of a non-transparent body is seen on its surface, and consequently the assumption of clarity is called transfiguration.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, inter praedictas quatuor dotes, sola claritas est qualitas ipsius personae in seipsa, aliae vero tres dotes non percipiuntur nisi in aliquo actu vel motu, seu passione. Ostendit igitur Christus in seipso aliqua illarum trium dotium indicia, puta agilitatis, cum supra undas maris ambulavit; subtilitatis, quando de clauso utero virginis exivit; impassibilitatis, quando de manibus Iudaeorum, vel praecipitare vel lapidare eum volentium, illaesus evasit. Nec tamen propter illas transfiguratus dicitur, sed propter solam claritatem, quae pertinet ad aspectum personae ipsius.

Of those four gifts, clarity alone is a quality of the very person in himself; whereas the other three are not perceptible, save in some action or movement, or in some passion. Christ, then, did show in Himself certain indications of those three gifts—of agility, for instance, when He walked on the waves of the sea; of subtlety, when He came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; of impassibility, when He escaped unhurt from the hands of the Jews who wished to hurl Him down or to stone Him. And yet He is not said, on account of this, to be transfigured, but only on account of clarity, which pertains to the aspect of His Person.

Articulus II

Whether This Clarity Was the Clarity of Glory?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod illa claritas non fuit claritas gloriosa. Dicit enim quaedam Glossa Bedae, super illud Matth. XVII, transfiguratus est coram eis, in corpore, inquit, mortali ostendit, non immortalitatem, sed claritatem similem futurae immortalitati. Sed claritas gloriae est claritas immortalitatis. Non ergo illa claritas quam Christus discipulis ostendit, fuit claritas gloriae.

It would seem that this clarity was not the clarity of glory. For a gloss of Bede on Matt. 17:2, "He was transfigured before them," says: "In His mortal body He shows forth, not the state of immortality, but clarity like to that of future immortality." But the clarity of glory is the clarity of immortality. Therefore the clarity which Christ showed to His disciples was not the clarity of glory.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, super illud Luc. IX, non gustabunt mortem nisi videant regnum Dei, dicit Glossa Bedae, idest, glorificationem corporis in imaginaria repraesentatione futurae beatitudinis. Sed imago alicuius rei non est ipsa res. Ergo claritas illa non fuit claritas beatitudinis.

Further, on Luke 9:27 "(That) shall not taste death unless [Vulg.: 'till'] they see the kingdom of God," Bede's gloss says: "That is, the glorification of the body in an imaginary vision of future beatitude." But the image of a thing is not the thing itself. Therefore this was not the clarity of beatitude.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, claritas gloriae non est nisi in corpore humano. Sed claritas illa transfigurationis apparuit non solum in corpore Christi, sed etiam in vestimentis eius, et in nube lucida quae discipulos obumbravit. Ergo videtur quod illa claritas non fuit claritas gloriae.

Further, the clarity of glory is only in a human body. But this clarity of the transfiguration was seen not only in Christ's body, but also in His garments, and in "the bright cloud" which "overshaded" the disciples. Therefore it seems that this was not the clarity of glory.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod, super illud Matth. XVII, transfiguratus est ante eos, dicit Hieronymus, qualis futurus est tempore iudicii, talis apostolis apparuit. Et super illud Matth. XVI, donec videant filium hominis venientem in regno suo, dicit Chrysostomus, volens monstrare quid est illa gloria in qua postea venturus est, eis in praesenti vita revelavit, sicut possibile erat eos discere, ut neque in domini morte iam doleant.

On the contrary, Jerome says on the words "He was transfigured before them" (Matt. 17:2): "He appeared to the Apostles such as He will appear on the day of judgment." And on Matt. 16:28, "Till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom," Chrysostom says: "Wishing to show with what kind of glory He is afterwards to come, so far as it was possible for them to learn it, He showed it to them in their present life, that they might not grieve even over the death of their Lord."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod claritas illa quam Christus in transfiguratione assumpsit, fuit claritas gloriae quantum ad essentiam, non tamen quantum ad modum essendi. Claritas enim corporis gloriosi derivatur ab animae claritate, sicut Augustinus dicit, in epistola ad Dioscorum. Et similiter claritas corporis Christi in transfiguratione derivata est a divinitate ipsius, ut Damascenus dicit, et a gloria animae eius. Quod enim a principio conceptionis Christi gloria animae non redundaret ad corpus, ex quadam dispensatione divina factum est, ut in corpore passibili nostrae redemptionis expleret mysteria, sicut supra dictum est. Non tamen per hoc adempta est potestas Christo derivandi gloriam animae ad corpus. Et hoc quidem fecit, quantum ad claritatem, in transfiguratione, aliter tamen quam in corpore glorificato. Nam ad corpus glorificatum redundat claritas ab anima sicut quaedam qualitas permanens corpus afficiens. Unde fulgere corporaliter non est miraculosum in corpore glorioso. Sed ad corpus Christi in transfiguratione derivata est claritas a divinitate et anima eius, non per modum qualitatis immanentis et afficientis ipsum corpus, sed magis per modum passionis transeuntis, sicut cum aer illuminatur a sole. Unde ille fulgor tunc in corpore Christi apparens miraculosus fuit, sicut et hoc ipsum quod ambulavit super undas maris. Unde Dionysius dicit, in epistola IV, ad Caium, super hominem operatur Christus ea quae sunt hominis, et hoc monstrat virgo supernaturaliter concipiens, et aqua instabilis materialium et terrenorum pedum sustinens gravitatem. Unde non est dicendum, sicut Hugo de sancto Victore dixit, quod Christus assumpserit dotes claritatis in transfiguratione, agilitatis ambulando super mare, et subtilitatis egrediendo de clauso utero virginis, quia dos nominat quandam qualitatem immanentem corpori glorioso. Sed miraculose habuit ea quae pertinent ad dotes. Et est simile, quantum ad animam, de visione qua Paulus vidit Deum in raptu, ut in secunda parte dictum est.

I answer that, The clarity which Christ assumed in His transfiguration was the clarity of glory as to its essence, but not as to its mode of being. For the clarity of the glorified body is derived from that of the soul, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Diosc. cxviii). And in like manner the clarity of Christ's body in His transfiguration was derived from His Godhead, as Damascene says (Orat. de Transfig.) and from the glory of His soul. That the glory of His soul did not overflow into His body from the first moment of Christ's conception was due to a certain Divine dispensation, that, as stated above (Q. 14, A. 1, ad 2), He might fulfil the mysteries of our redemption in a passible body. This did not, however, deprive Christ of His power of outpouring the glory of His soul into His body. And this He did, as to clarity, in His transfiguration, but otherwise than in a glorified body. For the clarity of the soul overflows into a glorified body, by way of a permanent quality affecting the body. Hence bodily refulgence is not miraculous in a glorified body. But in Christ's transfiguration clarity overflowed from His Godhead and from His soul into His body, not as an immanent quality affecting His very body, but rather after the manner of a transient passion, as when the air is lit up by the sun. Consequently the refulgence, which appeared in Christ's body then, was miraculous: just as was the fact of His walking on the waves of the sea. Hence Dionysius says (Ep. ad Cai. iv): "Christ excelled man in doing that which is proper to man: this is shown in His supernatural conception of a virgin and in the unstable waters bearing the weight of material and earthly feet."

Wherefore we must not say, as Hugh of St. Victor [Innocent III, De Myst. Miss. iv] said, that Christ assumed the gift of clarity in the transfiguration, of agility in walking on the sea, and of subtlety in coming forth from the Virgin's closed womb: because the gifts are immanent qualities of a glorified body. On the contrary, whatever pertained to the gifts, that He had miraculously. The same is to be said, as to the soul, of the vision in which Paul saw God in a rapture, as we have stated in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 175, A. 3, ad 2).

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex illo verbo non ostenditur quod claritas Christi non fuerit claritas gloriae, sed quod non fuit claritas corporis gloriosi, quia corpus Christi nondum erat immortale. Sicut enim dispensative factum est ut in Christo gloria animae non redundaret ad corpus, ita fieri potuit dispensative ut redundaret quantum ad dotem claritatis, et non quantum ad dotem impassibilitatis.

The words quoted prove, not that the clarity of Christ was not that of glory, but that it was not the clarity of a glorified body, since Christ's body was not as yet immortal. And just as it was by dispensation that in Christ the glory of the soul should not overflow into the body so was it possible that by dispensation it might overflow as to the gift of clarity and not as to that of impassibility.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod illa claritas dicitur imaginaria fuisse, non quin esset vera claritas gloriae, sed quia erat quaedam imago repraesentans illam gloriae perfectionem secundum quam corpus erit gloriosum.

This clarity is said to have been imaginary, not as though it were not really the clarity of glory, but because it was a kind of image representing that perfection of glory, in virtue of which the body will be glorious.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut claritas quae erat in corpore Christi repraesentabat futuram claritatem corporis eius, ita claritas vestimentorum eius designat futuram claritatem sanctorum, quae superabitur a claritate Christi, sicut candor nivis superatur a candore solis. Unde Gregorius dicit, XXXII Moral., quod vestimenta Christi facta sunt splendentia, quia in supernae claritatis culmine sancti omnes ei luce iustitiae fulgentes adhaerebunt. Vestium enim nomine iustos, quos sibi adiunget, significat, secundum illud Isaiae XLIX, his omnibus velut ornamento vestieris. Nubes autem lucida significat spiritus sancti gloriam, vel virtutem paternam, ut Origenes dicit, per quam sancti in futura gloria protegentur. Quamvis etiam convenienter significare posset claritatem mundi innovati, quae erit sanctorum tabernaculum. Unde, Petro disponente tabernacula facere, nubes lucida discipulos obumbravit.

Just as the clarity which was in Christ's body was a representation of His body's future clarity, so the clarity which was in His garments signified the future clarity of the saints, which will be surpassed by that of Christ, just as the brightness of the snow is surpassed by that of the sun. Hence Gregory says (Moral. xxxii) that Christ's garments became resplendent, "because in the height of heavenly clarity all the saints will cling to Him in the refulgence of righteousness. For His garments signify the righteous, because He will unite them to Himself," according to Isa. 49:18: "Thou shalt be clothed with all these as with an ornament."

The bright cloud signifies the glory of the Holy Ghost or the "power of the Father," as Origen says (Tract. iii in Matth.), by which in the glory to come the saints will be covered. Or, again, it may be said fittingly that it signifies the clarity of the world redeemed, which clarity will cover the saints as a tent. Hence when Peter proposed to make tents, "a bright cloud overshaded" the disciples.

Articulus III

Whether the Witnesses of the Transfiguration Were Fittingly Chosen?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non convenienter inducti fuerint testes transfigurationis. Unusquisque enim maxime perhibere potest testimonium de notis. Sed qualis esset futura gloria, tempore transfigurationis Christi nulli homini per experimentum erat adhuc notum, sed solis Angelis. Ergo testes transfigurationis magis debuerunt esse Angeli quam homines.

It would seem that the witnesses of the transfiguration were unfittingly chosen. For everyone is a better witness of things that he knows. But at the time of Christ's transfiguration no one but the angels had as yet any knowledge from experience of the glory to come. Therefore the witnesses of the transfiguration should have been angels rather than men.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, testes veritatis non decet aliqua fictio, sed veritas. Moyses autem et Elias non ibi vere affuerunt, sed imaginarie, dicit enim quaedam Glossa super illud Luc. IX, erant autem Moyses et Elias etc., sciendum est, inquit, non corpus vel animas Moysi vel Eliae ibi apparuisse, sed in subiecta creatura illa corpora fuisse formata. Potest etiam credi ut angelico ministerio hoc factum esset, ut Angeli eorum personas assumerent. Non ergo videtur quod fuerint convenientes testes.

Further, truth, not fiction, is becoming in a witness of the truth. Now, Moses and Elias were there, not really, but only in appearance; for a gloss on Luke 9:30, "They were Moses and Elias," says: "It must be observed that Moses and Elias were there neither in body nor in soul"; but that those bodies were formed "of some available matter. It is also credible that this was the result of the angelic ministries, through the angels impersonating them." Therefore it seems that they were unsuitable witnesses.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Act. X dicitur quod Christo omnes prophetae testimonium perhibent. Ergo non soli Moyses et Elias debuerunt adesse tanquam testes, sed etiam omnes prophetae.

Further, it is said (Acts 10:43) that "all the prophets give testimony" to Christ. Therefore not only Moses and Elias, but also all the prophets, should have been present as witnesses.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, gloria Christi fidelibus omnibus repromittitur, quos per suam transfigurationem ad illius gloriae desiderium accendere voluit. Non ergo solos Petrum et Iacobum et Ioannem in testimonium suae transfigurationis assumere debuit, sed omnes discipulos.

Further, Christ's glory is promised as a reward to all the faithful (2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21), in whom He wished by His transfiguration to enkindle a desire of that glory. Therefore He should have taken not only Peter, James, and John, but all His disciples, to be witnesses of His transfiguration.

Sed contra On the contrary

In contrarium est evangelicae Scripturae auctoritas.

On the contrary is the authority of the Gospel.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod Christus transfigurari voluit ut gloriam suam hominibus ostenderet, et ad eam desiderandam homines provocaret, sicut supra dictum est. Ad gloriam autem aeternae beatitudinis adducuntur homines per Christum, non solum qui post eum fuerunt, sed etiam qui eum praecesserunt, unde, eo ad passionem properante, tam turbae quae sequebantur, quam quae praecedebant ei, clamabant, hosanna, ut dicitur Matth. XXI, quasi salutem ab eo petentes. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut de praecedentibus ipsum testes adessent, scilicet Moyses et Elias; et de sequentibus, scilicet Petrus, Iacobus et Ioannes; ut in ore duorum vel trium testium staret hoc verbum.

I answer that, Christ wished to be transfigured in order to show men His glory, and to arouse men to a desire of it, as stated above (A. 1). Now men are brought to the glory of eternal beatitude by Christ—not only those who lived after Him, but also those who preceded Him; therefore, when He was approaching His Passion, both "the multitude that followed" and that "which went before, cried saying: 'Hosanna,'" as related Matt. 21:9, beseeching Him, as it were, to save them. Consequently it was fitting that witnesses should be present from among those who preceded Him—namely, Moses and Elias—and from those who followed after Him—namely, Peter, James, and John—that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses" this word might stand.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus per suam transfigurationem manifestavit discipulis corporis gloriam, quae ad solos homines pertinet. Et ideo convenienter non Angeli, sed homines pro testibus ad hoc inducuntur.

By His transfiguration Christ manifested to His disciples the glory of His body, which belongs to men only. It was therefore fitting that He should choose men and not angels as witnesses.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod illa Glossa dicitur esse sumpta ex libro qui intitulatur de mirabilibus sacrae Scripturae, qui non est liber authenticus, sed falso adscribitur Augustino. Et ideo illi Glossae non est standum. Dicit enim Hieronymus, super Matth., considerandum est quod Scribis et Pharisaeis de caelo signa poscentibus, dare noluit, hic vero, ut apostolorum augeat fidem, dat signum de caelo, Elia inde descendente quo conscenderat, et Moyse ab Inferis resurgente. Quod non est sic intelligendum quasi anima Moysi suum corpus resumpserit, sed quod anima eius apparuit per aliquod corpus assumptum, sicut Angeli apparent. Elias autem apparuit in proprio corpore, non quidem de caelo Empyreo allatus, sed de aliquo eminenti loco, in quem fuerat in curru igneo raptus.

This gloss is said to be taken from a book entitled On the Marvels of Holy Scripture. It is not an authentic work, but is wrongly ascribed to St. Augustine; consequently we need not stand by it. For Jerome says on Matt. 17:3: "Observe that when the Scribes and Pharisees asked for a sign from heaven, He refused to give one; whereas here in order to increase the apostles' faith, He gives a sign from heaven, Elias coming down thence, whither he had ascended, and Moses arising from the nether world." This is not to be understood as though the soul of Moses was reunited to his body, but that his soul appeared through some assumed body, just as the angels do. But Elias appeared in his own body, not that he was brought down from the empyrean heaven, but from some place on high whither he was taken up in the fiery chariot.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., Moyses et Elias in medium adducuntur propter multas rationes. Prima est haec. Quia enim turbae dicebant eum esse Eliam vel Ieremiam aut unum ex prophetis, capita prophetarum secum ducit, ut saltem hinc appareat differentia servorum et domini. Secunda ratio est, quia Moyses legem dedit, Elias pro gloria domini aemulator fuit. Unde per hoc quod simul cum Christo apparent, excluditur calumnia Iudaeorum accusantium Christum tanquam transgressorem legis, et blasphemum Dei sibi gloriam usurpantem. Tertia ratio est, ut ostendat se habere potestatem mortis et vitae, et esse iudicem mortuorum et vivorum, per hoc quod Moysen iam mortuum, et Eliam adhuc viventem, secum ducit. Quarta ratio est quia, sicut Lucas dicit, loquebantur cum eo de excessu, quem completurus erat in Ierusalem, idest de passione et morte sua. Et ideo, ut super hoc discipulorum animos confirmaret, inducit eos in medium qui se morti exposuerunt pro Deo, nam Moyses cum periculo mortis se obtulit Pharaoni, Elias vero regi Achab. Quinta ratio est, quia volebat ut discipuli eius aemularentur Moysi mansuetudinem, et zelum Eliae. Sextam rationem addit Hilarius, ut ostenderet scilicet se per legem, quam dedit Moyses, et per prophetas, inter quos fuit Elias praecipuus, esse praedicatum.

As Chrysostom says on Matt. 17:3: "Moses and Elias are brought forward for many reasons." And, first of all, "because the multitude said He was Elias or Jeremias or one of the prophets, He brings the leaders of the prophets with Him; that hereby at least they might see the difference between the servants and their Lord." Another reason was " . . . that Moses gave the Law . . . while Elias . . . was jealous for the glory of God." Therefore by appearing together with Christ, they show how falsely the Jews "accused Him of transgressing the Law, and of blasphemously appropriating to Himself the glory of God." A third reason was "to show that He has power of death and life, and that He is the judge of the dead and the living; by bringing with Him Moses who had died, and Elias who still lived." A fourth reason was because, as Luke says (9:31), "they spoke" with Him "of His decease that He should accomplish in Jerusalem," i.e. of His Passion and death. Therefore, "in order to strengthen the hearts of His disciples with a view to this," He sets before them those who had exposed themselves to death for God's sake: since Moses braved death in opposing Pharaoh, and Elias in opposing Achab. A fifth reason was that "He wished His disciples to imitate the meekness of Moses and the zeal of Elias." Hilary adds a sixth reason—namely, in order to signify that He had been foretold by the Law, which Moses gave them, and by the prophets, of whom Elias was the principal.

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod alta mysteria non sunt omnibus exponenda immediate, sed per maiores suo tempore ad alios debent devenire. Et ideo, ut Chrysostomus dicit, assumpsit tres tanquam potiores. Nam Petrus excellens fuit in dilectione quam habuit ad Christum et iterum in potestate sibi commissa; Ioannes vero in privilegio amoris quo a Christo diligebatur propter suam virginitatem, et iterum propter praerogativam evangelicae doctrinae; Iacobus autem propter praerogativam martyrii. Et tamen hos ipsos noluit hoc quod viderant aliis annuntiare ante resurrectionem, ne, ut Hieronymus dicit, incredibile esset, pro rei magnitudine; et, post tantam gloriam, sequens crux scandalum faceret; vel etiam totaliter impediretur a populo; et ut, cum essent spiritu sancto repleti, tunc gestorum spiritualium testes essent.

Lofty mysteries should not be immediately explained to everyone, but should be handed down through superiors to others in their proper turn. Consequently, as Chrysostom says (on Matt. 17:3), "He took these three as being superior to the rest." For "Peter excelled in the love" he bore to Christ and in the power bestowed on him; John in the privilege of Christ's love for him on account of his virginity, and, again, on account of his being privileged to be an Evangelist; James on account of the privilege of martyrdom. Nevertheless He did not wish them to tell others what they had seen before His Resurrection; "lest," as Jerome says on Matt. 17:19, "such a wonderful thing should seem incredible to them; and lest, after hearing of so great glory, they should be scandalized at the Cross" that followed; or, again, "lest [the Cross] should be entirely hindered by the people" [Bede, Hom. xviii; cf. Catena Aurea]; and "in order that they might then be witnesses of spiritual things when they should be filled with the Holy Ghost" [Hilary, in Matth. xvii].

Articulus IV

Whether the Testimony of the Father's Voice, Saying, "This Is My Beloved Son," Was Fittingly Added?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter additum fuerit testimonium paternae vocis dicentis, hic est filius meus dilectus. Quia, ut dicitur Iob XXXIII, semel loquitur Deus, et secundo idipsum non repetit. Sed in Baptismo hoc ipsum paterna vox fuerat protestata. Non ergo fuit conveniens quod hoc iterum protestaretur in transfiguratione.

It would seem that the testimony of the Father's voice, saying, "This is My beloved Son," was not fittingly added; for, as it is written (Job 33:14), "God speaketh once, and repeateth not the selfsame thing the second time." But the Father's voice had testified to this at the time of (Christ's) baptism. Therefore it was not fitting that He should bear witness to it a second time.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, in Baptismo, simul cum voce paterna, affuit spiritus sanctus in specie columbae. Quod in transfiguratione factum non fuit. Non ergo conveniens videtur fuisse patris protestatio.

Further, at the baptism the Holy Ghost appeared under the form of a dove at the same time as the Father's voice was heard. But this did not happen at the transfiguration. Therefore it seems that the testimony of the Father was made in an unfitting manner.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Christus docere incoepit post Baptismum. Et tamen in Baptismo vox patris ad eum audiendum homines non induxerat. Ergo nec in transfiguratione inducere debuit.

Further, Christ began to teach after His baptism. Nevertheless, the Father's voice did not then command men to hear him. Therefore neither should it have so commanded at the transfiguration.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, non debent aliquibus dici ea quae ferre non possunt, secundum illud Ioan. XVI, adhuc habeo vobis multa dicere, quae non potestis portare modo. Sed discipuli vocem patris ferre non potuerunt, dicitur enim Matth. XVII quod audientes discipuli ceciderunt in faciem suam et timuerunt valde. Ergo non debuit vox paterna ad eos fieri.

Further, things should not be said to those who cannot bear them, according to John 16:12: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." But the disciples could not bear the Father's voice; for it is written (Matt. 17:6) that "the disciples hearing, fell upon their face, and were very much afraid." Therefore the Father's voice should not have been addressed to them.

Sed contra On the contrary

In contrarium est auctoritas evangelicae Scripturae.

On the contrary is the authority of the Gospel.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod adoptio filiorum Dei est per quandam conformitatem imaginis ad Dei filium naturalem. Quod quidem fit dupliciter, primo quidem, per gratiam viae, quae est conformitas imperfecta; secundo, per gloriam, quae est conformitas perfecta; secundum illud I Ioan. III, nunc filii Dei sumus, et nondum apparuit quid erimus, scimus quoniam, cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus, quoniam videbimus eum sicuti est. Quia igitur gratiam per Baptismum consequimur, in transfiguratione autem praemonstrata est claritas futurae gloriae, ideo tam in Baptismo quam in transfiguratione conveniens fuit manifestare naturalem Christi filiationem testimonio patris, quia solus est perfecte conscius illius perfectae generationis, simul cum filio et spiritu sancto.

I answer that, The adoption of the sons of God is through a certain conformity of image to the natural Son of God. Now this takes place in two ways: first, by the grace of the wayfarer, which is imperfect conformity; secondly, by glory, which is perfect conformity, according to 1 John 3:2: "We are now the sons of God, and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be: we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like to Him, because we shall see Him as He is." Since, therefore, it is in baptism that we acquire grace, while the clarity of the glory to come was foreshadowed in the transfiguration, therefore both in His baptism and in His transfiguration the natural sonship of Christ was fittingly made known by the testimony of the Father: because He alone with the Son and Holy Ghost is perfectly conscious of that perfect generation.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illud verbum referendum est ad aeternam Dei locutionem, qua Deus pater verbum unicum protulit sibi coaeternum. Et tamen potest dici quod idem corporali voce Deus bis protulerit, non tamen propter idem, sed ad ostendendum diversum modum quo homines participare possunt similitudinem filiationis aeternae.

The words quoted are to be understood of God's eternal speaking, by which God the Father uttered the only-begotten and co-eternal Word. Nevertheless, it can be said that God uttered the same thing twice in a bodily voice, yet not for the same purpose, but in order to show the divers modes in which men can be partakers of the likeness of the eternal Sonship.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod sicut in Baptismo, ubi declaratum fuit mysterium primae regenerationis, ostensa est operatio totius Trinitatis, per hoc quod fuit ibi filius incarnatus, apparuit spiritus sanctus in specie columbae, et pater fuit ibi declaratus in voce; ita etiam in transfiguratione, quae est sacramentum secundae regenerationis, tota Trinitas apparuit, pater in voce, filius in homine, spiritus sanctus in nube clara; quia sicut in Baptismo dat innocentiam, quae per simplicitatem columbae designatur, ita in resurrectione dabit electis suis claritatem gloriae et refrigerium ab omni malo, quae designantur in nube lucida.

Just as in the Baptism, where the mystery of the first regeneration was proclaimed, the operation of the whole Trinity was made manifest, because the Son Incarnate was there, the Holy Ghost appeared under the form of a dove, and the Father made Himself known in the voice; so also in the transfiguration, which is the mystery of the second regeneration, the whole Trinity appears—the Father in the voice, the Son in the man, the Holy Ghost in the bright cloud; for just as in baptism He confers innocence, signified by the simplicity of the dove, so in the resurrection will He give His elect the clarity of glory and refreshment from all sorts of evil, which are signified by the bright cloud.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod Christus venerat gratiam actualiter dare, gloriam vero verbo promittere. Et ideo convenienter in transfiguratione inducuntur homines ut ipsum audiant, non autem in Baptismo.

Christ came to give grace actually, and to promise glory by His words. Therefore it was fitting at the time of His transfiguration, and not at the time of His baptism, that men should be commanded to hear Him.

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod conveniens fuit discipulos voce paterna terreri et prosterni, ut ostenderetur quod excellentia illius gloriae quae tunc demonstrabatur, excedit omnem sensum et facultatem mortalium, secundum illud Exod. XXXIII, non videbit me homo et vivet. Et hoc est quod Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., quod humana fragilitas conspectum maioris gloriae ferre non sustinet. Ab hac autem fragilitate sanantur homines per Christum, eos in gloriam adducendo. Quod significatur per hoc quod dixit eis, surgite, nolite timere.

It was fitting that the disciples should be afraid and fall down on hearing the voice of the Father, to show that the glory which was then being revealed surpasses in excellence the sense and faculty of all mortal beings; according to Ex. 33:20: "Man shall not see Me and live." This is what Jerome says on Matt. 17:6: "Such is human frailty that it cannot bear to gaze on such great glory." But men are healed of this frailty by Christ when He brings them into glory. And this is signified by what He says to them: "Arise, and fear not."

Showing Thomas's answers only.