Chapter 6 (67): 1. That Christ'S Passion Is Termed The Work Of God And Of The
Distinction XX | 87 the Father handed him over, because he suffered at the will of the Father and, indeed, of the whole Trinity; Judas handed him over by betraying him, and the Jews by their instigation. And the act of Judas and the Jews was evil, that of Christ or the Father good. The work of Christ and the Father was good, because the will of Christ and the Father was good; the work of Judas and the Jews was evil, because their intention was evil.
3. The deeds or works there differed, that is, the acts were different; but there was one thing or deed, namely the passion itself. And so the doctors at some times join together in that deed the Father, the Son, Judas, and the Jews; at some times, they make a distinction among them. For in examining the passion, they call the work of all of them one; attending to intentions and acts, they distinguish different deeds AUGUSTINE, ON THE EPISTLE OF JOHN. Hence Augustine: "There was," he says, "a handing over by the Father; there was a handing over by the Son; there was a handing over by Judas: the thing done is one. What, then, makes for distinctions among them? The Father and the Son did this in love, but Judas in betrayal. You see that one must consider not what a man does, but with what will. We find God in the same deed as Judas; we bless the Father, but detest Judas, because God considered our salvation, Judas considered the price for which he sold the Lord, and the Son the price which he gave for us. And so the diverse intention makes the deeds diverse, even though the thing is one.' See how he says that there was one thing, but diverse deeds, because there was one passion, but the acts were diverse; and the acts of Judas and the Jews were evil, by which they brought about Christ's passion, which itself is good and the work of God.
Chapter 6 (67)
1. THAT CHRIST'S PASSION IS TERMED THE WORK OF GOD AND OF THE
JEWS, AND HOW. And so the passion is termed the work of Christ and of the Jews, because it comes about by their acts; and also the work of God, because it happened with God as its author, that is, by his will. Hence Augustine: "No one takes Christ's soul from him, because he has the power of laying it down and taking it up;' here you have the author of the work.
He lays down his soul: here you have the author's work. To draw a general conclusion: whenever Christ suffers anything in the flesh, the deed is the author's; but because he suffers by his own will, and not at the compulsion of another, he is the deed's author."
°Augustine, /n J Ioannis 4, 9, tr. 7 07.
'Cf. Jn. 10, 17-18.
*Vigilius, Contra Felicianum Arianum de unitatem Trinitatis, c14.
88 | THE SENTENCES, BOOK 3
2. WHETHER THE JEWS DID A GOOD DEED IN THIS. But since Christ's passion is the work of God, and so good, and since Judas and the Jews brought it about, the question is raised whether it is to be granted that their deed in this matter was good.—Here a distinction is to be drawn: for it can be said that they did a good deed, because from their acts derived a good thing, that is, Christ's passion; but it may also be said that they did not do a good deed, but an evil one, because their action was not good, but evil.
DISTINCTION XXI
Chapter | (68)
1. WHETHER AT CHRIST'S DEATH THERE WAS A SEPARATION IN HIM OF
SOUL OR FLESH FROM THE WORD. After the foregoing, we must consider whether, at death, the soul or flesh was separated from the Word.
2. THE OPINION OF SOME, WHO ASSERT THAT THE FLESH WAS SEPARA-
TED FROM THE GODHEAD. Some have held that as the flesh was separated at death from the soul, so also it would have been separated from the Godhead. For if, they say, the Godhead united the flesh to itself by means of the soul, as has been set out above,' it follows that, once the flesh is separated from the soul, it is also separated from the Godhead, because it could not be sundered from the soul through which it was united to the Word, without also being separated from the Word.—AUGUSTINE. And it was separated from the soul at death, otherwise there would have been no true death there since, as Augustine says, "the death which men fear is the separation of the soul from the flesh, and the death which they do not fear is the separation of the soul from God; at the devil's persuasion, each of these has been given to man." And so, if in the man Christ there was true death, the soul was there divided from the flesh, and so also thereby from the Godhead.
3. THEY ADDUCE AN AUTHORITY.—AMBROSE. To this probable opinion of theirs, they add the witness of authority. For Ambrose, treating the abandonment of Christ, who, on the cross and in a loud voice, called out and said: My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?,' says: "The man, when about to die, cries out at the separation from the Godhead; for since the Godhead is free from death,. most certainly death could not be there, unless life first departed, for the Godhead is life."* Here he appears
Dist. 2-€2:
Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, on Ps. 48.15, sermon 2, c2.
7Mt. 27, 46.
"Ambrose, /n Lucam 10 n12.
Distinction XXI | 89 to assert that, at death, the Godhead was separated from the man, and that unless it had departed, that man could not have died. They refer this to the flesh, which they say had been separated from God.
4. RESPONSE. To them we respond that that separation is to be taken in the same way as we understand the abandonment which is signified by those words: Why have you abandoned me? And so how was Christ abandoned by the Father, when he called himself abandoned on the cross? God had not departed from the man in such a way as to dissolve the union of God and man, otherwise there would have been a time when Christ, who was still alive, was man and not God, for he was still alive when he called himself 'abandoned,' and not 'about to be abandoned.' And so, if that abandonment is understood as a dissolution of the union, a severance of God and man took place before Christ had died. But who would say this?
So let us profess that God abandoned that man at death in some way, because for a time he exposed him to the power of his persecutors; God did not defend him by displaying his power so that he would not die. The Godhead severed itself because it took away its protection, but did not dissolve the union; it separated itself outwardly so that it was not there to defend him, but was not absent inwardly in regard to the union. If at that time the Godhead had not held back its power, but had displayed it, Christ would not have died. Christ died because the Godhead receded, that is, did not manifest the effect of its power in his defence.—This is the scapegoat which, after the other goat had been sacrificed, was sent into the wilderness, as we read in Leviticus.' For the two goats are taken to signify the humanity and divinity of Christ. And so, once his humanity had been offered up, the divinity went into the wilderness, that is, into heaven.—
HESYCHIUS, ON LEviTicus. Hence Hesychius: "J/nto the wilderness, that is, into heaven; the Godhead at the time of the passion is said to have departed, not by change of place, but by holding back its power in some way, so that the impious ones might consummate the passion. And so it departed, that is, held back its power; and he bore our iniquities,° not to keep them, but to consume them, for God is a consuming fire."'* From this, it is sufficiently shown that the above words of Ambrose are to be taken as we said earlier.
5. THEY ADDUCE ANOTHER AUTHORITY.—ATHANASIUS. Others who say that the Godhead at the death withdrew from the man according to the flesh also support themselves with authority. For Athanasius says:
"He is accursed who does not confess that the whole man, whom the Son of God took, rose again from the dead on the third day after being taken
'Lev. 16, 8-10.
"CE Lev. 16-22, Deut. 4, 24.
*Hesychius, /n Leviticum 16, 10.
90 | THE SENTENCES, BOOK 3
once more or delivered. Let it be so, let it be so."',°—-HOW THEY PROCEED TO ARGUE FROM THIS AUTHORITY. They say that, if the man whom he had taken at the incarnation was taken up again at the resurrection, then he had laid him down at death; and so, at death, the Godhead was separated from the humanity.
6. RESPONSE. To these we answer that, if by these words such a taking up which is according to union is understood, then it was not the flesh alone, but the whole man, that is, the soul and the flesh, that he united to himself once more at the resurrection, because he does not simply say that 'the man' was taken, but 'the whole man.' And so it was the whole man that he laid down in his death, that is, soul and flesh. But who, except an enemy of truth, will say that the soul was laid down by the Word? And yet, unless they profess this, namely that the whole man was taken, that authority will not support them, because it speaks of the whole man.
7. DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY. And so it is to be understood that Athanasius spoke as he did against the perfidy of those who denied
Christ's resurrection, believing that he was held by death who alone is free among the dead." And so Athanasius curses anyone who does not confess that the resurrection was of the whole man taken again, that is, that Christ again joined the soul to the body; in both again conjoined at the resurrection, he was truly alive according to his humanity, as he had been before his death. For in death the soul is severed from the flesh, hence Christ is truly said to have been dead; but neither was severed from the Word of God.
8. BY AUTHORITIES, HE CONCLUDES THAT THE FLESH WAS NOT SEVERED
FROM THE WORD IN DEATH. This is what Augustine teaches, in On John, in treating that saying of the Lord: J lay down my soul in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but it is I who lay it down; I have the power to lay it down and to take it up again.'' (ON THE TEXT:
LAY DOWN MY SOUL, ETC.) Here he says that the soul was let go. By whom was it let go? Not by itself, because it did not lay itself down. Nor was it the Word that laid down the soul or the flesh. Therefore it was the flesh that laid down the soul, but by the power of the Godhead residing in it; and so it was by the power of the Godhead that the soul was severed from the flesh, but neither [was severed] from the Word of God. Hence Augustine:
"From the time that the Word took on humanity, that is, flesh and soul, he never laid down his soul in such a way that the soul was severed from the Word; the flesh did lay down the soul when it expired, but at the soul's return the flesh rose again. And so death separated flesh and soul for a °That is, Eusebius of Vercelli, De Trinitate, c6. ops. 87, 6. nel OnLy: