Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 85 (2/2)
Reply Obj. 3: One opposite does not of itself lead to the other, yet it does so indirectly at times: thus cold sometimes is the indirect cause of heat: and in this way Christ by His death brought us back to life, when by His death He destroyed our death; just as he who bears another's punishment takes such punishment away.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 2]
Whether the G.o.dhead Was Separated from the Flesh When Christ Died?
Objection 1: It would seem that the G.o.dhead was separated from the flesh when Christ died. For as Matthew relates (27:46), when our Lord was hanging upon the cross He cried out: ”My G.o.d, My G.o.d, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” which words Ambrose, commenting on Luke 23:46, explains as follows: ”The man cried out when about to expire by being severed from the G.o.dhead; for since the G.o.dhead is immune from death, a.s.suredly death could not be there, except life departed, for the G.o.dhead is life.” And so it seems that when Christ died, the G.o.dhead was separated from His flesh.
Obj. 2: Further, extremes are severed when the mean is removed. But the soul was the mean through which the G.o.dhead was united with the flesh, as stated above (Q. 6, A. 1). Therefore since the soul was severed from the flesh by death, it seems that, in consequence, His G.o.dhead was also separated from it.
Obj. 3: Further, G.o.d's life-giving power is greater than that of the soul. But the body could not die unless the soul quitted it.
Therefore, much less could it die unless the G.o.dhead departed.
_On the contrary,_ As stated above (Q. 16, AA. 4, 5), the attributes of human nature are predicated of the Son of G.o.d only by reason of the union. But what belongs to the body of Christ after death is predicated of the Son of G.o.d--namely, being buried: as is evident from the Creed, in which it is said that the Son of G.o.d ”was conceived and born of a Virgin, suffered, died, and was buried.”
Therefore Christ's G.o.dhead was not separated from the flesh when He died.
_I answer that,_ What is bestowed through G.o.d's grace is never withdrawn except through fault. Hence it is written (Rom. 11:29): ”The gifts and the calling of G.o.d are without repentance.” But the grace of union whereby the G.o.dhead was united to the flesh in Christ's Person, is greater than the grace of adoption whereby others are sanctified: also it is more enduring of itself, because this grace is ordained for personal union, whereas the grace of adoption is referred to a certain affective union. And yet we see that the grace of adoption is never lost without fault. Since, then there was no sin in Christ, it was impossible for the union of the G.o.dhead with the flesh to be dissolved. Consequently, as before death Christ's flesh was united personally and hypostatically with the Word of G.o.d, it remained so after His death, so that the hypostasis of the Word of G.o.d was not different from that of Christ's flesh after death, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii).
Reply Obj. 1: Such forsaking is not to be referred to the dissolving of the personal union, but to this, that G.o.d the Father gave Him up to the Pa.s.sion: hence there ”to forsake” means simply not to protect from persecutors. Or else He says there that He is forsaken, with reference to the prayer He had made: ”Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pa.s.s away from Me,” as Augustine explains it (De Gratia Novi Test.).
Reply Obj. 2: The Word of G.o.d is said to be united with the flesh through the medium of the soul, inasmuch as it is through the soul that the flesh belongs to human nature, which the Son of G.o.d intended to a.s.sume; but not as though the soul were the medium linking them together. But it is due to the soul that the flesh is human even after the soul has been separated from it--namely, inasmuch as by G.o.d's ordinance there remains in the dead flesh a certain relation to the resurrection. And therefore the union of the G.o.dhead with the flesh is not taken away.
Reply Obj. 3: The soul formally possesses the life-giving energy, and therefore, while it is present, and united formally, the body must necessarily be a living one, whereas the G.o.dhead has not the life-giving energy formally, but effectively; because It cannot be the form of the body: and therefore it is not necessary for the flesh to be living while the union of the G.o.dhead with the flesh remains, since G.o.d does not act of necessity, but of His own will.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 3]
Whether in Christ's Death There Was a Severance Between His G.o.dhead and His Soul?
Objection 1: It would seem that there was a severance in death between Christ's G.o.dhead and His soul, because our Lord said (John 10:18): ”No man taketh away My soul from Me: but I lay it down of Myself, and I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again.” But it does not appear that the body can set the soul aside, by separating the soul from itself, because the soul is not subject to the power of the body, but rather conversely: and so it appears that it belongs to Christ, as the Word of G.o.d, to lay down His soul: but this is to separate it from Himself. Consequently, by death His soul was severed from the G.o.dhead.
Obj. 2: Further, Athanasius [*Vigilius Tapsensis, De Trin. vi; Bardenhewer a.s.signs it to St. Athanasius: 45, iii. The full t.i.tle is De Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto] says that he ”is accursed who does not confess that the entire man, whom the Son of G.o.d took to Himself, after being a.s.sumed once more or delivered by Him, rose again from the dead on the third day.” But the entire man could not be a.s.sumed again, unless the entire man was at one time separated from the Word of G.o.d: and the entire man is made of soul and body. Therefore there was a separation made at one time of the G.o.dhead from both the body and the soul.
Obj. 3: Further, the Son of G.o.d is truly styled a man because of the union with the entire man. If then, when the union of the soul with the body was dissolved by death, the Word of G.o.d continued united with the soul, it would follow that the Son of G.o.d could be truly called a soul. But this is false, because since the soul is the form of the body, it would result in the Word of G.o.d being the form of the body; which is impossible. Therefore, in death the soul of Christ was separated from the Word of G.o.d.
Obj. 4: Further, the separated soul and body are not one hypostasis, but two. Therefore, if the Word of G.o.d remained united with Christ's soul and body, then, when they were severed by Christ's death, it seems to follow that the Word of G.o.d was two hypostases during such time as Christ was dead; which cannot be admitted. Therefore after Christ's death His soul did not continue to be united with the Word.
_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): ”Although Christ died as man, and His holy soul was separated from His spotless body, nevertheless His G.o.dhead remained unseparated from both--from the soul, I mean, and from the body.”
_I answer that,_ The soul is united with the Word of G.o.d more immediately and more primarily than the body is, because it is through the soul that the body is united with the Word of G.o.d, as stated above (Q. 6, A. 1). Since, then, the Word of G.o.d was not separated from the body at Christ's death, much less was He separated from the soul. Accordingly, since what regards the body severed from the soul is affirmed of the Son of G.o.d--namely, that ”it was buried”--so is it said of Him in the Creed that ”He descended into h.e.l.l,” because His soul when separated from the body did go down into h.e.l.l.
Reply Obj. 1: Augustine (Tract. xlvii in Joan.), in commenting on the text of John, asks, since Christ is Word and soul and body, ”whether He putteth down His soul, for that He is the Word? Or, for that He is a soul?” Or, again, ”for that He is flesh?” And he says that, ”should we say that the Word of G.o.d laid down His soul” ... it would follow that ”there was a time when that soul was severed from the Word”--which is untrue. ”For death severed the body and soul ...
but that the soul was severed from the Word I do not affirm ... But should we say that the soul laid itself down,” it follows ”that it is severed from itself: which is most absurd.” It remains, therefore, that ”the flesh itself layeth down its soul and taketh it again, not by its own power, but by the power of the Word dwelling in the flesh”: because, as stated above (A. 2), the G.o.dhead of the Word was not severed from the flesh in death.
Reply Obj. 2: In those words Athanasius never meant to say that the whole man was rea.s.sumed--that is, as to all his parts--as if the Word of G.o.d had laid aside the parts of human nature by His death; but that the totality of the a.s.sumed nature was restored once more in the resurrection by the resumed union of soul and body.
<script>