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

source_text:
<!-- page 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 primo[^p399-5]: *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.

<!-- page 400 -->

2. Item, ad Hebraeos nono[^p400-1]: *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 Evangelio[^p400-2]: *Hic est calix novi et aeterni Testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.*

4. Item, Sacramenta iustificant[^p400-3]; sed omnia Sacramenta iustificationem habent a passione Christi: ergo multo fortius Christi passio est efficax in iustificando.

**Sed contra:** 1. Ad Romanos quarto[^p400-4]: *Traditus est propter delicta nostra, et resurrexit propter iustificationem nostram*: ergo videtur, quod iustificatio sit a resurrectione, non a passione.

2. Item, Isaiae quadragesimo tertio[^p400-5]: *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 quarto[^p400-6] 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 spiritualem[^p400-7]; 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 resurgendo[^p400-8]. 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 textu[^p400-9] 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 opponendo[^p400-10] 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 duobus[^p400-11] attribuitur iustificatio secundum proprietatem cuiuslibet generis causae.

<!-- page 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, attribuuntur[^p401-1] 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 secundo[^p401-2]: *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 Glossa[^p401-3]. Dirigit etiam nos, dum ad eius exemplar conamur ambulare in novitate vitae, iuxta illud quod dicitur ad Romanos sexto[^p401-4]: *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 Glossa[^p401-5]: *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 infunditur[^p401-6] 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 naturam[^p401-7]; 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 iustificato[^p401-8]; 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 tertio[^p401-9]: *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;

<!-- page 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 responsionis[^p402-1], ubi etiam determinatum est, qualiter differenti modo iustificatio nostra passioni et resurrectioni Christi habeat attribui.

english:
### 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 1[^p399-5]: *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 9[^p400-1]: *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 Gospel[^p400-2]: *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 justify[^p400-3]; 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 4[^p400-4]: *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 43[^p400-5]: *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 fourth[^p400-6]: 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 thing[^p400-7]; 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 rising[^p400-8]. 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 text[^p400-9] 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 objecting[^p400-10]. 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 two[^p400-11] 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 attributed[^p401-1] 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 2[^p401-2]: *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 Gloss[^p401-3]. 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 6[^p401-4]: *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 Gloss[^p401-5]: *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 infused[^p401-6] 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 nature[^p401-7]; 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 justified[^p401-8]; 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 3[^p401-9]: *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 response[^p402-1], 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.

la: Vers. 5. — In minori pro *abluere* cod. U *lavare*, codd. H I L T V Z aa *absolvere*.

en: [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).

la: Vers. 22. — Seq. Scripturae locus ibid. v. 14.

en: [Heb. 9,] v. 22. — The following Scripture passage [is] in the same place, v. 14.

la: 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.

en: 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.

la: Vers. 25.

la: 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.

en: 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].

la: Semper enim, ut Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 19. (c. 5.) ait, honorabilius est agens patiente. — Mox pro *potest* edd. *potuit*.

en: 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).

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XVIII. c. 1. seqq., ubi meritum attribuitur actionibus et passionibus pro tempore vitae mortalis.

en: 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.

la: 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.

en: 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.

la: In ultimo arg.

en: In the last argument.

la: Pro *duobus* codd. A K *modis*.

en: For *duobus* (two) codd. A K [read] *modis* (modes).

la: Multi codd. *attribuitur*.

en: Many codd. [read] *attribuitur* (it is attributed) [singular].

la: Vers. 21. — Seq. Script. locus est Rom. 6, 5.

en: [1 Pet. 2,] v. 21. — The following Scripture passage is Rom. 6, 5.

la: 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*.

en: 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*.

la: Vers. 4. — Paulo inferius voci *passio* cod. N adtexit *Christi*.

en: [Rom. 6,] v. 4. — A little below, to the word *passio* cod. N appended *Christi*.

la: 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.

en: 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.

la: Cod. X *quod iustificatio per gratiam habet infundi*.

en: Cod. X [reads] *that justification has its infusion through grace*.

la: Cfr. verba August., supra pag. 223, nota 1. relata — Pro *ipsius* edd. *sui*.

en: Cf. the words of Augustine, reported above p. 223, note 1. — For *ipsius* the editions [read] *sui*.

la: Cod. A bene *iustificando*.

en: Cod. A correctly [reads] *iustificando*.

la: 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*.

en: [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*.

latin_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_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.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p399..402-{L,R}-*`) with IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` raw lines 27852–28070) used as cross-check. Per VOL II/III OVERRIDE the column-band PDF read is authoritative wherever the OCR cascade-fragments the Respondeo/Solutio/footers. Offset pdf = printed + 22.

**Page-split map (printed → content):**
- **p.399 (foot):** ARTICULUS I opener (folded in, no standalone divisio chunk — locked convention) + QUAESTIO I title + body opener through arg 1 (`...ergo a passione est peccatorum remissio et iustificatio`). Footer: **n.5 only** (`[^p399-5]`) — picked up from the d19-divisio hand-off (divisio held p.399 nn.1–4).
- **p.400:** args 2–4, *Sed contra* 1–6, *Est igitur quaestio*, *Conclusio*, *Respondeo* through `...secundum proprietatem cuiuslibet generis causae`. Footer: **nn.1–11** (`[^p400-1..11]`).
- **p.401:** *Attamen ratio merendi* through replies (Solutio oppositorum) 1–6 opener (`...in quo genere causae passio Christi sit principium nostrae iustificationis;`). Footer: **nn.1–9** (`[^p401-1..9]`).
- **p.402:** reply 6 completion (`iam patet responsio ... habeat attribui`) + SCHOLION I–V. Footer for q1: **n.1 only** (`[^p402-1]`); the L-footer's n.2 and the R-footer's nn.3–4 on p.402 belong to QUAESTIO II (`...chirographorum deletio`), past this chunk's boundary — FORWARDED to d19-a1-q2.

**Hand-offs picked up:** p.399 footer n.5 (`Vers. 5. — In minori pro abluere…`), anchored on *in sanguine suo⁵* in arg 1, per the d19-divisio resume note.

**Hand-off forwarded → d19-a1-q2:** QUAESTIO II (*Utrum per passionem Christi facta fuerit chirographorum deletio*) begins on printed **p.402** (raw line 28071). The QUAESTIO II opener + arg 1 already print at the foot of p.402 (`Secundo quaeritur, utrum per passionem Christi facta fuerit chirographorum deletio. Et quod sic, videtur: 1. Primo auctoritate Apostoli ad Colossenses secundo²: Donans nobis delicta…`); arg 2 (`Item, hoc ipsum videtur auctoritate Augustini…³`) and arg 3 (`Item, omnia merita et demerita scribuntur…⁴`) also begin on p.402's R column. **Migrating footers to q2:** p.402 footer **n.2** (`Vers. 13. seq. Vulgata: donans vobis omnia delicta; delens.`, anchored on *Colossenses secundo²*), **n.3** (`Hic c. 1.`, anchored on the Augustine/Magister citation in q2 arg 2), **n.4** (`Vers. 1. — In minori respicitur Matth. 3, 7. et Luc. 3, 7.`, anchored on *Ieremiae decimo septimo⁴* in q2 arg 3). q2 picks up p.402 foot → p.403+, own footer sequences restart per page.

**Scholion status:** q1 carries a full 5-part scholion (I–V). It **forward-covers** the whole ARTICULUS I: scholion I explicitly cross-refers `dub. 1-5` (the d18/d19 dubia) and `infra d. 20`; scholion IV cross-refers `infra q. 4. ad 1`; scholion V is the per-author parallel-places list for the entire article. q2/q3/q4 may legitimately carry no scholion of their own (sibling-scholion convention) — to be verified when those chunks are built.

**[?] flags:** none. All four pages legible at 450 dpi; OCR garbles (e.g. *QHAEST.* running head, *iustifteatio*, *attribuun-tur* line-break) silently corrected against the PDF bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 402 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum per passionem Christi facta fuerit chirographorum deletio.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum per passionem Christi facta fuerit chirographorum deletio. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Primo auctoritate Apostoli ad Colossenses secundo[^p402-2]: *Donans nobis delicta et delens quod adversum nos erat chirographum decreti, quod erat contrarium nobis.*

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur auctoritate Augustini, quam Magister ponit in littera[^p402-3]: « *Fuso sanguine sine culpa, omnium culparum chirographa deleta sunt* ».

3. Item, omnia merita et demerita scribuntur a iusto iudice, iuxta illud quod dicitur Ieremiae decimo septimo[^p402-4]: *Peccatum Iudae scriptum est stylo*

<!-- page 403 -->

*ferreo in ungue adamantino*; sed passio Christi nos liberavit ab ira ventura: ergo delevit nostrarum culparum chirographa.

4. Item, ante adventum Christi etiam sancti Patres iuste detinebantur in limbo; hoc autem non erat nisi propter peccatum Adae, quod praecesserat[^p403-1]: ergo peccatum illud adhuc remanebat in memoria tanquam in scriptura. Sed post passionem Christi non detinebantur: ergo videtur, quod scriptura illa, per quam obligati fuerunt, deleta fuit. Restat igitur, quod Christus in passione sua delevit culparum nostrarum chirographa.

**Sed contra:** 1. Adhuc sunt aliqua peccata, per quae diabolus detinet homines hic et in futuro ad luenda supplicia: ergo si tenentur propter alicuius culpae memoriam, videtur, quod per passionem Christi non sunt deleta omnium culparum chirographa[^p403-2].

2. Item, si per passionem deleta sunt omnium culparum chirographa[^p403-3]: ergo superfluunt omnia alia remedia; quod si hoc est falsum, restat etc.

3. Item, crucifigentes Christum et passionem eius procurantes in ipsa passione graviter peccaverunt: ergo non videtur, quod per passionem deleta sunt culparum ipsarum[^p403-4] chirographa, sed potius inscripta et roborata. Si tu dicas, quod deleta fuerunt quantum ad meritum per passionem: contra: tantum malum fuit occisio Christi, quantum bonum fuit vita Christi: ergo malitia occidentium aequabatur solutioni pretii: ergo non videtur, quod per passionem Christi posset scriptura culpae ipsorum deleri.

4. Item, chirographum decreti aut est culpa, aut est poena. Si culpa: ergo idem est delere chirographum et delere culpam: ergo male distinguit Apostolus, ad Colossenses secundo[^p403-5], inter haec duo, dicens: *Donans nobis delicta et delens quod adversum nos erat chirographum.* Si poena; contra: chirographum obligat, sed poena non obligat: ergo videtur, quod chirographum non possit stare pro poena, vel pro culpa. Si igitur passio Christi non est nisi contra culpam, vel contra poenam, per passionem Christi non habent deleri culparum nostrarum chirographa.

5. Item, chirographum illud aut habebatur a Deo, aut a nobis, aut a diabolo. Si a Deo, ergo videtur, quod delere non poterat, quia a nullo potest superari divina iustitia nec infringi divina sententia. Si a nobis habebatur: ergo videtur, quod non esset adversum nos. Si a diabolo; contra: diabolus nullum ius acquisierat in nobis[^p403-6]: ergo nullum adversum nos habebat chirographum.

Item, quaeritur iuxta hoc, quae sit differentia inter chirographum decreti et chirographum culpae, cum uno nomine nominet Augustinus, et alio nomine nominet Apostolus[^p403-7]; et quae sit illa scriptura, et qualiter per passionem Christi affixa sit cruci.

### Conclusio.

> **Conclusio.** Christus per passionem suam delevit chirographa culparum, quia per passionem suam impetravit remissionem culparum quoad maculam et quoad reatum.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod sermo iste est metaphoricus, quo dicitur, per passionem Christi deleri chirographa culparum. Dicitur enim chirographum a *chiros*[^p403-8], quod est manus, et *graphia*, quod est scriptura, quasi scriptura manu facta. Quae autem sit ista scriptura, quae dicitur chirographum decreti et chirographum culpae, diversimode potest assignari secundum diversas expositiones, quae innuuntur super secundum ad Colossenses[^p403-9].

Secundum tamen expositionem, quae magis consonat verbo Apostoli et dicto Augustini, sciendum est, quod chirographum culpae dicitur esse memoriale, quo anima tenetur astricta et obligata alicui poenae, sicut aliquis, quando obligat se alteri, facit ei chirographum; et hoc innuit Augustinus in littera[^p403-10], cum dicit: « *Culparum chirographa deleta*

<!-- page 404 -->

*sunt, quibus debitores ante a diabolo tenebantur* ». Et dicitur illud chirographum culpae et chirographum decreti, quia talis obligatio consurgit ex nostra culpa tanquam ex merito, et ex divina sententia tanquam ex decreto. Et sic chirographum illud dicitur esse memoriale illud, quo quidem peccatum manet quantum ad reatum, ratione cuius divina iustitia habet nos punire, diabolica malitia potest accusare et detinere, et conscientia nostra potest contra nos remurmurare. Et illud chirographum adversum nos habet inscribi non solum pro peccatis nostris actualibus, sed etiam pro peccato primi parentis; et ratione huius diabolus habet in nos aliquam potestatem vel simpliciter, vel ad tempus.

Quoniam igitur Christus per passionem suam non solum impetravit nobis remissionem culpae quantum ad maculam, sed etiam quantum ad reatum[^p404-1]; hinc est, quod dicit Apostolus, et Augustinus, quod Christus per passionem suam delevit chirographa culparum. — Sed Apostolus dicit singulariter delens *chirographum decreti*, quia loquitur de memoriali transgressionis primi parentis; Augustinus vero *pluraliter*, quia loquitur de remissione omnium peccatorum quantum ad reatum, ut perfectum exprimat ipsius passionis effectum. — Concedendum est igitur, quod per passionem Christi delentur chirographa culparum. Concedendae sunt etiam rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.

**Ad argumenta in contrarium:**

1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod diabolus multos detinet ad luenda supplicia; dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de efficientia[^p404-2] passionis Christi; aut quantum ad sufficientiam, aut quantum ad efficaciam. Quantum ad sufficientiam, sic se extendit ad omnes homines et ad omnes culpas. Si vero quantum ad efficaciam, sic se extendit solummodo ad eos qui baptizantur in nomine eius, qui absolvuntur a reatu originalis et actualis, ita quod a diabolo non possunt amplius teneri, nisi forte se ei voluntarie subiiciant, et nova contra eos scribantur chirographa.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si deleta sunt culparum chirographa per passionem, quod superfluunt alia remedia; dicendum, quod illud non sequitur, quia alia remedia a passione habent efficaciam[^p404-3]; nec passio delet efficienter huiusmodi chirographa, nisi interveniant illa remedia.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non sunt deleta crucifixorum chirographa, sed potius scripta; dicendum, quod deleta fuerant in ipsis crucifixoribus quantum ad sufficientiam et quantum ad meritum: licet in pluribus eorum non sint deleta quantum ad efficaciam et quantum ad actum, propter eorum negligentiam. Et si tu obiicias, quod quantitas transgressionis eorum aequabatur quantitati satisfactionis; dicendum, quod excusabantur per ignorantiam, sicut dicit Anselmus[^p404-4]; *si enim cognovissent, nunquam Dominum gloriae crucifixissent.* — Aliter etiam potest dici, quod nunquam illi crucifixores ex tam mala voluntate Christum occidebant, ex quam bona voluntate Christus passionem sustinebat; et ideo longe potentior erat passio Christi ad satisfaciendum, quam esset illorum culpa ad obligandum.

4. Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum chirographum decreti sit culpa, vel poena; dicendum, quod proprie loquendo, nec est culpa nec est poena; sed est reatus consequens culpam, qui est obligatio ad poenam, quae quidem dicitur chirographum, in quantum tenet obligationem respectu poenae et rationem memorialis respectu culpae praeteritae. « *Culpa enim frequenter transit actu et remanet reatu*[^p404-5] », sicut patet in sanctis Patribus, qui detinebantur in limbo, in quibus deletum erat originale quantum ad culpam, sed adhuc remanebat in eis reatus, propter quem ianua erat eis clausa.

5. Ad illud quod quaeritur: quis habebat illud chirographum? dicendum, sicut tactum fuit, quod et Deus et homo et diabolus habebat, sed Deus ut iudex, homo ut reus, diabolus ut accusator. Et sicut latro fert insigne contra se, sic[^p404-6] homo contra se ipsum ferebat chirographum, nec per illud chirographum acquirebatur aliquod ius diabolo. Quamvis enim homo iuste detineretur, ipse tamen iniuste detinebat. Nec in illius deletione factum est aliquod praeiudicium divinae iustitiae, sed potius satisfactum est ei per beneficium misericordiae Redemptoris.

Ad illa vero, quae quaerebantur ultimo, patet responsio per ea quae dicta sunt in huius responsionis principio, sicut planum est pertractanti.

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether through the passion of Christ the blotting out of the bond was accomplished.*

Secondly it is asked, whether through the passion of Christ the blotting out of the bond was accomplished. And that it was so, it seems:

1. First, by the authority of the Apostle to the Colossians, chapter two[^p402-2]: *Forgiving us our offenses and blotting out the bond of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us.*

2. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] from the authority of Augustine, which the Master sets down in the text[^p402-3]: « *When the blood was poured out without fault, the bonds of all faults were blotted out* ».

3. Likewise, all merits and demerits are written down by the just judge, according to that which is said in Jeremiah, chapter seventeen[^p402-4]: *The sin of Judah is written with a pen*

*of iron, with the point of a diamond*; but the passion of Christ freed us from the wrath to come: therefore it blotted out the bonds of our faults.

4. Likewise, before the coming of Christ even the holy Fathers were justly held in limbo; but this was not except on account of the sin of Adam, which had gone before[^p403-1]: therefore that sin still remained in memory as in a writing. But after the passion of Christ they were not held [there]: therefore it seems that that writing, by which they were bound, was blotted out. It remains, therefore, that Christ in his passion blotted out the bonds of our faults.

**On the contrary:** 1. There still are certain sins, on account of which the devil holds men, here and in the future, for the suffering of punishments: therefore if they are held on account of the memory of some fault, it seems that through the passion of Christ the bonds of all faults are not blotted out[^p403-2].

2. Likewise, if through the passion the bonds of all faults are blotted out[^p403-3]: then all other remedies are superfluous; and if this is false, the conclusion follows, etc.

3. Likewise, those crucifying Christ and procuring his passion sinned gravely in that very passion: therefore it does not seem that through the passion the bonds of their faults[^p403-4] are blotted out, but rather inscribed and reinforced. If you say that they were blotted out as to merit through the passion: on the contrary: the killing of Christ was as great an evil as the life of Christ was a good: therefore the malice of those killing was equal to the payment of the price: therefore it does not seem that through the passion of Christ the writing of their fault could be blotted out.

4. Likewise, the bond of the decree is either fault or punishment. If fault: then it is the same to blot out the bond and to blot out the fault: then the Apostle distinguishes badly, to the Colossians chapter two[^p403-5], between these two, saying: *Forgiving us our offenses and blotting out that which was against us, the bond.* If punishment; on the contrary: a bond obligates, but punishment does not obligate: therefore it seems that a bond cannot stand for punishment, or for fault. If, therefore, the passion of Christ is only against fault, or against punishment, through the passion of Christ the bonds of our faults are not blotted out.

5. Likewise, that bond was held either by God, or by us, or by the devil. If by God, then it seems that he could not blot it out, since by no one can the divine justice be overcome nor the divine sentence broken. If it was held by us: then it seems that it was not against us. If by the devil; on the contrary: the devil had acquired no right over us[^p403-6]: therefore he had no bond against us.

Likewise, in connection with this it is asked what is the difference between the bond of the decree and the bond of fault, since Augustine names it by one name and the Apostle by another[^p403-7]; and what that writing is, and in what way through the passion of Christ it was fixed to the cross.

### Conclusion.

> **Conclusion.** Christ through his passion blotted out the bonds of faults, because through his passion he obtained the remission of faults as to stain and as to guilt.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that this manner of speaking is metaphorical, by which it is said that through the passion of Christ the bonds of faults are blotted out. For a bond [*chirographum*] is named from *chiros*[^p403-8], which is the hand, and *graphia*, which is writing, as it were a writing made by hand. But what that writing is, which is called the bond of the decree and the bond of fault, can be assigned in various ways according to various expositions, which are intimated on [the passage from] the second [chapter] to the Colossians[^p403-9].

According, however, to the exposition which agrees more with the word of the Apostle and the saying of Augustine, it must be known that the bond of fault is said to be a memorial by which the soul is held bound and obligated to some punishment, just as someone, when he obligates himself to another, makes for him a bond; and this Augustine intimates in the text[^p403-10], when he says: « *The bonds of faults were blotted out,*

*by which the debtors were before held by the devil* ». And that bond is called the bond of fault and the bond of the decree, because such an obligation arises from our fault as from merit, and from the divine sentence as from a decree. And thus that bond is said to be that memorial by which sin indeed remains as to guilt, by reason of which the divine justice has [the right] to punish us, the diabolical malice can accuse and detain [us], and our conscience can murmur against us. And that bond against us has [the right] to be inscribed not only for our actual sins, but also for the sin of the first parent; and by reason of this the devil has some power over us either simply, or for a time.

Since, therefore, Christ through his passion obtained for us not only the remission of fault as to stain, but also as to guilt[^p404-1]; hence it is that the Apostle says, and Augustine, that Christ through his passion blotted out the bonds of faults. — But the Apostle says in the singular, blotting out *the bond of the decree*, because he speaks of the memorial of the transgression of the first parent; Augustine, however, [says it] in the *plural*, because he speaks of the remission of all sins as to guilt, in order to express the perfect effect of the passion itself. — It must be granted, therefore, that through the passion of Christ the bonds of faults are blotted out. The reasons too which show this must be granted.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

1. To that which is first objected to the contrary, that the devil holds many for the suffering of punishments; it must be said that there are two ways of speaking of the efficiency[^p404-2] of the passion of Christ; either as to sufficiency, or as to efficacy. As to sufficiency, thus it extends to all men and to all faults. But if as to efficacy, thus it extends only to those who are baptized in his name, who are absolved from the guilt of the original and the actual [sin], so that they can no longer be held by the devil, unless perchance they voluntarily subject themselves to him, and new bonds be written against them.

2. To that which is objected, that if the bonds of faults are blotted out through the passion, then the other remedies are superfluous; it must be said that this does not follow, because the other remedies have their efficacy from the passion[^p404-3]; nor does the passion efficiently blot out bonds of this kind, unless those remedies intervene.

3. To that which is objected, that the bonds of those who crucified [Christ] are not blotted out, but rather written; it must be said that they had been blotted out in the crucifiers themselves as to sufficiency and as to merit: although in many of them they are not blotted out as to efficacy and as to act, on account of their negligence. And if you object that the magnitude of their transgression was equal to the magnitude of the satisfaction; it must be said that they were excused through ignorance, as Anselm says[^p404-4]; *for if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.* — Otherwise too it can be said that those crucifiers never killed Christ with so evil a will as the good will with which Christ underwent the passion; and therefore the passion of Christ was far more powerful for making satisfaction than their fault was for obligating.

4. To that which is asked, whether the bond of the decree is fault or punishment; it must be said that, properly speaking, it is neither fault nor punishment; but it is the guilt consequent upon fault, which is an obligation to punishment, which indeed is called a bond, inasmuch as it holds an obligation with respect to punishment and the character of a memorial with respect to the past fault. « *For fault frequently passes in act and remains in guilt*[^p404-5] », as is evident in the holy Fathers, who were held in limbo, in whom the original [sin] was blotted out as to fault, but the guilt still remained in them, on account of which the gate was closed to them.

5. To that which is asked: who held that bond? it must be said, as was touched upon, that both God and man and the devil held it, but God as judge, man as defendant, the devil as accuser. And just as a thief bears the mark against himself, so[^p404-6] man bore the bond against his own self, nor through that bond was any right acquired for the devil. For although man was justly detained, he himself [the devil] nevertheless detained [him] unjustly. Nor in the blotting out of it was any prejudice done to the divine justice, but rather satisfaction was made to it through the benefit of the mercy of the Redeemer.

But to those things which were asked last, the response is evident through the things that have been said in the beginning of this response, as is plain to one who works it through.

---

la: Vers. 13. seq. Vulgata: *donans vobis omnia delicta; delens.*

en: [Col. 2,] v. 13. f. The Vulgate [reads]: *donans vobis omnia delicta; delens* (forgiving you all offenses; blotting out).

la: Hic c. 1.

en: Here [in the Lombard's text], c. 1.

en: [Jer. 17,] v. 1. — In the minor [premise], reference is made to Matt. 3, 7 and Luke 3, 7.

la: Cfr. supra d. 18. a. 2. q. 3. — Circa finem arg. pro *nostrarum* cod. Y *ipsarum.*

en: Cf. above, d. 18, a. 2, q. 3. — Near the end of the argument, for *nostrarum* (of our) cod. Y [reads] *ipsarum* (of these).

la: Glossa *ordinaria* super Colos. 2, 14. apud Strabum: *Quia, nisi hoc* [peccatum Adae] *et alia tolleret, non liberaremur a morte et inferno.*

en: The *ordinary* Gloss on Col. 2, 14, in Strabo: *Because, unless he took away this* [sin of Adam] *and the others, we would not be freed from death and hell.*

la: Cod. F *Item, si sunt deleta omnia culparum chirographa*; Vat. *Item, delela sunt culparum nostrarum chirographa per passionem Christi: videtur ergo quod* etc. Non pauci codd. et edd. 1, 2 omittunt prorsus verba *Item, si per... chirographa*, et conclusionem, quae sequitur, conclusioni praecedenti continuo annectunt, sed perperam, ut palam est. Nostra lectio innititur auctoritati codd. K M P Q (in cod. Q desideratur *omnium* tantum) bb.

en: Cod. F [reads] *Item, si sunt deleta omnia culparum chirographa* (Likewise, if all the bonds of faults are blotted out); Vat. [reads] *Item, deleta sunt culparum nostrarum chirographa per passionem Christi: videtur ergo quod* etc. (Likewise, the bonds of our faults are blotted out through the passion of Christ: it seems therefore that, etc.). Not a few codd. and edd. 1, 2 omit entirely the words *Item, si per... chirographa*, and join the conclusion that follows directly to the preceding conclusion, but wrongly, as is plain. Our reading rests on the authority of codd. K M P Q (in cod. Q only *omnium* is wanting) bb.

la: Pro *ipsarum*, quod a codd. 1 L aa abest, codd. E bb *ipsorum*, cod. O *ipsa*, edd. *nostrarum.* Paulo inferius post *occidentium* cod. Y subdit *Christum.*

en: For *ipsarum* (of these [fem.]), which is absent from codd. 1 L aa, codd. E bb [read] *ipsorum* (of these [masc.]), cod. O *ipsa*, the editions *nostrarum* (of our). A little below, after *occidentium* (of those killing) cod. Y adds *Christum* (Christ).

la: Vers. 13. seq.

la: Ut ostendit Anselm., l. *Cur Deus homo*, c. 7. et *Meditat.*, medit. II. de redemptione humana, quo ulteriore loco dicit: *Nam non peccavit* [homo] *adversus diabolum, sed adversus Deum; nec homo diaboli erat, sed et homo et diabolus Dei erant. Sed et quod diabolus vexabat hominem, non hoc faciebat zelo iustitiae, sed nequitiae; nec iubente Deo, sed permittente, non diaboli, sed Dei iustitia exigente.* Cfr. infra dub. 3.

en: As Anselm shows, in the book *Cur Deus homo* (Why God Became Man), c. 7, and the *Meditations*, meditation II on human redemption, where in the latter place he says: *For* [man] *did not sin against the devil, but against God; nor was man the devil's, but both man and the devil were God's. But also, that the devil vexed man, he did not do this from zeal for justice, but for wickedness; nor by God's command, but by his permission, the justice not of the devil but of God requiring it.* Cf. below, dub. 3.

la: Vide hic *fundam.* 1. et 2.

en: See here the *fundamenta* (foundational arguments) 1 and 2.

la: Graece χείρος (genitiv. vocis χείρ); *graphia*, Graece γραφή.

en: In Greek χείρος (genitive of the word χείρ); *graphia*, in Greek γραφή.

la: Vers. 13. seq., quem locum Petr. Lombard. sic exponit: *Delens chirographum decreti, scilicet legis* i. e. memoriam transgressionis, *quae erat ex decreto* i. e. ex lege, *quod chirographum erat adversum nos*, et conscientia enim nostra et diabolus ad accusandum nos erat memor transgressionis illius, et ita haec memoria erat adversum nos, scilicet nocens nobis et nos crucians... *Et non solum chirographum decreti erat adversum nos, sed etiam ipsum decretum* i. e. vetus Lex; unde subdit *quod erat* etc.

en: [Col. 2,] v. 13 f., which passage Peter Lombard expounds thus: *Blotting out the bond of the decree, namely of the law*, i.e. the memory of transgression, *which was from the decree*, i.e. from the law, *which bond was against us*, for both our conscience and the devil, for accusing us, was mindful of that transgression, and thus this memory was against us, namely harming us and crucifying us... *And not only the bond of the decree was against us, but also the decree itself*, i.e. the old Law; whence he adds *that which was* etc.

la: Hic c. 1. — Paulo ante pro *quando obligat se* cod. U *qui se obligat*, cod. W legit *qui alteri obligatur.*

en: Here [in the Lombard's text], c. 1. — A little before, for *quando obligat se* (when he obligates himself) cod. U [reads] *qui se obligat* (who obligates himself), cod. W reads *qui alteri obligatur* (who is obligated to another).

la: De distinctione inter maculam et reatum peccati vide II. Sent. d. 42. dub. 1. Vide etiam hic solut. ad 4.

en: On the distinction between the stain and the guilt of sin, see II Sent., d. 42, dub. 1. See also here the reply to [argument] 4.

la: Plerique codd. et edd. 1, 2 erronee *efficacia*; Vat. *efficientia vel effectu.* — Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. XX. c. 5. — Circa finem solut. pro *teneri* codd. A G K U bb *detineri*, cod. F *retineri.*

en: Most codd. and edd. 1, 2 erroneously [read] *efficacia* (efficacy); Vat. [reads] *efficientia vel effectu* (efficiency or effect). — Cf. below, the text of the Master, d. XX, c. 5. — Near the end of the reply, for *teneri* (to be held) codd. A G K U bb [read] *detineri* (to be detained), cod. F *retineri* (to be retained).

la: Cfr. supra pag. 400, nota 3. — Mox pro *efficienter* codd. A W *efficaciter.*

en: Cf. above, p. 400, note 3. — Presently, for *efficienter* (efficiently) codd. A W [read] *efficaciter* (efficaciously).

la: Libr. II. *Cur Deus homo*, c. 13. Vide supra d. 18. dub. 2. — Loc. Scripturae, qui sequitur, est I. Cor. 2, 8. — Paulo inferius pro *ex quam bona* cod. bb *ex quanta bona*, codd. A K U X et edd. 1, 2 *ex qua bona.*

en: Book II of *Cur Deus homo*, c. 13. See above, d. 18, dub. 2. — The scriptural passage which follows is 1 Cor. 2, 8. — A little below, for *ex quam bona* (with how good a [will]) cod. bb [reads] *ex quanta bona* (with how great a good), codd. A K U X and edd. 1, 2 *ex qua bona* (with which good).

la: Secundum August., l. *de Nuptiis et concupisc.* c. 26. n. 29. Cfr. II. Sent. d. XXXII. lit. Magistri, c. 1, et Comment. a. 1. q. 1. et dub. 4. — De seqq. cfr. supra d. 18. a. 2. q. 3. — Post pauca pro *in eis reatus* cod. E *in eis quantum ad reatum.*

en: According to Augustine, the book *On Marriage and Concupiscence*, c. 26, n. 29. Cf. II Sent., d. XXXII, the text of the Master, c. 1, and the Commentary, a. 1, q. 1, and dub. 4. — On what follows, cf. above, d. 18, a. 2, q. 3. — After a little, for *in eis reatus* (in them the guilt) cod. E [reads] *in eis quantum ad reatum* (in them as to guilt).

la: Cod. N *sic et.* In fine solut. pro *misericordiae* Vat. *misericordis*; et subinde pro *Redemptoris* codd. A F N V *redemptionis*, cod. U *nostrae redemptionis.*

en: Cod. N [reads] *sic et* (so also). At the end of the reply, for *misericordiae* (of mercy) Vat. [reads] *misericordis* (of the merciful one); and thereupon for *Redemptoris* (of the Redeemer) codd. A F N V [read] *redemptionis* (of the redemption), cod. U *nostrae redemptionis* (of our redemption).

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p402..404-{L,R}-*`), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 28071–28246). Fresh literal English translation. Offset: pdf = printed + 22 (printed 402–404 = PDF 424–426).

**Page-split map.**
- **p.402** (R-column foot): QUAESTIO II heading + opener + arg 1 (L-2 band) and args 2–3 (R-2 band). Footnotes: n.1 (`Edd. 1, 2 cum non paucis codd. habebat.`) belongs to the q1 scholion text printed on this page and was retained by a1-q1; q2 picks up **nn.2, 3, 4** (hand-off from a1-q1).
- **p.403**: arg 3 tail, arg 4, *Sed contra* args 1–5 + the incidental question, CONCLUSIO, RESPONDEO body through the Augustine quotation. Footnotes nn.**1–10** (n.6 spans the L→R column seam; n.10 ends the page).
- **p.404**: RESPONDEO body tail + corollarium + conclusio, replies 1–5 + the closing "Ad illa vero quae quaerebantur ultimo." Footnotes nn.**1–6** (n.4 spans the L→R column seam). q2 body ends at p.404 R-column foot ("sicut planum est pertractanti").

**Scholion status.** `has_scholion: false`. The SCHOLION printed at the head of **p.405** is the continuation of **a1-q1's** scholion (its parts II–III treat the 3rd and 4th questions: "Quoad seq. (3.) quaestionem...", "Quaestio 4. agit simul de poena..."). That article-wide scholion is held by a1-q1 and forward-covers q2–q4; **no q2-specific scholion is printed**. Verified by eyes-on of p.405 L/R bands.

**Hand-offs picked up.** From a1-q1 (printed p.402): footer notes **2** (`Vers. 13. seq. Vulgata: donans vobis omnia delicta; delens.`, anchored on *Colossenses secundo*), **3** (`Hic c. 1.`, anchored on the Augustine/Magister citation), **4** (`Vers. 1. — In minori respicitur Matth. 3, 7. et Luc. 3, 7.`, anchored on *Ieremiae decimo septimo*).

**Hand-off forwarded to a1-q3.** QUAESTIO III (*Utrum per passionem Christi liberati simus a potestate diaboli*) begins on printed **p.405** (PDF 427), **raw line 28247** (`Tertio quaeritur, utrum per passionem liberati simus a potestate diaboli. Et quod sic, videtur: 1. Apocalypsis vigesimo: Vidi Angelum descendentem de caelo, et apprehendit draconem, qui est diabolus…; 2. Item, Ioannis duodecimo: Nunc iudicium est mundi, nunc princeps huius mundi eiicietur foras…; 3. Item, Christus, dux noster, vicit diabolum…`). The QUAESTIO IV boundary follows further on. **Migrating footers (p.405):** none migrate *into* q2; q3 picks up the p.405 footer sequence in full (its own per-page restart). a1-q1's scholion already covers q3's scholion need (scholion part II, "Quoad seq. (3.) quaestionem"). Offset reminder: pdf = printed + 22.

**[?] flags.** None — the 450 dpi bands were fully legible across pp.402–404.

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. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 405 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum per passionem Christi liberati simus a potestate diaboli.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum per passionem liberati simus a potestate diaboli. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Apocalypsis vigesimo[^p405-1]: *Vidi Angelum descendentem de caelo, et apprehendit draconem, qui est diabolus*; sed per istum Angelum, sicut Sancti exponunt, intelligitur Christus: si ergo ab isto Angelo diabolus est religatus in eius passione, videtur, quod amiserit super nos posse.

2. Item, Ioannis duodecimo[^p405-2]: *Nunc iudicium est mundi, nunc princeps huius mundi eiicietur foras*: si ergo diabolus foras per Christum est eiectus, videtur, quod a potestate eius liberati simus.

3. Item, Christus, dux noster, vicit diabolum[^p405-3]; sed victoria ducis est victoria totius exercitus: ergo videtur, quod diabolus a toto genere humano sit superatus, et ita videtur, quod per passionem Christi amiserit suum *posse* respectu generis humani.

4. Item, quando diabolus superavit primum hominem, per consequens superavit totum genus humanum[^p405-4]: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod cum superatus est a Christo, superatus sit a toto genere humano: ergo per passionem Christi totum genus humanum liberatum fuit a potestate diaboli.

**Sed contra:**
1. Ad Ephesios sexto[^p405-5]: *Non est nobis colluctatio adversus carnem et sanguinem, sed adversus mundi rectores tenebrarum harum*: ergo adhuc daemones nos impugnant et huic mundo principantur: ergo a potestate diaboli liberati non sumus.

2. Item, secundae ad Timotheum tertio[^p405-6] dicitur, quod *in novissimis diebus instabunt tempora periculosa*, et hoc ipsum dicitur secundae ad Thessalonicenses, et in Daniele et in Apocalypsi, quod in tempore antichristi habebit diabolus maximam potestatem ad tentandum et vexandum: ergo non videtur, quod per passionem amiserit posse super genus humanum.

3. Item, potestas diaboli maxime in duobus consistit, videlicet in obsessione corporum et excaecatione mentium; sed post Christi passionem adhuc multi a diabolo fuerunt obsessi, multi etiam fuerunt gravissime excaecati: ergo videtur, quod potestas diaboli non sit in aliquo diminuta per passionem Christi. Quod autem diabolus multorum *corpora* obsideat, docet experientia; quod iterum multorum *mentes* excaecet, probatur per illud quod dicitur secundae ad Corinthios quarto[^p405-7]: *Deus huius saeculi excaecavit mentes infidelium.*

<!-- page 406 -->

4. Item, potestas diaboli vel est ad *nocendum*, vel est ad *tentandum*; sed nunquam potuit nocere nisi permissus, nunquam etiam potuit in peccatum praecipitare, nisi praeberetur ei voluntas consensus[^p406-1]; et hoc ipsum potest modo: si ergo ab initio nihil potuit amplius, videtur idem quod prius.

> **Conclusio.** Per passionem Christi liberati sumus a potestate diaboli, omnes quidem quoad sufficientiam, sed tantum membra Ecclesiae quoad efficaciam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Magister in littera[^p406-2], « per passionem Christi sumus a potestate diaboli liberati », omnes quidem quantum ad *sufficientiam*, sed illi soli, qui sunt de eius corpore, quod est Ecclesia, quantum ad *efficaciam*.

Et hoc patet sic. Diabolus enim ante passionem Christi habebat duplicem manum, videlicet *attrahentem* et *impellentem*[^p406-3]: manus *attrahens* erat potestas trahendi ad limbum etiam iustos et sanctos; manus *impellens* erat potestas praecipitandi in malum vel per *fallaciam*, vel per *violentiam*, quia tentabat ut *draco*, tentabat ut *leo*[^p406-4]. Et prima manus, scilicet *attractiva*, erat tantae potentiae, ut nullus posset ei resistere; et haec fuit ei omnino amputata per passionem. Iam enim nullum iustum potest ad limbum trahere, quia per passionem Christi deletum est chirographum peccati Adae[^p406-5]. — Manum autem *impellentem* habebat ita fortem, ut cum magna difficultate posset quis ei resistere. Et ideo in multis regnabat, immo fere in omnibus; omnes enim vel superabat per *fraudulentiam*, vel per *violentiam*. Et haec potestas debilitata est per passionem, per quam *lumen veritatis* aperitur contra diabolicam fraudulentiam, et *adiutorium virtutis* tribuitur contra diabolicam violentiam. Apparuit autem *lumen veritatis* et interius per divinam inspirationem et exterius per humanam instructionem. Iam enim fere omnibus est veritas propalata, et ideo destructa est idololatria, quae prius regnabat[^p406-6]. — *Adiutorium* etiam *virtutis* tribuitur per *gratiae infusionem*, quae reprimit concupiscentiam, et per *angelicam protectionem*, quae comprimit et reprimit potestates adversas; et hoc idem[^p406-7] virtute passionis, merito cuius mittitur nobis Spiritus sanctus, mittuntur etiam et ipsi angelici spiritus, ut superetur adversarius. Unde diabolus super omnia abhorret memoriam passionis et figuram crucis, per quam sumus a potestate eius liberati. — Rationes igitur hoc ostendentes concedendae sunt.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod adhuc restat nobis adversus mundi rectores colluctatio; dicendum, quod quamvis nobis incumbat pugna, non tamen elongamur a victoria, nisi interveniat nostra negligentia, secundum quod dicitur primae ad Corinthios decimo[^p406-8]: *Fidelis Deus, qui non patietur vos tentari etc., sed faciet cum tentatione proventum*; et ideo ex illa auctoritate non potest haberi, quod nobis praesideat potestas diabolica, quamvis nos exercere non desistat.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in novissimis diebus instabunt tempora periculosa; dicendum, quod quamvis per passionem sit potestas diabolica superata; tamen in nobis est vires dare hosti et nos subiugare potestati diaboli. Et quia in novissimis diebus *abundabit multorum perversitas, et refrigescet caritas*[^p406-9]; vires sumet diabolica potestas, et iusto Dei iudicio permittetur amplius ad malum impellere, quam permissus fuerat in tempore praecedenti.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod adhuc potest in vexationem corporum et excaecationem mentium; dicendum, quod hoc non potest modo, nisi quis ei ex culpa sua vires tribuat, sicut sunt illi qui Sacramenta Christi contemnunt; qui vero humiliter et devote Sacramentis et sacramentalibus se subiiciunt, quae a passione Christi habent virtutem, non formidant diabolicam potestatem. Tanta est enim virtus Sacramentorum Ecclesiae, ut etiam se extendat usque ad infideles; unde non tot hodie diabolus obsidet, quot diabolus consueverat obsidere. Scribit enim Gregorius in Dialogo[^p406-10] de quodam Iudaeo, qui cum vellet dormire in loco deserto, munivit se signo crucis, et daemones supervenientes, cum vellent ipsum offendere, a signo crucis repulsi sunt et dixerunt, ipsum esse vas vacuum, sed signatum.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nihil poterat nisi per Dei permissionem, ante sicut et nunc; dicendum, quod Deus ipsum amplius permittebat ex iusto suo iudicio, et consensus noster amplius ei subiacebat ex vitio nostro, per hoc quod regnabat

<!-- page 407 -->

ignorantia, regnabat etiam concupiscentia, deficiebat etiam veritas, deficiebat et gratia; sicut enim dicitur Ioannis primo[^p407-1]: *Lex per Moysen data est, gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est.* — Et sic patet, qualiter per passionem Christi liberamur a potestate diaboli[^p407-2].

english:
<!-- page 405 -->

### Question III. *Whether through the passion of Christ we have been freed from the power of the devil.*

Thirdly it is asked whether through the passion we have been freed from the power of the devil. And that we have, it seems.

1. Apocalypse, chapter twenty[^p405-1]: *I saw an Angel coming down from heaven, and he laid hold of the dragon, who is the devil*; but by that Angel, as the Saints expound it, is understood Christ: if therefore the devil was bound by that Angel in his passion, it seems that he has lost his power over us.

2. Likewise, John, chapter twelve[^p405-2]: *Now is the judgment of the world, now shall the prince of this world be cast out*: if therefore the devil has been cast out through Christ, it seems that we have been freed from his power.

3. Likewise, Christ, our leader, conquered the devil[^p405-3]; but the victory of the leader is the victory of the whole army: therefore it seems that the devil has been overcome by the whole human race, and thus it seems that through the passion of Christ he has lost his *power* with respect to the human race.

4. Likewise, when the devil overcame the first man, he consequently overcame the whole human race[^p405-4]: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems that, since he was overcome by Christ, he was overcome by the whole human race: therefore through the passion of Christ the whole human race was freed from the power of the devil.

**On the contrary:**
1. To the Ephesians, chapter six[^p405-5]: *Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this world*: therefore the demons still assail us and rule over this world: therefore we have not been freed from the power of the devil.

2. Likewise, in the second to Timothy, chapter three[^p405-6] it is said that *in the last days dangerous times will be at hand*, and this same thing is said in the second to the Thessalonians, and in Daniel and in the Apocalypse, that in the time of Antichrist the devil will have the greatest power to tempt and to harass: therefore it does not seem that through the passion he has lost his power over the human race.

3. Likewise, the power of the devil consists chiefly in two things, namely in the possession of bodies and the blinding of minds; but after the passion of Christ many have still been possessed by the devil, many also have been most grievously blinded: therefore it seems that the power of the devil has not been in any way diminished through the passion of Christ. That the devil possesses the *bodies* of many, experience teaches; that he again blinds the *minds* of many, is proved by what is said in the second to the Corinthians, chapter four[^p405-7]: *The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers.*

<!-- page 406 -->

4. Likewise, the power of the devil is either for *harming* or for *tempting*; but he was never able to harm except when permitted, nor was he ever able to cast into sin unless the will of consent was offered to him[^p406-1]; and this same thing he can do now: if therefore from the beginning he could do nothing more, it seems the same as before.

> **Conclusion.** Through the passion of Christ we have been freed from the power of the devil, all indeed as to sufficiency, but only the members of the Church as to efficacy.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the Master says in the text[^p406-2], « through the passion of Christ we have been freed from the power of the devil », all indeed as to *sufficiency*, but only those who are of his body, which is the Church, as to *efficacy*.

And this is shown thus. For the devil before the passion of Christ had a twofold hand, namely an *attracting* one and an *impelling* one[^p406-3]: the *attracting* hand was the power of dragging down to limbo even the just and the holy; the *impelling* hand was the power of casting into evil either through *deceit* or through *violence*, since he tempted as a *dragon*, he tempted as a *lion*[^p406-4]. And the first hand, namely the *attractive* one, was of such power that no one could resist it; and this was entirely cut off from him through the passion. For now he can drag no just person down to limbo, because through the passion of Christ the bond of Adam's sin has been blotted out[^p406-5]. — But the *impelling* hand he had so strong that with great difficulty could anyone resist it. And therefore he reigned in many, indeed in almost all; for he overcame all either through *fraud* or through *violence*. And this power has been weakened through the passion, through which the *light of truth* is opened against the devil's fraud, and the *help of strength* is granted against the devil's violence. Now the *light of truth* appeared both inwardly through divine inspiration and outwardly through human instruction. For now the truth has been published to almost all, and therefore idolatry, which formerly reigned, has been destroyed[^p406-6]. — The *help* also *of strength* is granted through the *infusion of grace*, which restrains concupiscence, and through *angelic protection*, which checks and represses the adverse powers; and this same thing[^p406-7] by the power of the passion, by whose merit the Holy Spirit is sent to us, and the angelic spirits themselves are also sent, that the adversary may be overcome. Hence the devil above all things abhors the memory of the passion and the figure of the cross, through which we have been freed from his power. — Therefore the reasons showing this are to be granted.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

1. To that, then, which is first objected, that there still remains for us a struggle against the rulers of the world; it must be said that, although a battle presses upon us, yet we are not estranged from victory, unless our negligence intervene, according to what is said in the first to the Corinthians, chapter ten[^p406-8]: *God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted etc., but will make also with the temptation a way out*; and therefore from that authority it cannot be held that the diabolical power presides over us, although it does not cease to exercise us.

2. To that which is objected, that in the last days dangerous times will be at hand; it must be said that, although through the passion the diabolical power has been overcome, yet it is in us to give strength to the enemy and to subject ourselves to the power of the devil. And because in the last days *the perversity of many will abound, and charity will grow cold*[^p406-9]; the diabolical power will take strength, and by the just judgment of God it will be permitted to impel toward evil more than it had been permitted in the preceding time.

3. To that which is objected, that he can still bring about the harassment of bodies and the blinding of minds; it must be said that this he cannot do now, unless someone give him strength through his own fault, as are those who despise the Sacraments of Christ; but those who humbly and devoutly submit themselves to the Sacraments and the sacramentals, which have their power from the passion of Christ, do not dread the diabolical power. For so great is the power of the Sacraments of the Church, that it extends even to the unbelievers; whence the devil does not possess as many today as the devil was wont to possess. For Gregory writes in the Dialogue[^p406-10] of a certain Jew who, when he wished to sleep in a deserted place, fortified himself with the sign of the cross, and the demons that came upon him, when they wished to harm him, were repelled by the sign of the cross and said that he was an empty vessel, but a sealed one.

4. To that which is objected, that he could do nothing except by God's permission, before as now; it must be said that God permitted him more out of his just judgment, and our consent was more subject to him out of our vice, through this, that there reigned

<!-- page 407 -->

ignorance, there reigned also concupiscence, truth also was lacking, and grace was lacking; for as it is said in John, chapter one[^p407-1]: *The law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.* — And thus it is plain how through the passion of Christ we are freed from the power of the devil[^p407-2].

la: Vers. 1. seq. — De expositione huius loci cfr. August., XX. de Civ. Dei, c. 7. n. 1. seqq. et Beda, in hunc loc. — In *minori* post *sed* multi codd. nec non edd. 1, 2 inserunt *potius*.

en: Verse 1 ff. — On the exposition of this passage cf. Augustine, *City of God* XX, c. 7, n. 1 ff., and Bede, on this passage. — In the minor [premise], after *sed* (but) many codices and also editions 1, 2 insert *potius* (rather).

la: Vers. 31.

en: Verse 31.

la: Edd. addunt *per illud Apoc. 3. (5.): Vicit leo de tribu Iuda.* In fine arg. pro *amiserit* codd. A F I L V aa *amisit*.

en: The editions add *through that text of Apoc. 3 (5): The lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered.* At the end of the argument, for *amiserit* (he has lost) codices A F I L V aa read *amisit* (he lost).

en: Cf. *II Sentences*, d. 30, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Vers. 12.

en: Verse 12.

la: Vers. 1. — Seqq. Script. loci sunt II. Thess. 2, 3-10; Daniel 12, 1; Apoc. 12, 12.

en: Verse 1. — The following Scripture passages are II Thess. 2, 3-10; Daniel 12, 1; Apoc. 12, 12.

la: Vers. 4.

en: Verse 4.

la: Cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 61. n. 20. — Codd. W bb *voluntatis consensus*, edd. *voluntas et consensus*.

en: Cf. Augustine, *Commentary on the Psalms*, Ps. 61, n. 20. — Codices W bb [read] *voluntatis consensus* (the consent of the will), the editions [read] *voluntas et consensus* (the will and consent).

la: Hic c. 1. Cfr. etiam infra d. XX. c. 5.

en: Here c. 1. Cf. also below, d. XX, c. 5.

la: Vide scholion.

en: See the scholion.

la: August., Enarrat. in Ps. 90, 13, serm. 2. n. 9: *Conculcabis leonem et draconem... leo aperte saevit, draco occulte insidiatur*; utramque vim et potestatem habet diabolus. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 511, nota 6.

en: Augustine, *Commentary on the Psalms*, Ps. 90, 13, sermon 2, n. 9: *You shall trample upon the lion and the dragon... the lion rages openly, the dragon lies in wait secretly*; the devil has both kinds of force and power. Cf. vol. II, p. 511, note 6.

la: Cfr. quaest. praeced. et d. 18. a. 2. q. 3.

en: Cf. the preceding question and d. 18, a. 2, q. 3.

la: Sicut praedixit Isai. 2, 17. 18.

en: As Isaiah foretold, Isa. 2, 17. 18.

la: Cod. F melius *et hoc quidem.*

en: Codex F better [reads] *et hoc quidem* (and this indeed).

la: Vers. 13. — In testimonio allato pro *patietur* multi codd. et edd. 1, 2 contra Vulgatam exhibent *permittit* (cod. bb *permittet*).

en: Verse 13. — In the cited testimony, for *patietur* (will suffer) many codices and editions 1, 2, against the Vulgate, present *permittit* (permits) (codex bb *permittet*, will permit).

la: Matth. 24, 12: *Et quoniam abundavit iniquitas, refrigescet caritas multorum.* — In fine solut. pro *fuerat* plurimi codd. minus bene *fuerit.*

en: Matt. 24, 12: *And because iniquity has abounded, the charity of many will grow cold.* — At the end of the solution, for *fuerat* (had been) very many codices, less well, [read] *fuerit* (will have been).

la: Libr. III. Dialog. c. 7: *Quadam vero die Iudaeus quidam ex Campaniae partibus Romam veniens, Appiae carpebat iter; qui ad Fundanum clivum perveniens, cum iam diem vesperascere cerneret et quo declinare posset, minime reperiret, iuxta Apollinis templum fuit, ibique se ad manendum contulit. Qui ipsum loci illius sacrilegium pertimescens, quamvis fidem crucis minime haberet, signo tamen se crucis munire curavit... Quem maligni spiritus pergentes et subtilius intuentes crucis mysterio signatum viderunt mirantesque dixerunt: Vae, vae, vas vacuum et signatum.* — Pro *deserto* codd. I L S aa cc *secreto*.

en: Book III of the Dialogue, c. 7: *On a certain day a certain Jew, coming from the regions of Campania to Rome, was making his way along the Appian Way; reaching the slope of Fundi, when he now saw the day growing toward evening and could find no place to turn aside, he was near the temple of Apollo, and there he settled himself to remain. Greatly fearing the sacrilege of that place, although he had no faith in the cross, he nevertheless took care to fortify himself with the sign of the cross... The malignant spirits, passing by and looking more closely, saw him sealed with the mystery of the cross, and marveling said: Woe, woe, an empty vessel and a sealed one.* — For *deserto* (deserted) codices I L S aa cc [read] *secreto* (secret).

la: Vers. 17. — In initio solut. pro *ante sicut et nunc* Vat. *sicut tunc ita et nunc.*

en: Verse 17. — At the beginning of the solution, for *ante sicut et nunc* (before as also now), the Vatican [edition reads] *sicut tunc ita et nunc* (as then so also now).

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.405–407 (PDF pp.427–429; offset pdf = printed + 22), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 28247–28353) as cross-check. English is a fresh literal translation. Apparatus taken directly from the printed page footers, page by page (Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering each printed page).

**Page-split map.**
- **p.405** — Quaestio III header + title; the four *videtur* arguments (1–4); the start of *Sed contra* (args 1–3). Footers: nn. **1–7** (`[^p405-1..7]`; nn.1–3 in the L-column footer, nn.4–7 in the R-column footer).
- **p.406** — *Sed contra* arg 4; Conclusio; Respondeo (twofold hand of the devil); replies to objections 1–4 (reply 4 runs onto p.407). Footers: nn. **1–10** (`[^p406-1..10]`).
- **p.407** — tail of reply 4 (the John 1:17 citation) and the closing *Et sic patet* sentence, ending at *…liberamur a potestate diaboli*. QUAESTIO IV begins immediately after. Footers belonging to q3: nn. **1–2** (`[^p407-1..2]`); nn. 3+ on p.407 belong to q4.

**Scholion status.** `has_scholion: false`. The SCHOLION printed at the head of p.405 (parts I–III: *Chirographum* definition; *Quoad seq. (3.) quaestionem propositio Abaelardi…*; the parallel-loci listing) is the **article-wide scholion held by a1-q1**, which forward-covers q2–q4. Part II of that scholion explicitly treats this third question, and the q3 body's `[^p407-2]` footer ("Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.") points back to it. No q3-specific scholion is printed; none is added here.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* NONE. Per the d19-a1-q2 hand-off, no footer migrates into q3; q3 opens fresh at the head of p.405 (raw 28247) and picks up the full p.405 per-page footer sequence.
- *Forwarded to d19-a1-q4:* **QUAESTIO IV** (*Utrum per passionem Christi absolvamur a poena peccati*) begins on printed **p.407** (PDF 429), raw line **28354** (*Quarto quaeritur, an per passionem Christi absolvamur a poena peccati. Et quod sic, videtur. 1. Primae Petri secundo: Peccata nostra pertulit in corpore suo super lignum…*). **Migrating footers:** NONE migrate forward — q3's tail on p.407 takes only nn.1–2 of that page's footer sequence; q4 picks up p.407 nn.3+ (the q4 *videtur* footers) and the rest of the page's running sequence.

**[?] flags.** NONE — all three pages legible at 450 dpi.