Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 86 (1/2)

Reply Obj. 2: Through being united to human nature, the Word of G.o.d is not on that account called human nature: but He is called a man--that is, one having human nature. Now the soul and the body are essential parts of human nature. Hence it does not follow that the Word is a soul or a body through being united with both, but that He is one possessing a soul or a body.

Reply Obj. 4: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): ”In Christ's death the soul was separated from the flesh: not one hypostasis divided into two: because both soul and body in the same respect had their existence from the beginning in the hypostasis of the Word; and in death, though severed from one another, each one continued to have the one same hypostasis of the Word. Wherefore the one hypostasis of the Word was the hypostasis of the Word, of the soul, and of the body. For neither soul nor body ever had an hypostasis of its own, besides the hypostasis of the Word: for there was always one hypostasis of the Word, and never two.”

_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 4]

Whether Christ Was a Man During the Three Days of His Death?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was a man during the three days of His death, because Augustine says (De Trin. iii): ”Such was the a.s.suming [of nature] as to make G.o.d to be man, and man to be G.o.d.” But this a.s.suming [of nature] did not cease at Christ's death.

Therefore it seems that He did not cease to be a man in consequence of death.

Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix) that ”each man is his intellect”; consequently, when we address the soul of Peter after his death we say: ”Saint Peter, pray for us.” But the Son of G.o.d after death was not separated from His intellectual soul. Therefore, during those three days the Son of G.o.d was a man.

Obj. 3: Further, every priest is a man. But during those three days of death Christ was a priest: otherwise what is said in Ps. 109:4 would not be true: ”Thou art a priest for ever.” Therefore Christ was a man during those three days.

_On the contrary,_ When the higher [species] is removed, so is the lower. But the living or animated being is a higher species than animal and man, because an animal is a sensible animated substance.

Now during those three days of death Christ's body was not living or animated. Therefore He was not a man.

_I answer that,_ It is an article of faith that Christ was truly dead: hence it is an error against faith to a.s.sert anything whereby the truth of Christ's death is destroyed. Accordingly it is said in the Synodal epistle of Cyril [*Act. Conc. Ephes. P. I, cap. xxvi]: ”If any man does not acknowledge that the Word of G.o.d suffered in the flesh, and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh, let him be anathema.” Now it belongs to the truth of the death of man or animal that by death the subject ceases to be man or animal; because the death of the man or animal results from the separation of the soul, which is the formal complement of the man or animal.

Consequently, to say that Christ was a man during the three days of His death simply and without qualification, is erroneous. Yet it can be said that He was ”a dead man” during those three days.

However, some writers have contended that Christ was a man during those three days, uttering words which are indeed erroneous, yet without intent of error in faith: as Hugh of Saint Victor, who (De Sacram. ii) contended that Christ, during the three days that followed His death, was a man, because he held that the soul is a man: but this is false, as was shown in the First Part (I, Q. 75, A.

4). Likewise the Master of the Sentences (iii, D, 22) held Christ to be a man during the three days of His death for quite another reason.

For he believed the union of soul and flesh not to be essential to a man, and that for anything to be a man it suffices if it have a soul and body, whether united or separated: and that this is likewise false is clear both from what has been said in the First Part (I, Q.

75, A. 4), and from what has been said above regarding the mode of union (Q. 2, A. 5).

Reply Obj. 1: The Word of G.o.d a.s.sumed a united soul and body: and the result of this a.s.sumption was that G.o.d is man, and man is G.o.d. But this a.s.sumption did not cease by the separation of the Word from the soul or from the flesh; yet the union of soul and flesh ceased.

Reply Obj. 2: Man is said to be his own intellect, not because the intellect is the entire man, but because the intellect is the chief part of man, in which man's whole disposition lies virtually; just as the ruler of the city may be called the whole city, since its entire disposal is vested in him.

Reply Obj. 3: That a man is competent to be a priest is by reason of the soul, which is the subject of the character of order: hence a man does not lose his priestly order by death, and much less does Christ, who is the fount of the entire priesthood.

_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 5]

Whether Christ's Was Identically the Same Body Living and Dead?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's was not identically the same body living and dead. For Christ truly died just as other men do. But the body of everyone else is not simply identically the same, dead and living, because there is an essential difference between them.

Therefore neither is the body of Christ identically the same, dead and living.

Obj. 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. v, text. 12), things specifically diverse are also numerically diverse. But Christ's body, living and dead, was specifically diverse: because the eye or flesh of the dead is only called so equivocally, as is evident from the Philosopher (De Anima ii, text. 9; _Metaph._ vii). Therefore Christ's body was not simply identically the same, living and dead.

Obj. 3: Further, death is a kind of corruption. But what is corrupted by substantial corruption after being corrupted, exists no longer, since corruption is change from being to non-being. Therefore, Christ's body, after it was dead, did not remain identically the same, because death is a substantial corruption.

_On the contrary,_ Athanasius says (Epist. ad Epict.): ”In that body which was circ.u.mcised and carried, which ate, and toiled, and was nailed on the tree, there was the impa.s.sible and incorporeal Word of G.o.d: the same was laid in the tomb.” But Christ's living body was circ.u.mcised and nailed on the tree; and Christ's dead body was laid in the tomb. Therefore it was the same body living and dead.

_I answer that,_ The expression ”simply” can be taken in two senses.

In the first instance by taking ”simply” to be the same as ”absolutely”; thus ”that is said simply which is said without addition,” as the Philosopher put it (Topic. ii): and in this way the dead and living body of Christ was simply identically the same: since a thing is said to be ”simply” identically the same from the ident.i.ty of the subject. But Christ's body living and dead was identical in its suppositum because alive and dead it had none other besides the Word of G.o.d, as was stated above (A. 2). And it is in this sense that Athanasius is speaking in the pa.s.sage quoted.