|
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withdrawn except through fault.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.
|
|