Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 50 [<< | >>]
We have now to consider the death of Christ; concerning which there are
six subjects of inquiry:
(1) Whether it was fitting that Christ should die?
(2) Whether His death severed the union of Godhead and flesh?
(3) Whether His Godhead was separated from His soul?
(4) Whether Christ was a man during the three days of His death?
(5) Whether His was the same body, living and dead?
(6) Whether His death conduced in any way to our salvation?
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 50 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should die. For
a first principle in any order is not affected by anything contrary to
such order: thus fire, which is the principle of heat, can never become
cold. But the Son of God is the fountain-head and principle of all life,
according to Ps. 35:10: "With Thee is the fountain of life." Therefore it
does not seem fitting for Christ to die.
Objection 2: Further, death is a greater defect than sickness, because it is
through sickness that one comes to die. But it was not beseeming for
Christ to languish from sickness, as Chrysostom [*Athanasius, Orat. de
Incarn. Verbi] says. Consequently, neither was it becoming for Christ to
die.
Objection 3: Further, our Lord said (@Jn. 10:10): "I am come that they may
have life, and may have it more abundantly." But one opposite does not
lead to another. Therefore it seems that neither was it fitting for
Christ to die.
On the contrary, It is written, (@Jn. 11:50): "It is expedient that one
man should die for the people . . . that the whole nation perish not":
which words were spoken prophetically by Caiphas, as the Evangelist
testifies.
I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to die. First of all to satisfy
for the whole human race, which was sentenced to die on account of sin,
according to Gn. 2:17: "In what day soever ye shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt']
eat of it ye shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt'] die the death." Now it is a
fitting way of satisfying for another to submit oneself to the penalty
deserved by that other. And so Christ resolved to die, that by dying He
might atone for us, according to 1 Pt. 3:18: "Christ also died once for
our sins." Secondly, in order to show the reality of the flesh assumed.
For, as Eusebius says (Orat. de Laud. Constant. xv), "if, after dwelling
among men Christ were suddenly to disappear from men's sight, as though
shunning death, then by all men He would be likened to a phantom."
Thirdly, that by dying He might deliver us from fearing death: hence it
is written (@Heb. 2:14,15) that He communicated "to flesh and blood, that
through death He might destroy him who had the empire of death and might
deliver them who, through the fear of death, were all their lifetime
subject to servitude." Fourthly, that by dying in the body to the
likeness of sin---that is, to its penalty---He might set us the example
of dying to sin spiritually. Hence it is written (@Rm. 6:10): "For in that
He died to sin, He died once, but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God:
so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God."
Fifthly, that by rising from the dead, and manifesting His power whereby
He overthrew death, He might instill into us the hope of rising from the
dead. Hence the Apostle says (@1 Cor. 15:12): "If Christ be preached that
He rose again from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no
resurrection from the dead?"
Reply to Objection 1: Christ is the fountain of life, as God, and not as man: but
He died as man, and not as God. Hence Augustine [*Vigilius Tapsensis]
says against Felician: "Far be it from us to suppose that Christ so felt
death that He lost His life inasmuch as He is life in Himself; for, were
it so, the fountain of life would have run dry. Accordingly, He
experienced death by sharing in our human feeling, which of His own
accord He had taken upon Himself, but He did not lose the power of His
Nature, through which He gives life to all things."
Reply to Objection 2: Christ did not suffer death which comes of sickness, lest
He should seem to die of necessity from exhausted nature: but He endured
death inflicted from without, to which He willingly surrendered Himself,
that His death might be shown to be a voluntary one.
Reply to Objection 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.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 50 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the Godhead 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 God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"
which words Ambrose, commenting on Lk. 23:46, explains as follows: "The
man cried out when about to expire by being severed from the Godhead; for
since the Godhead is immune from death, assuredly death could not be
there, except life departed, for the Godhead is life." And so it seems
that when Christ died, the Godhead was separated from His flesh.
Objection 2: Further, extremes are severed when the mean is removed. But the
soul was the mean through which the Godhead was united with the flesh, as
stated above (Question [6], Article [1]). Therefore since the soul was severed from the
flesh by death, it seems that, in consequence, His Godhead was also
separated from it.
Objection 3: Further, God'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 Godhead departed.
On the contrary, As stated above (Question [16], Articles [4],5), the attributes of
human nature are predicated of the Son of God only by reason of the
union. But what belongs to the body of Christ after death is predicated
of the Son of God---namely, being buried: as is evident from the Creed,
in which it is said that the Son of God "was conceived and born of a
Virgin, suffered, died, and was buried." Therefore Christ's Godhead was
not separated from the flesh when He died.
I answer that, What is bestowed through God's grace is never withdrawn
except through fault. Hence it is written (@Rm. 11:29): "The gifts and the
calling of God are without repentance." But the grace of union whereby
the Godhead 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 Godhead with the flesh to be dissolved. Consequently, as before
death Christ's flesh was united personally and hypostatically with the
Word of God, it remained so after His death, so that the hypostasis of
the Word of God was not different from that of Christ's flesh after
death, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii).
Reply to Objection 1: Such forsaking is not to be referred to the dissolving of
the personal union, but to this, that God the Father gave Him up to the
Passion: 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 pass
away from Me," as Augustine explains it (De Gratia Novi Test.).
Reply to Objection 2: The Word of God 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 God intended to assume; 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 God's ordinance there remains
in the dead flesh a certain relation to the resurrection. And therefore
the union of the Godhead with the flesh is not taken away.
Reply to Objection 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 Godhead 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 Godhead with the flesh remains, since God does not act
of necessity, but of His own will.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 50 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that there was a severance in death between
Christ's Godhead and His soul, because our Lord said (@Jn. 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 God, to lay down His soul: but this is to separate it from
Himself. Consequently, by death His soul was severed from the Godhead.
Objection 2: Further, Athanasius [*Vigilius Tapsensis, De Trin. vi;
Bardenhewer assigns it to St. Athanasius: 45, iii. The full title is De
Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto] says that he "is accursed who does not
confess that the entire man, whom the Son of God took to Himself, after
being assumed once more or delivered by Him, rose again from the dead on
the third day." But the entire man could not be assumed again, unless the
entire man was at one time separated from the Word of God: and the entire
man is made of soul and body. Therefore there was a separation made at
one time of the Godhead from both the body and the soul.
Objection 3: Further, the Son of God 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 God continued united with the
soul, it would follow that the Son of God 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 God being the form of the body; which is
impossible. Therefore, in death the soul of Christ was separated from the
Word of God.
Objection 4: Further, the separated soul and body are not one hypostasis, but
two. Therefore, if the Word of God 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 God 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 Godhead remained unseparated from both---from the soul,
I mean, and from the body."
I answer that, The soul is united with the Word of God more immediately
and more primarily than the body is, because it is through the soul that
the body is united with the Word of God, as stated above (Question [6], Article [1]).
Since, then, the Word of God 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
God---namely, that "it was buried"---so is it said of Him in the Creed
that "He descended into hell," because His soul when separated from the
body did go down into hell.
Reply to Objection 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 God 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 (Article [2]), the
Godhead of the Word was not severed from the flesh in death.
Reply to Objection 2: In those words Athanasius never meant to say that the whole
man was reassumed---that is, as to all his parts---as if the Word of God
had laid aside the parts of human nature by His death; but that the
totality of the assumed nature was restored once more in the resurrection
by the resumed union of soul and body.
Reply to Objection 2: Through being united to human nature, the Word of God 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 to Objection 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."
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 50 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
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 assuming [of
nature] as to make God to be man, and man to be God." But this assuming
[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.
Objection 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 God after death
was not separated from His intellectual soul. Therefore, during those
three days the Son of God was a man.
Objection 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 assert 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 God 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 FP, Question [75], Article [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 FP, Question [75], Article [4], and from what has been said above regarding the mode of union (Question [2], Article [5]).
Reply to Objection 1: The Word of God assumed a united soul and body: and the
result of this assumption was that God is man, and man is God. But this
assumption 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 to Objection 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 to Objection 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.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 50 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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 circumcised and carried, which ate, and toiled, and was nailed on the
tree, there was the impassible and incorporeal Word of God: the same was
laid in the tomb." But Christ's living body was circumcised 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 identity 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 God, as was stated
above (Article [2]). And it is in this sense that Athanasius is speaking in the
passage quoted.
In another way "simply" is the same as "altogether" or "totally": in
which sense the body of Christ, dead and alive, was not "simply" the same
identically, because it was not "totally" the same, since life is of the
essence of a living body; for it is an essential and not an accidental
predicate: hence it follows that a body which ceases to be living does
not remain totally the same. Moreover, if it were to be said that
Christ's dead body did continue "totally" the same, it would follow that
it was not corrupted---I mean, by the corruption of death: which is the
heresy of the Gaianites, as Isidore says (Etym. viii), and is to be found
in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. iii). And Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii)
that "the term 'corruption' denotes two things: in one way it is the
separation of the soul from the body and other things of the sort; in
another way, the complete dissolving into elements. Consequently it is
impious to say with Julian and Gaian that the Lord's body was
incorruptible after the first manner of corruption before the
resurrection: because Christ's body would not be consubstantial with us,
nor truly dead, nor would we have been saved in very truth. But in the
second way Christ's body was incorrupt."
Reply to Objection 1: The dead body of everyone else does not continue united to an abiding hypostasis, as Christ's dead body did; consequently the dead body of everyone else is not the same "simply," but only in some respect: because it is the same as to its matter, but not the same as to its form. But Christ's body remains the same simply, on account of the identity of the suppositum, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2: Since a thing is said to be the same identically according
to suppositum, but the same specifically according to form: wherever the
suppositum subsists in only one nature, it follows of necessity that when
the unity of species is taken away the unity of identity is also taken
away. But the hypostasis of the Word of God subsists in two natures; and
consequently, although in others the body does not remain the same
according to the species of human nature, still it continues identically
the same in Christ according to the suppositum of the Word of God.
Reply to Objection 3: Corruption and death do not belong to Christ by reason of
the suppositum, from which suppositum follows the unity of identity; but
by reason of the human nature, according to which is found the difference
of death and of life in Christ's body.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 50 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's death did not conduce in any way to
our salvation. For death is a sort of privation, since it is the
privation of life. But privation has not any power of activity, because
it is nothing positive. Therefore it could not work anything for our
salvation.
Objection 2: Further, Christ's Passion wrought our salvation by way of merit.
But Christ's death could not operate in this way, because in death the
body is separated from the soul, which is the principle of meriting.
Consequently, Christ's death did not accomplish anything towards our
salvation.
Objection 3: Further, what is corporeal is not the cause of what is spiritual.
But Christ's death was corporeal. Therefore it could not be the cause of
our salvation, which is something spiritual.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "The one death of our
Saviour," namely, that of the body, "saved us from our two deaths," that
is, of the soul and the body.
I answer that, We may speak of Christ's death in two ways, "in becoming"
and "in fact." Death is said to be "in becoming" when anyone from natural
or enforced suffering is tending towards death: and in this way it is the
same thing to speak of Christ's death as of His Passion: so that in this
sense Christ's death is the cause of our salvation, according to what has
been already said of the Passion (Question [48]). But death is considered in
fact, inasmuch as the separation of soul and body has already taken
place: and it is in this sense that we are now speaking of Christ's
death. In this way Christ's death cannot be the cause of our salvation by
way of merit, but only by way of causality, that is to say, inasmuch as
the Godhead was not separated from Christ's flesh by death; and
therefore, whatever befell Christ's flesh, even when the soul was
departed, was conducive to salvation in virtue of the Godhead united. But
the effect of any cause is properly estimated according to its
resemblance to the cause. Consequently, since death is a kind of
privation of one's own life, the effect of Christ's death is considered
in relation to the removal of the obstacles to our salvation: and these
are the death of the soul and of the body. Hence Christ's death is said
to have destroyed in us both the death of the soul, caused by sin,
according to Rm. 4:25: "He was delivered up [namely unto death] for our
sins": and the death of the body, consisting in the separation of the
soul, according to 1 Cor. 15:54: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
Reply to Objection 1: Christ's death wrought our salvation from the power of the
Godhead united, and not consisted merely as His death.
Reply to Objection 2: Though Christ's death, considered "in fact" did not effect
our salvation by way of merit, yet it did so by way of causality, as
stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ's death was indeed corporeal; but the body was the
instrument of the Godhead united to Him, working by Its power, although
dead.