Dist. 21
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/21/q/bon-sent-III-d21-littera
----------------------------------------
# DISTINCTION XXI.

### Chapter I.

*Whether in Christ's death the soul, or the flesh, was separated from the Word.*

After the foregoing, it must be considered whether in death the soul, or the flesh, was separated from the Word. — Some have supposed that the flesh was divided in death from the Divinity just as it was from the soul. For if, they say, the Divinity united the flesh to itself with the soul as intermediary, as was set forth above: then when the flesh was divided from the soul, it was also divided from the Divinity, since it could not be sundered from the soul — through which it was united to the Word — without being divided from the Word. But it was divided from the soul in death, otherwise there would not have been a true death there, because, as Augustine says, «the death which men fear is the separation of the soul from the flesh; but the death which they do not fear is the separation of the soul from God. And both were brought near to man by the devil's persuasion». If, then, there was a true death in Christ the man, the soul, and through this the Divinity, was there divided from the flesh. To this their plausible view they add the testimony of an authority. For Ambrose, treating of Christ's forsakenness — he who on the cross, crying out with a loud voice, said: *My God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me?* — declares: «The man cries out as about to die by the separation of the Divinity. For since the Divinity is free of death, assuredly death could not be there unless life withdrew, because the Divinity is life». — Here it seems to be handed down that the Divinity was separated in death from the man, and that unless it had departed, that man could not die. This they refer to the *flesh*, which they say was separated from God. — To them we reply that that *separation* must be understood just as the *forsaking* is understood, which is signified by those words: *Why hast thou forsaken me?* In what way, then, was Christ *forsaken* by the Father, when on the cross he cried out that he was forsaken? God had not withdrawn from the man in such a way that the union of God and man was dissolved. Otherwise there would have been some time when Christ, while still alive, was *man* and not *God*; because, while still alive, he cried out that he was *forsaken*, not *to be forsaken*. If, then, that forsaking is understood as a *dissolution* of the union, the dissolution of God and man would have taken place before Christ had died; but who would say this? Let us therefore confess that God in a certain manner abandoned that man in death, because he exposed him for a time to the power of his persecutors, not exercising his own power to defend him so that he might not die. The Divinity separated itself, because it withdrew protection, but it did not dissolve the union; it separated itself outwardly, so as not to be present for defense, but it was not inwardly absent from the union. If it had not there restrained its power, but had exercised it, Christ would not have died. Christ died with the Divinity withdrawing, that is, not exhibiting the effect of its power in defending. This is the scapegoat (hircus apopompaeus), which, when the other goat had been immolated, was sent into the wilderness, as we read in Leviticus. «For by the two goats the humanity and the Divinity of Christ are understood. When therefore the humanity had been immolated, the Divinity went off into the wilderness, that is, into heaven. Whence Hesychius on Leviticus: Into the wilderness, that is into heaven, the Divinity is said to have gone off at the time of the passion, not changing place, but in a certain manner restraining its power, that the wicked might be able to consummate the passion. It went off, then, that is, it restrained its power, and *bore our iniquities*, not that it might have them, but that it might consume them. For our God is a consuming fire». — From these things it is sufficiently shown that the aforesaid words of Ambrose are to be understood as we have said.

Others too rely on an authority, who assert that the Divinity withdrew in death from the man according to the flesh. For Athanasius says: «Cursed be he who does not confess that the whole man, whom the Son of God assumed, was assumed anew, or set free, and rose again from the dead on the third day. Be it, be it». If, they say, the man was assumed anew in the resurrection whom he had assumed in the incarnation, then he laid him down in death: therefore the Divinity was separated in death from the humanity. — To them we reply that, if by these words an assumption be understood which is according to *union*; he united to himself anew in the resurrection not the flesh only, but the whole man, that is, the soul and the flesh, since he says not simply *the man*, but *the whole man assumed*. He laid down, therefore, the whole man in death, that is, the soul and the flesh. But who, save an enemy of the truth, would say that the *soul* was *laid down* by the Word? And yet, unless they confess that the *whole* man was assumed, that authority does not serve them which says that the *whole* was assumed. It must therefore be known that Athanasius said this against the perfidy of those who denied the resurrection of Christ, supposing that he was held by death who alone is *free among the dead*. Therefore he curses him who does not confess that the *whole* man, assumed anew, rose again — that is, that Christ rejoined the soul to the body anew, and in those two, joined anew in the resurrection, truly lived as a man, as before death.

For in death the soul was separated from the flesh — whence Christ is truly said to have died — but neither was separated from the *Word of God*; as Augustine teaches on John, treating that word of the Lord: *I lay down my soul, that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own self, and I have power to lay it down and to take it up again.* Here he calls the soul *sent forth*. By whom was it sent forth? It was not sent forth *by itself*, because it did not lay down itself; nor did the *Word* lay down the soul, or the flesh. The *flesh*, therefore, laid down the soul, but by the power of the Deity remaining in it. By the power of the Deity, therefore, the soul was divided from the flesh, but neither from the Word of God. Whence Augustine: «The Word, from when it took up the man — that is, flesh and soul — never laid down the soul, so that the soul should be separated from the Word, but the flesh laid down the soul when it expired, and on its return rose again. Death, then, separated flesh and soul for a time, but neither from the Word of God. The *flesh*, therefore, lays down and takes up the soul, not by its own power, but by the power of the Deity dwelling in the flesh». — Here it is plainly handed down that neither the soul nor the flesh was divided from the Word of God in death, so that the union was in any way dissolved. Whence Augustine against Felician: «Far be it that Christ should so have undergone death that, so far as in him lay, life should have lost life. For if it were so, the fount of life would have dried up. He felt death, therefore, by the participation of human affection, which he had taken on willingly; he did not lose the power of his own nature, by which he gives life to all things. Thus in the sepulchre, by dying together with it, he did not desert his own flesh, just as in the Virgin's womb, by being born together with it, he formed it. He died, therefore, with life not departing; just as he suffered, with power not perishing. No one takes his soul from him, because he has power to lay it down and to take it up». — Behold, here too you have it that Christ did not desert the flesh in death, and that life did not depart from the dead one, and that he willingly handed over the spirit, and no other forced it from him. Whence Ambrose: «Christ sent forth the spirit, and yet, as one who is master of putting off and taking up the body, he sent forth the spirit, he did not lose it; he hung upon the cross and moved all things». «But whence did he send it forth? From the flesh. Whither did he send it? To the Father».

### Chapter II.

*By what account Christ is said to have died or suffered.*

«But when the soul withdrew, the flesh of Christ died; and because the flesh died, Christ died. For just as God is said to have died, when the man died; so the man is said to have died, when the flesh died. The separation of the soul was the death of the flesh». — On account, then, of the flesh united to the Word, which died, God is said to have died; and on account of the flesh and the soul, which both felt pain, God is said to have *suffered*, although the Divinity was free of all pain. Whence Augustine: «The Word was made flesh, that through the flesh the bread of heaven might pass to little ones; and according to this very thing the Word was crucified, but it was not changed into the man; the man was changed in him, that he might become better than he was. By that, then, which was *man*, God died, and by that which was God, the man was raised up and rose again. Whatever the man suffered cannot be said not to be suffered by God, because *God* was man. How can you say that you have not suffered an injury, if your garment is torn, although your garment is not you? Much more, then, whatever the flesh united to the Word suffers, God must be said to suffer, although the Word could neither die nor be corrupted nor be changed. But whatever of these he suffered, he suffered in the flesh». Of this also Ambrose in the third book *On the Holy Spirit* says: «What the flesh of the Word suffered, the Word, remaining in the flesh, referred to itself, on account of the assumption of the body, so that it was said to suffer, because the flesh was suffering, as it is written: *Christ having suffered in the flesh*». — Here it is taught by what account God, or the Son of God, is said to have *suffered* or *died*: not because he felt death insofar as he is God, but because the flesh united to him died. According to which account Augustine says: «If anyone shall say and believe that the Son of God, God, suffered, let him be anathema». And, opening up the reason of this saying, from what understanding it is to be taken, he adds in the same place: «If anyone shall say that in the passion the Son of God, God, felt pain, and not the flesh only with the soul which he had taken to himself, let him be anathema». — Rightly, therefore, it can be said that God both died and did not die, that the Son of God both suffered and did not suffer, that the third Person both suffered and did not suffer, that the Word was both crucified and not crucified: according to the one nature he suffered, according to the other he is impassible. Whence Ambrose: «This is the general faith, that Christ is the Son of God and born of the Virgin, whom the Prophet describes as it were a giant, in that he is one of twofold and twin nature, a partaker of Divinity and of body». «The same, therefore, both suffered and did not suffer, both died and did not die, was both buried and not buried, both rose again and did not rise again; he rose again according to the flesh, which had died, not according to the Word, which abode ever with God».

---