Dist. 21, Art. 2, Q. 2
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 21
Quaestio II. Utrum ex illa separatione caro Christi fuerit mortua, an post eam habuerit vitam.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum ex illa separatione caro fuerit mortua, an post eam habuerit vitam. Et quod vitam habuerit, videtur.
1. Omne quod est unitum vitae, vivit per participationem; sed caro Christi post separationem erat unita ipsi vitae, scilicet Verbo Deip444-1: ergo ab ipso vivificabatur. Si tu dicas, quod hoc est verum de vita creata, non de increata; obiicitur contra: potentior est vita increata in vivificando quam vita creata, quoniam ipsa est fons vitaep444-2: si ergo anima nulli corpori potest uniri, quin det ei vitam; multo fortius videtur, quod nec persona divina possit uniri carni, nisi tribuat ei vitam.
2. Item, impossibile fuit, animam Christi uniri Verbo, quin reciperet vitam ab ipso: ergo si suo modo caro erat vivificabilis, impossibile fuit uniri Verbo, quin reciperet vitam ab eo.
3. Item, nobilior est substantia vivens substantia non viventep444-3; sed nulla caro erat nobilior carne Christi, etiam post separationem animae: ergo si vita reperitur in alia carne, necesse est, quod caro Christi viveret, etiam anima separata.
4. Item, caro illa non poterat videre corruptionemp444-4, ergo necesse erat, eam ab aliquo vegetari; sed non nisi a Deitate: ergo eam ita vegetabat, sicut anima. Sed anima eam vegetando dabat ei vitam: ergo pari ratione caro illa vivebat per Divinitatem influentem in ipsam.
Sed contra: 1. In Symbolop444-5 dicitur, quod Christus «mortuus est et sepultus»; sed hoc non dicitur nisi ratione carnis: ergo caro Christi fuit mortua, anima separata.
2. Item, omnis vita est ab aliquo informantep444-6; sed caro post separationem animae non uniebatur alicui vivificanti per modum formae: ergo post separationem animae caro non habebat vitam.
3. Item, omne quod vivit, habet aliquem usum vitae, utpote uti alimento, vel sensu, vel motu, vel intellectup444-7; sed nullum istorum caro Christi habebat post separationem animae: ergo non vivebat.
4. Item, nihil vivum suscitatur vel resurgit, quia suscitatio et resurrectio non est nisi mortui; sed caro Christi resurrexit et suscitata fuit: ergo post separationem animae vitam non habuit.
Conclusio.
Caro Christi post separationem ab anima vere mortua fuit.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio caro Christi post separationem animae mortua fuit; caruit enim usu et complemento vitae. Res enim corporalis non est nata vivificari nisi ab aliqua forma spirituali, ipsam complente et sibi proportionali. Quoniam ergo in ipsa separatione animae caro Christi caruit huiusp. 445modi forma, ideo vere fuit mortua; et quamvis haberet Divinitatem unitam, non tamen ab ea vivificabatur, non propter defectum a parte vivificantis, sed propter improportionem a parte vivificabilis. — Rationes igitur, quae ad hanc partem inducuntur, concedendae sunt.
Ad argumenta in oppositum: 1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod unitum vitae vivit; iam patet responsio. Hoc enim veritatem habet, quando unitur ei sicut perfectibile suae perfectioni; sic autem non unitur caro personae Verbi: et ideo non est simile de ipsa anima et de persona divina.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod anima non potuit uniri ipsi Verbo, quin vivificaretur ab ipso, ergo nec caro; dicendum, quod non est simile, pro eo quod ipsa anima, cum sit imago Dei et immediate nata ferri in Deum, «capax eius est et particeps esse potestp445-1»; et ita immediate habet ab illo et in illo vivere per cognitionem et amorem. Non sic autem est de carne: non enim est nata Deum cognoscere vel amare.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nobilior est substantia vivens substantia non vivente; dicendum, quod verum est, ceteris aliis paribus; sed caro Christi, licet careretp445-2 vita, erat tamen Divinitati unita, et hoc quidem praeponderat multis aliis dignitatibus. Praeterea, cum dicitur, quod nobilior est substantia vivens substantia non vivente; hoc intelligitur de substantia, quae caret vita simpliciter; caro autem Christi non carebat vita simpliciter, sed ad tempus. Unde sicut nobilior est filius regis captusp445-3 et incarceratus filio rustici in libertate sua constituto; sic etiam intelligendum est de carne Christi, quae modico tempore caruit complemento vitae, ut postea nobilissimam vitam resumeret.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caro illa non potuit incinerarip445-4; dicendum, quod divina virtus ipsam conservabat; sed tamen illa conservatio non erat vivificatio nec operatio vitae. Conservatio enim et vegetatio, quae est operatio vitae, procedit a forma completiva, operante per modum naturaep445-5; sed illa conservatio, quae erat in carne Christi, ne corrumperetur, erat a virtute divina, operante super naturam; et ideo non cogit illa ratiop445-6.
---
Question II. Whether by that separation the flesh of Christ was dead, or whether after it it had life.
Secondly it is asked whether by that separation the flesh was dead, or whether after it it had life. And that it had life seems [to be the case].
1. Everything that is united to life lives by participation; but the flesh of Christ after the separation was united to life itself, namely to the Word of Godp444-1: therefore it was vivified by it. If you say that this is true of created life, not of uncreated life; the objection to the contrary [is]: uncreated life is more powerful in vivifying than created life, since it is itself the fountain of lifep444-2: if therefore the soul cannot be united to any body without giving it life, much more does it seem that not even a divine person can be united to flesh without bestowing life upon it.
2. Likewise, it was impossible for the soul of Christ to be united to the Word without receiving life from it: therefore if in its own way the flesh was capable of being vivified, it was impossible for it to be united to the Word without receiving life from it.
3. Likewise, a living substance is nobler than a non-living substancep444-3; but no flesh was nobler than the flesh of Christ, even after the separation of the soul: therefore if life is found in other flesh, it is necessary that the flesh of Christ should live, even with the soul separated.
4. Likewise, that flesh could not see corruptionp444-4, therefore it was necessary that it be quickened by something; but only by the Deity: therefore [the Deity] quickened it just as the soul did. But the soul, by quickening it, gave it life: therefore by like reasoning that flesh lived through the Divinity flowing into it.
On the contrary: 1. In the Creedp444-5 it is said that Christ "was dead and buried"; but this is said only by reason of the flesh: therefore the flesh of Christ was dead, the soul having been separated.
2. Likewise, all life is from something informingp444-6; but the flesh after the separation of the soul was not united to anything vivifying [it] in the manner of a form: therefore after the separation of the soul the flesh did not have life.
3. Likewise, everything that lives has some use of life, such as making use of nourishment, or sense, or motion, or intellectp444-7; but the flesh of Christ had none of these after the separation of the soul: therefore it was not living.
4. Likewise, nothing living is raised up or rises again, because resuscitation and resurrection belong only to what is dead; but the flesh of Christ rose again and was raised up: therefore after the separation of the soul it did not have life.
Conclusion.
The flesh of Christ, after the separation from the soul, was truly dead.
I respond: It must be said that without doubt the flesh of Christ after the separation of the soul was dead; for it lacked the use and completion of life. For a corporeal thing is not apt to be vivified except by some spiritual form, completing it and proportioned to it. Since therefore in that very separation of the soul the flesh of Christ lacked a form of this kind, it was therefore truly dead; and although it had the Divinity united [to it], nevertheless it was not vivified by it, not on account of a defect on the part of the vivifying [principle], but on account of the disproportion on the part of the vivifiable. — The reasons therefore which are brought forward to this side are to be conceded.
To the arguments to the contrary: 1. To that which is first objected on the contrary, that what is united to life lives; the response is already clear. For this holds true when [a thing] is united to it as the perfectible to its perfection; but the flesh is not so united to the person of the Word: and therefore the case is not the same with the soul and with the divine person.
2. To that which is objected, that the soul could not be united to the Word itself without being vivified by it, therefore neither [could] the flesh; it must be said that the case is not the same, for the reason that the soul itself, since it is the image of God and is apt to be borne immediately into God, "is capable of him and able to be a partaker [of him]p445-1"; and thus immediately it has from him and in him to live through knowledge and love. But it is not so with the flesh: for it is not apt to know or to love God.
3. To that which is objected, that a living substance is nobler than a non-living substance; it must be said that this is true, all other things being equal; but the flesh of Christ, although it lackedp445-2 life, was nevertheless united to the Divinity, and this indeed outweighs many other dignities. Moreover, when it is said that a living substance is nobler than a non-living substance; this is understood of a substance that lacks life absolutely; but the flesh of Christ did not lack life absolutely, but for a time. Hence, just as a capturedp445-3 and imprisoned son of a king is nobler than the son of a peasant established in his own liberty; so too it must be understood concerning the flesh of Christ, which for a short time lacked the completion of life, that afterward it might resume a most noble life.
4. To that which is objected, that that flesh could not be reduced to ashesp445-4; it must be said that the divine power was preserving it; but nevertheless that preservation was not a vivification nor an operation of life. For preservation and quickening, which is an operation of life, proceeds from a completive form, operating in the manner of naturep445-5; but that preservation, which was in the flesh of Christ, that it might not be corrupted, was from the divine power, operating above nature; and therefore that reasoning does not compel [its conclusion]p445-6.
---
- Vide supra a. I. q. 2. — Pro Dei cod. U divino, codd. G H I T V Deo.See above, a. I, q. 2. — For Dei ("of God") codex U [reads] divino ("divine"), codices G H I T V Deo ("to God").
- Psalm. 35, 10: Apud te est fons vitae. Cfr. verba August. contra Felicianum directa, quae hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1. circa finem habentur. — Paulo superius post obiicitur contra codd. A N subdunt quod.Psalm 35:10: With thee is the fountain of life. Cf. the words of Augustine directed against Felicianus, which are found here in the text of the Master, c. 1, near the end. — A little above, after obiicitur contra codices A N add quod.
- Aristot., II. de Generat. animal. c. 1. docet, quod «anima sit corpore melior, animatumque inanimato praestet propter animam, et esse quam non-esse, et vivere quam non vivere melius sit». — Paulo inferius pro in alia carne cod. U in aliqua carne.Aristotle, On the Generation of Animals II, c. 1, teaches that "the soul is better than the body, and the animate excels the inanimate on account of the soul, and that to be is better than not to be, and to live than not to live." — A little below, for in alia carne ("in other flesh") codex U [reads] in aliqua carne ("in some flesh").
- Respicitur illud Ps. 15. 10: Nec dabis Sanctum tuum videre corruptionem.Reference is made to that [verse] of Psalm 15:10: Neither wilt thou give thy holy one to see corruption.
- Apostolorum.[The Creed] of the Apostles.
- Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 24. (c. 2.): Quoniam «anima id est quo vivimus et sentimus et movemur et intelligimus primo, anima utique ratio quaedam erit et forma». — Vat. hic addit vivificante.Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 24 (c. 2): "Since the soul is that by which primarily we live and perceive and are moved and understand, the soul will indeed be a certain account and form." — The Vatican edition here adds vivificante ("by [something] vivifying").
- Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 13. (c. 2.) dicit, quod si alicui «unum aliquod horum insit solum, vivere ipsum dicimus, ut intellectus et sensus et motus et status secundum locum, adhuc autem motus secundum alimentum et augmentum et decrementum». — Pro vivit cod. Z vivificatur.Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 13 (c. 2), says that if any one of these "be present in something alone, we say that it itself lives, as intellect and sense and motion and rest with respect to place, and further motion with respect to nourishment and growth and diminution." — For vivit ("lives") codex Z [reads] vivificatur ("is vivified").
- August., XIV. de Trin. c. 8. n. 11. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 16. a. 1. q. 1. — Paulo superius ante imago Dei edd. 1, 2 interserunt opus et.Augustine, On the Trinity XIV, c. 8, n. 11. Cf. II Sent., d. 16, a. 1, q. 1. — A little above, before imago Dei editions 1, 2 insert opus et.
- Edd. et multi codd. careat.The editions and many codices [read] careat ("may lack").
- Codd. A K captivus. Paulo ante pro caro autem codd. I L aa caro enim.Codices A K [read] captivus ("captive"). A little before, for caro autem codices I L aa [read] caro enim.
- Cod. K videre corruptionem.Codex K [reads] videre corruptionem ("to see corruption").
- Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 46. seqq. (c. 4.).Cf. Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 46 ff. (c. 4).
- Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion to the preceding question. ---