|
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion is to be
attributed to His Godhead; for it is written (1 Cor. 2:8):
"If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of
glory." But Christ is the Lord of glory in respect of His
Godhead. Therefore Christ's Passion is attributed to Him in
respect of His Godhead.
Objection 2: Further, the principle of men's salvation is the
Godhead Itself, according to Ps. 36:39: "But the salvation
of the just is from the Lord." Consequently, if Christ's Passion
did not appertain to His Godhead, it would seem that it could not
produce fruit in us.
Objection 3: Further, the Jews were punished for slaying Christ
as for murdering God Himself; as is proved by the gravity of the
punishment. Now this would not be so if the Passion were not
attributed to the Godhead. Therefore Christ's Passion should be so
attributed.
On the contrary, Athanasius says (Ep. ad Epict.): "The Word
is impassible whose Nature is Divine." But what is impassible
cannot suffer. Consequently, Christ's Passion did not concern His
Godhead.
I answer that, As stated above (Question 2, Articles
1,2,3,6), the union of the human nature with the Divine was
effected in the Person, in the hypostasis, in the suppositum, yet
observing the distinction of natures; so that it is the same Person
and hypostasis of the Divine and human natures, while each nature
retains that which is proper to it. And therefore, as stated above
(Question 16, Article 4), the Passion is to be attributed to
the suppositum of the Divine Nature, not because of the Divine
Nature, which is impassible, but by reason of the human nature.
Hence, in a Synodal Epistle of Cyril [Act. Conc. Ephes.,
P. i, cap. 26] we read: "If any man does not confess that the
Word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh, let
him be anathema." Therefore Christ's Passion belongs to the
"suppositum" of the Divine Nature by reason of the passible nature
assumed, but not on account of the impassible Divine Nature.
Reply to Objection 1: The Lord of glory is said to be crucified,
not as the Lord of glory, but as a man capable of suffering.
Reply to Objection 2: As is said in a sermon of the Council of
Ephesus [P. iii, cap. 10], "Christ's death being, as it
were, God's death"---namely, by union in
Person---"destroyed death"; since He who suffered "was both
God and man. For God's Nature was not wounded, nor did It
undergo any change by those sufferings."
Reply to Objection 3: As the passage quoted goes on to say: "The
Jews did not crucify one who was simply a man; they inflicted their
presumptions upon God. For suppose a prince to speak by word of
mouth, and that his words are committed to writing on a parchment and
sent out to the cities, and that some rebel tears up the document, he
will be led forth to endure the death sentence, not for merely tearing
up a document, but as destroying the imperial message. Let not the
Jew, then, stand in security, as crucifying a mere man; since what
he saw was as the parchment, but what was hidden under it was the
imperial Word, the Son by nature, not the mere utterance of a
tongue."
|
|