← Back to Distinction 19

Dist. 19, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 19

Textus Latinus
p. 399

Articulus I. De efficacia passionis Christi.

Quaestio I. Utrum per passionem Christi fiat remissio peccatorum.

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum per passionem Christi fiat remissio peccatorum. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Apocalypsis primop399-5: Lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo; sed peccata abluere non est aliud quam peccata remittere sive iustificare: ergo a passione est peccatorum remissio et iustificatio.

p. 400

2. Item, ad Hebraeos nonop400-1: Omnia pene mundantur in sanguine, et sine sanguinis effusione non fit remissio peccatorum; et ibidem: Sanguis Christi, qui per Spiritum sanctum semetipsum obtulit immaculatum Deo, emundabit conscientias nostras ab operibus mortuis; sed opera mortua sunt peccata: ergo per passionem Christi fit emundatio a peccatis.

3. Item, in Canone Missae dicitur et trahitur de Evangeliop400-2: Hic est calix novi et aeterni Testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

4. Item, Sacramenta iustificantp400-3; sed omnia Sacramenta iustificationem habent a passione Christi: ergo multo fortius Christi passio est efficax in iustificando.

Sed contra: 1. Ad Romanos quartop400-4: Traditus est propter delicta nostra, et resurrexit propter iustificationem nostram: ergo videtur, quod iustificatio sit a resurrectione, non a passione.

2. Item, Isaiae quadragesimo tertiop400-5: Ego sum, qui deleo iniquitates tuas propter me: ergo deletio peccatorum nostrorum est a solo Deo, non ergo a passione Christi.

3. Item, iustificatio a culpa est per gratiae infusionem; sed solus Deus est, qui potest gratiam infundere, sicut in primo libro et in quartop400-6 ostenditur: ergo solus Deus potest culpam delere et hominem iustificare: ergo culpae deletio et iustificatio non est a passione.

4. Item, nihil corporale influit iustitiam in rem spiritualemp400-7; sed passio Christi fuit corporalis: ergo non potest animam iustificare sive a peccato mundare.

5. Item, necesse est, iustificans esse coniunctum iustificato; sed passio Christi est extra animam: ergo non potest iustificare animam.

6. Item, si passio Christi est causa iustificationis animae, aut ergo per modum causae materialis, aut per modum formalis, aut efficientis, aut finalis. Non materialis, hoc constat, quia passio non est materia iustificationis; non formalis, quia illud est gratia; non efficientis, quia illud est Deus; non finalis, quia illud est gloria aeterna: ergo etc. Si tu dicas, quod passio dicitur iustificare, id est Christus patiens, eadem ratione et ambulatio et praedicatio diceretur nos iustificare et peccata nostra delere, quia Christus ambulans et praedicans nos iustificavit et peccata nostra delevit; quod tamen non conceditur.

Est igitur quaestio, qualiter Christi passio est causa nostrae iustificationis. Et si tu dicas, quod per modum meriti; tunc est quaestio, qualiter resurrectio potest esse causa nostrae iustificationis, cum Christus non meruerit resurgendop400-8. Et si utraque est causa, scilicet tam passio quam resurrectio; quaeritur, cui per prius conveniat et principalius.

Conclusio. Iustificatio nostra attribuitur passioni Christi per modum meriti intervenientis, exempli provocantis et exemplaris dirigentis; resurrectioni autem tribuitur per modum termini quietantis, exempli provocantis et exemplaris dirigentis.

Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod nostra iustificatio attribuitur tam passioni quam resurrectioni, sicut habetur in textup400-9 et Glossa in pluribus locis. Unde ad Romanos quarto dicitur super illud: Mortuus est propter nostra delicta etc.: « Utraque, scilicet mors et resurrectio Christi, delicta nostra tollunt et utraque iustificant ».

Attamen neutri, id est nec resurrectioni nec passioni, attribui potest proprie causalitas iustificationis sive deletio culpae, quia non invenitur ibi proprie aliquod genus causae, sicut in opponendop400-10 ostensum est. Habent tamen nihilominus aliquam causalitatem in hoc, quod habent aliquam causae proprietatem. Attribuitur enim his iustificatio nostra per modum meriti intervenientis, quod quidem habet dispositionis rationem et reduci habet ad causam materialem; per modum exempli provocantis et excitantis, quod quidem habet reduci ad causam moventem et efficientem; per modum exemplaris regulantis, quod quidem habet reduci ad causam formalem; per modum termini quietantis, quod quidem habet reduci ad causam finalem. Et ita his duobusp400-11 attribuitur iustificatio secundum proprietatem cuiuslibet generis causae.

p. 401

Attamen ratio merendi iustificationem attribuitur soli passioni, non resurrectioni; ratio vero terminandi et quietandi attribuitur resurrectioni, ad quam ordinatur iustificatio, non passioni; duo vero intermedia, scilicet excitatio et regulatio, attribuunturp401-1 utrique. — Nam passio excitat nos ad Dei dilectionem, et ulterius insinuat nobis, qualiter mori debeamus peccatis; et ita est exemplum provocans et exemplar regulans. Et quod sit exemplum, habetur ex primae Petri secundop401-2: Christus passus est pro nobis, vobis relinquens exemplum. Quod sit exemplar, habetur ad Romanos sexto: Si complantati sumus similitudini mortis ipsius etc. — Similiter et resurrectio habet rationem exempli provocantis et exemplaris dirigentis. Provocat enim nos ad iustitiam, per quam acquiramus illam gloriam, quam credimus Christum habuisse in sua resurrectione, ut talia sint corpora nostra, quale Christus in sua resurrectione monstravit, sicut dicitur in quadam Glossap401-3. Dirigit etiam nos, dum ad eius exemplar conamur ambulare in novitate vitae, iuxta illud quod dicitur ad Romanos sextop401-4: Quomodo Christus resurrexit a mortuis per gloriam Patris, ita et nos in novitate vitae ambulemus.

Et sic tam passio quam resurrectio habet rationem excitantis et regulantis respectu nostrae iustificationis secundum duo, quae in nostra iustificatione habent considerari, scilicet ablatio mali et collatio boni; et ablatio mali appropriatur ipsi passioni, collatio vero boni ipsi resurrectioni. Et hoc est quod dicitur in Glossap401-5: Traditus est propter delicta nostra etc.: « Mors Christi sola interitum vitae veteris significat, et in sola resurrectione nova vita significatur ».

Ex his igitur, quae dicta sunt, patet responsio ad quaestionem propositam, videlicet qualiter nostra iustificatio sive culpae deletio sit a passione Christi. Est enim ab ea per modum meriti et per modum exemplaris et signi. Patet etiam, qualiter sit a resurrectione.

1. Et per hoc manifesta est responsio ad primum obiectum de auctoritate Apostoli, qua dicebatur, quod nostra iustificatio est a resurrectione. Est enim a resurrectione et passione sine aliqua contradictione, ut prius ostensum est.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod solus Deus est, qui delet iniquitates etc.; dicendum, quod verum est per modum efficientis; per hoc tamen non excluditur, quod alii non possit convenire per modum merentis et excitantis, sicut dictum est convenire passioni Christi.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod iustificatio est per gratiam, quae infunditurp401-6 a solo Deo; dicendum, quod etsi gratia a solo Deo habeat infundi, nihilominus tamen Christus per suam passionem potuit eam nobis promereri; et sic dicimur a passione iustificari.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nullum corporale influit iustitiam in spirituale; dicendum, quod quemadmodum caro Christi per se non est cibus animae, in se tamen est cibus ex unione ipsius ad divinam naturamp401-7; sic et passio Christi, etsi non habeat potentiam iustificandi, in quantum est passio corporalis, habet tamen, in quantum a voluntate optima procedebat eius tolerantia, et habebat fieri circa personam dignissimam, quae est omnis iustitiae et sanctitatis principium et causa.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod iustificans debet esse coniunctum iustificatop401-8; dicendum, quod aliquid coniungi alii potest dupliciter, videlicet per substantiam et per effectum. Quamvis autem passio Christi nobis non coniungatur per substantiam, coniungi tamen potest per efficaciam. Et si tu obiicias, quod non videtur, quod possit coniungi per efficaciam, nisi aliquo modo coniungatur per substantiam; dicendum, quod non est necesse, eam coniungi per substantiam, sed sufficit, quod coniungatur mediante fide per dilectionem. Et hoc est quod dicitur ad Romanos tertiop401-9: Quem praeposuit Deus propitiatorem per fidem in sanguine eius; Glossa: « Fidem et passionem simul iungit, quia neutrum sine altero valet ».

6. Ad illud quod quaeritur, in quo genere causae passio Christi sit principium nostrae iustificationis;

p. 402

iam patet responsio ex his quae dicta sunt. Non enim est causa proprie, licet aliquo modo habeat proprietatem causae, sicut prius explanatum est in principio responsionisp402-1, ubi etiam determinatum est, qualiter differenti modo iustificatio nostra passioni et resurrectioni Christi habeat attribui.

Scholion

I. In hac et seq. distinctione agitur de reparatione generis humani, facta a Christo per modum satisfactionis. Differt autem ratio meriti a ratione satisfactionis. Meritum enim dicit ordinem ad praemium, satisfactio vero compensationem vel illatae iniuriae, vel damni (cfr. infra d. 20. a. I. q. 3.); tamen secundum rem Christus eadem actione et meruit et satisfecit pro genere humano. Satisfactio, generaliter sumta, definitur a Scoto (IV. Sent. d. 15. q. 1. n. 3.) sic: « Satisfactio est redditio voluntaria aequivalentis alias indebiti. Primum, scilicet redditio, patet, quia non est absoluta datio; nam hoc quod est satis dicit commensurationem ad aliquid praecedens correspondentem. Quod dicitur voluntaria, patet, quia, si esset involuntaria, non esset satisfactio, sed satispassio... Quod etiam sit aequivalentis, patet, quia hoc importat illa particula satis. Quartum, scilicet alias indebiti, patet, quia si esset alias debitum, non satisfaceret pro isto; nam non esset correspondens isti secundum iustitiam, sed alii ». — Distinguit autem S. Bonav. (infra d. 20. q. 4.) satisfactionem plenam et semiplenam, alii aliter perfectam et imperfectam. — Insuper nota, quod passio Christi secundum diversas comparationes habet effectus diversis nominibus vocatos, ut docet S. Thom. (S. III. q. 48. a. 6. ad 3.): « Passio Christi, secundum quod comparatur ad Divinitatem eius, agit per modum efficientiae; in quantum vero comparatur ad voluntatem animae Christi, agit per modum meriti; secundum vero quod consideratur in ipsa carne Christi, agit per modum satisfactionis, in quantum per eam liberamur a reatu poenae; per modum vero redemptionis, in quantum per eam liberamur a servitute culpae; per modum autem sacrificii, in quantum per eam reconciliamur Deo ». Cfr. de his hic dub. 1-5, et praecipue Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 18. m. 6. a. 2. § 3.

II. Contra Socinianos et Rationalistarum turbam docet Concilium Trident. (Sess. VI. c. 7.), quod nostrae iustificationis causa efficiens est « misericors Deus, qui gratuito abluit et sanctificat, signans et ungens Spiritu promissionis sancto, qui est pignus hereditatis nostrae; meritoria autem dilectissimus Unigenitus suus, Dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui... sua sanctissima passione in ligno crucis nobis iustificationem meruit et pro nobis Deo Patri satisfecit » (cfr. Sess. V. can. 3.).

III. Dum S. Bonav. hic quatuor modos causandi commemorat, S. Thom. (S. III. q. 49. a. 1.) tantum tres affert, quorum unus a S. Bonav. omittitur. S. Thom. autem quatuor illarum causarum duas omittit commemorare (quin tamen eas neget), scilicet tum eam, quae est per modum exemplaris regulantis, tum quae est per modum termini quietantis (quae a S. Bonav. attribuitur speciali modo resurrectioni); convenit autem cum nostro auctore in causa meritoria, sive per modum redemptionis, et etiam in causa per modum exempli provocantis et excitantis. Sed hanc ultimam ipse non reducit, ut Bonav., ad causam efficientem, sed ad disponentem (hic a. 1.). Tertio loco Angelicus passioni Christi tribuit aliam quandam causalitatem, scilicet « per modum efficientiae, in quantum caro, secundum quam Christus passionem sustinuit, est instrumentum Divinitatis, ex quo eius passiones et actiones operantur in virtute divina ad expellendum peccatum ». Et ibid. ad 2. dicit, quod « passio Christi, licet sit corporalis, sortitur tamen quandam spiritualem virtutem ex Divinitate, cui caro eius unita est ut instrumentum, secundum quam quidem virtutem passio Christi est causa remissionis peccatorum ». — Haec verba, quae physicam quandam ad opera supernaturalia vim humanae naturae Christi tribuunt, et quae pluribus testimoniis Ss. Patrum et ecclesiasticorum decretorum, loquentibus de carne Christi vivifica, roborari possunt, humano intellectui non exiguam praebent difficultatem et discipulis Angelici occasionem dederunt tentandi diversos modos explicandi; de quibus consulantur recentiores auctores. De hac autem causalitate theologi disputant praecipue in quaestione adhuc magis intricata, quomodo Sacramenta sint causa gratiae. S. Bonav. de hac re agens (IV. Sent. d. I. q. 4.) concludit: « Utrum autem (Sacramenta) plus habeant (quam efficientiam vulgo dictam moralem), nec volo affirmare nec negare ».

IV. Observatione dignum est, quod resurrectio Christi quaedam consummatio redemptionis esse docetur, quod convenit s. Scripturae et sensui Ecclesiae, toties in libris liturgicis expresso; vide etiam infra q. 4. ad 1; Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 20. m. 2. a. 1-6; S. Thom., S. III. q. 56. a. 2.). Haec doctrina media via incedit inter duos errores, scilicet errorem Socinianorum, qui opus redemptionis incipere dicunt non a passione Christi, sed a resurrectione (scil. quatenus Christus pro nobis interpellat), et oppositam aliorum Protestantium opinionem, qui solum passionem, nullatenus resurrectionem, ad nostram redemptionem concurrere volunt.

V. Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 17. m. 4. a. 2. § 1, q. 18. m. 6. a. 1. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic a. 1; S. III. q. 49. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tor., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — Biel, hic q. unica.

---

English Translation

Article I. On the efficacy of the passion of Christ.

Question I. Whether through the passion of Christ the remission of sins comes about.

Concerning the first he proceeds thus and asks whether through the passion of Christ the remission of sins comes about. And that it does, seems [to be the case].

1. Apocalypse 1p399-5: He has washed us from our sins in his own blood; but to wash away sins is nothing other than to remit sins or to justify: therefore from the passion comes the remission of sins and justification.

2. Likewise, to the Hebrews 9p400-1: Almost all things are cleansed in blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins; and in the same place: The blood of Christ, who through the Holy Spirit offered himself unspotted to God, shall cleanse our consciences from dead works; but dead works are sins: therefore through the passion of Christ there comes about a cleansing from sins.

3. Likewise, in the Canon of the Mass it is said, and is drawn from the Gospelp400-2: This is the chalice of the new and eternal Testament, which for you and for many shall be poured out unto the remission of sins.

4. Likewise, the Sacraments justifyp400-3; but all the Sacraments have justification from the passion of Christ: therefore much more strongly is the passion of Christ efficacious in justifying.

On the contrary: 1. To the Romans 4p400-4: He was delivered up for our offenses, and rose again for our justification: therefore it seems that justification is from the resurrection, not from the passion.

2. Likewise, Isaiah 43p400-5: I am he, who blots out your iniquities for my own sake: therefore the blotting out of our sins is from God alone, therefore not from the passion of Christ.

3. Likewise, justification from guilt is through the infusion of grace; but God alone is he who can infuse grace, as is shown in the first book and in the fourthp400-6: therefore God alone can blot out guilt and justify man: therefore the blotting out of guilt and justification is not from the passion.

4. Likewise, nothing corporeal infuses justice into a spiritual thingp400-7; but the passion of Christ was corporeal: therefore it cannot justify the soul or cleanse [it] from sin.

5. Likewise, it is necessary that the one justifying be conjoined to the one justified; but the passion of Christ is outside the soul: therefore it cannot justify the soul.

6. Likewise, if the passion of Christ is the cause of the justification of the soul, then [it is so] either by way of a material cause, or by way of a formal, or efficient, or final [cause]. Not material — this is established, because the passion is not the matter of justification; not formal, because that is grace; not efficient, because that is God; not final, because that is eternal glory: therefore etc. If you should say that the passion is said to justify, that is, Christ suffering, by the same reasoning both walking and preaching would be said to justify us and to blot out our sins, because Christ in walking and preaching justified us and blotted out our sins; which, however, is not granted.

It is, therefore, a question how the passion of Christ is the cause of our justification. And if you say [it is so] by way of merit; then there is the question how the resurrection can be the cause of our justification, since Christ did not merit by risingp400-8. And if both are a cause, namely both the passion and the resurrection; it is asked to which it belongs prior and more principally.

Conclusion. Our justification is attributed to the passion of Christ by way of intervening merit, of provoking example, and of directing exemplar; but to the resurrection it is assigned by way of a quieting terminus, of provoking example, and of directing exemplar.

I respond: For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that our justification is attributed both to the passion and to the resurrection, as is held in the textp400-9 and in the Gloss in many places. Hence to the Romans 4 it is said upon that text: He died for our offenses etc.: « Both, namely the death and the resurrection of Christ, take away our offenses, and both justify ».

Nevertheless to neither — that is, neither to the resurrection nor to the passion — can the causality of justification, or the blotting out of guilt, be attributed properly, because no kind of cause is found there properly, as was shown in the objectingp400-10. They have nonetheless some causality in this, that they have some property of a cause. For to these our justification is attributed by way of intervening merit, which indeed has the account of a disposition and is to be reduced to the material cause; by way of provoking and exciting example, which indeed is to be reduced to the moving and efficient cause; by way of a regulating exemplar, which indeed is to be reduced to the formal cause; by way of a quieting terminus, which indeed is to be reduced to the final cause. And thus to these twop400-11 justification is attributed according to the property of each kind of cause.

Nevertheless the account of meriting justification is attributed to the passion alone, not to the resurrection; but the account of terminating and quieting is attributed to the resurrection, to which justification is ordered, not to the passion; while the two intermediate [accounts], namely excitation and regulation, are attributedp401-1 to both. — For the passion excites us to the love of God, and further intimates to us how we ought to die to sins; and thus it is a provoking example and a regulating exemplar. And that it is an example, is held from 1 Peter 2p401-2: Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example. That it is an exemplar, is held [from] Romans 6: If we have been planted together in the likeness of his death etc. — Likewise the resurrection too has the account of a provoking example and a directing exemplar. For it provokes us to justice, through which we may acquire that glory which we believe Christ to have had in his resurrection, that our bodies may be such as Christ showed in his resurrection, as is said in a certain Glossp401-3. It also directs us, while at his exemplar we strive to walk in newness of life, according to that which is said to the Romans 6p401-4: As Christ rose from the dead through the glory of the Father, so let us also walk in newness of life.

And thus both the passion and the resurrection have the account of exciting and regulating with respect to our justification according to the two [things] which are to be considered in our justification, namely the removal of evil and the conferral of good; and the removal of evil is appropriated to the passion itself, while the conferral of good [is appropriated] to the resurrection itself. And this is what is said in the Glossp401-5: He was delivered up for our offenses etc.: « The death of Christ alone signifies the destruction of the old life, and in the resurrection alone the new life is signified ».

From these things, therefore, which have been said, the response to the proposed question is clear, namely how our justification, or the blotting out of guilt, is from the passion of Christ. For it is from it by way of merit and by way of exemplar and sign. It is also clear how it is from the resurrection.

1. And through this the response to the first objection is manifest — that concerning the authority of the Apostle, by which it was said that our justification is from the resurrection. For it is from the resurrection and from the passion without any contradiction, as was shown before.

2. To that which is objected, that God alone is he who blots out iniquities etc.; it must be said that this is true by way of an efficient [cause]; yet by this it is not excluded that it cannot belong to another by way of meriting and exciting, as it was said to belong to the passion of Christ.

3. To that which is objected, that justification is through grace, which is infusedp401-6 by God alone; it must be said that although grace has its infusion from God alone, nonetheless Christ through his passion was able to merit it for us; and thus we are said to be justified from the passion.

4. To that which is objected, that nothing corporeal infuses justice into a spiritual thing; it must be said that, just as the flesh of Christ is of itself not the food of the soul, yet in itself it is food from its union with the divine naturep401-7; so also the passion of Christ, although it does not have the power of justifying inasmuch as it is a corporeal passion, nevertheless has [it], inasmuch as the enduring of it proceeded from the best will, and was to come about regarding a most worthy person, who is the principle and cause of all justice and sanctity.

5. To that which is objected, that the one justifying ought to be conjoined to the one justifiedp401-8; it must be said that something can be conjoined to another in two ways, namely through substance and through effect. But although the passion of Christ is not conjoined to us through substance, it can nevertheless be conjoined through efficacy. And if you object that it does not seem that it can be conjoined through efficacy unless it be in some way conjoined through substance; it must be said that it is not necessary that it be conjoined through substance, but it suffices that it be conjoined by the mediation of faith through love. And this is what is said to the Romans 3p401-9: Whom God has set forth as a propitiator through faith in his blood; Gloss: « He joins faith and the passion together, because neither avails without the other ».

6. To that which is asked, in what genus of cause the passion of Christ is the principle of our justification;

the response is now clear from the things which have been said. For it is not a cause properly, although in some way it has the property of a cause, as was explained before in the beginning of the responsep402-1, where it was also determined how in a different manner our justification is to be attributed to the passion and to the resurrection of Christ.

Scholion

I. In this and the following distinction the reparation of the human race, made by Christ by way of satisfaction, is treated. But the account of merit differs from the account of satisfaction. For merit states an order to a reward, while satisfaction [states] a compensation either of an inflicted injury or of damage (cf. below d. 20. a. I. q. 3.); yet in reality Christ by the same action both merited and made satisfaction for the human race. Satisfaction, taken generally, is defined by Scotus (IV. Sent. d. 15. q. 1. n. 3.) thus: « Satisfaction is the voluntary rendering of an equivalent otherwise not owed. The first, namely the rendering, is clear, because it is not an absolute giving; for the fact that it is enough states a commensuration to something preceding and corresponding. That it is called voluntary is clear, because, if it were involuntary, it would not be satisfaction, but satispassion... That it is also of an equivalent is clear, because that particle enough implies this. The fourth, namely otherwise not owed, is clear, because if it were otherwise owed, it would not make satisfaction for that one; for it would not be corresponding to that one according to justice, but to another ». — But S. Bonaventure (below d. 20. q. 4.) distinguishes full and half-full satisfaction; others otherwise, perfect and imperfect. — Note further that the passion of Christ, according to diverse comparisons, has effects called by diverse names, as S. Thomas teaches (S. III. q. 48. a. 6. ad 3.): « The passion of Christ, according as it is compared to his Divinity, acts by way of efficiency; but inasmuch as it is compared to the will of Christ's soul, it acts by way of merit; but according as it is considered in the very flesh of Christ, it acts by way of satisfaction, inasmuch as through it we are freed from the guilt of punishment; by way of redemption, inasmuch as through it we are freed from the servitude of guilt; but by way of sacrifice, inasmuch as through it we are reconciled to God ». Cf. on these here dub. 1-5, and especially Alex. of Hales, S. p. III. q. 18. m. 6. a. 2. § 3.

II. Against the Socinians and the throng of the Rationalists the Council of Trent teaches (Sess. VI. c. 7.) that the efficient cause of our justification is « the merciful God, who freely washes and sanctifies, signing and anointing with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious [cause] is his most beloved Only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who... by his most holy passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us and made satisfaction for us to God the Father » (cf. Sess. V. can. 3.).

III. While S. Bonaventure here recounts four modes of causing, S. Thomas (S. III. q. 49. a. 1.) brings forward only three, one of which is omitted by S. Bonaventure. But S. Thomas omits to recount two of those four causes (though without denying them), namely both the one which is by way of a regulating exemplar, and the one which is by way of a quieting terminus (which by S. Bonaventure is attributed in a special way to the resurrection); but he agrees with our author in the meritorious cause, that is, by way of redemption, and also in the cause by way of provoking and exciting example. But this last he does not reduce, as Bonaventure [does], to the efficient cause, but to the disposing [cause] (here a. 1.). In the third place the Angelic [Doctor] attributes to the passion of Christ a certain other causality, namely « by way of efficiency, inasmuch as the flesh, according to which Christ sustained the passion, is the instrument of the Divinity, from which his passions and actions operate in the divine power for the expelling of sin ». And in the same place, ad 2., he says that « the passion of Christ, although it is corporeal, nevertheless obtains a certain spiritual power from the Divinity, to which his flesh was united as an instrument, according to which power indeed the passion of Christ is the cause of the remission of sins ». — These words, which attribute a certain physical power for supernatural works to the human nature of Christ, and which can be supported by many testimonies of the holy Fathers and of ecclesiastical decrees speaking of the life-giving flesh of Christ, present no small difficulty to the human intellect and have given the disciples of the Angelic [Doctor] occasion to attempt diverse modes of explaining [them]; concerning which let the more recent authors be consulted. But concerning this causality the theologians dispute chiefly in a question still more intricate, how the Sacraments are the cause of grace. S. Bonaventure, treating of this matter (IV. Sent. d. I. q. 4.), concludes: « But whether they (the Sacraments) have more (than the efficiency commonly called moral), I am neither willing to affirm nor to deny ».

IV. It is worthy of observation that the resurrection of Christ is taught to be a certain consummation of redemption, which accords with sacred Scripture and the sense of the Church, so often expressed in the liturgical books; see also below q. 4. ad 1; Alex. of Hales, S. p. III. q. 20. m. 2. a. 1-6; S. Thomas, S. III. q. 56. a. 2.). This doctrine proceeds by a middle way between two errors, namely the error of the Socinians, who say that the work of redemption begins not from the passion of Christ, but from the resurrection (that is, inasmuch as Christ intercedes for us), and the opposite opinion of other Protestants, who wish that only the passion, in no way the resurrection, concur to our redemption.

V. Alex. of Hales, S. p. III. q. 17. m. 4. a. 2. § 1, q. 18. m. 6. a. 1. — Scotus, in each Writing here q. unica. — S. Thomas, here a. 1; S. III. q. 49. a. 1. — B. Albert, here a. 1. — Petr. a Tor., here q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 1. a. 1. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius Carthusianus, here q. 1. — Biel, here q. unica.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 5. — In minori pro abluere cod. U lavare, codd. H I L T V Z aa absolvere.
    [Apoc. 1,] v. 5. — In the minor [premise], for abluere (to wash away) cod. U [reads] lavare; codd. H I L T V Z aa [read] absolvere (to absolve).
  2. Vers. 22. — Seq. Scripturae locus ibid. v. 14.
    [Heb. 9,] v. 22. — The following Scripture passage [is] in the same place, v. 14.
  3. Matth. 26, 28; Marc. 14, 24; Luc. 22, 20.
    Matthew 26, 28; Mark 14, 24; Luke 22, 20.
  4. Vide IV. Sent. d. 1. p. I. q. 4. seq. — De minori cfr. infra d. 20. q. 4. in fine corp.; tom. II. p. 433, nota 1, et IV. Sent. d. II. lit. Magistri, c. 1.
    See IV. Sent. d. 1. p. I. q. 4. and following. — On the minor [premise] cf. below d. 20. q. 4. at the end of the body [of the article]; vol. II. p. 433, note 1, and IV. Sent. d. II. text of the Master, c. 1.
  5. Vers. 25.
    [Rom. 4,] v. 25.
  6. Vers. 25.
    [Isa. 43,] v. 25.
  7. Libr. I. d. 14. a. 2. q. 2; IV. d. I. p. I. q. 4, ibid. d. 17. p. I. a. I. q. I. videsis de maiori.
    Book I. d. 14. a. 2. q. 2; IV. d. I. p. I. q. 4, in the same place d. 17. p. I. a. I. q. I. — see [these] on the major [premise].
  8. Semper enim, ut Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 19. (c. 5.) ait, honorabilius est agens patiente. — Mox pro potest edd. potuit.
    For always, as Aristotle, III. On the Soul, text 19 (c. 5.), says, the agent is more honorable than the patient. — Soon, for potest (can) the editions [read] potuit (could).
  9. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XVIII. c. 1. seqq., ubi meritum attribuitur actionibus et passionibus pro tempore vitae mortalis.
    Cf. above the text of the Master, d. XVIII. c. 1. and following, where merit is attributed to actions and sufferings for the time of mortal life.
  10. Scil. Evangelii, ex quo supra in argg. complura testimonia allata sunt. — Glossa super Rom. 4, 25, quae hic allegatur, habetur apud Petr. Lombard. in hunc loc. Cfr. August., I. in Pentateuch. q. 169. et Serm. 236. (alias 88. de Diversis) n. 1. Alia Glossa huic similis habetur apud eundem Petr. Lombard. in illud Phil. 3, 10: Ad cognoscendum illum et virtutem resurrectionis eius etc., quae Glossa est secundum August., Serm. 169. (alias 15. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 10. n. 12. seqq. et sic sonat: Ex illius enim resurrectione iustificamur, tanquam enim a petra circumcidamur. Resurrexit enim Christus propter iustificationem nostram, i. e. ut iustos nos faciat. Et agnoscam socios passionis eius i. e. fructum, qui venit ex societate passionum etc. In eius ultimo arg.
    Namely of the Gospel, from which above in the arguments several testimonies were brought. — The Gloss on Rom. 4, 25, which is cited here, is found in Peter Lombard on this passage. Cf. Augustine, On the Pentateuch I, q. 169, and Serm. 236 (otherwise 88, On Various Matters) n. 1. Another Gloss similar to this is found in the same Peter Lombard on that text of Phil. 3, 10: That I may know him and the power of his resurrection etc., which Gloss is according to Augustine, Serm. 169 (otherwise 15, On the Words of the Apostle) c. 10. n. 12. and following, and runs thus: For from his resurrection we are justified, for we are as it were circumcised from the rock. For Christ rose again for our justification, i.e. that he may make us just. And that I may know the fellows of his passion, i.e. the fruit, which comes from the fellowship of the sufferings etc. — In its last argument.
  11. In ultimo arg.
    In the last argument.
  12. Pro duobus codd. A K modis.
    For duobus (two) codd. A K [read] modis (modes).
  13. Multi codd. attribuitur.
    Many codd. [read] attribuitur (it is attributed) [singular].
  14. Vers. 21. — Seq. Script. locus est Rom. 6, 5.
    [1 Pet. 2,] v. 21. — The following Scripture passage is Rom. 6, 5.
  15. Libr. IV. Sent. d. 43. a. 1. q. 6. S. Doctor exponens, quomodo resurrectio Christi sit causa nostrae resurrectionis, dicit: Alio modo [dicitur causa exemplaris], in quo res inchoatur et exemplificatur; et sic est resurrectio Christi [exemplaris causa nostrae resurrectionis], quia, ut dicit Augustinus, de Civ. Dei [IX. c. 15. n. 2, XIII. c. 23. et XXII. c. 15. seqq.], « talia erunt corpora nostra, quale Christus sua resurrectione monstravit ». Unde est quasi exemplum, in quo nostra resurrectio est inchoata, tanquam membrorum in capite, sicut dicitur Eph. 2, 5: Convivificavit nos Christo et resuscitavit etc. Cfr. ibid. d. 49. p. II. a. 2. princip. a. 2. q. 2. fundam. I, et Glossa in Ps. 29, 6, supra pag. 247, nota 3. allegata. — Pro quale edd., annuentibus plurimis codd., sed refragantibus codd. K M O, minus congrue substituerunt qualia, cod. Z qualiter.
    Book IV. Sent. d. 43. a. 1. q. 6. The holy Doctor, explaining how the resurrection of Christ is the cause of our resurrection, says: In another way [it is called an exemplary cause], in which a thing is begun and exemplified; and thus is the resurrection of Christ [the exemplary cause of our resurrection], because, as Augustine says, On the City of God [IX. c. 15. n. 2, XIII. c. 23. and XXII. c. 15. and following], « such will our bodies be as Christ showed by his resurrection ». Hence it is as it were an example, in which our resurrection is begun, as of the members in the head, as is said Eph. 2, 5: He has quickened us together with Christ and raised us up etc. Cf. in the same place d. 49. p. II. a. 2. princip. a. 2. q. 2. fundam. I, and the Gloss on Ps. 29, 6, cited above p. 247, note 3. — For quale the editions, with very many codd. agreeing, but codd. K M O dissenting, less fittingly substituted qualia; cod. Z qualiter.
  16. Vers. 4. — Paulo inferius voci passio cod. N adtexit Christi.
    [Rom. 6,] v. 4. — A little below, to the word passio cod. N appended Christi.
  17. Super Rom. 4, 25. Glossa, quam iam Rabanus in hunc loc. affert, habetur ut ordinaria apud Strabum et formata est ex verbis August., Serm. 236. (alias 88. de Diversis) n. 1.
    On Rom. 4, 25. The Gloss, which already Rabanus brings forward on this passage, is found as the ordinaria in Strabo and is formed from the words of Augustine, Serm. 236 (otherwise 88, On Various Matters) n. 1.
  18. Cod. X quod iustificatio per gratiam habet infundi.
    Cod. X [reads] that justification has its infusion through grace.
  19. Cfr. verba August., supra pag. 223, nota 1. relata — Pro ipsius edd. sui.
    Cf. the words of Augustine, reported above p. 223, note 1. — For ipsius the editions [read] sui.
  20. Cod. A bene iustificando.
    Cod. A correctly [reads] iustificando.
  21. Vers. 25, ubi Vulgata nunc pro propitiatorem (sic ed. Vulg. an. 1590 et Petr. Lombard. tam hic in lit. c. 1, quam in Comment. super hunc loc.) exhibet propitiationem. Glossam, quae est ordinaria, praeter Petr. Lombard. afferunt Strabus et Lyranus. — Paulo superius pro per dilectionem codd. A K et dilectione.
    [Rom. 3,] v. 25, where the Vulgate now, for propitiatorem (a propitiator) (so the Vulg. edition of the year 1590 and Peter Lombard both here in the text c. 1 and in the Commentary on this passage), gives propitiationem (a propitiation). The Gloss, which is the ordinaria, besides Peter Lombard, Strabo and Lyranus bring forward. — A little above, for per dilectionem codd. A K [read] et dilectione.
  22. Multi codd. attribuitur.
    Many codd. [read] attribuitur (it is attributed) [singular].
← Dist. 19, Divisio TextusDist. 19, Art. 1, Q. 2→