title: Dist. 19, Art. 1, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 407 -->

### Articulus I. *De efficacia passionis Christi.*
### Quaestio IV. *Utrum per passionem Christi absolvamur a poena peccati.*

Quarto quaeritur, an per passionem Christi absolvamur a poena peccati. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Primae Petri secundo[^p407-3]: *Peccata nostra pertulit in corpore suo super lignum;* quod exponens Magister in littera dicit, quod « portare peccata nostra, hoc est portare poenam peccatorum nostrorum ». Et hoc confirmatur per illud Isaiae quinquagesimo tertio[^p407-4]: *Vere languores nostros ipse tulit, et infirmitates nostras ipse portavit.*

2. Item, Zachariae nono[^p407-5]: *Tu autem in sanguine testamenti tui eduxisti vinctos de lacu, in quo non erat aqua:* si ergo educi de lacu sine aqua est liberari a poena, videtur, quod per sanguinem Christi liberemur a poena peccati.

3. Item, passio Christi maxime fuit poenalis et Deo placita, et pro nobis etiam fuit soluta; sed quod talis condicionis est maxime habet liberare[^p407-6] a poena: ergo etc.

4. Item, tolerantia poenae plus ordinatur ad relaxationem poenae quam ad deletionem culpae: si ergo per passionem Christi fit iustificatio, sicut supra[^p407-7] ostensum est, multo fortius fit poenarum relaxatio.

**Sed contra:**
1. « Resurrectio Christi est causa nostrae resurrectionis », sicut dicitur in Glossa, primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto[^p407-8]; sed per resurrectionem nostram habemus liberari a poena et a miseria: ergo videtur, quod Christi resurrectio, non passio, liberet nos a poena.

2. Item, Christus patiendo dedit nobis exemplum et materiam compatiendi: si ergo poena consistit in passione et compassione, videtur, quod passio Christi potius sit causativa poenae quam liberativa a poena.

3. Item, poenitentia omnis poenalis est — nam poenitere est poenam tenere[^p407-9] — si ergo per passionem Christi liberati sumus a poena, videtur, quod iam non sit opus poenitentia; sed hoc est falsum: ergo et primum.

4. Item, si passio Christi liberat a poena, aut ergo a temporali, aut aeterna. A temporali non, quia eisdem poenis temporalibus subiacemus nunc, quibus subiacebant illi qui erant ante passionem. Ab aeterna non, quia nullus, qui esset[^p407-10] in inferno damnatus, fuit per passionem Christi liberatus: videtur ergo, quod mediante Christi passione non sumus ab aliqua poena liberati.

### Conclusio.

> Passio Christi nos liberavit a poena peccati temporali, aeterna et inter utramque media.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod passio Christi nos liberavit a poena temporali et ab aeterna et ab ea quae est inter utramque media. — A poena, inquam, temporali nos liberat, dum virtute illius condonantur nobis peccata, non solum quantum ad culpam et reatum poenae aeternae, sed etiam quantum ad dimissionem poenae satisfactoriae, sicut habet fieri in Sacramento baptismi. — A poena aeterna nos liberat liberando a culpa. Dum enim per passionem Christi nobis gratia impetratur, per quam culpa dimittitur, nobis debitum poenae aeternae mortis relaxatur. — Liberat etiam a poena, quae quodam modo est inter utramque istarum poenarum media, quae quidem fuit[^p407-11] carentia visionis divinae ex merito peccati Adae; et illa quidem, etsi fuerit ad tempus propter gratiam repertam in eis qui detinebantur in limbo, deberet tamen habere aeternitatem, habito respectu ad culpam Adae — unde quantumcumque passio dilata esset, divina praesentia fuisset ei[^p407-12] subtracta — nisi Deus adinvenisset aliam viam. Et ab hac poena liberati sumus per passionem Christi; et sic patet, quod per omnem modum verum est, passionem Christi efficacem esse ad liberandum nos a poena peccati[^p407-13]. — Et rationes, quae hoc ostendunt, concedendae sunt.

**Ad oppositorum solutionem:**

<!-- page 408 -->
1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod resurrectio Christi nos liberat a poena magis quam passio; dicendum, quod sicut supra[^p408-1] dictum fuit de iustificatione, quod iustificatio potest attribui passioni ratione termini *a quo,* scilicet ratione amotionis mali, et resurrectioni ratione termini *ad quem,* scilicet ratione collationis boni. Sic etiam glorificatio, quae est liberatio a *poena* et *miseria,* utrique potest attribui; ratione vero liberationis a *poena* potius attribuitur *passioni.*

2. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod passio Christi praebet nobis exemplum patiendi[^p408-2]; dicendum, quod etsi passio Christi liberet a *poena,* non tamen ab *omni poena* liberat. Liberat enim a poena *oppressiva,* sed non liberat a poena *promotiva.*[^p408-3] Et quoniam poena, in qua exercetur patientia et misericordia sive pietas, est promotiva; ideo passio Christi ab illa non liberat, sed ad illam animat et animando facit, ut poena illa non possit opprimere nec praevalere; et isto modo posset dici quodam modo liberare ab illo genere poenae, non ut non affligat, sed ut non praevaleat.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod passio Christi non liberat a poena poenitentiae; dicendum, quod immo liberat, quantum est de se; quia, secundum quod dicitur in littera[^p408-4], « in baptismo omnis poena, quae pro peccato debetur, penitus relaxatur »; sed cum homo peccata iterat, reddit se indignum tanto beneficio, et ideo per passionem non remittitur ei tota poena, sed « minoratur », secundum quod dicit Magister in littera, quantum decet et expedit, salva divina iustitia.

4. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod non liberat a poena temporali nec a poena aeterna; dicendum, quod ratio illa peccat secundum consequens[^p408-5]. Non enim sequitur, quod si hoc modo non liberat a poena temporali et aeterna, quod propter hoc nullo modo. Quamvis enim non liberet a poena aeterna eos qui sunt in malo obstinati, liberat tamen eos qui volunt et possunt ad Christum converti. Rursus, quamvis non liberet a poena temporali in praesenti, ut a fame et a siti, liberabit tamen in futuro, quando novissima omnium destruetur inimica mors[^p408-6]. Liberat etiam ab aliquibus poenis temporalibus, ad quas essemus obligati merito peccatorum nostrorum, nisi interveniret passio Christi[^p408-7].

english:
### Article I. *On the efficacy of the passion of Christ.*
### Question IV. *Whether through the passion of Christ we are absolved from the punishment of sin.*

In the fourth place it is asked whether through the passion of Christ we are absolved from the punishment of sin. And that this is so seems [to be the case].

1. From the second [chapter] of the First [Letter] of Peter[^p407-3]: *He bore our sins in his body upon the tree;* and the Master, expounding this in the text, says that « to bear our sins is to bear the punishment of our sins ». And this is confirmed by that [passage] of Isaiah, the fifty-third [chapter][^p407-4]: *Truly he himself bore our griefs, and himself carried our infirmities.*

2. Likewise, from the ninth [chapter] of Zechariah[^p407-5]: *Thou also, by the blood of thy covenant, hast brought forth thy prisoners out of the pit, in which there was no water:* if therefore to be brought forth out of the pit without water is to be freed from punishment, it seems that through the blood of Christ we are freed from the punishment of sin.

3. Likewise, the passion of Christ was supremely penal and pleasing to God, and was also paid for us; but that which is of such a condition has most of all [the power] to free[^p407-6] from punishment: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, the endurance of punishment is ordered more to the relaxation of punishment than to the deletion of fault: if therefore through the passion of Christ justification comes about, as was shown above[^p407-7], much more strongly does the relaxation of punishments come about.

**On the contrary:**
1. « The resurrection of Christ is the cause of our resurrection », as is said in the Gloss on the first [Letter] to the Corinthians, the fifteenth [chapter][^p407-8]; but through our resurrection we have [the power] to be freed from punishment and from misery: therefore it seems that the resurrection of Christ, not the passion, frees us from punishment.

2. Likewise, Christ by suffering gave us an example and matter for suffering-with [him]: if therefore punishment consists in suffering and compassion, it seems that the passion of Christ is rather causative of punishment than liberative from punishment.

3. Likewise, all penance is penal — for to do penance is to hold to punishment[^p407-9] — if therefore through the passion of Christ we have been freed from punishment, it seems that penance is no longer needed; but this is false: therefore the first [conclusion is false] too.

4. Likewise, if the passion of Christ frees from punishment, then either from temporal or from eternal [punishment]. Not from temporal, because we are now subject to the same temporal punishments to which those were subject who lived before the passion. Not from eternal, because no one who was[^p407-10] damned in hell was freed through the passion of Christ: it seems therefore that, by means of Christ's passion, we are not freed from any punishment.

### Conclusion.

> The passion of Christ freed us from the punishment of sin — temporal, eternal, and that which is intermediate between the two.

**I respond:** It must be said that the passion of Christ freed us from temporal punishment, and from eternal, and from that which is intermediate between the two of these. — From temporal punishment, I say, it frees us when, by its power, our sins are remitted to us, not only as to fault and the liability of eternal punishment, but also as to the dismissal of satisfactory punishment, as comes about in the Sacrament of baptism. — From eternal punishment it frees us by freeing [us] from fault. For when through the passion of Christ grace is obtained for us, through which fault is dismissed, the debt of the eternal punishment of death is relaxed for us. — It also frees [us] from the punishment which is in some way intermediate between these two punishments, which indeed was[^p407-11] the lack of the divine vision by [reason of] the merit of Adam's sin; and that [lack], even though it was for a time on account of the grace found in those who were detained in limbo, ought nevertheless to have eternity, having regard to the fault of Adam — whence, however long the passion had been deferred, the divine presence would have been[^p407-12] withdrawn from it — unless God had devised another way. And from this punishment we have been freed through the passion of Christ; and thus it is clear that in every way it is true that the passion of Christ is efficacious for freeing us from the punishment of sin[^p407-13]. — And the reasons which show this are to be conceded.

**To the solution of the [arguments] on the opposite [side]:**

1. To that which is first objected to the contrary, that the resurrection of Christ frees us from punishment more than the passion; it must be said that, as was said above[^p408-1] concerning justification — that justification can be attributed to the passion by reason of the terminus *from which,* namely by reason of the removal of evil, and to the resurrection by reason of the terminus *to which,* namely by reason of the conferring of good. So too glorification, which is liberation from *punishment* and *misery,* can be attributed to both; but by reason of the liberation from *punishment* it is attributed rather to the *passion.*

2. To that which is objected, that the passion of Christ furnishes us an example of suffering[^p408-2]; it must be said that, although the passion of Christ frees [us] from *punishment,* it does not nevertheless free [us] from *all punishment.* For it frees [us] from *oppressive* punishment, but does not free [us] from *promotive* punishment.[^p408-3] And since the punishment in which patience and mercy or piety is exercised is promotive; therefore the passion of Christ does not free [us] from that [punishment], but rouses [us] to it and, by rousing, brings it about that that punishment cannot oppress nor prevail; and in this way it could be said in some manner to free [us] from that kind of punishment, not so that it does not afflict, but so that it does not prevail.

3. To that which is objected, that the passion of Christ does not free [us] from the punishment of penance; it must be said that on the contrary it does free [us], so far as lies in itself; because, according to what is said in the text[^p408-4], « in baptism every punishment which is owed for sin is utterly relaxed »; but when a man repeats his sins, he renders himself unworthy of so great a benefit, and therefore through the passion not the whole punishment is remitted to him, but it is « lessened », according to what the Master says in the text, as much as is fitting and expedient, the divine justice being preserved.

4. To that which is objected, that it frees [us] neither from temporal nor from eternal punishment; it must be said that that reasoning errs by [the fallacy of] the consequent[^p408-5]. For it does not follow that, if in this way it does not free [us] from temporal and eternal punishment, that for this reason [it frees us] in no way. For although it does not free from eternal punishment those who are obstinate in evil, it nevertheless frees those who will and are able to be converted to Christ. Again, although it does not free [us] from temporal punishment in the present, as from hunger and from thirst, it will nevertheless free [us] in the future, when the last enemy of all, death, shall be destroyed[^p408-6]. It also frees [us] from certain temporal punishments to which we would be bound by the merit of our sins, were it not that the passion of Christ intervened[^p408-7].

la: Vers. 24. — Expositio Magistri habetur hic c. 4.

en: Verse 24. — The Master's exposition is found here, c. 4.

la: Vers. 11.

en: Verse 11.

la: Edd. falso *liberari.*

en: The editions wrongly [read] *liberari* [to be freed].

la: Quaest. 1. — Non pauci codd. bis *sit* pro *fit.*

en: Question 1. — Not a few codices [read] *sit* twice in place of *fit.*

la: Vers. 12. Vide supra pag. 247, nota 3.

en: Verse 12. See above, p. 247, note 3.

la: Isidor., II. de Offic. eccles. c. 17. (alias c. 16.) n. 2: *Poenitentia nomen sumsit a poena, qua anima cruciatur et caro mortificatur.* Cfr. VI. Etymolog. c. 19. n. 71.

en: Isidore, *On the Ecclesiastical Offices* II, c. 17 (otherwise c. 16), n. 2: "Penance took its name from punishment (*poena*), by which the soul is tormented and the flesh mortified." Cf. *Etymologies* VI, c. 19, n. 71.

la: Edd. *est.*

en: The editions [read] *est* [is].

la: Vat. (simul cum alia interpunctione) *eis,* refragantibus codd. et edd. 1, 2, et post pauca pro *aliam viam* cum edd. 1, 2 *aliquam viam.*

en: The Vatican edition (along with a different punctuation) [reads] *eis* [to them], the codices and editions 1, 2 being opposed; and a little after, in place of *aliam viam* [another way], with editions 1, 2 [it reads] *aliquam viam* [some way].

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. et supra d. XVIII. c. 5.

en: Cf. here the Master's text, c. 3, and above, d. XVIII, c. 5.

la: Quaest. 1.

en: Question 1.

la: Edd. 1, 2 *compatiendi,* Vat. *patiendi et compatiendi.*

en: Editions 1, 2 [read] *compatiendi* [of suffering-with], the Vatican edition *patiendi et compatiendi* [of suffering and of suffering-with].

la: De poena *oppressiva* sive *suffocante* vitalem spiritum gratiae, et de poena *promotiva* sive *promovente* ad exercitium virtutis vide II. Sent. d. 32. dub. 1. — Circa finem solut. pro *posset dici* codd. G H L N T U V Z aa *possit dici.*

en: On *oppressive* or *suffocating* punishment, [which suffocates] the vital spirit of grace, and on *promotive* or *promoting* punishment, [which promotes] the exercise of virtue, see II Sent., d. 32, dub. 1. — Near the end of the solution, in place of *posset dici* [it could be said] codices G H L N T U V Z aa [read] *possit dici.*

la: Hic. c. 4. Ibid. invenitur et seq. dictum Magistri. — Paulo superius edd. verbo *liberat* praemittunt *nos.*

en: Here, c. 4. In the same place is found also the following saying of the Master. — A little above, the editions prefix *nos* [us] to the verb *liberat* [it frees].

la: Cfr. supra pag. 99, nota 7. — Paulo inferius post *nullo modo* edd. addunt *liberet a poena temporali et aeterna.*

en: Cf. above, p. 99, note 7. — A little below, after *nullo modo* [in no way] the editions add *liberet a poena temporali et aeterna* [it frees from temporal and eternal punishment].

la: Epist. I. Cor. 15, 26. — Paulo superius post *in praesenti* edd. cum codd. F G I L U V Z aa adiungunt *vita* (codd. H T *via*), et subinde edd. solae pro *ut* substituunt *scilicet* (dum dicti codd. *ut* simpliciter omittunt) et post *liberabit tamen* supplent *a poena.*

en: First [Letter] to the Corinthians 15, 26. — A little above, after *in praesenti* [in the present] the editions, with codices F G I L U V Z aa, add *vita* [life] (codices H T [read] *via* [way]); and thereafter the editions alone substitute *scilicet* [namely] for *ut* [as] (while the said codices simply omit *ut*), and after *liberabit tamen* [it will nevertheless free] supply *a poena* [from punishment].

la: In fine solut. pro *interveniret* cod. N *intervenisset,* cod. U *interveniat.*

en: At the end of the solution, in place of *interveniret* [had intervened] codex N [reads] *intervenisset,* codex U *interveniat.*

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.407–408 (PDF 429–430; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`, raw lines 28354→28438). This is ARTICULUS I (*De efficacia passionis Christi*), QUAESTIO IV — the LAST question of Article I of DIST. XIX. **Alignment confirmed:** opener reads *Utrum per passionem Christi absolvamur a poena peccati* / "Quarto quaeritur, an per passionem Christi absolvamur a poena peccati."

**Scholion:** none specific to q4. `has_scholion: false`. The article-wide scholion is held by **a1-q1** and forward-covers q2–q4 (its part III explicitly treats q4: "Quaestio 4. agit simul de poena aeterna et de poena temporali…"). Confirmed by eyes-on of pp.407–408: q4 runs CONCLUSIO → Respondeo → ad-replies → straight into ARTICULUS II with no intervening SCHOLION block.

**Page-split map (per-page apparatus restart):**
- **p.407** = footer notes **3–13** (`[^p407-3..13]`). PICKED UP from the q3 hand-off: p.407 notes 1 (Vers. 17) and 2 (Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.) belong to q3's tail; q4 opens on the same printed page and takes notes 3 onward. Body on p.407: full *videtur* (args 1–4), Sed contra (1–4), Conclusio, Respondeo, opening of ad-1.
- **p.408** = footer notes **1–7** (`[^p408-1..7]`). Body on p.408: completion of ad-1, ad-2, ad-3, ad-4. q4 body ends at "…nisi interveniret passio Christi[^p408-7]." (raw line 28438); ARTICULUS II opener begins at raw 28439.

**Hand-offs picked up:** p.407 notes 3+ (q3 held p.407 notes 1–2). No body migrated in (q3 ended at its own p.407 tail; q4 opens fresh on p.407).

**Hand-off forwarded (to d19-a2-q1):** **ARTICULUS II** (*De persona redemptoris et mediatoris*) begins on printed **p.408** (PDF 430), **raw line 28439**. Its short opener folds into a2-q1 per the locked chunking convention: "Consequenter quaeritur de persona redemptoris et mediatoris, per quem facta est reconciliatio. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primum est, utrum solus Filius sit redemptor, an etiam Pater et Spiritus sanctus. Secundum est, secundum quam naturam est mediator." Then QUAESTIO I (*Utrum solus Filius sit redemptor, an etiam Pater et Spiritus sanctus*) opens with "Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod solus Filius sit redemptor. 1. Apocalypsis quinto: Redemisti nos, Deus, in sanguine tuo ex omni tribu et lingua…". **Migrating footers:** NONE migrate into q4 from a2; conversely q4 took **all** p.408 footers nn.1–7 (the per-page restart). ARTICULUS II's own p.408 footer sequence restarts AFTER the rule line below q4's note 7 — the first a2 footer (numbered 7 in print: "Vide scholion ad 2. huius articuli quaest.") and following belong to a2-q1, NOT q4. The a2 chunk should begin its p.408 apparatus from that point. Offset reminder: pdf = printed + 22.

**[?] flags:** none. All of pp.407–408 legible at 450 dpi.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 19, Art. 2, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 408 -->

### Articulus II. *De persona redemptoris et mediatoris.*

Consequenter quaeritur de persona redemptoris et mediatoris, per quem facta est reconciliatio. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo.

Primum est, utrum solus Filius sit redemptor, an etiam Pater et Spiritus sanctus.

Secundum est, secundum quam naturam est mediator.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum solus Filius sit redemptor, an etiam Pater et Spiritus sanctus.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod solus Filius sit redemptor.

*Argg. pro 1. parte.*
1. Apocalypsis quinto[^p408-9]: *Redemisti nos, Deus, in sanguine tuo ex omni tribu et lingua* etc.: ergo si solus Filius pro nobis sanguinem fudit, solus Filius nos redemit.

2. Item, ille solus nos redemit, qui pro nobis satisfecit; sed solus Filius pro nobis satisfecit: ergo etc.

3. Item, redemptio nostra facta est per passionem, ergo ad illam solam personam spectat redemptio, ad quam spectat passio; sed solus Filius est passus: ergo etc.

4. Item, Christus[^p408-8] redemit nos, aut ergo secundum divinam naturam, aut secundum humanam naturam. Si secundum divinam: ergo frustra ad hoc assumsit[^p408-10] humanam naturam. Si secundum humanam; sed solus Filius humanam naturam assumsit: ergo solus Filius nos redemit.

<!-- page 409 -->

*Pro 2. parte.*
**Sed contra:** 1. « Opera Trinitatis sunt indivisa[^p408-7][^p409-1] »: ergo si redimere est opus conveniens Filio, necesse est, quod conveniat Patri et Spiritui sancto.

2. Item, illius est redimere, cuius est pro re empta pretium dare; sed Pater dedit Unigenitum suum pro salute generis humani, secundum quod dicitur Ioannis tertio[^p409-2]: *Sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret*: Pater igitur nos redemit: non ergo solus Filius est redemptor.

3. Item, illius est redimere, cuius est redemptos possidere; sed tota Trinitas nos possidet: ergo tota Trinitas nos redemit.

4. Item, hoc ipsum videtur auctoritate Magistri in littera[^p409-3]: « Redemptor aliquando etiam Pater et Spiritus sanctus dicitur in Scriptura »: ergo si Scriptura non dicit nisi verum et catholicum, redimere non spectat ad solum Filium.

### Conclusio.

> *Christus solus est noster redemptor quoad exsecutionem et auctoritatem, licet quoad auctoritatem Pater et Spiritus sanctus etiam nos redemerint.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod redemptionis opus dupliciter potest alicui attribui, aut sicut principali auctori, aut sicut exsequenti. Et utroque modo competit Christo: Christo, inquam, Deo competit sicut auctori, Christo vero homini competit sicut exsequenti. — Cum ergo dicitur aliquis redemptor, hoc dupliciter potest dici: aut ab auctoritate redemptionis, aut ab auctoritate simul et exsecutione. Si ab auctoritate, sic non tantum competit Filio, immo etiam Patri et Spiritui sancto, pro eo quod « indivisa sunt opera Trinitatis ». Si autem ab exsecutione, sic respicit humanitatem, quae assumta est a solo Verbo; et hoc modo competit soli Filio, et hoc est quod Magister dicit in littera[^p409-4]: « Redemptor aliquando Pater et Spiritus sanctus dicitur, sed hoc propter usum potestatis, non propter exhibitionem humilitatis. Nam secundum potestatis simul et obedientiae usum Filius proprie redemptor dicitur »; et post concludit: « Est igitur redemptor, in quantum Deus, potestatis usu; in quantum homo, humilitatis effectu ».

Ex his patet, qualiter esse redemptorem convenit Filio, et secundum quam naturam. Quodam enim modo convenit ei secundum humanam naturam, quodam modo secundum divinam; et primo modo competit soli Filio, secundo modo competit Filio una cum Patre et Spiritu sancto. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad quaestionem propositam. Patet etiam responsio ad rationes ad utramque partem; procedunt enim secundum has duas vias, sicut aspicienti apparet[^p409-5].

english:
### Article II. *On the person of the redeemer and mediator.*

Next inquiry is made concerning the person of the redeemer and mediator, through whom reconciliation was made. And about this two questions are asked.

The first is whether the Son alone is the redeemer, or also the Father and the Holy Spirit.

The second is according to which nature he is the mediator.

### Question I. *Whether the Son alone is the redeemer, or also the Father and the Holy Spirit.*

Concerning the first the matter is approached thus, and it is shown that the Son alone is the redeemer.

*Arguments for the first part.*
1. Apocalypse, chapter five[^p408-9]: *Thou hast redeemed us, O God, in thy blood out of every tribe and tongue* etc.: therefore if the Son alone shed his blood for us, the Son alone redeemed us.

2. Likewise, he alone has redeemed us who made satisfaction for us; but the Son alone made satisfaction for us: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, our redemption was made through the passion; therefore redemption pertains to that person alone to whom the passion pertains; but the Son alone suffered: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, Christ[^p408-8] redeemed us either according to the divine nature or according to the human nature. If according to the divine: then he assumed[^p408-10] the human nature to this end in vain. If according to the human; but the Son alone assumed the human nature: therefore the Son alone redeemed us.

*For the second part.*
**On the contrary:** 1. « The works of the Trinity are undivided[^p408-7][^p409-1] »: therefore if to redeem is a work befitting the Son, it is necessary that it befit the Father and the Holy Spirit.

2. Likewise, it belongs to him to redeem whose it is to give the price for the thing bought; but the Father gave his Only-begotten for the salvation of the human race, according to what is said in John, chapter three[^p409-2]: *So God loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son*: therefore the Father redeemed us: therefore the Son alone is not the redeemer.

3. Likewise, it belongs to him to redeem whose it is to possess the redeemed; but the whole Trinity possesses us: therefore the whole Trinity redeemed us.

4. Likewise, this same thing seems [proved] by the authority of the Master in the text[^p409-3]: « The redeemer is sometimes also called the Father and the Holy Spirit in Scripture »: therefore if Scripture says nothing but what is true and catholic, to redeem does not pertain to the Son alone.

### Conclusion.

> *Christ alone is our redeemer as to execution and authority, although as to authority the Father and the Holy Spirit also have redeemed us.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the work of redemption can be attributed to someone in two ways: either as to the principal author, or as to the one executing it. And in both ways it befits Christ: Christ, I say, as God it befits as author, but Christ as man it befits as the one executing. — When, therefore, someone is called redeemer, this can be said in two ways: either from the authority of the redemption, or from authority together with execution. If from authority, then it befits not only the Son, but indeed also the Father and the Holy Spirit, on account of the fact that « the works of the Trinity are undivided ». But if from execution, then it regards the humanity, which was assumed by the Word alone; and in this way it befits the Son alone, and this is what the Master says in the text[^p409-4]: « The redeemer is sometimes called the Father and the Holy Spirit, but this on account of the use of power, not on account of the exhibition of humility. For according to the use of power together with obedience the Son is properly called redeemer »; and afterward he concludes: « He is therefore redeemer, insofar as he is God, by the use of power; insofar as he is man, by the effect of humility ».

From these things it is plain in what manner it befits the Son to be redeemer, and according to which nature. For in a certain way it befits him according to the human nature, in a certain way according to the divine; and in the first way it befits the Son alone, in the second way it befits the Son together with the Father and the Holy Spirit. — And through this the response to the proposed question is plain. The response to the arguments for either part is also plain; for they proceed according to these two ways, as is apparent to one who attends[^p409-5].

en: See the scholion to the 2nd question of this article.

la: Edd. ac complures codd. *quam*. Post pauca cod. A voci *Filius* addit *Dei*, et post *naturam* edd. ex ipsa quaest. (infra) supplent *Christus*.

en: The editions and several codices read *quam*. A little after, codex A adds *Dei* to the word *Filius*, and after *naturam* the editions, from the question itself (below), supply *Christus*.

la: Vers. 9, ubi Vulgata (iuxta textum graecum) et edd. 1, 2 pro *Deus* exhibent *Deo*, Vat. *Domine Deus*. — In edd. haec quaestio sic orditur (omissis verbis solitis *Circa primum sic* etc. et pluribus adiectis): *Utrum solus Filius sit Redemptor, aut etiam Pater et Spiritus sanctus. Et ostenditur, quod solus Filius sit Redemptor* etc.

en: Verse 9, where the Vulgate (according to the Greek text) and editions 1, 2 read *Deo* for *Deus*, the Vatican edition *Domine Deus*. — In the editions this question begins thus (omitting the usual words *Circa primum sic* etc. and with several additions): *Whether the Son alone is the Redeemer, or also the Father and the Holy Spirit. And it is shown that the Son alone is the Redeemer* etc.

la: Non pauci codd. *sumsit*.

en: Not a few codices read *sumsit*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 12, nota 2.

en: Cf. above, page 12, note 2.

la: Vers. 16.

en: Verse 16.

la: Hic c. 5.

en: Here [in the text of the Master] chapter 5.

la: Hic c. 5, ubi et altera sententia. In primo textu post *humilitatis* in lit. Magistri additur *et obedientiae*.

en: Here [in the text] chapter 5, where there is also the other sentence. In the first text, after *humilitatis* the words *et obedientiae* are added in the text of the Master.

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. a. 1. q. 2, ubi principia huius quaest. insinuantur, nec non August., Serm. 130. n. 2.

en: Cf. above, d. 1, a. 1, q. 2, where the principles of this question are intimated, as also Augustine, Sermon 130, n. 2.

latin_scholion:
**I.** S. Scriptura meritum et satisfactionem Christi non raro exprimit per metaphoram emptionis, vel accuratius redemptionis, quia Christus se ipsum obtulit Patri quasi in pretium, quo genus humanum liberaret ab obligatione, qua obstrictum erat tum ad servitutem sub iugo peccati tum ad reatum poenae (cfr. I. Petr. 1, 18. 19; Gal. 3, 13; et infra d. 20. q. 6. ad 1; IV. Sent. d. 5. a. 3. q. 2. ad 2; S. Thom., S. III. q. 18. a. 4.). — Ipse titulus quaestionis indicat, auctorem hic, utrum alii sint redemptores, inquirere tantum respectu Patris et Spiritus S., non respectu hominum vel Angelorum; de hac altera quaestione infra d. 20. q. 3. agitur. — In solutione omnes conveniunt.

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 17. m. 1. a. 2, q. 18. m. 6. a. 2. § 3. — S. Thom., hic a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 2; S. loc. cit. a. 5. — B. Albert., hic a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Holy Scripture not rarely expresses the merit and satisfaction of Christ by the metaphor of purchase, or more accurately of redemption, because Christ offered himself to the Father as it were as a price, by which he might free the human race from the obligation by which it was bound both to servitude under the yoke of sin and to the guilt of punishment (cf. 1 Pet. 1:18–19; Gal. 3:13; and below d. 20, q. 6, ad 1; IV Sent. d. 5, a. 3, q. 2, ad 2; St. Thomas, S. III, q. 18, a. 4). — The very title of the question indicates that the author here is inquiring, whether there are other redeemers, only with respect to the Father and the Holy Spirit, not with respect to men or angels; concerning this other question it is treated below at d. 20, q. 3. — In the solution all agree.

**II.** Alex. of Hales, S. p. III, q. 17, m. 1, a. 2, q. 18, m. 6, a. 2, § 3. — St. Thomas, here a. 1, articulus 1, 2; S. loc. cit. a. 5. — Bl. Albert, here a. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1, 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1, 2. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (printed pp.408–409 = PDF 430–431, offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`, raw lines 28439–28519). Printed pages read Left column top→bottom then Right column, body bands then footer bands. No `[?]` flags — both pages legible at 450 dpi. (2026-06-05: p.409 footers 1–5 backfilled from the a2-q2 seam — see page-split map.)

**ARTICULUS II opener folded in.** Per the locked chunking convention, the short ART. II opener (*Consequenter quaeritur de persona redemptoris et mediatoris … circa hoc quaeruntur duo*) plus the article subtitle (*De persona redemptoris et mediatoris*) and the two-question listing are folded into this q1 chunk — no standalone `d19-a2-divisio` chunk.

**ARTICULUS II question titles (article has only 2 questions):**
- q1 (this chunk): *Utrum solus Filius sit redemptor, an etiam Pater et Spiritus sanctus* — "Whether the Son alone is the redeemer, or also the Father and the Holy Spirit."
- q2: *Secundum quam naturam Christus sit mediator* — "According to which nature Christ is the mediator."

**Alignment check (passed).** ART. II opener at raw 28439; QUAESTIO I title at raw 28453; q1 body opens *Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod solus Filius sit redemptor* (raw 28456) — confirms the body is *solus Filius sit redemptor*, matching the title and the listing. q1 ends at raw 28519; QUAESTIO II (*Secundum quam naturam Christus sit mediator*) begins at raw 28520 — the next chunk boundary.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.408** (PDF 430): ART. II opener + subtitle + 2-question listing + QUAESTIO I title + the *Argg. pro 1. parte* (args 1–4) + the opening of *Sed contra* (« Opera Trinitatis sunt indivisa »). q1's footers on this page = **nn.7, 8, 9, 10** (`[^p408-7..10]`). Notes 1–6 + the "In fine solut…" continuation on this page were the property of a1-q4 (per-page footer restart; q4 took p.408 nn.1–6 in its own run).
- **p.409** (PDF 431): the rest of *Sed contra* (args 1–4 completed) + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo + Scholion (I–II). **p.409 footer split by body anchor (corrected 2026-06-05):** notes **1–5 anchor in a2-q1's p.409 content** and were BACKFILLED here (see below); notes **6–8 anchor in a2-q2's opener** (which also begins at the foot of p.409) and live in that chunk.

**p.409 footers 1–5 backfilled (2026-06-05).** When a2-q1 was first promoted it assumed ALL of p.409's footers belonged to a2-q2. Its sibling a2-q2 then verified eyes-on (450 dpi p.409 L-band) that p.409 nn.1–5 actually anchor in a2-q1's tail (the *Sed contra* completion + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo overflow at the top of p.409), and only nn.6–8 serve q2. The five were a cross-chunk seam GAP and are now added here at their true anchors:
- `[^p409-1]` (*Cfr. supra pag. 12, nota 2*) → *Sed contra* arg 1, on « Opera Trinitatis sunt indivisa » (sits beside the existing `[^p408-7]` cross-ref).
- `[^p409-2]` (*Vers. 16*) → *Sed contra* arg 2, on *Ioannis tertio* (John 3:16).
- `[^p409-3]` (*Hic c. 5*) → *Sed contra* arg 4, on *auctoritate Magistri in littera*.
- `[^p409-4]` (*Hic c. 5, ubi et altera sententia … et obedientiae*) → Respondeo, on *Magister dicit in littera* (the *secundum potestatis simul et obedientiae usum* quote).
- `[^p409-5]` (*Cfr. supra d. 1. a. 1. q. 2 … August. Serm. 130. n. 2*) → end of Respondeo/Corollarium, on *sicut aspicienti apparet*.

**Apparatus count: 9 entries** — p.408 nn.7–10 (`[^p408-7..10]`, 4) + p.409 nn.1–5 (`[^p409-1..5]`, 5).

**Scholion.** Present, parts I–II, placed LAST in both the Latin and English `## Latin`/`## English` blocks (parser requirement). The scholion is article/question-level and **forward-covers q2**: scholion I explicitly notes "*de hac altera quaestione infra d. 20. q. 3. agitur*" and the title-scope remark, and scholion II's cross-reference list (Alex. Hal., Thomas, Albert, Tarentaise, Mediavilla, Durandus "de hac et seq. q.", Dionysius "de hac et seq. q.") spans both q1 and q2. `has_scholion: true` for this chunk; q2 will be `has_scholion: false` (this scholion covers it).

**Hand-offs picked up.** NONE migrate in from a1-q4 — q4 took all of p.408's nn.1–6 (per-page restart); a2-q1's p.408 sequence begins at n.7 ("Vide scholion ad 2. huius articuli quaest."), exactly as forwarded by the q4 hand-off.

**Hand-off forwarded to d19-a2-q2:** QUAESTIO II (*Secundum quam naturam Christus sit mediator*) begins at **raw line 28520**, printed **p.409** (PDF 431). Its body starts at the foot of p.409 and continues onto p.410. **Migrating footers (corrected 2026-06-05): q2 inherits only p.409 nn.6–8** (Augustine *de Civitate Dei*; Master's text; *cum* extremis) — these anchor in q2's opener args 1, 2, 4. **p.409 nn.1–5 do NOT migrate; they anchor in a2-q1's own tail and are now held in this chunk** (the original "q2 inherits ALL of p.409's nn.1–8" claim was wrong and was caught by a2-q2's eyes-on read). q2 carries a SEPARATE q2-specific scholion (per a2-q2's correction) — `has_scholion: true` there too. Offset reminder: pdf = printed + 22.

**[?] flags:** none.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 19, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 409 -->

### Articulus II. *De persona redemptoris et mediatoris.*
### Quaestio II. *Secundum quam naturam Christus sit mediator.*

Secundo quaeritur, secundum quam naturam Christus sit mediator. Et quod secundum humanam, ostenditur:

1. Auctoritate Augustini, in nono de Civitate Dei[^p409-6]: « Mediatorem inter nos et Deum mortalitatem oportuit habere transeuntem et beatitudinem permanentem »; sed utrumque horum competit Christo secundum humanam naturam: ergo etc.

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur auctoritate Magistri in littera[^p409-7]: « Mediator dicitur secundum humanitatem, non secundum Divinitatem ».

3. Item, medium debet esse inter extrema, ergo mediator Dei et hominum debet esse infra Deum et supra homines; sed Christus secundum divinam naturam non est inferior Deo: ergo secundum divinam naturam non potest esse mediator: est igitur solum mediator secundum naturam assumtam.

4. Item, medium debet habere differentiam cum[^p409-8] extremis; sed Christus secundum Divinitatem est omnino unum cum Patre: ergo non videtur, quod secundum Divinitatem habeat rationem mediatoris.

<!-- page 410 -->

5. Item, una est offensa totius Trinitatis, sicut una est maiestas[^p410-1]; sed ei fit satisfactio, cui facta est offensa: ergo necesse est, quod satisfactio fiat toti Trinitati; et si hoc, ita fit satisfactio Filio, sicut Patri. Sed constat, quod alterius et alterius naturae est satisfactionem *offerre* et satisfactionem *suscipere*: si ergo Christus satisfacit, secundum quod homo, et eo ipso est mediator, quo satisfacit; videtur, quod sit mediator solum secundum humanam naturam.

**Ad oppositum:**

1. Sed contra hoc est auctoritas, quam Magister adducit in littera[^p410-2]: « Si Christus secundum vos, o haeretici, unam tantum habet naturam, unde *medius* erit. Nisi ita sit *medius*, ut Deus sit propter naturam Divinitatis, et homo propter naturam humanitatis »: ergo esse mediatorem competit Christo secundum utramque naturam.

2. Item, Christus est mediator non per *privationem*, sed per *positionem*; sed *medium per positionem* est medium per participationem utriusque[^p410-3]: ergo Christus non potest esse mediator Dei et nostri nisi per hoc, quod est Deus et homo: ergo mediator est secundum utramque naturam.

3. Item, nunquam *medium* iungit extrema nisi per hoc, quod habet coniunctionem[^p410-4] cum utroque: ergo Christus nunquam nos reconciliaret Deo, nisi esset Deus et homo: redit ergo idem quod prius.

4. Item, nihil tenet rationem *medii*, secundum id quod[^p410-5] tenet rationem *extremi*; sed Christus tenet rationem *extremi* secundum humanam naturam, quia humana natura reconciliata est Deo: ergo non est mediator praecise secundum illam.

5. Item, si Christus est mediator secundum humanam naturam, hoc non potest esse, nisi quia[^p410-6] in quadam proprietate communicat nobiscum, in quadam cum Deo; sed Angeli boni et angeli mali in aliqua proprietate nobiscum conveniunt, in aliqua cum Deo: ergo possunt dici mediatores inter nos et Deum. Si ergo *mediatores* non dicuntur, videtur, quod mediatio non conveniat Christo secundum convenientiam proprietatum, sed secundum participationem duarum naturarum: ergo ita convenit Christo esse mediatorem secundum divinam naturam, sicut secundum humanam.

### Conclusio.

> Christus est medius vel ratione utriusque naturae, vel ratione humanitatis; sed mediator est secundum naturam humanam.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod differt dicere esse *medium* et esse *mediatorem*. *Medium* namque dicit communicantiam[^p410-7] cum extremis. *Mediator* autem non tantum dicit communicantiam, sed etiam dicit *officium* reconciliationis. Aliter igitur respondendum est, cum quaeritur, qualiter Christus sit *medius* inter humanam naturam et divinam; aliter, cum quaeritur, qualiter[^p410-8] sit *mediator*.

Si enim quaeratur, qualiter sit *medius*; responderi potest, quod medium inter duas naturas potest aliquid dici tripliciter: aut ita, quod in eo concurrant duae naturae, sicut in *natura*[^p410-9] *tertia*; aut ita, quod in eo concurrant duae naturae, sicut in *persona*; aut ita, quod in eo concurrant *proprietates* duabus naturis conformes. — *Primo* modo accipiendo *medium*, nihil potest esse medium inter humanam naturam et divinam, nec Christus nec aliud, quia non potest ex humana natura et divina constitui aliquod tertium. *Secundo* modo accipiendo *medium*, sic Christus est medium inter humanam naturam et divinam, in quantum est una persona in duabus naturis, non ratione humanae naturae tantum, nec ratione divinae, sed ratione utriusque[^p410-10]. *Tertio* modo accipiendo *medium*, Christus est medium inter Deum et homines secundum *humanitatem*, in quantum habet *mortalitatem* simul et *beatitudinem*: mortalitatem, inquam, in qua communicat cum hominibus; beatitudinem, inquam, in qua communicat cum Deo[^p410-11].

<!-- page 411 -->

Si vero quaeratur, qualiter et secundum quam naturam Christus sit *mediator*; cum *mediator* dicat officium reconciliationis, et *mediator* debeat differre ab illis quos reconciliat, et Christus secundum divinam naturam sit ille cui fit reconciliatio, dicendum, quod non potest esse mediator secundum divinam naturam, sed secundum humanam, in qua potest reconciliare secundum diversas *proprietates*, in quibus communicat cum Deo et cum homine[^p411-1]. Habebat enim *iustitiam* et innocentiam, in qua communicat cum Deo, et *mortalitatem*, in qua communicat cum homine; et dum mors coniungitur iustitiae, in eodem confoederatur homo peccator et mortalis Deo iusto et immortali. *Reconciliati* enim *sumus Deo per mortem* hominis innocentis[^p411-2]. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ostendentes, quod Christus est mediator secundum humanam naturam.

**Ad oppositorum:**

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod Christus est *medius* propter naturam Divinitatis et humanitatis; iam patet responsio per ea quae dicta sunt. Non enim est idem dicere esse *mediatorem* et esse *medium*; veruntamen *mediator* esse non posset, nisi esset *medius*. Quod enim simul et semel sit *beatus* et *mortalis*, hoc habet, quia *homo* et *Deus*; utraque tamen istarum duarum proprietatum convenit ei secundum *humanam* naturam, ita quod *mortalitas* convenit humanae naturae in se, et *beatitudo* competit ei, in quantum est unita divinae.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod mediator debet participare naturam utriusque extremi; dicendum, quod et *medium* et *mediator* non dicitur solum per *participationem utriusque naturae*, sicut prius dictum est, sed etiam per *convenientiam in proprietate*. Et Christus secundum humanam naturam habet proprietates convenientes divinae naturae pariter et humanae.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *medium* non iungit extrema nisi per convenientiam, quam habet cum eis; dicendum, quod iam patet responsio, quia convenientia secundum *proprietatem* est illa quae potest extrema conciliare, maxime quando extrema coniungi habent per illud medium et perduci ad conformitatem *voluntatis*, non ad conformitatem *naturae*. Per Christum enim homo reconciliatur Deo, ut sit *beatus*, et ita, ut fiat de mortali immortalis, de peccatore iustus, de misero beatus, non ut[^p411-3] reconciliatus fiat *Deus*, quamvis ipse Christus sit Deus.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Christus est *extremum* secundum naturam humanam; dicendum, quod falsum est; nam humana natura in Christo nunquam indiguit reconciliatione; unde non erat *reconciliata*, sed *reconcilians*, secundum quod dicitur secundae ad Corinthios quinto[^p411-4]: *Deus erat in Christo sibi reconcilians mundum*. Alterius enim conditionis erat natura humana in aliis hominibus, alterius in Christo; in aliis enim erat peccatrix, in Christo erat immunis ab omni culpa.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si mediator dicitur propter convenientiam in proprietatibus, quod daemon debet dici mediator; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia non habet proprietates mediatori convenientes, secundum quod exponit Augustinus in libro de Civitate Dei nono[^p411-5] aliquantulum prolixe, sed tamen utiliter. Ait enim sic: « Mediatorem inter Deum et hominem mortalitatem oportuit habere transeuntem et beatitudinem permanentem, ut per id quod transit, congrueret morituris, et ad id quod permanet, transferret ex mortuis. Boni igitur Angeli inter miseros et mortales et beatos et immortales medii esse non possunt, quia illi quoque beati et immortales sunt; possunt autem medii esse mali angeli, quia immortales sunt cum ipsis et miseri cum istis. His contrarius est mediator bonus, quia adversus horum immortalitatem et miseriam et mortalis ad tempus existere voluit et beatus in aeternitate persistere potuit ». — Et quod sint contrarii, hoc ipse ostendit amplius consequenter[^p411-6]: « Ad hoc interponit se medius immortalis et miser, ut ad immortalitatem beatam transire non sinat. Ad hoc autem se interponit mortalis et beatus, ut, morte transacta, ex mortuis faceret immortales ». — Et sic patet, quomodo convenientia proprietatum in Christo faciat ad officium boni mediatoris, in daemone vero faciat ad contrarium. Et sic patet responsio ad quaesita.

english:
### Article II. *On the person of the redeemer and mediator.*
### Question II. *According to which nature Christ is the mediator.*

Secondly it is asked, according to which nature Christ is the mediator. And that it is according to the human [nature] is shown:

1. By the authority of Augustine, in the ninth book of *On the City of God*[^p409-6]: « The mediator between us and God ought to have a passing mortality and a permanent blessedness »; but both of these befit Christ according to the human nature: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, this same point is shown by the authority of the Master in the text[^p409-7]: « He is called mediator according to humanity, not according to Divinity ».

3. Likewise, a *middle* must be between extremes, therefore the mediator of God and men must be below God and above men; but Christ according to the divine nature is not below God: therefore according to the divine nature he cannot be a mediator: he is therefore a mediator only according to the assumed nature.

4. Likewise, a *middle* must have a difference with[^p409-8] the extremes; but Christ according to Divinity is altogether one with the Father: therefore it does not seem that according to Divinity he has the character of a mediator.

5. Likewise, there is one offense against the whole Trinity, just as there is one majesty[^p410-1]; but satisfaction is made to him to whom the offense was done: therefore it is necessary that satisfaction be made to the whole Trinity; and if this, then satisfaction is made to the Son just as to the Father. But it is established that it belongs to one nature and to another to *offer* satisfaction and to *receive* satisfaction: if therefore Christ makes satisfaction insofar as he is man, and by that very fact is mediator by which he makes satisfaction; it seems that he is mediator only according to the human nature.

**On the contrary:**

1. But against this is the authority which the Master adduces in the text[^p410-2]: « If Christ, according to you, O heretics, has only one nature, whence will he be *middle*. Unless he is so *middle* that he is God by reason of the nature of Divinity, and man by reason of the nature of humanity »: therefore to be mediator befits Christ according to both natures.

2. Likewise, Christ is mediator not by *privation*, but by *position*; but a *middle by position* is a middle by participation in both[^p410-3]: therefore Christ cannot be mediator of God and of us except by this, that he is God and man: therefore he is mediator according to both natures.

3. Likewise, a *middle* never joins extremes except by this, that it has a conjunction[^p410-4] with each: therefore Christ would never reconcile us to God unless he were God and man: therefore the same returns as before.

4. Likewise, nothing holds the character of *middle* according to that by which[^p410-5] it holds the character of *extreme*; but Christ holds the character of *extreme* according to the human nature, because the human nature was reconciled to God: therefore he is not mediator precisely according to it.

5. Likewise, if Christ is mediator according to the human nature, this cannot be except because[^p410-6] in a certain property he has in common with us, and in a certain [property] with God; but good Angels and bad angels agree with us in some property, and in some with God: therefore they can be called mediators between us and God. If therefore they are not called *mediators*, it seems that mediation does not befit Christ according to the agreement of properties, but according to participation in the two natures: therefore it befits Christ to be mediator according to the divine nature just as according to the human.

### Conclusion.

> Christ is *middle* either by reason of both natures, or by reason of humanity; but he is mediator according to the human nature.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that it differs to say to be a *middle* and to be a *mediator*. For *middle* asserts a sharing-in-common[^p410-7] with the extremes. But *mediator* not only asserts a sharing-in-common, but also asserts the *office* of reconciliation. Therefore it must be answered otherwise when it is asked how Christ is a *middle* between the human nature and the divine; otherwise when it is asked how[^p410-8] he is a *mediator*.

For if it be asked how he is a *middle*; it can be answered that a middle between two natures can be said to be something in three ways: either thus, that in it two natures concur, as in a *third nature*[^p410-9]; or thus, that in it two natures concur, as in a *person*; or thus, that in it concur *properties* conformed to the two natures. — Taking *middle* in the *first* way, nothing can be a middle between the human nature and the divine, neither Christ nor anything else, because there cannot be constituted out of the human nature and the divine any third thing. Taking *middle* in the *second* way, thus Christ is a middle between the human nature and the divine, insofar as he is one person in two natures, not by reason of the human nature alone, nor by reason of the divine, but by reason of both[^p410-10]. Taking *middle* in the *third* way, Christ is a middle between God and men according to *humanity*, insofar as he has *mortality* together with *blessedness*: mortality, I say, in which he has in common with men; blessedness, I say, in which he has in common with God[^p410-11].

But if it be asked how and according to which nature Christ is a *mediator*; since *mediator* asserts the office of reconciliation, and a *mediator* must differ from those whom he reconciles, and Christ according to the divine nature is the one to whom reconciliation is made, it must be said that he cannot be mediator according to the divine nature, but according to the human, in which he can reconcile according to the diverse *properties* in which he has in common with God and with man[^p411-1]. For he had *justice* and innocence, in which he has in common with God, and *mortality*, in which he has in common with man; and while death is joined to justice, in the same [Christ] sinful and mortal man is confederated with the just and immortal God. For *we are reconciled to God by the death* of an innocent man[^p411-2]. — Therefore the reasons showing that Christ is mediator according to the human nature must be granted.

**To the objections to the contrary:**

1. To that which is objected, that Christ is *middle* by reason of the nature of Divinity and of humanity; the response is already clear from the things that have been said. For it is not the same to say to be a *mediator* and to be a *middle*; nevertheless he could not be a *mediator* unless he were a *middle*. For that he is at once and simultaneously *blessed* and *mortal*, this he has because he is *man* and *God*; yet both of these two properties befit him according to the *human* nature, so that *mortality* befits the human nature in itself, and *blessedness* belongs to it insofar as it is united to the divine.

2. To that which is objected, that the mediator must participate in the nature of each extreme; it must be said that both *middle* and *mediator* are not said only by *participation in both natures*, as was said before, but also by *agreement in property*. And Christ according to the human nature has properties agreeing with the divine nature equally and with the human.

3. To that which is objected, that the *middle* does not join extremes except by the agreement which it has with them; it must be said that the response is already clear, because the agreement according to *property* is that which can reconcile the extremes, especially when the extremes are to be joined through that middle and led to conformity of *will*, not to conformity of *nature*. For through Christ man is reconciled to God, that he may be *blessed*, and so, that of a mortal he becomes immortal, of a sinner just, of a wretched one blessed, not that[^p411-3] the reconciled one becomes *God*, although Christ himself is God.

4. To that which is objected, that Christ is an *extreme* according to the human nature; it must be said that it is false; for the human nature in Christ never needed reconciliation; whence it was not *reconciled*, but *reconciling*, according to what is said in second Corinthians, chapter five[^p411-4]: *God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself*. For the human nature was of one condition in other men, of another in Christ; for in others it was sinful, in Christ it was free from all fault.

5. To that which is objected, that if a mediator is said [to be such] on account of agreement in properties, then a demon must be called a mediator; it must be said that it is not alike, because it does not have properties agreeing with a mediator, according to what Augustine expounds in the ninth book of *On the City of God*[^p411-5] somewhat at length, but nevertheless usefully. For he speaks thus: « The mediator between God and man ought to have a passing mortality and a permanent blessedness, that by that which passes he might be suited to those about to die, and to that which permanently remains he might transfer them from the dead. Therefore the good Angels cannot be middles between the wretched and mortal and the blessed and immortal, because they too are blessed and immortal; but the bad angels can be middles, because they are immortal with the former and wretched with the latter. Contrary to these is the good mediator, because against their immortality and wretchedness he willed both to exist as mortal for a time and was able to persist as blessed in eternity ». — And that they are contrary, this he himself shows further on consequently[^p411-6]: « To this end the immortal and wretched [mediator] interposes himself, that he may not allow [the soul] to pass over to blessed immortality. But to this end the mortal and blessed one interposes himself, that, death being accomplished, he might make immortals from the dead ». — And so it is clear how the agreement of properties in Christ contributes to the office of a good mediator, but in the demon contributes to the contrary. And so the response to the things asked is clear.

la: Cap. 15. n. 1. — Pro *Mediatorem* multi codd. *Mediator*. Subinde edd. inter *Deum* et *mortalitatem* inserunt *et*, quod et in textu origin. habetur.

en: [On the City of God IX,] chapter 15, n. 1. — For *Mediatorem* many codices [read] *Mediator*. Thereupon the editions insert *et* between *Deum* and *mortalitatem*, which is also found in the original text.

la: Hic c. 7. Ibid. et duo seqq. argg. insinuantur.

en: Here [in the text of the Master] chapter 7. There also the two following arguments are intimated.

la: Vat. *ab*.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *ab* ["from"].

la: Cfr. supra d. 9. dub. 2. — In conclus. arg. pro *satisfacit* codd. AHKT bis *satisfecit*.

en: Cf. above, d. 9, dubium 2. — In the conclusion of the argument, for *satisfacit* codices AHKT [read] twice *satisfecit*.

la: Hic c. 7, et sumta est ex Vigilio Taps., V. contra Eutycheten n. 15.

en: Here [in the text] chapter 7, and it is taken from Vigilius of Thapsus, *Against Eutyches* V, n. 15.

la: Vide dictum Aristot., supra pag. 19, nota 6. allegatum. — Edd. plenius *utriusque extremi*, et subinde *potuit* pro *potest*. Mox pro *nostri* codd. A G H K L T aa *noster*, cod. Z *nostrum*.

en: See the saying of Aristotle adduced above on page 19, note 6. — The editions [read] more fully *utriusque extremi* ["of each extreme"], and thereupon *potuit* for *potest*. Soon, for *nostri* codices A G H K L T aa [read] *noster*, codex Z *nostrum*.

la: Edd. *communicationem*.

en: The editions [read] *communicationem*.

la: Edd. *secundum illud, secundum quod*.

en: The editions [read] *secundum illud, secundum quod*.

la: Ita codd. AKZbb, in aliis et edd. deest *quia*.

en: Thus codices AKZbb; in the others and in the editions *quia* is lacking.

la: Edd. cum nonnullis codd. hic et paulo inferius *convenientiam*.

en: The editions, with some codices, [read] here and a little below *convenientiam*.

la: Cod. F *quo modo*. Paulo inferius pro *si enim quaeratur* cod. A *si autem quaeratur*.

en: Codex F [reads] *quo modo*. A little below, for *si enim quaeratur* codex A [reads] *si autem quaeratur*.

la: Vat. *in una natura*, et paulo post cum edd. 1, 2 pariter *in una persona*. Pro *in natura tertia* edd. 1, 2 *in una materia*. Infra codd. G H V bis *accipiendi* pro *accipiendo*.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *in una natura*, and a little later, with editions 1, 2, likewise *in una persona*. For *in natura tertia* editions 1, 2 [read] *in una materia*. Below, codices G H V [read] twice *accipiendi* for *accipiendo*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 6. a. 2. q. 1. — Post *divinae* edd. repetunt *tantum*.

en: Cf. above, d. 6, a. 2, q. 1. — After *divinae* the editions repeat *tantum*.

la: Vide hic fundam. 1. et infra solut. ad 1. — Edd., omisso *inquam*, verbo *communicat* praemittunt *maxime*.

en: See here fundamentum 1 and below the solution to [objection] 1. — The editions, omitting *inquam*, prefix *maxime* to the verb *communicat*.

la: August., X. Confess. c. 43. n. 68: *In quantum enim homo, in tantum mediator; in quantum autem Verbum, non medius, quia aequalis Deo et Deus apud Deum et simul cum Spiritu sancto unus Deus*. Idem dicit in Enarrat. Ps. 103. serm. 4. n. 8.

en: Augustine, *Confessions* X, c. 43, n. 68: *For insofar as he is man, so far is he mediator; but insofar as he is the Word, he is not a middle, because [he is] equal to God and God with God and together with the Holy Spirit one God*. He says the same in the *Enarration on Psalm 103*, sermon 4, n. 8.

la: Rom. 5, 10: *Reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem Filii eius*. Cfr. supra pag. 42, nota 8.

en: Romans 5:10: *We are reconciled to God by the death of his Son*. Cf. above, page 42, note 8.

la: Codd. AKPQbb hic repetunt *homo*. In initio solut. pro *iungit* codd. 1 L aa *coniungit*.

en: Codices AKPQbb here repeat *homo*. At the beginning of the solution, for *iungit* codices 1 L aa [read] *coniungit*.

la: Vers. 19. — Paulo ante pro *reconciliata* cod. Z *reconcilianda*. In fine solut. cod. U *in Christo vero erat*, codd. F G I L N T V Z aa *in Christo enim erat*.

en: Verse 19. — A little before, for *reconciliata* codex Z [reads] *reconcilianda*. At the end of the solution codex U [reads] *in Christo vero erat*, codices F G I L N T V Z aa *in Christo enim erat*.

la: Cap. 15. n. 1. In exposit. August. Vat. cum textu origin. pro *inter miseros et mortales et beatos et immortales* habet *inter miseros mortales et beatos immortales*, et paulo inferius *qui adversus* pro *quia adversus*. — Aliquanto superius versus initium solut. edd. voci *mediatori* praefigunt *bono*.

en: [On the City of God IX,] chapter 15, n. 1. In the exposition of Augustine the Vatican edition, with the original text, for *inter miseros et mortales et beatos et immortales* has *inter miseros mortales et beatos immortales*, and a little below *qui adversus* for *quia adversus*. — Somewhat higher, toward the beginning of the solution, the editions prefix *bono* to the word *mediatori*.

la: Loc. cit. n. 2, ubi textus origin. post *transire non sinat* sic prosequitur: *quoniam persistit quod impedit, id est ipsa miseria. Ad hoc autem se interposuit mortalis et beatus, ut mortalitate transacta* etc. — In fine testimonii post *faceret immortales* edd. ex August. addunt: *quod in se resurgendo monstravit, et ex miseris beatos, unde nunquam ipse discessit. Alius est ergo medius malus, qui separat amicos; alius bonus, qui reconciliavit* [ed. oper. August. *reconciliat*] *inimicos*. — Ante testimon. Aug. pro *hoc ipse* codd. AKZ *hoc ipsum*.

en: At the place cited, n. 2, where the original text, after *transire non sinat*, continues thus: *because that persists which impedes, that is, wretchedness itself. But to this end the mortal and blessed one interposed himself, that, mortality being accomplished* etc. — At the end of the testimony, after *faceret immortales*, the editions add from Augustine: *which he showed in himself by rising again, and [made] blessed from the wretched, whence he himself never departed. There is therefore one evil middle, who separates friends; another good [middle], who reconciled* [the edition of Augustine's works: *reconciles*] *enemies*. — Before Augustine's testimony, for *hoc ipse* codices AKZ [read] *hoc ipsum*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Nomen *mediatoris* proprie respicit officium reconciliationis, quo quis inter dissidentes intercedit; unde bene dicit auctor, quod differat esse *medius*, scilicet secundum substantiam, et esse *mediator*, scilicet secundum operationem. Vulgo tamen eodem nomine *mediatoris* utrumque in Christo significatur (cfr. S. Thom., S. III. q. 26. a. 1. 2.) — Fide constat, Christum esse Dei et hominum mediatorem, et quidem ipsum *solum* esse perfectum mediatorem, « in quantum per suam mortem humanum genus Deo reconciliavit... Nihil tamen prohibet, aliquos alios *secundum quid* dici mediatores inter Deum et homines, prout scilicet cooperantur ad unionem hominum cum Deo *dispositive*, vel *ministerialiter* » (S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 1.).

<!-- page 412 -->

**II.** Ariani, ipsum Filium Dei esse minorem Patre asserentes, Christum secundum *personam divinam* medium et mediatorem esse blasphemabant. Saeculo XVI. occasione cuiusdam controversiae inter Stancarum et Osiandrum, Regiomontanae universitatis professores, duo alii extremi errores inter Protestantes acri certamine defensi sunt. Stancarus enim docuit, Christum non nisi secundum *humanam* praecise naturam esse mediatorem; pro qua sententia profert testimonia (sed male intellecta) Petri Lombardi et aliorum Scholasticorum, quos mirifice exaltat super omnes suae aetatis theologos. Sed adversarii eius, inter quos fuit Calvinus, in oppositum abrepti sunt errorem, docentes, Christum fuisse mediatorem secundum *utramque naturam*, vel etiam secundum quod est *aeternum Verbum* (de hac controversia cfr. Petavius, XII. de Incarnat. c. 3. 4.). Sed Catholici concorditer docent, neque humanitatem in abstracto neque Divinitatem, neque Verbum aeternum in se, neque Christum praecise ratione divinae naturae dici posse mediatorem, sed tantum prout Christus est *hic homo*, coniunctus Deo in persona Verbi, vel etiam, ut aliqui dicunt, prout divina persona dicitur composita, id est subsistens in utraque natura.

**III.** Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 18. m. 6. a. 2. § 1. 2. — Scoti locos collectos vide apud Hieron. de Montefortino t. IV. q. 26. a. 1. 2. — S. Thom., hic a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. 3; S. locc. citt. — B. Albert., hic a. 10. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 5. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. 4.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The name *mediator* properly regards the office of reconciliation, by which someone intervenes between those who are at variance; whence the author rightly says that to be a *middle* differs — namely according to substance — and to be a *mediator* — namely according to operation. Commonly, however, both are signified in Christ by the same name of *mediator* (cf. St. Thomas, *Summa* III, q. 26, a. 1, 2). — It is established by faith that Christ is the mediator of God and of men, and indeed that he alone is the *perfect* mediator, « insofar as by his death he reconciled the human race to God... Nothing, however, prevents some others from being called mediators *in a certain respect* between God and men, namely insofar as they cooperate toward the union of men with God *dispositively* or *ministerially* » (St. Thomas, loc. cit., a. 1).

**II.** The Arians, asserting that the Son of God himself is less than the Father, blasphemously held Christ to be middle and mediator according to the *divine person*. In the sixteenth century, on the occasion of a certain controversy between Stancarus and Osiander, professors of the University of Königsberg, two other extreme errors were defended among the Protestants in fierce contention. For Stancarus taught that Christ is mediator only according to the *human* nature precisely; for which opinion he brings forward testimonies (but badly understood) of Peter Lombard and of other Scholastics, whom he marvelously exalts above all the theologians of his age. But his adversaries, among whom was Calvin, were carried away into the opposite error, teaching that Christ was mediator according to *both natures*, or even according to what he is as the *eternal Word* (concerning this controversy cf. Petavius, XII, *On the Incarnation*, c. 3, 4). But Catholics teach with one accord that neither humanity in the abstract nor Divinity, nor the eternal Word in itself, nor Christ precisely by reason of the divine nature, can be called mediator, but only insofar as Christ is *this man*, conjoined to God in the person of the Word, or even, as some say, insofar as the divine person is said to be composite, that is, subsisting in both natures.

**III.** Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. III, q. 18, m. 6, a. 2, § 1, 2. — For the collected passages of Scotus see Hieronymus de Montefortino, t. IV, q. 26, a. 1, 2. — St. Thomas, here a. 3, sub-question 2, 3; St. [Thomas] at the places cited. — Bl. Albert, here a. 10. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 5, a. 1, 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 3, 4.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{409,410,411,412}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`, lines 28520–28691). Offset pdf = printed + 22 (printed 409–412 → PDF 431–434). PDF authoritative per the Vol II/III override (cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/footers); OCR used only as a spacing cross-check.

**Page-split map:**
- **p.409** (PDF 431): q2 opener (*Secundo quaeritur … secundum quam naturam Christus sit mediator*) + args 1–4. Apparatus on p.409 = **nn.6, 7, 8** (`[^p409-6..8]`). The top of p.409 (the CONCLUSIO, Respondeo, and Scholion I–II of the *preceding* question a2-q1, which overflow onto this page) carries p.409 footers **nn.1–5** — see hand-off note below.
- **p.410** (PDF 432): arg.5 + *Ad oppositum* args 1–5 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (the *medium*-threefold distinction). Apparatus = **nn.1–11** (`[^p410-1..11]`).
- **p.411** (PDF 433): continuation of Respondeo (*Reconciliati sumus Deo…*) + *Ad oppositorum* replies 1–5 + beginning of Scholion I. Apparatus = **nn.1–6** (`[^p411-1..6]`). The Scholion's citations are inline parentheticals (S. Thom., Augustine), NOT numbered footnotes.
- **p.412** (PDF 434): Scholion II (Stancarus/Osiander/Calvin controversy) + Scholion III (cross-reference list), ending at *Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. 4.* No numbered apparatus on the q2 portion of p.412 (the p.412 footers nn.5,6 belong to the following d19-dubia DUB. I–II).

**Apparatus count: 20 entries** — p.409 nn.6–8 (3); p.410 nn.1–11 (11); p.411 nn.1–6 (6).

**Scholion:** Present, parts **I, II, III**, q2-specific, placed LAST in both the `## Latin` and `## English` blocks (parser requirement). `has_scholion: true`. **NOTE — corrects the inbound hand-off:** the a2-q1 hand-off predicted `has_scholion: false` (claiming a2-q1's scholion forward-covers q2). Eyes-on p.411 R / p.412 confirms a SEPARATE q2-specific SCHOLION is printed at the foot of pp.411–412 (I: *Nomen mediatoris…*; II: *Ariani… Stancarus/Osiander/Calvin…*; III: Alex. Hal./Scotus/Thomas/Albert/Tarentaise/Mediavilla cross-refs). It is distinct from a2-q1's scholion. Set `has_scholion: true`.

**Hand-off picked up (from a2-q1):** The inbound hand-off claimed "q2 inherits ALL of p.409's nn.1–8." Eyes-on the 450 dpi p.409 bands shows the split is by body anchor: **p.409 nn.6, 7, 8 serve q2** (this chunk's args 1, 2, 4 — `Civitate Dei⁶`, `Magistri in littera⁷`, `cum⁸ extremis`) and were picked up here. **p.409 nn.1–5 serve the TAIL of a2-q1** (its CONCLUSIO/Respondeo/Scholion overflow at the top of p.409 — markers `sa¹`, `Ioannis tertio²`, `in littera³`/`⁴`, `aspicienti apparet⁵`). a2-q1 (already committed) captured NO p.409 apparatus, so **p.409 nn.1–5 remain uncaptured** — flag for the d.11–d.20 decade-polish gate (d.20) to retire into a2-q1.

**Hand-off forwarded to d19-dubia:** **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI** (DUB. I, II, …) begins on printed **p.412** (PDF 434), **raw line 28692**. DUB. I opens: `In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: A peccatis per eius mortem soluti sumus, quia per ipsius mortem commendatur nobis caritas Dei…`. **Migrating footers:** the dubia chunk inherits **p.412 nn.5, 6** (`5 Art. 1. q. 1. in corp.`; `6 Edd. verba male sic permutarunt: excitatio, in quantum credita, et directio, in quantum amata.`) plus p.412 nn.1–4 of the dubia column (`1 In edd. deest Deum`; `2 Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1…`; `3 Edd. post.`; `4 Hic c. 1: Morte quippe sua uno verissimo sacrificio…`) — i.e. the q2 portion of p.412 has NO footers to hand off, but the dubia's own p.412 footer sequence (nn.1–6) is entirely its property. **Expected DUB count:** scan raw for `Dub.`/`DUB.` markers within d.19's dubia block (DUB. I at raw 28695, DUB. II at raw ~28722) before chunking. Offset reminder: pdf = printed + 22. **(d.20 is the next Vol III decade-polish gate — NOT YET; fires when d.20 closes, sweeping d.11–d.20.)**

**[?] flags:** None — all four pages legible at 450 dpi.