|
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.
|
|