Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was a man during the three days of His death, because Augustine says (De Trin. iii): "Such was the assuming as to make God to be man, and man to be God." But this assuming did not cease at Christ's death. Therefore it seems that He did not cease to be a man in consequence of death.

Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix) that "each man is his intellect"; consequently, when we address the soul of Peter after his death we say: "Saint Peter, pray for us." But the Son of God after death was not separated from His intellectual soul. Therefore, during those three days the Son of God was a man.

Objection 3: Further, every priest is a man. But during those three days of death Christ was a priest: otherwise what is said in Ps. 109:4 would not be true: "Thou art a priest for ever." Therefore Christ was a man during those three days.

On the contrary, When the higher is removed, so is the lower. But the living or animated being is a higher species than animal and man, because an animal is a sensible animated substance. Now during those three days of death Christ's body was not living or animated. Therefore He was not a man.

I answer that, It is an article of faith that Christ was truly dead: hence it is an error against faith to assert anything whereby the truth of Christ's death is destroyed. Accordingly it is said in the Synodal epistle of Cyril : "If any man does not acknowledge that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh, let him be anathema." Now it belongs to the truth of the death of man or animal that by death the subject ceases to be man or animal; because the death of the man or animal results from the separation of the soul, which is the formal complement of the man or animal. Consequently, to say that Christ was a man during the three days of His death simply and without qualification, is erroneous. Yet it can be said that He was "a dead man" during those three days.

However, some writers have contended that Christ was a man during those three days, uttering words which are indeed erroneous, yet without intent of error in faith: as Hugh of Saint Victor, who (De Sacram. ii) contended that Christ, during the three days that followed His death, was a man, because he held that the soul is a man: but this is false, as was shown in the 1, Question 75, Article 4. Likewise the Master of the Sentences (iii, D, 22) held Christ to be a man during the three days of His death for quite another reason. For he believed the union of soul and flesh not to be essential to a man, and that for anything to be a man it suffices if it have a soul and body, whether united or separated: and that this is likewise false is clear both from what has been said in the 1, Question 75, Article 4, and from what has been said above regarding the mode of union (Question 2, Article 5).

Reply to Objection 1: The Word of God assumed a united soul and body: and the result of this assumption was that God is man, and man is God. But this assumption did not cease by the separation of the Word from the soul or from the flesh; yet the union of soul and flesh ceased.

Reply to Objection 2: Man is said to be his own intellect, not because the intellect is the entire man, but because the intellect is the chief part of man, in which man's whole disposition lies virtually; just as the ruler of the city may be called the whole city, since its entire disposal is vested in him.

Reply to Objection 3: That a man is competent to be a priest is by reason of the soul, which is the subject of the character of order: hence a man does not lose his priestly order by death, and much less does Christ, who is the fount of the entire priesthood.

Articulus 4

Argumentum 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod christus in triduo mortis fuerit homo.

Dicit enim Augustinus, in I de Trin., talis erat illa susceptio, quae deum hominem faceret et hominem deum.

Sed illa susceptio non cessavit per mortem. Ergo videtur quod per mortem non desiit esse homo.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in IX ethic., quod unusquisque homo est suus intellectus.

Unde et, post mortem animam Petri alloquentes, dicimus, sancte Petre, ora pro nobis.

Sed post mortem filius dei non fuit separatus ab anima intellectuali. Ergo in illo triduo filius dei fuit homo.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, omnis sacerdos est homo. Sed in illo triduo mortis christus fuit sacerdos, aliter enim non verum esset quod dicitur in Psalmo, tu es sacerdos in aeternum.

Ergo christus in illo triduo fuit homo.

Sed Contra

Sed contra, remoto superiori, removetur inferius. Sed vivum, sive animatum, est superius ad animal et ad hominem, nam animal est substantia animata sensibilis. Sed in illo triduo mortis corpus christi non fuit vivum neque animatum. Ergo non fuit homo.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod christum vere fuisse mortuum est articulus fidei. Unde asserere omne id per quod tollitur veritas mortis christi, est error contra fidem.

Propter quod in epistola synodali Cyrilli dicitur, si quis non confitetur dei verbum passum carne, et crucifixum carne, et quod mortem gustavit carne, anathema sit.

Pertinet autem ad veritatem mortis hominis vel animalis quod per mortem desinat esse homo vel animal, mors enim hominis vel animalis provenit ex separatione animae, quae complet rationem animalis vel hominis. Et ideo dicere christum in triduo mortis hominem fuisse, simpliciter et absolute loquendo, erroneum est.

Potest tamen dici quod christus in triduo fuit homo mortuus.

Quidam tamen confessi sunt christum in triduo hominem fuisse, dicentes quidem verba erronea, sed sensum erroris non habentes in fide, sicut Hugo de sancto victore, qui ea ratione dixit christum in triduo mortis fuisse hominem, quia dicebat animam esse hominem.

Quod tamen est falsum, ut in prima parte ostensum est.

Magister etiam sententiarum, in XXII distinctione III libri, posuit quod christus in triduo mortis fuit homo, alia ratione, quia credidit quod unio animae et carnis non esset de ratione hominis, sed sufficit ad hoc quod aliquid sit homo, quod habeat animam humanam et corpus, sive coniuncta sive non coniuncta.

Quod etiam patet esse falsum ex his quae dicta sunt in prima parte, et ex his quae dicta sunt circa modum unionis.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verbum dei suscepit animam et carnem unitam, et ideo illa susceptio fecit deum hominem et hominem deum. Non autem cessavit illa susceptio per separationem verbi ab anima vel a carne, cessavit tamen unio carnis et animae.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod homo dicitur esse suus intellectus, non quia intellectus sit totus homo, sed quia intellectus est principalior pars hominis, in quo virtualiter existit tota dispositio hominis, sicut si rector civitatis dicatur tota civitas, quia in eo consistit tota dispositio civitatis.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod esse sacerdotem convenit homini ratione animae, in qua est ordinis character. Unde per mortem homo non perdit ordinem sacerdotalem. Et multo minus christus, qui est totius sacerdotii origo.