Dist. 21, Art. 2, Q. 3
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 21
Quaestio III. Utrum propter mortem carnis sit mors personae Verbi attribuenda.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum propter mortem carnis sit mors personae Verbi attribuenda. Et quod sic, ostenditur.
1. Dicitur enim in Symbolop445-7: «Passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus et sepultus»; hoc autem dicitur de Filio Dei unigenito. Et hoc ipsum dicit Ambrosius expresse, et habetur supra distinctione decima octavap445-8: «Tantum fuit peccatum nostrum, ut salvari non possemus, nisi unigenitus Dei Filius moreretur pro nobis debitoribus mortis».
2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione. Carne nascente et concepta, Filius Dei natus dicitur et conceptus: ergo pari ratione, carne mortua, Filius Dei debet dici mortuusp445-9: ergo vere et convenienter potest mors attribui Dei Verbo, ut dicatur Filius Dei mortuus et sepultus pro nobis.
3. Item, satisfactio pro peccato nostro fuit per passionem et mortem; sed nullus potuit pro peccato nostro satisfacere, nisi esset Deusp445-10: ergo si pro peccatis nostris per mortem illam satisfactum est, vere Filius Dei fuit mortuus.
4. Item, unio illa facit communicationem idiomatum; sed propter separationem animae a carne verum et necessarium fuit, illum hominem mori.
Sed contra:
1. Augustinus dicit, et habetur in littera ultimo capitulop445-11: «Si quis dixerit atque crediderit Deum passum, anathema sit»; sed cui non potest attribui passio, non potest attribui mors: si igitur non est credendum, Filium Dei passum, sicut dicit; non est credendum neque dicendum, Filium Dei fuisse mortuum.
2. Item, idiomata partis non communicantur personae Verbip445-12 — quamvis enim caro fuerit separata ab anima, non tamen propter hoc Filius Dei separatus fuit ab illa anima, quam assumsit — ergo si per passionem Christi non est mortua nisi sola caro, quia anima semper vixit; non videtur, quod Filio Dei vere possit attribui mors; aut si attribuitur ei mors, tunc est quaestio: quare non similiter attribuitur ei separatio?
3. Item, propter repugnantiam idiomatum non recipitur communiter: Filius Dei est creatura; sed multo magis repugnat vitae mors, quam intentio p. 446 creaturae intentioni Creatoris: ergo si Filius Dei est ipsa vitap446-1, videtur, quod nullo modo sit mors ei attribuenda.
4. Item, quicumque diceret, summe sapientem esse stultum, blasphemaret; similiter qui diceret, summe bonum esse iniquum: ergo pari ratione qui dicit, summe potentem esse infirmum; sed hoc dicit qui dicit, Filium Dei esse mortuum: ergo qui hoc dicitp446-2 blasphemat Deum.
Conclusio.
Concedendum est, Filium Dei pro nobis fuisse mortuum secundum humanam naturam, et quidem per idiomatum communionem.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio concedendum est, Filium Dei pro nobis fuisse mortuum; et hoc quidem sibi vere attribuitur non secundum naturam divinam, sed secundum humanam, non per essentiam, aut per inhaerentiamp446-3, sed per idiomatum communicantiam. Et hoc in nullo derogat divinae dignitati et multum consonat pietati. Nullum enim verbum maioris dignationis resonare potest in auribus cordis nostri, quam quod unigenitus Dei Filius mortuus fuerit pro nobis debitoribus mortis. Et ideo non tantum est hoc credendum et asserendum tanquam verum, sed etiam frequentissime recolendum. — Et concedendae sunt rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.
Ad argumenta in oppositum:
Ad 1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de auctoritate Augustini, satis convenienter respondet Magister in litterap446-4. Non enim intendit removere passionem a persona Verbi simpliciter, sed secundum divinam naturam.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod idiomata partis non communicantur personae Verbi; dicendum, quod mori non tantum convenit carni, sed etiam toti homini assumto. In separatione enim animae a carne non solum moritur caro, sed etiam totus homo. Et ideo ratio illa procedit ex suppositione falsip446-5.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non communicantur idiomata, ubi est repugnantia; dicendum, quod verum est, ubi est talis repugnantia, quae non tollitur mediante convenientia; sic autem non est in proposito. Mors enim dat praeintelligere humanitatem, quae sine repugnantia potest dici de persona Christi; unde Filius Dei dicitur fuisse mortuus, quia fuit homo, in quo fuit passio mortis.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod blasphemia est dicere, Filium Dei esse mortuum; dicendum, quod hoc videtur auribus infidelium, secundum quod dicitur primae ad Corinthios primop446-6: Praedicamus Iesum Christum crucifixum, Iudaeis quidem scandalum, gentibus autem stultitiam. Et ratio huius est: quia non credunt ipsius humanationis Filii Dei benignissimam dignationem, nec intelligunt illius humiliationis altissimam rationem. Si enim haec intelligerent, viderent, quod illud quod infirmum est Dei, fortius est hominibus; et illud quod stultum est Dei, sapientius est omnibus hominibus. His igitur duobus pensatis, videlicet ipsa Verbi incarnatione et ratione, ob quam incarnatus est, non est blasphemia, immo laus, dicere, quod Filius Dei pro nobis fuit mortuus secundum naturam assumtam. Per hoc enim decentissime, sicut in praecedentibusp446-7 est ostensum, reparatum est genus humanum. Nec est simile de stultitia et malitia; non enim valebant ad nostram redemptionem, sicut passionis et mortis tolerantia. — Et per hoc patent quaesitap446-8.
---
Question III. Whether on account of the death of the flesh death is to be attributed to the person of the Word.
Thirdly it is asked whether, on account of the death of the flesh, death is to be attributed to the person of the Word. And that it is so, is shown.
1. For it is said in the Creedp445-7: «He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried»; but this is said of the only-begotten Son of God. And Ambrose says this very thing expressly, and it is found above in the eighteenth distinctionp445-8: «So great was our sin, that we could not be saved unless the only-begotten Son of God should die for us who were debtors of death».
2. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] by reason. When the flesh is born and conceived, the Son of God is said to be born and conceived: therefore by parity of reasoning, when the flesh is dead, the Son of God ought to be said to be deadp445-9: therefore truly and fittingly death can be attributed to God the Word, so that the Son of God is said to be dead and buried for us.
3. Likewise, satisfaction for our sin was made through passion and death; but no one could make satisfaction for our sin unless he were Godp445-10: therefore if satisfaction was made for our sins through that death, the Son of God was truly dead.
4. Likewise, that union effects a communication of idioms; but on account of the separation of the soul from the flesh it was true and necessary that that man should die.
On the contrary:
1. Augustine says, and it is found in the text in the last chapterp445-11: «If anyone should say and believe that God suffered, let him be anathema»; but to him to whom passion cannot be attributed, death cannot be attributed: if therefore it is not to be believed that the Son of God suffered, as he says, it is not to be believed nor said that the Son of God was dead.
2. Likewise, the idioms of a part are not communicated to the person of the Wordp445-12 — for although the flesh was separated from the soul, yet not on this account was the Son of God separated from that soul which He assumed — therefore if through the passion of Christ only the flesh died, since the soul ever lived; it does not seem that death can truly be attributed to the Son of God; or if death is attributed to Him, then there is a question: why is separation not likewise attributed to Him?
3. Likewise, on account of the repugnance of idioms it is not commonly admitted [to say]: The Son of God is a creature; but death is far more repugnant to life than the intention p. 446 of a creature [is repugnant] to the intention of the Creator: therefore if the Son of God is life itselfp446-1, it seems that death is in no way to be attributed to Him.
4. Likewise, whoever should say that the supremely wise is foolish would blaspheme; likewise one who should say that the supremely good is unjust: therefore by parity of reasoning one who says that the supremely powerful is weak; but this is said by one who says that the Son of God is dead: therefore he who says thisp446-2 blasphemes God.
Conclusion.
It must be conceded that the Son of God died for us according to His human nature, and indeed through the communion of idioms.
I respond: It must be said that beyond doubt it is to be conceded that the Son of God died for us; and this indeed is truly attributed to Him not according to the divine nature, but according to the human, not by essence, nor by inherencep446-3, but by the communicating of idioms. And this in no way derogates from the divine dignity and accords greatly with piety. For no word of greater condescension can resound in the ears of our heart than that the only-begotten Son of God died for us who were debtors of death. And therefore this is not only to be believed and asserted as true, but also most frequently to be recalled. — And the reasons which show this are to be conceded.
To the arguments to the contrary:
To 1. To that which is objected from the authority of Augustine, the Master replies fittingly enough in the textp446-4. For he does not intend to remove passion from the person of the Word absolutely, but according to the divine nature.
To 2. To that which is objected, that the idioms of a part are not communicated to the person of the Word; it must be said that to die belongs not only to the flesh, but also to the whole assumed man. For in the separation of the soul from the flesh not only does the flesh die, but also the whole man. And therefore that argument proceeds from the supposition of a falsehoodp446-5.
To 3. To that which is objected, that idioms are not communicated where there is repugnance; it must be said that this is true where there is such repugnance as is not removed by means of a fittingness; but it is not so in the case at hand. For death gives [us] to understand beforehand the humanity, which can be said of the person of Christ without repugnance; whence the Son of God is said to have been dead, because He was the man in whom there was the passion of death.
To 4. To that which is objected, that it is blasphemy to say that the Son of God is dead; it must be said that this seems so to the ears of unbelievers, according to what is said in the first [letter] to the Corinthians, the first [chapter]p446-6: We preach Jesus Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, but to the Gentiles foolishness. And the reason of this is: that they do not believe the most benign condescension of the becoming-man of the Son of God, nor do they understand the most lofty ground of that humiliation. For if they understood these things, they would see that that which is the weakness of God is stronger than men; and that which is the foolishness of God is wiser than all men. These two things therefore being weighed, namely the very incarnation of the Word and the reason for which He was incarnate, it is not blasphemy, nay rather it is praise, to say that the Son of God died for us according to the assumed nature. For through this most becomingly, as has been shown in the preceding [questions]p446-7, the human race was repaired. Nor is the case similar with regard to foolishness and malice; for these did not avail toward our redemption, as did the endurance of passion and death. — And through this what was sought is made plainp446-8.
---
- Scilicet Apostolorum.Namely [the Creed] of the Apostles.
- Cap. 5.Chapter 5.
- Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2.
- Ut ostensum est supra d. 20. q. 3.As was shown above, d. 20, q. 3.
- Vide supra pag. 14, nota 3.See above, p. 14, note 3.
- Cfr. supra d. 6. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6. et d. 7. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2. — Paulo inferius Vat. omittit Dei, et cod. K pro ab illa anima exhibet ab ipsa anima.Cf. above, d. 6, a. 1, q. 1, ad 6, and d. 7, a. 1, q. 1, ad 2. — A little below the Vatican edition omits Dei, and codex K, for from that soul, gives from the soul itself.
- Cfr. Ioan. I, 4. et 14, 6. — De maiori vide supra d. 7. a. 2. q. 1. ad 2. et d. 11. a. 2. q. 1. — In maiori edd. verbis non recipitur praemittunt haec.Cf. John 1:4 and 14:6. — On the major [premise] see above, d. 7, a. 2, q. 1, ad 2, and d. 11, a. 2, q. 1. — In the major [premise] the editions prefix haec to the words non recipitur.
- Cod. D diceret, et dein idem cod. D cum codd. G I L V aa blasphemaret Deum.Codex D [reads] diceret, and then the same codex D with codices G I L V aa [reads] blasphemaret Deum.
- Cfr. supra d. 7. a. 1. q. 1. — Mox pro dignitati edd. maiestati, et deinde pro cordis nostri Vat. cordis hominis.Cf. above, d. 7, a. 1, q. 1. — Presently, for dignitati the editions [read] maiestati, and then, for cordis nostri, the Vatican edition [reads] cordis hominis.
- Hic c. 2, ubi H solutio seq. obiect. innuitur.Here, c. 2, where the solution of the following objection is intimated.
- Scil., quod solummodo corpori, quod est pars hominis, mors tribuatur (cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3, scholion).Namely, that death is attributed only to the body, which is a part of the man (cf. above, a. 1, q. 3, the scholion).
- Vers. 23. — Seq. testimonium ibid. v. 25. — Inferius pro Si enim haec edd. cum plurimis cod. Si enim hoc.Verse 23. — The following testimony [is] in the same place, v. 25. — Below, for Si enim haec, the editions with most of the codices [read] Si enim hoc.
- Dist. 20. q. 2. et 5. — Paulo superius pro ob quam edd. ob quam causam, et pro fuit mortuus codd. A H I L T V aa fuerit mortuus.D. 20, q. 2 and q. 5. — A little above, for ob quam the editions [read] ob quam causam, and for fuit mortuus codices A H I L T V aa [read] fuerit mortuus.
- Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaestionem.See the scholion to the first question of this article. ---