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.
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 Obj. 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 ident.i.ty of the suppositum, as stated above.
Reply Obj. 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 ident.i.ty is also taken away. But the hypostasis of the Word of G.o.d 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 G.o.d.
Reply Obj. 3: Corruption and death do not belong to Christ by reason of the suppositum, from which suppositum follows the unity of ident.i.ty; but by reason of the human nature, according to which is found the difference of death and of life in Christ"s body.
_______________________
SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 6]
Whether Christ"s Death Conduced in Any Way to Our Salvation?
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.
Obj. 2: Further, Christ"s Pa.s.sion 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.
Obj. 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 Pa.s.sion: so that in this sense Christ"s death is the cause of our salvation, according to what has been already said of the Pa.s.sion (Q.
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 G.o.dhead 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 G.o.dhead 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 Rom. 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 Obj. 1: Christ"s death wrought our salvation from the power of the G.o.dhead united, and not considered merely as His death.
Reply Obj. 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 Obj. 3: Christ"s death was indeed corporeal; but the body was the instrument of the G.o.dhead united to Him, working by Its power, although dead.
_______________________
QUESTION 51
OF CHRIST"S BURIAL (In Four Articles)
We have now to consider Christ"s burial, concerning which there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it was fitting for Christ to be buried?
(2) Concerning the manner of His burial;
(3) Whether His body was decomposed in the tomb?
(4) Concerning the length of time He lay in the tomb.
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 51, Art. 1]