Dist. 21, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 21
Articulus I. De separatione, facta in morte, per comparationem ad unionis vinculum.
Quaestio I. Utrum in morte anima Christi separata fuerit a Deitate.
Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum in morte anima separata fuerit a Deitate. Et quod sic, videtur.
1. Ioannis decimop436-5: Potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam, et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam; sed ponere ibi animam non est aliud quam deponere: ergo si iste sermo est personae Filii Dei, videtur, quod Filius Dei animam deposuerit in morte: ergo in morte anima fuit separata a Verbo.
2. Item, unio facit communicationem idiomatump436-6; sed in morte idiomata Dei non communicabantur animae: ergo in morte non mansit unio animae ad Deitatem.
3. Item, in morte dividuntur quae in nativitate coniunguntur; sed Divinitas iuncta est ipsi animae Christi in ipsius conceptione et nativitate in uterop437-1: ergo separata fuit ab ea in morte.
4. Item, Divinitas non potuit animae esse unita, quin anima ipsa frueretur et delectaretur in ea; sed in morte remota fuit delectatio ab anima, quam habebat in ipsa Divinitate: ergo separata fuit omnino ab anima. Maior propositio per se manifesta est; minor probatur per illud quod dicitur Matthaei vigesimo sextop437-2: Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem; Glossa: «Remota delectatione aeternae Divinitatis, taedio humanae calamitatis afficitur»: ergo secundum istam Glossam delectatio removebatur: ergo unio solvebatur.
Sed contra: 1. Augustinusp437-3 et Damascenus: «Anathema sit qui dicit, Verbum deposuisse quod semel assumsit»: si ergo animam assumsit, nunquam deposuit animam.
2. Item, Filius Dei dicitur descendisse ad inferos post mortemp437-4; sed constat, quod secundum Divinitatem non potest dici nec secundum carnem: ergo oportet, quod dicatur secundum animam: ergo anima post mortem fuit sibi unita, non ergo in morte fuit separata.
3. Item, si anima fuit separata in morte a Verbo; cum non haberet gloriam fruitionis nisi per unionem sui ad Divinitatem, ergo anima Christi desiit esse beata; et si desiit esse beata, nunquam fuit beata, quia beatitudo est bonum, quod nunquam potest amittip437-5: si igitur hoc est inconveniens, anima non fuit separata a Divinitate.
4. Item, si separata fuit, aut volens, aut nolens. Si nolens; cum hoc non meruisset, facta fuit sibi iniuria. Si volens; sed velle separari a Deo non potest homo nisi iniuste: ergo anima illa fuit iniusta: cum igitur hoc sit falsum et impium, restat etc.
Conclusio.
Anima Christi in morte a Verbo non fuit separata.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in mortep437-6 non fuit anima separata a Verbo. Et ratio huius est: quia nec Deum decebat, nec nobis expediebat, nec illi animae congruebat. — Deum non decebat, quia indissolubili matrimonio sibi eam coniunxerat. Unde sicut non decet virum relinquere uxorem, sic non decuit Verbum Dei ab anima separarip437-7. — Nobis non expediebat, quia, si facta fuisset separatio, anima illa nec habuisset potentiam ad eripiendum genus captivum nec mediatricis officium ad reconciliandum; et neutrum erat nobis expediens, sed potius eius oppositump437-8. — Animae etiam illi non congruebat, tum quia innocentissima, tum etiam quia beatissima. Quia beatissima erat, non poterat velle separari a Verbo; quia innocentissima erat, non poterat contra voluntatem suam separari ab eo. — Et ideo concedendum est, quod in morte anima a Verbo separata non fuit. Nam si quis contrarium diceret, iniuriam faceret Deitati et nobis et animae Christi, et ideo dignus esset anathematizari. Et ideo hocp437-9 dicit Damascenus, quod quicumque hoc dixerit, anathema sit. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes, quae sunt ad partem istam.
Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:
Ad 1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Augustinusp437-10, verbum illud est personae Filii Dei ratione carnis assumtae. Et si tu obiicias, quod carni non competit ponere animam, cum non habeat posse super ipsam; dicendum, quod hoc attribuitur ipsi carni ratione «manentis in se Deitatis». Unde attendendum est, quod ibi deponens, et unde deponitp437-11; deponens est virtus divina; unde vero deponit est caro assumta. Voluit enim Christus, animam suam separari non a se, sed a carne sua; et sicut dictum est de depositione, ita intelligendum est de resumtione.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de idiomatum communicatione, dicendum, quod unio facit, idiomata communicari non partibus rei unibilis, sed magis ipsi rei naturae, quae nominat totam naturam, ut in supposito; unde idiomata Filii Dei non communicantur ipsi animae, sed communicantur ipsi homini; et quoniam anima unitur ipsi Verbo ut pars humanae naturae, ideo non oportet ipsi idiomata communicarip437-12.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illa dividuntur in morte, quae coniuncta sunt in nativitate; dicendum, quod est coniunctio naturalis, et est coniunctio supernaturalis. Quando ergo dicitur, quod illa in morte dividuntur, quae in nativitate coniuncta sunt, hoc intelligitur de unione naturali. Unio autem Divinitatis ad animam non erat naturalis, sed supernaturalis; et ideo de ista unione verbum illud non habet intelligi.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod remota est delectatio in morte ab anima; dicendum, quod sicut lux potest dupliciter offuscari: vel in se, vel in sua irradiatione; sic et delectatio potest dupliciter removeri ab anima rationali: aut quia ipsa desinit in se delectari, aut quia desinit redundare in partem inferiorem. Cum ergo dicitur, quod delectatio Deitatis remota fuit in morte ab anima Christi, hoc non intelligitur ea ratione, quod mens eius desineret frui Divinitate, sed quod dispensative subtracta fuit redundantia in partem sensibilem et exposita fuit passioni acerbissimae. Propter quod clamat in passione: Deus meus, Deus meus! ut quid dereliquisti mep438-1? quod non intelligitur, quia dereliquerit solvendo vinculum unionis, sed exponendo ad supplicium passionis.
I. De hac et seq. (2.) quaestione nulla inter catholicos est controversia. Ad rem et ad mentem S. Bonaventurae dicit Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 1. a. 2.): «Divinitas coniuncta fuit illi animae triplici vinculo: per gratiam inhabitationis, per gloriam fruitionis, per gratiam unionis personalis; et prima fuit dispositio secundae, et utraque tertiae. Unde cum prima non fuerit separabilis, quia solum peccatum separat eam, nec secunda fuit separabilis nec tertia» etc. — Arg. 1. ad oppositum eodem modo solvitur etiam a S. Thoma (S. III. q. 50. a. 3. ad 1.) aliisque. Tamen multi interpretes s. Scripturae cum S. Ioan. Chrysostomo volunt, quod anima hoc loco, iuxta usum loquendi in sacris libris non rarum, significet vitam corporalem; qua interpretatione evanescit tota difficultas. Haec solutio aliquatenus insinuatur etiam ab auctore nostro, hic dub. 2.
De hac (1.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., de hac et seq. q. S. p. III. q. 19. m. 1. — Scot. hanc et seq. q. tangit hic q. unica, et d. 16. q. 2. arg. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2; S. art. cit. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.
II. De seq. (2.) quaestione praeter citatos: S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; S. loc. cit. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2.
---
Article I. On the separation, made in death, by comparison to the bond of union.
Question I. Whether in death the soul of Christ was separated from the Deity.
Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether in death the soul was separated from the Deity. And that it was, seems [to be the case]:
1. John the tenthp436-5: I have power to lay down my soul, and I have power to take it up again; but to lay down the soul there is nothing other than to put it off: therefore if that saying belongs to the person of the Son of God, it seems that the Son of God put off the soul in death: therefore in death the soul was separated from the Word.
2. Likewise, union makes a communication of idiomsp436-6; but in death the idioms of God were not communicated to the soul: therefore in death the union of the soul to the Deity did not remain.
3. Likewise, in death those things are divided which are joined together in nativity; but the Divinity was joined to the very soul of Christ in his conception and nativity in the wombp437-1: therefore it was separated from it in death.
4. Likewise, the Divinity could not be united to the soul without the soul itself enjoying and delighting in it; but in death the delight which it had in the Divinity itself was withdrawn from the soul: therefore it was separated altogether from the soul. The major proposition is manifest of itself; the minor is proved by that which is said in Matthew the twenty-sixthp437-2: My soul is sorrowful even unto death; the Gloss: «The delight of the eternal Divinity being withdrawn, it is afflicted by the weariness of human calamity»: therefore according to that Gloss the delight was withdrawn: therefore the union was dissolved.
On the contrary: 1. Augustinep437-3 and the Damascene [say]: «Let him be anathema who says that the Word put off what it once assumed»: if therefore it assumed the soul, it never put off the soul.
2. Likewise, the Son of God is said to have descended to the lower regions after deathp437-4; but it is established that this cannot be said according to the Divinity nor according to the flesh: therefore it must be said according to the soul: therefore after death the soul was united to him, therefore in death it was not separated.
3. Likewise, if the soul was separated in death from the Word; since it would not have the glory of fruition except through its union to the Divinity, then the soul of Christ ceased to be blessed; and if it ceased to be blessed, it was never blessed, since blessedness is a good which can never be lostp437-5: if therefore this is unfitting, the soul was not separated from the Divinity.
4. Likewise, if it was separated, [it was] either willing or unwilling. If unwilling; since it did not deserve this, an injury was done to it. If willing; but a man cannot will to be separated from God except unjustly: therefore that soul was unjust: since therefore this is false and impious, it remains etc.
Conclusion.
The soul of Christ in death was not separated from the Word.
I respond: It must be said that in deathp437-6 the soul was not separated from the Word. And the reason for this is: because it neither befitted God, nor was expedient for us, nor was suitable for that soul. — It did not befit God, because he had joined it to himself in indissoluble matrimony. Hence just as it is not fitting for a husband to abandon his wife, so it did not befit the Word of God to be separated from the soulp437-7. — It was not expedient for us, because, if a separation had been made, that soul would have had neither the power to rescue the captive race nor the office of mediatrix for reconciling; and neither was expedient for us, but rather the opposite of itp437-8. — Likewise it was not suitable for that soul, both because it was most innocent and also because it was most blessed. Because it was most blessed, it could not will to be separated from the Word; because it was most innocent, it could not against its will be separated from him. — And therefore it must be granted that in death the soul was not separated from the Word. For if anyone were to say the contrary, he would do injury to the Deity and to us and to the soul of Christ, and therefore he would deserve to be anathematized. And thereforep437-9 the Damascene says this, that whoever shall have said this, let him be anathema. — Therefore the reasons which are on this side must be granted.
To the arguments for the affirmative side:
To 1. To that which is first objected to the contrary, it must be said that, as Augustine saysp437-10, that saying belongs to the person of the Son of God by reason of the assumed flesh. And if you object that it does not belong to the flesh to lay down the soul, since it does not have power over it; it must be said that this is attributed to the flesh itself by reason of «the Deity remaining in it». Hence it must be observed that there is a one who lays down, and a that from which he lays downp437-11; the one who lays down is the divine power; the that from which he lays down is the assumed flesh. For Christ willed his soul to be separated not from himself, but from his flesh; and as has been said of the laying-down, so it must be understood of the resumption.
To 2. To that which is objected concerning the communication of idioms, it must be said that union makes the idioms be communicated not to the parts of the unitable thing, but rather to the thing's nature itself, which names the whole nature, as in a supposit; hence the idioms of the Son of God are not communicated to the soul itself, but are communicated to the man himself; and since the soul is united to the Word as a part of the human nature, therefore the idioms need not be communicated to itp437-12.
To 3. To that which is objected, that those things are divided in death which are joined together in nativity; it must be said that there is a natural conjunction and a supernatural conjunction. When therefore it is said that those things are divided in death which are joined together in nativity, this is understood of the natural union. But the union of the Divinity to the soul was not natural, but supernatural; and therefore that saying is not to be understood of this union.
To 4. To that which is objected, that the delight was withdrawn from the soul in death; it must be said that just as light can be darkened in two ways: either in itself, or in its irradiation; so too delight can be removed from the rational soul in two ways: either because it itself ceases to delight in itself, or because it ceases to overflow into the lower part. When therefore it is said that the delight of the Deity was withdrawn in death from the soul of Christ, this is not understood in the sense that his mind ceased to enjoy the Divinity, but that by dispensation the overflow into the sensible part was withdrawn and it was exposed to the most bitter passion. On account of which he cries out in the passion: My God, my God! why hast thou forsaken mep438-1? which is not understood [to mean] that he forsook [it] by dissolving the bond of union, but by exposing [it] to the torment of the passion.
I. Concerning this and the following (2nd) question there is no controversy among Catholics. To the matter and to the mind of St. Bonaventure Peter a Tarantasia speaks (here q. 1, a. 2): «The Divinity was joined to that soul by a threefold bond: by the grace of indwelling, by the glory of fruition, by the grace of personal union; and the first was the disposition of the second, and both [were the disposition] of the third. Hence since the first was not separable, because sin alone separates it, neither was the second separable nor the third» etc. — The 1st argument to the opposite is solved in the same way also by St. Thomas (S. III. q. 50, a. 3, ad 1) and by others. Yet many interpreters of sacred Scripture, with St. John Chrysostom, hold that soul in this place, according to a usage of speaking not uncommon in the sacred books, signifies bodily life; by which interpretation the whole difficulty vanishes. This solution is to some extent intimated also by our author, here in dub. 2.
Concerning this (1st) question: Alex. of Hales, on this and the following q., S. p. III. q. 19, m. 1. — Scotus touches this and the following q. here in q. unica, and d. 16, q. 2, arg. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1, quaestiunc. 2; S. art. cit. — B. Albert, on this and the following q. here a. 1. — Peter a Tar., loc. cit. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following q. here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following q. here q. 1. — Biel, on this and the following qq. here q. unica.
II. Concerning the following (2nd) question, besides those cited: St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1, quaestiunc. 1; S. loc. cit. a. 2. — Peter a Tar., here q. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2.
---
- Vers. 18.[John 10,] verse 18.
- Cfr. supra pag. 14, nota 3. — In minori pro communicabantur animae edd. communicantur animae ad Deitatem. Edd. 1, 2 omittunt conclusionem. Deinde et in seqq. codd. inter se differunt scribentes vel Deitas vel Divinitas, nec singuli sibi constant, unde non potuimus bene determinare primitivam lectionem.Cf. above p. 14, note 3. — In the minor, for communicabantur animae the editions read communicantur animae ad Deitatem. Editions 1, 2 omit the conclusion. Then also in what follows the codices differ among themselves, writing either Deitas or Divinitas, nor are the individual ones consistent with themselves, whence we have not been able to determine well the primitive reading.
- Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 2.Cf. above d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 2.
- Vers. 38. — Glossa habetur apud Bedam super Marc. 14, 36, et delibata est ex Ambros., X. Exposit. Evang. Luc. 22, 42. seq. n. 56: Sequestrata delectatione Divinitatis aeternae, taedio meae infirmitatis afficitur. — In minori pro remota codd. U W separata. In conclus. pro omnino, quod e cod. A restituimus, alii codd. et edd. 1, 2 perperam caro, Vat. Divinitas.Verse 38. — The Gloss is found in Bede on Mark 14, 36, and is drawn from Ambrose, X. Exposition of the Gospel of Luke 22, 42 ff., n. 56: The delight of the eternal Divinity being set apart, he is afflicted by the weariness of my infirmity. — In the minor, for remota the codices U W [read] separata. In the conclusion, for omnino, which we have restored from cod. A, the other codices and editions 1, 2 wrongly [read] caro, the Vatican [edition] Divinitas.
- Sententialiter in Ioan. Evang. tr. 47. n. 10. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1, ubi de assumtione similis formula invenitur; vide pag. 434, nota 6. De Damasceno cfr. supra pag. 138, nota 8.As to the substance, in [Augustine,] Tractates on the Gospel of John tr. 47, n. 10. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1, where concerning assumption a similar formula is found; see p. 434, note 6. Concerning the Damascene cf. above p. 138, note 8.
- Ut ostenditur infra d. 22. q. 4. — In minori post dici cod. K addit quia eius non est descendere vel ascendere; cfr. Fulgent., II. ad Trasim. c. 10.As is shown below d. 22, q. 4. — In the minor, after dici cod. K adds because it does not belong to it to descend or ascend; cf. Fulgentius, II. to Trasimund c. 10.
- Vide August., XIII. de Trin. c. 8. n. 11.See Augustine, XIII. On the Trinity c. 8, n. 11.
- Cod. U adiicit Christi. Inferius pro matrimonio codd. Hbb (K a secunda manu) vinculo.Cod. U adds Christi. Lower down, for matrimonio codices Hbb (K by a second hand) [read] vinculo.
- Cfr. supra d. 6. a. 2. q. 2. seq.Cf. above d. 6, a. 2, q. 2 f.
- Cfr. infra d. 22. q. 4. seq. — Paulo superius voci genus Vat. apponit humanum.Cf. below d. 22, q. 4 f. — A little above, to the word genus the Vatican [edition] adds humanum.
- Cod. W Et propter hoc.Cod. W [reads] And on account of this.
- In Ioan. Evang. tr. 47. n. 11. seqq., cuius sententiae summa habetur etiam hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1. circa finem. — Post verbum illud cod. R addit potestatem habere scil. ponendi animam.In [Augustine,] Tractates on the Gospel of John tr. 47, n. 11 ff., the substance of whose opinion is also found here in the text of the Master, c. 1, near the end. — After the word illud cod. R adds to have power, namely of laying down the soul.
- Fere omnes codd. deponens. Circa finem solut. plurimi codd. omittunt de ante depositione; tunc legendum de positione.Nearly all the codices [read] deponens. Near the end of the solution most codices omit de before depositione; then it should be read de positione.
- Vide supra d. 6. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6. — Paulo superius post Filii Dei cod. K subiicit omnino.See above d. 6, a. 1, q. 1, ad 6. — A little above, after Filii Dei cod. K subjoins omnino.
- Matth. 27, 46. — De expositione, quae his verbis a S. Bonav. annectitur, vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Pro solvendo vinculum plurimi codd. solummodo vinculum. Paulo superius pro partem sensibilem cod. A partem sensualem.Matthew 27, 46. — Concerning the exposition which is attached to these words by St. Bonaventure, see here the text of the Master, c. 1. — For solvendo vinculum most codices [read] solummodo vinculum. A little above, for partem sensibilem cod. A [reads] partem sensualem. ---