title: Dist. 18, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 387 -->

### Articulus II. *De merito Christi quoad fructum vel praemium.*

Consequenter quaeritur de merito Christi quantum ad fructum sive quantum ad praemium. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum Christus meruerit sibi Dei fruitionem.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum meruerit corporis[^p387-1] glorificationem.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum meruerit nobis ianuae apertionem.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum Christus sibi meruerit Dei fruitionem sive praemium substantiale.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum Christus sibi meruerit Dei fruitionem sive praemium substantiale. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia, sicut se habet gratia ad gloriam, sic se habet meritum ad praemium[^p387-2]; sed Christus habuit gratiam ordinatam ad gloriam: ergo habuit meritum ordinatum ad praemium. Sed gloria consistit in Dei fruitione, quae est praemium substantiale: ergo etc.

2. Item, qui meretur ex caritate tanto maius quid meretur, quanto maiorem habet caritatem[^p387-3]; sed caritas Christi fuit maxima: ergo ei debebatur maximum praemium. Sed maximum praemium non est nisi praemium substantiale, quod Deus est: ergo etc.

3. Item, gloriosius est habere praemium per merita quam sine meritis[^p387-4]; sed Christus in gloria excellit omnes Sanctos: ergo si alii Sancti habuerunt praemium substantiale per merita, multo fortius videtur de Christo.

4. Item, Angeli sancti per merita habuerunt praemium substantiale, secundum communem opinionem omnium; sed Angeli simul habuerunt gratiam et gloriam, sicut in secundo libro[^p387-5] ostensum fuit: ergo si non fuit minoris efficaciae gratia in Christo quam in Angelis, videtur, quod Christus substantiale praemium meruerit, quamvis meritum secundum tempus praemium non praecesserit.

5. Item, cum Deus inducit aliquam formam subito, quam creatura acquirit per successionem, nihil omittit Deus de illis dispositionibus, quas natura introduceret successive; sicut patet, si Deus subito de aqua faceret ignem, introduceret in naturam aquae raritatem et siccitatem et caliditatem[^p387-6]: ergo si creatura nata est pervenire ad praemium gloriae per merita gratiae, videtur, quod merita non defuerunt Christo, quamvis gloria collata sibi fuerit a suae conceptionis primordio.

**Sed contra:** 1. Augustinus, decimo tertio libro de Trinitate[^p387-7]: « In rebus per tempus ortis illa summa gratia est, qua homo in unitate personae coniunctus est Deo »; et in Enchiridio dicit, quod « nullis praecedentibus meritis, homo ille copulatus est Deo »; sed illa copulatio non potuit esse sine Dei fruitione,

<!-- page 388 -->

quae est praemium substantiale: ergo non videtur, quod praemium substantiale habuit Christus per aliquod meritum.

2. Item, Augustinus in Enchiridio[^p388-1]: « Facta est quodam modo ipsa gratia illi homini naturalis, qua nullum posset admittere peccatum »; sed gratia talis est gratia consummata, quae non est aliud quam gloria sive praemium substantiale: ergo praemium substantiale fuit Christo quodam modo naturale. Sed nihil tale acquiritur per merita: ergo etc.

3. Item, meritum naturaliter antecedit praemium; sed usus vel actus virtutis naturaliter sequitur habitum[^p388-2]: cum ergo habitus gratiae et gloriae simul fuerit in Christo, videtur, quod merita subsecuta sunt substantiale praemium: ergo non ordinantur in Christo ad substantiale praemium promerendum.

4. Item, dispositio naturalis antecedit illud, ad quod disponit; sed deiformitas gloriae disponebat animam Christi ad unionem Divinitatis, dispositione, inquam, congruitatis[^p388-3]: ergo deiformitas gloriae in Christo naturaliter praecedebat unionem personalem, quamvis simul esset tempore. Sed unio personalis naturaliter in Christo antecedebat meritum et liberi arbitrii usum: ergo in Christo merita sequebantur substantiale praemium secundum ordinem naturae: redit ergo idem quod prius.

5. Item, meritum praemii substantialis potissime consistit in actu et affectu caritatis, secundum quem[^p388-4] anima habet in Deum moveri; sed secundum illum affectum Christus non erat in statu viatoris; sed in statu comprehensoris: si ergo non merebatur in quantum comprehensor, sed in quantum viator, non merebatur secundum illum affectum caritatis, in quo consistit meritum praemii substantialis: ergo videtur, quod substantiale praemium non meruerit.

### Conclusio.

> Christus, proprie loquendo, non meruit sibi praemium substantiale.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod communiter non conceditur, quod Christus sibi meruerit substantiale praemium; et hoc Magister innuit in littera[^p388-5] satis expresse.

Ratio autem huius est: nam meritum dicit ordinationem ad praemium, sicut dispositio ad complementum, sicut via ad terminum; et ideo necesse est, meritum praecedere praemium vel tempore, vel secundum ordinem naturae. Neutro autem modo debuit in Christo praecedere nec praecessit, propter hoc quod anima Christi non esset ad unionem idonea, nisi esset beatissima et deiformissima, quod quidem fit per gloriae influentiam. Si ergo necesse fuit, unionem illam antecedere omnia merita secundum ordinem naturae, necesse etiam fuit, deiformitatem gloriae in Christo praecedere omnem usum gratiae; et ideo gloria[^p388-6] in Christo praecessit omnia merita propter summam dignitatem, quae fuit in anima Christi a sua creatione, videlicet propter unionem ipsius ad Verbum. — Et ideo concedendum est, quod Christus, proprie loquendo, non meruit sibi substantiale praemium. Et concedendae sunt rationes, quae ad hoc inductae sunt.

**Ad opposita:**

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sicut gratia ordinatur ad gloriam, ita meritum ad praemium; dicendum, quod quoad quid est simile, quoad quid non. Simile enim est quantum ad conditionem disponendi, sed non est simile quantum ad originem, pro eo quod tam gratia quam gloria est habitus infusus divinitus, non a nobis; sed meritum est usus procedens a libero arbitrio gratia informato. Ideo in Christo potuit esse ordo gratiae ad gloriam, salvo ordine utriusque ad unionem; non sic autem est de ordine meriti ad praemium, sicut ostensum est prius.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maxima caritas meretur maximum praemium; dicendum, quod illud est verum, si caritas teneat rationem merendi, secundum quod maxima; sed caritas Christi secundum motum ipsius in Deum, qui erat maximus et intensissimus, plus tenebat rationem praemii quam meriti, immo erat ipsum praemium; ideo cum esset ipsum praemium, non merebatur substantiale praemium.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod gloriosius est habere praemium per merita; dicendum, quod illud habet veritatem in eis qui solum habent uniri Deo per conformitatem affectionis — in istis enim est gratia et gloria quasi accidentalis et per modum acquisitionis — et a natura sua nati sunt indifferenter esse boni et mali. Secus autem est de homine assumto a Verbo, qui non tantum unitus est Deo per conformitatem affectionis, sed etiam unione personali, ut non dicatur divinus, sed Deus; et pro tanto « isti homini gratia est quodam modo naturalis[^p388-7] », et multo gloriosius est ei habere gloriam a sua prima

<!-- page 389 -->

creatione, quam habere eam per acquisitionem; sicut multo gloriosius est esse Deum, quam esse Dei servum. Et ideo auctoritas illa non habet locum circa Christum.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angeli[^p389-1] habuerunt simul gratiam et gloriam, meritum et praemium; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia in Angelis usus liberi arbitrii praecessit infusionem gratiae, et ideo in ipsa infusione gratiae motus liberi arbitrii gratia informatus, in quo consistit meritum, potuit praecedere ipsum praemium ordine naturae, quamvis esset simul tempore. Secus autem est in Christo, qui prius ordine naturae habuit deiformitatem gloriae quam usum voluntatis deliberativae, sicut prius ostensum est.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deus subito faciendo nihil omittit de his quae successive concurrunt in operatione creaturae; dicendum, quod cum creatura[^p389-2] inducit aliquam perfectionem vel formam, duo est ibi considerare, videlicet qualitates et dispositiones a parte suscipientis, et operationes a parte agentis et praeparantis. Cum igitur dicitur, quod Deus nihil omittit operando subito de his quae natura introducit; hoc est verum de qualitatibus et dispositionibus informantibus susceptibile, sed non est verum de operibus praeambulis ad illas dispositiones. Et ideo ex ratione hac non potest concludi, quod merita in Christo praecesserunt praemium, cum meritum consistat in opere procedente a voluntate; sed hoc potest concludi, quod in Christo fuit perfectio virtutum et habituum, quae animam habilitant ad gloriam sive ad substantiale praemium.

english:
<!-- page 387 -->

### Article II. *On the merit of Christ as to the fruit or reward.*

Consequently, inquiry is made concerning the merit of Christ as to the fruit, that is, as to the reward. And concerning this three [questions] are asked.

First it is asked, whether Christ merited for himself the fruition of God.

Second it is asked, whether he merited[^p387-1] the glorification of [his] body.

Third it is asked, whether he merited for us the opening of the gate.

### Question I. *Whether Christ merited for himself the fruition of God, that is, the substantial reward.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus and asks, whether Christ merited for himself the fruition of God, that is, the substantial reward. And that he did, it seems:

1. Because, as grace stands to glory, so merit stands to reward[^p387-2]; but Christ had grace ordered to glory: therefore he had merit ordered to reward. But glory consists in the fruition of God, which is the substantial reward: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, he who merits from charity merits something the greater, the greater the charity he has[^p387-3]; but the charity of Christ was the greatest: therefore the greatest reward was due to him. But the greatest reward is none other than the substantial reward, which is God: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it is more glorious to have a reward through merits than without merits[^p387-4]; but Christ in glory excels all the Saints: therefore if the other Saints had the substantial reward through merits, much more strongly [does this seem] concerning Christ.

4. Likewise, the holy Angels had the substantial reward through merits, according to the common opinion of all; but the Angels had grace and glory simultaneously, as was shown in the second book[^p387-5]: therefore if the grace in Christ was not of lesser efficacy than in the Angels, it seems that Christ merited the substantial reward, although the merit did not precede the reward in time.

5. Likewise, when God induces some form suddenly, which a creature acquires through succession, God omits nothing of those dispositions which nature would introduce successively; as is clear, if God were suddenly to make fire from water, he would introduce into the nature of water rarity and dryness and heat[^p387-6]: therefore if a creature is born to attain the reward of glory through the merits of grace, it seems that merits were not lacking to Christ, although glory was conferred on him from the very beginning of his conception.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine, in the thirteenth book *On the Trinity*[^p387-7]: « Among things that arise through time, that is the highest grace, by which a man is joined to God in unity of person »; and in the *Enchiridion* he says, that « with no preceding merits that man was united to God »; but that union could not be without the fruition of God,

<!-- page 388 -->

which is the substantial reward: therefore it does not seem, that Christ had the substantial reward through any merit.

2. Likewise, Augustine in the *Enchiridion*[^p388-1]: « In a certain way that grace became natural to that man, by which he could admit no sin »; but such grace is consummated grace, which is nothing other than glory, that is, the substantial reward: therefore the substantial reward was in a certain way natural to Christ. But nothing of the sort is acquired through merits: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, merit naturally precedes the reward; but the use or act of virtue naturally follows the habit[^p388-2]: since therefore the habit of grace and of glory were simultaneously in Christ, it seems that merits followed upon the substantial reward: therefore they are not ordered in Christ to meriting the substantial reward.

4. Likewise, a natural disposition precedes that to which it disposes; but the deiformity of glory disposed the soul of Christ to union with the Divinity, by a disposition, I say, of congruity[^p388-3]: therefore the deiformity of glory in Christ naturally preceded the personal union, although it was simultaneous in time. But the personal union in Christ naturally preceded merit and the use of free choice: therefore in Christ merits followed upon the substantial reward according to the order of nature: therefore the same returns as before.

5. Likewise, the merit of the substantial reward consists chiefly in the act and affection of charity, according to which[^p388-4] the soul is moved toward God; but according to that affection Christ was not in the state of a wayfarer, but in the state of a comprehensor: if therefore he did not merit insofar as a comprehensor, but insofar as a wayfarer, he did not merit according to that affection of charity, in which the merit of the substantial reward consists: therefore it seems, that he did not merit the substantial reward.

### Conclusion.

> Christ, properly speaking, did not merit for himself the substantial reward.

**I respond:** It must be said, that it is not commonly granted, that Christ merited for himself the substantial reward; and this the Master intimates in the text[^p388-5] quite expressly.

But the reason for this is: for merit signifies an ordering to the reward, as a disposition to the completion, as a way to the terminus; and therefore it is necessary that merit precede the reward either in time, or according to the order of nature. But in neither way did it have to precede in Christ, nor did it precede, on account of this, that the soul of Christ would not be fit for the union, unless it were most blessed and most deiform, which indeed comes about through the influence of glory. If therefore it was necessary that all merits precede that union according to the order of nature, it was also necessary that the deiformity of glory in Christ precede every use of grace; and therefore glory[^p388-6] in Christ preceded all merits on account of the supreme dignity which was in the soul of Christ from its creation, namely on account of its union with the Word. — And therefore it must be granted, that Christ, properly speaking, did not merit for himself the substantial reward. And the reasons which have been adduced for this are to be granted.

**To the opposing [arguments]:**

1. To that which is objected, that as grace is ordered to glory, so merit to reward; it must be said, that in one respect it is similar, in another not. For it is similar as to the condition of disposing, but it is not similar as to its origin, in that both grace and glory are a habit infused divinely, not from us; but merit is a use proceeding from free choice informed by grace. Therefore in Christ there could be an order of grace to glory, the order of both to the union being preserved; but it is not so concerning the order of merit to reward, as was shown before.

2. To that which is objected, that the greatest charity merits the greatest reward; it must be said, that this is true, if charity holds the character of meriting, insofar as [it is] greatest; but the charity of Christ, according to its movement into God, which was greatest and most intense, held the character of reward rather than of merit, nay, was itself the reward; therefore since it was the reward itself, he did not merit the substantial reward.

3. To that which is objected, that it is more glorious to have a reward through merits; it must be said, that this holds true in those who only have to be united to God through a conformity of affection — for in these grace and glory are as it were accidental and by way of acquisition — and by their nature they are born to be indifferently good and evil. But it is otherwise concerning the man assumed by the Word, who is not only united to God through a conformity of affection, but also by a personal union, so that he is called not divine, but God; and for so much « to this man grace is in a certain way natural[^p388-7] », and it is much more glorious for him to have glory from his first

<!-- page 389 -->

creation, than to have it through acquisition; just as it is much more glorious to be God, than to be a servant of God. And therefore that authority has no place concerning Christ.

4. To that which is objected, that the Angels[^p389-1] had grace and glory, merit and reward, simultaneously; it must be said, that it is not similar, because in the Angels the use of free choice preceded the infusion of grace, and therefore in the very infusion of grace the movement of free choice informed by grace, in which merit consists, could precede the reward itself in the order of nature, although it was simultaneous in time. But it is otherwise in Christ, who prior in the order of nature had the deiformity of glory rather than the use of deliberative will, as was shown before.

5. To that which is objected, that God in acting suddenly omits nothing of those things which successively concur in the operation of a creature; it must be said, that when a creature[^p389-2] induces some perfection or form, there are two things to be considered there, namely the qualities and dispositions on the part of the recipient, and the operations on the part of the agent and the one preparing. When therefore it is said, that God omits nothing in acting suddenly of those things which nature introduces; this is true of the qualities and dispositions informing the receivable [subject], but it is not true of the works preliminary to those dispositions. And therefore from this reasoning it cannot be concluded, that merits in Christ preceded the reward, since merit consists in a work proceeding from the will; but this can be concluded, that in Christ there was a perfection of virtues and habits, which render the soul fit for glory, that is, for the substantial reward.

la: Edd. *sui corporis*.

en: The editions [read] *of his body*.

la: *quid* [in textu] in edd. desideratur, cod. C quidem [habet].

en: *quid* [in the text] is wanting in the editions; codex C indeed [has it]. *(Marginal gloss:* in oppositum.*)*

la: Non enim fructus est bonus, ut ait August., de Spiritu et lit. c. 14. n. 26, qui de caritatis radice non surgit.

en: For the fruit is not good, as Augustine says, *On the Spirit and the Letter*, c. 14, n. 26, which does not spring from the root of charity.

la: August., XI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 6. n. 8: *Probatur et exercetur virtus, et est palma gloriosior non consensisse tentatum, quam non potuisse tentari.* — Mox pro *excellit* codd. F T V Z *excessit.*

en: Augustine, *On the Literal Meaning of Genesis* XI, c. 6, n. 8: *Virtue is proved and exercised, and the palm [of victory] is more glorious to have not consented when tempted, than not to have been able to be tempted.* — Soon, for *excellit* codices F T V Z [read] *excessit.*

en: Dist. 5, a. 3, q. 2. Cf. ibid. d. 4, a. 1, q. 1 and following.

la: Aristot., II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 24. (c. 4.), de generatione elementorum agens ait: *Generatio enim in contraria et ex contrariis... His enim ambae contrariae [differentiae], ut igni et aquae; illud enim siccum et calidum, hoc autem frigidum et humidum.* Cfr. IV. Meteor. text. 1. (c. 1.). Et de raro dicit, de Praedicam. c. de Quali: *Spissum [Densum] enim dicitur, eo quod partes sibi ipsis propinquae sint, rarum vero, eo quod distent a se invicem.* — Pro *naturam* Vat. cum paucis codd. *materiam.* Paulo inferius pro *non defuerunt Christo* edd. 1, 2 cum nonnullis codd. perperam *nondum fuerunt in Christo*, Vat. *fuerunt in Christo.*

en: Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 24 (c. 4), treating of the generation of the elements, says: *For generation is into contraries and from contraries... For both of these are contrary [differences], as for fire and water; for the former is dry and hot, but the latter cold and moist.* Cf. *Meteorology* IV, text 1 (c. 1). And concerning the rare he says, in the *Categories*, in the chapter on Quality: *For the dense is so called, because its parts are near to one another, but the rare, because they stand apart from each other.* — For *naturam* the Vatican [edition] with a few codices [reads] *materiam.* A little below, for *non defuerunt Christo* editions 1, 2 with several codices wrongly [read] *nondum fuerunt in Christo*, the Vatican [edition] *fuerunt in Christo.*

la: Cap. 19. n. 24. In textu origin. pro *qua* habetur *quod.* Testimonium seq., ex Enchirid. sumtum, invenitur ibi c. 40. n. 12. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 2.

en: Chapter 19, n. 24. In the original text, for *qua* there stands *quod.* The following testimony, taken from the *Enchiridion*, is found there, c. 40, n. 12. Cf. above the Master's text, d. IV, c. 2.

la: Cap. 40. n. 12. — Paulo inferius codd. IL aa voci *Christo* praefigunt *in.*

en: Chapter 40, n. 12. — A little below, codices IL aa prefix *in* to the word *Christo.*

la: Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 6: *Dicendum est igitur, omnem virtutem et ipsum id, cuius est virtus, bene affectum reddere et opus eius bene efficere; ex. gr. oculi virtus et oculum ipsum et opus ipsius bonum facit, quippe cum oculi virtute fiat, ut bene inspiciamus.* — Pro *naturaliter* edd. 1, 2 cum aliquot codd. *naturale.*

en: Aristotle, *Ethics* II, c. 6: *It must be said therefore, that every virtue renders both that very thing, of which it is the virtue, well-disposed, and makes its work to be well accomplished; for example, the virtue of the eye makes both the eye itself and its work good, since indeed it is by the virtue of the eye that we see well.* — For *naturaliter* editions 1, 2 with several codices [read] *naturale.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 2. a. 3. q. 2. et d. 13. a. 1. q. 1. 3. et a. 2. q. 2. — Mox pro *naturaliter* codd. G H I L T aa *naturalem.*

en: Cf. above d. 2, a. 3, q. 2, and d. 13, a. 1, q. 1 and 3, and a. 2, q. 2. — Soon, for *naturaliter* codices G H I L T aa [read] *naturalem.*

la: Hic c. 2. quam, edd. quae. [Cod. A]

en: Here c. 2. *quam*, the editions [read] *quae.* [Codex A.]

la: Codd. A et ideo illa [deiformitas] in gloria. Idem cod. A cum cod. K. in fine corp. *inducuntur* pro *inductae sunt.*

en: Codices [read] *and therefore that* [deiformity] *in glory.* The same codex A with codex K, at the end of the body, [read] *inducuntur* for *inductae sunt.*

la: Hoc dictum August. fusius expositum est supra d. 4. a. 2. q. 3. — De solut. obiecti cfr. II. Sent. d. 23. dub. 2. — Maior obiectionis infra vocatur auctoritas; tamen nihil invenimus nisi locum Augustini non satis aptum, allegatum pag. 387, nota 4. Paulo superius pro *accidentalis* cod. O substituit *accidentaliter* et proxime post edd. omittunt *et* ante *per modum.*

en: This saying of Augustine is more fully expounded above d. 4, a. 2, q. 3. — On the solution of the objection cf. II *Sent.*, d. 23, dub. 2. — The major [premise] of the objection is below called an authority; yet we find nothing but a passage of Augustine not sufficiently apt, cited on p. 387, note 4. A little above, for *accidentalis* codex O substitutes *accidentaliter*, and immediately after, the editions omit *et* before *per modum.*

la: *(Verba August., Enchirid. c. 40. n. 12, iam supra allegata.)*

en: *(The words of Augustine, Enchiridion c. 40, n. 12, already cited above.)*

la: Codd. K bb adiiciunt *boni.* Inferius pro *consistit* cod. Z *consideratur.*

en: Codices K bb add *good.* Below, for *consistit* codex Z [reads] *consideratur.*

la: Cod. K *natura.* Aliquanto inferius pro *praecesserunt* codd. G I L N U aa bb *praecesserint.* Deinde pro *sed hoc* Vat. *sed ex hoc.*

en: Codex K [reads] *natura.* Somewhat below, for *praecesserunt* codices G I L N U aa bb [read] *praecesserint.* Then for *sed hoc* the Vatican [edition reads] *sed ex hoc.*

latin_scholion:
**[ad Art. I, q. III — impressum in capite p. 387:]**

**I.** Manifestum est, quod passio in se considerata et quatenus a principio extraneo infligitur, non est meritoria; sed ipsa meritoria ex parte sustinentis, qui caritate informatus est, quatenus est voluntarie acceptata, ut hic in solutionibus oppositorum explicatur (cfr. infra d. 20. dub. 3. 4.). — Plura alia de passione Christi, de causa, modo et effectibus eiusdem vide apud Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 18. et 19, nec non apud S. Thomam, S. III. q. 46-50, et etiam infra d. 19. a. 1. q. 1-4.

**II.** De hac quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 17. m. 3. a. 3. — S. Thom., hic a. 5; S. III. q. 47. a. 2, q. 49. a. 1-6. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 4. — Durand., hic q. 3.

**[ad hanc quaest. — impressum in calce p. 389:]**

**I.** Gulielmus Antissiodorensis (Sum. aurea III. tr. 1. c. 7.) cum paucis aliis docuit, Christum sibi meruisse « vitam aeternam, iam habitam ad similitudinem Angelorum »: quam opinionem etiam B. Albert. (hic a. 1.) censuit esse non improbabilem. Sed alii doctores cum S. Bonav., Alexandro Hal. (S. p. III. q. 17. m. 3. a. 1. ad 2.), S. Thoma et Scoto communius hoc negant tum respectu gloriae essentialis, tum respectu gratiae habitualis, si tamen de facto quaeritur; quod etiam in simili quaestione respectu Angelorum (cfr. II. Sent. d. 5. a. 3. q. 2.) docuerunt. Si autem quoad hoc quaeritur de possibili, tunc (ut etiam in aliis de possibili quaestionibus vulgo fit) dissentiunt auctores, dum nonnulli putant, Christum de potentia absoluta sibi gloriam potuisse mereri; cui opinioni favent aliqui loci Scoti (hic q. unica n. 7. 8. 13.) et etiam Alexandri Hal. Alii autem cum Henrico Gandav. (Quodl. 6. q. 6.) et plurimis discipulis S. Thomae dicunt, hoc penitus implicare.

**II.** De hac quaestione praeter laudatos: S. Thom., hic a. 1. quaestiunc. 4; S. III. q. 19. a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**[on Art. I, q. III — printed at the head of p. 387:]**

**I.** It is manifest, that the passion considered in itself, and inasmuch as it is inflicted by an external principle, is not meritorious; but it is itself meritorious on the part of the one sustaining it, who is informed by charity, inasmuch as it is voluntarily accepted, as is here explained in the solutions of the opposing [arguments] (cf. below d. 20, dub. 3, 4). — Many other things concerning the passion of Christ, concerning its cause, mode, and effects, see in Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. III, q. 18 and 19, and also in St. Thomas, *Summa* III, q. 46–50, and also below d. 19, a. 1, q. 1–4.

**II.** On this question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., q. 17, m. 3, a. 3. — St. Thomas, here a. 5; *Summa* III, q. 47, a. 2, q. 49, a. 1–6. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 4. — Durandus, here q. 3.

**[on this question — printed at the foot of p. 389:]**

**I.** William of Auxerre (*Summa aurea* III, tr. 1, c. 7) with a few others taught, that Christ merited for himself « eternal life, already possessed in the likeness of the Angels »: which opinion Bl. Albert also (here a. 1) judged to be not improbable. But other doctors, with St. Bonaventure, Alexander of Hales (*Summa*, p. III, q. 17, m. 3, a. 1, ad 2), St. Thomas, and Scotus, more commonly deny this, both with respect to essential glory and with respect to habitual grace, if indeed inquiry is made as a matter of fact; which they also taught in a similar question with respect to the Angels (cf. II *Sent.*, d. 5, a. 3, q. 2). But if inquiry is made as to this concerning the possible, then (as is also commonly done in other questions concerning the possible) the authors disagree, since some hold that Christ by absolute power could have merited glory for himself; to which opinion some passages of Scotus are favorable (here q. unica, n. 7, 8, 13) and also of Alexander of Hales. But others, with Henry of Ghent (*Quodlibet* 6, q. 6) and very many disciples of St. Thomas, say, that this involves an outright contradiction.

**II.** On this question, besides those cited: St. Thomas, here a. 1, quaestiunc. 4; *Summa* III, q. 19, a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1, quaestiunc. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2, q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column-bands of printed pp.387–389 (PDF 409–411; offset pdf = printed + 22), with the IA djvu OCR (raw 27004→27151) as the base for clean running prose. English is a fresh literal translation. Apparatus rendered from the printed-page footers (per-page restart) read directly off the bands.

**ARTICULUS II opener fold.** Per the locked chunking convention (a short ARTICULUS opener `Consequenter… quaeruntur tria` + the three-question *tractatio* listing folds into that article's q1, no standalone divisio chunk), the ART. II header + subtitle (*De merito Christi quoad fructum vel praemium*) + the 3-question listing (printed at the top of p.387 after the migrating scholion) are folded into this chunk.

**ART. II question titles (verified against the listing + each opener):**
- q1 (*here*): *Utrum Christus sibi meruerit Dei fruitionem sive praemium substantiale* (raw 27004).
- q2: *Utrum Christus meruerit sui corporis glorificationem* (raw 27153).
- q3: *Utrum Christus meruerit nobis ianuae apertionem* (raw 27299).

**Alignment check — PASSED.** The listing reads Primo/Secundo/Tertio = Dei fruitionem / corporis glorificationem / ianuae apertionem; q1's `Primo quaeritur… Circa primum… utrum Christus sibi meruerit Dei fruitionem sive praemium substantiale` matches. Body is *meruerit Dei fruitionem / praemium substantiale.* No q-swap.

**Page-split map (mid-page boundaries):**
- **p.387** (PDF 409): top — migrating scholion "Manifestum est" (running head `ART. II. QUAEST. I.`); then ART. II header + subtitle + 3-question listing; then QUAESTIO I heading + opening + args 1–5 + Sed contra arg 1 (breaks mid-sentence "…sine Dei fruitione,"). Footers = 7 (`[^p387-1..7]`); fn 1 anchors to the listing's *corporis¹*.
- **p.388** (PDF 410): Sed contra arg 1 tail ("quae est praemium substantiale…") + Sed contra args 2–5 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo + Ad opposita 1–3 (breaks at "…a sua prima" mid-word *creatione*). Footers = 7 (`[^p388-1..7]`).
- **p.389** (PDF 411): Ad 3 tail ("creatione, quam habere eam…") + Ad 4 + Ad 5 + SCHOLION ("Gulielmus Antissiodorensis") — then QUAESTIO II begins (NOT in this chunk). Footers = 7 total, **split by body anchor**: fn 1–2 (`[^p389-1..2]`) belong to q1 (anchors *Angeli¹* in Ad 4, *creatura²* in Ad 5); **fn 3–7 belong to a2-q2** (anchors *littera³*, *alii⁴*, *concurrunt⁵*, *superexcedebat⁶*, *ipsius⁷* in q2's body) — see hand-off below.

**Scholion status — PLACED LAST in both `## Latin` and `## English` blocks (body first, scholion last), regardless of print layout.** This chunk carries **TWO** scholion blocks, both labeled with their print location:
1. *"Manifestum est, quod passio…"* (I–II) — prints at the **TOP of p.387** under running head `DIST. XVIII. ART. II. QUAEST. I.`, but is by content the scholion to **Art. I, q. III** (*Utrum Christus aliquid meruerit in passione* — it discusses the passion's being meritorious). The a1-q3 promotion (commit df9b7e1) correctly **excluded** it from q3 and **forwarded** it here so it is not orphaned. Reproduced here under the bracketed label `[ad Art. I, q. III — impressum in capite p. 387]`.
2. *"Gulielmus Antissiodorensis…"* (I–II) — prints at the **foot of p.389** before QUAESTIO II; this is **a2-q1's own** scholion (whether Christ merited essential glory for himself). Label `[ad hanc quaest. — impressum in calce p. 389]`.

⚠ The p.387-top scholion does **not** forward-cover q2/q3; it is q3's content lodged here only because q3's page ended before it printed.

**Hand-offs picked up:** the p.387-top "Manifestum est" scholion forwarded from a1-q3 (now included here). No footer carried from q3 — p.386 fn 1–9 were all q3's; p.387's footer numbering restarts fresh for this question.

**Hand-off forwarded → d18-a2-q2** (*Utrum Christus meruerit sui corporis glorificationem*, raw **27153**, printed p.389→p.390, PDF 411→412): **MIGRATING FOOTERS** — printed p.389's footer notes fn **3–7** belong to a2-q2's body (anchors *Magistri in littera³*, *alii⁴* / *resurrectionem⁴*, *concurrunt⁵*, *superexcedebat⁶*, *unionem ipsius⁷*): fn 3 = `Hic c. 1, ubi etiam seq. arg. insinuatur`; fn 4 = `Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5, et supra pag. 247, nota 3. — De maiori vide tom. II. pag. 661, nota 5`; fn 5 = `Edd. et nonnulli codd. addunt in Christo. Pro concurrunt non pauci codd. concurrant. Pro omnia illa cod. W tria illa`; fn 6 = `Codd. A K U superexcellebat`; fn 7 = `Cod. W sui`. a2-q2 begins at the foot of p.389 (heading + Secundo quaeritur + args), so its first printed page is p.389 and it shares p.389's footer page with this q1. The q1/q2 body seam: q1 ends with its scholion; q2 opens cleanly with `Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus meruerit sui corporis glorificationem` — grammatically independent, no cascade-merge.

**[?] flags:** none — pp.387–389 were fully legible at 450 dpi.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 18, Art. 2, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 389 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum Christus meruerit sui corporis glorificationem.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus meruerit sui corporis glorificationem. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Auctoritate Magistri in littera[^p389-3]: «Merito humilitatis et anima impassibilis facta est et caro immortalis»: ergo Christus meruit immortalitatem carnis, ergo glorificationem corporis.

2. Item, sicut per humilitatem pervenitur ad exaltationem, sic passio via est perveniendi ad impassibilitatem; sed Christus hoc modo pervenit ad impassibilitatem corporis: ergo illam prius promeruit.

3. Item, efficacius meretur quis sibi quam alii — hoc non habet instantiam de his quae sunt nata cadere sub merito — sed Christus meruit aliis resurrectionem et corporis glorificationem[^p389-4]: ergo multo fortius meruit sui corporis glorificationem.

4. Item, nihil plus requiritur ad rationem meriti nisi merendi *principium* et *status* et *ordo* meriti ad praemium; sed haec omnia reperiuntur in Christo ex parte glorificationis corporis — habebat enim caritatem, quae erat principium boni operis; habebat etiam statum merendi ex parte inferiori; exspectabat etiam glorificationem corporis de futuro — si ergo omnia illa concurrunt[^p389-5], quae requiruntur ad meritum; videtur, quod Christus glorificationem corporis sui merebatur.

**Sed contra:** 1. Praemium est excellentius merito, quia Deus remunerat supra condignum; sed caritas Christi superexcedebat[^p389-6] glorificationem corporis: ergo opus ex caritate illa procedens dignum erat maiori remuneratione: non ergo ordinabatur ad glorificationem corporis sicut ad praemium.

2. Item, anima Christi beatificata fuit absque meritis propter unionem ipsius[^p389-7] ad Deitatem: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod corpus Christi absque meritis debuerit effici gloriosum.

3. Item, Christus nunquam habuit debitum mor-

<!-- page 390 -->

tis[^p390-1]: ergo videtur, quod ipsi corpori Christi de se deberetur gloria immortalitatis: non ergo videtur, quod eam per merita acquisierit.

4. Item, aut gloriosius erat Christo habere gloriam corporis *sine* meritis, aut *per* merita. Si *sine* meritis, et quod gloriosius est Christo est attribuendum: igitur Christus gloriam illam sibi non meruit. Si *per* merita, pari ratione erit et de gloria animae. Si ergo illam non meruit[^p390-2], videtur, quod nec istam.

5. Item, aut *necessarium* erat, Christum mereri gloriam corporis, aut *non.* Si *non* erat *necessarium;* cum Christus nulla fecerit praeter necessaria[^p390-3], non videtur, quod Christus gloriam illam acquisierit per merita. Si *necessarium* erat: ergo Christus meritis indigebat ad sui glorificationem. *Sed contra:* Deus parvulos glorificat per solam gratiam absque meritis suis: ergo si multo maior gratia fuit in Christo, non videtur, quod ad sui glorificationem meritis indiguerit.

6. Item, si Christus meruit sibi gloriam corporis sive stolam secundam[^p390-4], ergo patiebatur ad utilitatem suam, non ergo solum patiebatur propter indigentiam nostram: et si hoc verum est, tunc non tenemur ei ad tantas gratias agendas, ad quantas teneremur, si nihil sibi meruisset, sed solum pro nobis crucifixus esset.

### Conclusio.

> *Christus sibi meruit glorificationem corporis, non solum in agendo, sed etiam in patiendo.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio Christus sibi meruit glorificationem corporis non solum in agendo, verum etiam in patiendo, sicut Magister expresse dicit in littera[^p390-5].

Ratio autem huius est, quia Christus, Dei et hominum mediator, simul debuit esse *comprehensor* et *viator: comprehensor* propter suam dignitatem, et *viator* propter nostram necessitatem; et ideo partim debuit esse in *statu gloriae*, partim in *statu miseriae.* In *statu* autem *miseriae* non debuit esse secundum superiorem partem, sed secundum inferiorem, id est secundum carnem. Et ideo secundum divinam dispositionem necessarium fuit, differri corporis Christi glorificationem, ut Christus esset in statu, in quo pro nobis posset mereri et satisfacere. Dum autem Christus nobis merebatur et pro nobis satisfaciebat, faciebat opus Deo placentissimum, et ita remunerabile secundum aliquam partem gloriae. Cum igitur remunerari non posset quantum ad *stolam primam*, sed quantum ad *stolam secundam;* merebatur utique tunc Christus proprii corporis gloriam. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes, quae sunt ad istam partem.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod praemium est excellentius merito; dicendum, quod illud non habet semper veritatem; etsi enim[^p390-6] hoc verum sit de praemio *substantiali*, quo Deus remunerat hominem supra condignum, non tamen oportet, quod *ubique* habeat locum; maiori enim bono potest mereri homo minus bonum. Et ideo non valet ista ratio in merito, quod[^p390-7] respicit *secundam stolam.* — Posset tamen aliter dici, quod praemium est excellentius merito, secundum quod fit comparatio ad *statum* et ad *opus,* per quod quis meretur; et sic non habet instantiam in proposito. Nam *status* corporis fuit nobilior post glorificationem quam ante; gloria etiam corporis excedebat in bono *labores* corporis, quos Christus sustinuit. — Posset etiam tertio modo dici, quod illud habet veritatem de merito, quod ordinatur ad praemium *finaliter* et cum praecisione; sic autem non est in proposito. Nam Christus principaliter[^p390-8] non merebatur propter corporis sui glorificationem, sed propter humani generis reparationem.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod anima sine meritis habuit stolam primam; dicendum, quod non est simile; quia unio divinae naturae ad humanam potius patitur imperfectionem ex parte carnis quam ex parte animae, propter hoc quod est ibi carentia minoris boni, ut melius potest haberi ex his quae habita fuerunt in praecedentibus[^p390-9]; ideo, quamvis gloria *animae* praecesserit omnia merita, gloria tamen *corporis* potuit sequi, ac per hoc mediantibus meritis acquiri.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corpus illud[^p390-10] non habebat debitum mortis; dicendum, quod ex hoc non potest concludi, quod Christus gloriam corporis non meruerit, nisi eo modo dicendi meritum, quo quis dicitur de indebito facere debitum. Hoc autem modo Christus sibi non meruit, sicut prius[^p390-11] dictum fuit, sed alio modo dicendi, videlicet quo quis de debito uno modo facit debitum alio modo.

<!-- page 391 -->

Et ideo, licet immortalitas deberetur Christo, nihilominus tamen immortalitas potuit cadere sub eius merito, isto modo accepto.

4. Ad illud quod quaeritur, si erat magis gloriosum habere per merita quam sine meritis glorificationem corporis; dicendum, quod hoc[^p391-1] erat maxime gloriosum, quia conveniebat Christo in quantum redemptor et mediator; quod quidem est officium magnae gloriae et excellentiae, videlicet ut per humilitatem passionis perveniret ipse cum membris suis ad sublimitatem resurrectionis. Et ideo non est simile ex parte *animae*, quia non sic decet mediatorem Dei et hominum habuisse statum viatoris secundum partem superiorem animae, sicut ex parte *carnis.*

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, si erat necessarium mereri gloriam corporis; dicendum, quod *necessarium* ad praesens dici potest dupliciter, videlicet ex *indigentia* et ex *sufficientia*[^p391-2]: ex *indigentia*, sicut dicitur, necessarium est alicui comedere ad hoc, quod possit vivere; et isto modo non fuerunt necessaria merita Christo, quasi eis indigeret, sed sunt necessaria nobis. Alio modo dicitur necessarium ex *sufficientia*, sicut necessarium est, lucem copiosam diffundi per partes diversas; et hoc modo necessarium fuit, Christum mereri, quia, cum esset confirmatus in bono et esset in statu, in quo poterat mereri, necessarium erat, ipsum tunc facere quae essent Deo placita et remuneratione digna[^p391-3]. Ideo patet, quod non est simile de parvulis, qui propter imperfectionem et impotentiam assequuntur gloriam per merita aliena, utpote per merita Christi, sicut contrahunt culpam propter peccatum primi parentis.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quodsi meruit[^p391-4] sui corporis glorificationem, quod passus est pro se; dicendum, quod *pati pro se* potest aliquis dupliciter: aut ita quod utilitas propria dicat finem *principaliter moventem;* et hoc modo, si Christus passus fuisset pro se, minus liberaliter passus esset, minusque essemus ei obligati ad gratiarum actiones. Alio modo *pati pro se* potest dicere utilitatem propriam, *non principaliter* moventem, sed quodam modo *concomitantem* et *consequentem;* et hoc modo non diminuit de liberalitate beneficii. Et sic Christus passus fuit pro se, quia patiendo aliquid meruit sibi, licet non pateretur propter commodum suum, sed propter meritum nostrum. Sine passione enim Christus nihilominus fuisset gloriosus, non solum in anima, sed etiam in corpore; nos vero sine passione defectum habuissemus non solum ex parte animae, verum etiam ex parte corporis, nisi Deus alio modo subvenisset[^p391-5].

english:
### Question II. *Whether Christ merited the glorification of his body.*

Secondly it is asked, whether Christ merited the glorification of his body. And that he did, it seems:

1. By the authority of the Master in the text[^p389-3]: «By the merit of humility both the soul was made impassible and the flesh immortal»: therefore Christ merited the immortality of the flesh, therefore the glorification of the body.

2. Likewise, just as through humility one arrives at exaltation, so the passion is the way of arriving at impassibility; but Christ in this way arrived at the impassibility of his body: therefore he first merited it.

3. Likewise, one merits more effectually for himself than for another — this has no instance in those things which are apt to fall under merit — but Christ merited for others the resurrection and the glorification of the body[^p389-4]: therefore much more strongly did he merit the glorification of his own body.

4. Likewise, nothing more is required for the account of merit than the *principle* of meriting and the *state* and the *order* of merit to a reward; but all these are found in Christ on the side of the glorification of the body — for he had charity, which was the principle of a good work; he had also the state of meriting on the lower side; he also awaited the glorification of the body in the future — if therefore all those things concur[^p389-5] which are required for merit, it seems that Christ was meriting the glorification of his body.

**On the contrary:** 1. The reward is more excellent than the merit, because God rewards beyond what is condign; but Christ's charity exceeded[^p389-6] the glorification of the body: therefore a work proceeding from that charity was worthy of a greater remuneration: it was not therefore ordered to the glorification of the body as to a reward.

2. Likewise, the soul of Christ was beatified without merits on account of its union[^p389-7] to the Deity: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems that the body of Christ ought to have been made glorious without merits.

3. Likewise, Christ never had any debt of death[^p390-1]: therefore it seems that the glory of immortality was owed to the very body of Christ of itself: it does not therefore seem that he acquired it through merits.

4. Likewise, either it was more glorious for Christ to have the glory of the body *without* merits, or *through* merits. If *without* merits, then that which is more glorious is to be attributed to Christ: therefore Christ did not merit that glory for himself. If *through* merits, by parity of reasoning it will be so also concerning the glory of the soul. If therefore he did not merit the latter[^p390-2], it seems that neither the former.

5. Likewise, either it was *necessary* that Christ merit the glory of the body, or *not.* If it was *not necessary;* since Christ did nothing beyond the necessary[^p390-3], it does not seem that Christ acquired that glory through merits. If it was *necessary:* then Christ needed merits for his glorification. *On the contrary:* God glorifies little ones through grace alone without their merits: therefore if much greater grace was in Christ, it does not seem that he needed merits for his glorification.

6. Likewise, if Christ merited for himself the glory of the body, that is, the second robe[^p390-4], then he was suffering for his own advantage, therefore he was not suffering only on account of our need: and if this is true, then we are not bound to render him as great thanks as we would be bound to render if he had merited nothing for himself, but had been crucified only for us.

### Conclusion.

> *Christ merited for himself the glorification of the body, not only in acting, but also in suffering.*

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt Christ merited for himself the glorification of the body not only in acting, but also in suffering, as the Master expressly says in the text[^p390-5].

Now the reason for this is that Christ, the mediator of God and men, had at once to be *comprehensor* and *viator: comprehensor* on account of his dignity, and *viator* on account of our need; and therefore he had to be partly in the *state of glory*, partly in the *state of misery.* But in the *state of misery* he had to be not according to the higher part, but according to the lower, that is, according to the flesh. And therefore according to the divine disposition it was necessary that the glorification of Christ's body be deferred, so that Christ might be in the state in which he could merit and make satisfaction for us. But while Christ was meriting for us and making satisfaction on our behalf, he was doing a work most pleasing to God, and so remunerable according to some part of glory. Since therefore he could not be rewarded as to the *first robe*, but as to the *second robe;* Christ was indeed then meriting the glory of his own body. — Hence the reasons that are for this side are to be granted.

**To the arguments for the affirmative side:**

1. To that which is objected, that the reward is more excellent than the merit; it must be said that this does not always hold true; for although[^p390-6] this is true of the *substantial* reward, by which God rewards man beyond what is condign, yet it need not hold *everywhere*; for by a greater good a man can merit a lesser good. And therefore this reasoning does not hold in a merit which[^p390-7] regards the *second robe.* — It could, however, be said otherwise, that the reward is more excellent than the merit insofar as a comparison is made to the *state* and to the *work* by which one merits; and thus it has no instance in the matter at hand. For the *state* of the body was nobler after glorification than before; the glory also of the body exceeded in goodness the *labors* of the body which Christ endured. — It could also be said in a third way, that this holds true of a merit which is ordered to a reward *finally* and with exclusivity; but it is not so in the matter at hand. For Christ principally[^p390-8] was not meriting on account of the glorification of his own body, but on account of the reparation of the human race.

2. To that which is objected, that the soul without merits had the first robe; it must be said that it is not similar; because the union of the divine nature to the human suffers imperfection rather from the side of the flesh than from the side of the soul, on account of the fact that there is in it a lack of a lesser good, as can better be gathered from those things which were had in the preceding [questions][^p390-9]; therefore, although the glory of the *soul* preceded all merits, the glory of the *body* could nonetheless follow, and through this be acquired by the mediation of merits.

3. To that which is objected, that that body[^p390-10] did not have a debt of death; it must be said that from this it cannot be concluded that Christ did not merit the glory of the body, except in that mode of speaking of merit by which one is said to make of the undue a debt. But in this mode Christ did not merit for himself, as was said before[^p390-11], but in another mode of speaking, namely that by which one makes of a debt in one mode a debt in another mode.

And therefore, although immortality was owed to Christ, nevertheless immortality could still fall under his merit, taken in this mode.

4. To that which is asked, whether it was more glorious to have the glorification of the body through merits than without merits; it must be said that this[^p391-1] was most glorious, because it befitted Christ inasmuch as he was redeemer and mediator; which is indeed an office of great glory and excellence, namely that through the humility of the passion he himself with his members might arrive at the sublimity of resurrection. And therefore it is not similar on the side of the *soul*, because it is not thus fitting that the mediator of God and men should have had the state of a wayfarer according to the higher part of the soul, as on the side of the *flesh.*

5. To that which is objected, whether it was necessary to merit the glory of the body; it must be said that *necessary* for the present can be said in two ways, namely from *indigence* and from *sufficiency*[^p391-2]: from *indigence*, as it is said, it is necessary for someone to eat in order that he may live; and in this mode merits were not necessary to Christ, as though he needed them, but they are necessary to us. In another mode something is said to be necessary from *sufficiency*, as it is necessary that abundant light be diffused through diverse parts; and in this mode it was necessary that Christ merit, because, since he was confirmed in good and was in the state in which he could merit, it was necessary that he then do the things which were pleasing to God and worthy of remuneration[^p391-3]. Therefore it is clear that it is not similar concerning little ones, who on account of imperfection and incapacity attain glory through the merits of another, as it were through the merits of Christ, just as they contract guilt on account of the sin of the first parent.

6. To that which is objected, that if he merited[^p391-4] the glorification of his body, then he suffered for himself; it must be said that *to suffer for oneself* can be understood in two ways: either in such a way that one's own advantage names the end *moving principally;* and in this mode, if Christ had suffered for himself, he would have suffered less liberally, and we would be less obligated to him for acts of thanksgiving. In another mode *to suffer for oneself* can mean one's own advantage *not* moving *principally*, but in a certain way *concomitantly* and *consequently;* and in this mode it does not diminish from the liberality of the benefit. And thus Christ suffered for himself, because by suffering he merited something for himself, although he did not suffer on account of his own advantage, but on account of our merit. For without the passion Christ would nonetheless have been glorious, not only in soul, but also in body; whereas we without the passion would have had a defect not only on the side of the soul, but also on the side of the body, unless God had come to our aid in another way[^p391-5].

la: Hic c. 1, ubi etiam seq. arg. insinuatur.

en: Here c. 1, where also the following argument is suggested.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5, et supra pag. 247, nota 3. — De maiori vide tom. II. pag. 661, nota 5.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 5, and above p. 247, note 3. — On the major [premise] see vol. II, p. 661, note 5.

la: Edd. et nonnulli codd. addunt *in Christo.* Pro *concurrunt* non pauci codd. *concurrant.* Pro *omnia illa* cod. W *tria illa.*

en: The editions and some codices add *in Christ.* For *concur* not a few codices [read] *let them concur.* For *all those* codex W [reads] *those three.*

la: Codd. A K U *superexcellebat.*

en: Codices A, K, U [read] *was excelling above.*

la: Cod. W *sui.*

en: Codex W [reads] *of his.*

la: Plerique codd. *tributum mortalitatis*, edd. *debitum mortalitatis;* codd. A bb *debitum mortis*, cui lectioni a nobis receptae infra in solut. fere omnes codd. assentiunt.

en: Most codices [read] *tribute of mortality*, the editions *debt of mortality;* codices A, bb *debt of death*, to which reading received by us nearly all the codices assent below in the solution.

la: Ut ostensum est in quaest. praeced.

en: As was shown in the preceding question.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 277, nota 1. — Pro *praeter* cod. bb *nisi.* Circa finem arg. pro *fuit* multi codd. *fuerit*, edd. *fuerat.*

en: Cf. above p. 277, note 1. — For *beyond* codex bb [reads] *except.* Near the end of the argument, for *was* many codices [read] *was* (subjunctive), the editions *had been.*

la: Quae distinguitur a gloria animae sive stola prima. Cfr. infra d. 26. dub. 3.

en: Which is distinguished from the glory of the soul, that is, the first robe. Cf. below d. 26, dub. 3.

la: Hic c. 1. seq. — Paulo inferius pro *simul debuit* edd. 1, 2 cum multis codd. *quidem*, sed incongrue, *simul debet.*

en: Here c. 1f. — A little below, for *had at once* editions 1, 2 with many codices [read] *indeed*, but incongruously, *is at once owed.*

la: Edd. cum pluribus codd. omittunt *enim*, cod. H habet *autem.*

en: The editions with several codices omit *for*, codex H has *however.*

la: Pro *quod* fere omnes codd. et edd. 1, 2 minus bene *quia*, cum manifeste quae sequuntur nullo modo exhibeant rationem assertionis; pro *quod* cod. K *et.* Inferius pro *gloria etiam* idem cod. K *gloria enim*, codd. W X *gloria autem.*

en: For *which* nearly all the codices and editions 1, 2 less correctly [read] *because*, since manifestly what follows in no way provides the ground of the assertion; for *which* codex K [reads] *and.* Below, for *the glory also* the same codex K [reads] *for the glory*, codices W, X *but the glory.*

la: Pro *principaliter* cod. X *finaliter principatum*, et paulo superius *et alio modo* pro *tertio modo.* De ratione ipsa hic adducta cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. seq.

en: For *principally* codex X [reads] *finally the principate*, and a little above *and in another mode* for *in a third mode.* On the very reason adduced here cf. the text of the Master, c. 4f.

en: Dist. 15, a. 1, q. 2, and a. 2, q. 1, to the 6th.

la: Cod. bb *corpus Christi.* Post pauca pro *mortis* edd. *mortalitatis.* Deinde pro *meruerit* complures codd. *meruit.*

en: Codex bb [reads] *the body of Christ.* After a few [words], for *of death* the editions [read] *of mortality.* Then for *meruerit* (subjunctive) several codices [read] *meruit* (indicative).

la: Art. 1. q. 2. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: Art. 1, q. 2. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4.

la: Scil. habere per merita. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5. — In initio solut. pro *quaeritur* codd. A F X *obiicitur*, et subinde pro *si erat* cod. O *si esset.*

en: Namely, to have [it] through merits. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 5. — At the beginning of the solution, for *is asked* codices A, F, X [read] *is objected*, and thereupon for *if it was* codex O [reads] *if it were.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., V. Metaph. text. 6. (IV. c. 5.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Metaphysics* V, text 6 (IV, c. 5).

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. seq. — Paulo inferius voci *imperfectionem* cod. K praemittit *suam.*

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 4f. — A little below, to the word *imperfection* codex K prefixes *its own.*

la: Cod. K hic inserit *sibi.* Paulo inferius pro *moventem* codd. E N U Z *inducentem.*

en: Codex K here inserts *for himself.* A little below, for *moving* codices E, N, U, Z [read] *inducing.*

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 5. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** *Glorificatio corporis* praeter quatuor dotes corporis, quae ab Apostolo (I. Cor. 15, 41. seqq.) commemorantur et a S. Bonaventura (IV. Sent. d. 49. p. II. a. I. 2.) explicantur, comprehendit etiam resurrectionem et ascensionem et ipsius animae impassibilitatem (cfr. hic dub. 1, et S. Thom., hic a. 4. quaestiunc. 2.). *Nominis exaltatio*, de qua hic dub. 2. aliqua dicuntur, comprehendit etiam iudiciariam regiamque potestatem (cfr. S. Thom., S. III. q. 59. a. 3.). Utrumque autem sibi Christum sic meruisse, ut hic in solut. ad 3. explicatur, constat auctoritate s. Scripturae, contradicente Calvino; nec Scot. ab aliis doctoribus dissentit nisi in modo loquendi, cum dicit (hic q. unica n. 15.): «Quamvis non meruerit directe impassibilitatem utriusque, meruit tamen amotionem impedimenti». De hac quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 17. m. 4. a. I. — S. Thom., hic a 4. quaestiunc. 1-3; S. III. q. 19. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. I. quaestiunc. 2-5. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 3.

**II.** Conclusio seq. (3.) quaestionis est manifesta.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The *glorification of the body*, besides the four endowments of the body which are recounted by the Apostle (1 Cor. 15:41ff.) and explained by St. Bonaventure (IV Sent., d. 49, p. II, a. 1, 2), includes also resurrection and ascension and the impassibility of the soul itself (cf. here dub. 1, and St. Thomas, here a. 4, quaestiuncula 2). The *exaltation of the name*, about which some things are said here in dub. 2, includes also judiciary and royal power (cf. St. Thomas, S. III, q. 59, a. 3). That Christ thus merited both for himself, as is explained here in the solution to the third [argument], is established by the authority of sacred Scripture, against Calvin; nor does Scotus dissent from the other doctors except in the manner of speaking, when he says (here, sole question, n. 15): «Although he did not merit directly the impassibility of both, he nevertheless merited the removal of the impediment». On this question: Alex. of Hales, S. p. III, q. 17, m. 4, a. 1. — St. Thomas, here a. 4, quaestiunculae 1-3; S. III, q. 19, a. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1, quaestiunculae 2-5. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2. — Durandus, here q. 3.

**II.** The conclusion of the following (third) question is manifest.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{389,390,391}-{L,R}-*`), per the Vol II/III override (PDF authoritative for Respondeo, solutions, scholion, and all footers). Raw OCR span: 27153→27298 of `raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`. Offset pdf = printed + 22 (printed 389–391 = PDF 411–413).

**Page-split map.**
- **p.389** (foot): Quaestio II heading + opener + args 1–4 + Sed contra 1–2 (arg. 3 runs onto p.390). Apparatus fn **3–7** (5 entries) — p.389 fn 1–2 were captured by a2-q1.
- **p.390** (full): Sed contra 3 (continued) + args 4–6 + Conclusio + Respondeo + replies 1–3 (reply 3 runs onto p.391). Apparatus fn **1–11** (11 entries).
- **p.391** (top, to before QUAESTIO III): reply 3 (continued) + replies 4–6 + Scholion I–II. Apparatus fn **1–5** (5 entries); fn **6** of p.391 belongs to a2-q3's opener and is forwarded.

Total apparatus: **21 entries** (5 + 11 + 5).

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up* (from a2-q1): printed p.389 footer notes fn **3–7** (markers fall in this question's body: littera³, glorificationem⁴, concurrunt⁵, superexcedebat⁶, ipsius⁷). a2-q1 captured only fn 1–2 of p.389.
- *Forwarded* (to a2-q3): printed p.391 footer note fn **6** (`In cod. N adiectum invenimus et habetur in littera...`) belongs to a2-q3's opener marker (Auctoritate Augustini super Epistolam ad Hebraeos⁶); raw line 27305. q2/q3 body seam (raw 27298→27299) is clean: q2 ends with its Scholion; q3 opens `Tertio quaeritur, utrum Christus meruerit nobis ianuae apertionem` (raw 27302).

**Scholion.** This question's own scholion ("Glorificatio corporis...", parts I–II) prints at the foot of p.391 after the Respondeo replies and before QUAESTIO III. Part II is only the single sentence `Conclusio seq. (3.) quaestionis est manifesta`; the text that follows in the OCR footer column (`Ianua paradisi caelestis dicitur clausa...`) belongs to a2-q3's scholion and was excluded. Placed LAST in both the Latin and English `## ` blocks per the scholion-last parser rule.

**[?] flags.** None — the 450 dpi bands were fully legible across all three pages.

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. 18, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 391 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum Christus meruerit nobis ianuae apertionem.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Christus meruerit nobis ianuae apertionem. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Auctoritate Augustini super Epistolam ad Hebraeos[^p391-6]: « Per aliam hostiam non potuit nobis aperiri aditus et fieri salus nisi per mortem Unigeniti, cuius tanta fuit humilitas et patientia, ut eius merito pateret credentibus in eum aditus regni ».

<!-- page 392 -->

2. Item, hoc videtur auctoritate Magistri in littera[^p392-1]: « Christi humilitas, qua mortem gustavit, ingressum regni caelestis omnibus suis, impleto Dei decreto, aperire valuit »; quod si verum est, redit idem quod prius.

3. Item, nullus introibat in caelum, antequam Christus pateretur et moreretur, sed descendebat ad limbum, sicut patet per vetus Testamentum[^p392-2]; sed modo ascendunt: ergo videtur, quod modo aperta sit ianua per Christi meritum.

4. Item, si aliter quam per Christi merita potuissemus introire in gloriam paradisi, ergo sine morte et passione Christi possemus salvari; et si hoc: ergo Christus mortuus esset gratis[^p392-3]. Quodsi hoc est inconveniens, constat, quod non fuit aperta ianua paradisi nisi per merita Christi.

**Sed contra:** 1. Si Christus meruit nobis apertionem ianuae paradisi, aut ergo paradisi *terrestris*, aut *caelestis*. Paradisi *terrestris* non, quia morientes non ingrediuntur illuc; et praeterea, Henoch et Elias ingressi fuerunt ante Christi adventum[^p392-4]. Paradisi *caelestis* non, quoniam in caelo nulla posita fuit custodia vel clausura; homo enim non fuit de eo eiectus: ergo non videtur, quod per merita Christi sit aperta ianua alicuius paradisi.

2. Item, si Christus aperuit nobis ianuam meritis suis, aut ergo merito *actionum*, aut merito *passionum*. Si merito *actionum*: ergo videtur, quod frustra fuerit passus, ex quo actiones suae sufficiebant quantum ad meritum. Si *passionibus*: ergo videtur, quod Christus profecerit quantum ad meritum[^p392-5].

3. Item, omne meritum consistit in radice caritatis, et caritas in Christo non crevit, ergo omne quod Christus meruit, ab initio meruit; sed aditum regni ab initio nobis non meruit, alioquin non oportuisset ipsum pati[^p392-6]: ergo nunquam videtur, quod aditum illum potuisset nobis deinceps mereri.

4. Item, aut iustum erat, nobis ianuam aperiri, aut iniustum. Si iustum: ergo circumscriptis meritis Christi, debebat nobis patere aditus regni. Si iniustum; sed Christus nihil meruit nisi iustum: ergo Christus non meruit nobis apertionem.

5. Item, caritas meretur gloriam ex condigno; sed Abraham habuit caritatem, sicut nos habemus: aut igitur Deus cum eo iniuste egit, aut eum in gloriam introduxit; et si hoc, aditus regni patuit ante adventum Christi: non ergo aperta fuit ianua per merita eius.

6. Item, fides Christi ante adventum Christi ita introducebat hominem a statu culpae in statum gratiae, sicut et post adventum: ergo et pari ratione sic debuit introducere a statu viae in statum gloriae tunc, sicut nunc: ergo si nunc fidelibus morientibus patet ingressus in caelum, videtur, quod et ante adventum Christi: ergo ianua caeli non fuit aperta per eius merita.

### Conclusio.

> Christus per suam satisfactionem meruit nobis paradisi caelestis apertionem.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod est paradisus *terrestris*, et est paradisus *caelestis*, et Adam peccante, utriusque ianua clausa fuit. Clausio autem ianuae paradisi terrestris signum fuit clausionis ianuae paradisi caelestis[^p392-7]. Est autem paradisus caelestis aperta visio Dei[^p392-8]; clausio autem huius ianuae fuit impossibilitas videndi Deum *facie ad faciem*, quae impossibilitas consurgebat ex merito peccati Adae et ex decreto divinae sententiae, quo scilicet Deus decreverat neminem ad sui aspectum admittere, nisi facta esset sibi emenda et satisfactio pro illo peccato. Et quoniam emenda et satisfactio facta est ei per Christum, sicut melius infra[^p392-9] manifestabitur; hinc est, quod per meritum Christi patuit nobis ingressus in caelum. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes et auctoritates, quae hoc ostendunt.

**Ad argumenta:**

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de paradiso caelesti et terrestri; dicendum, quod per meritum Christi patuit nobis aditus in paradisum caelestem, cuius ianuae clausio facta fuit nobis per divinam sententiam, sicut praedictum est, et Magister recitat in littera[^p392-10]. Propter hoc ratio inducta procedit per suppositionem falsi.

<!-- page 393 -->

2. Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum meruerit nobis apertionem ianuae actione, vel passione; dicendum, quod per passionem[^p393-1]. Per passionem enim satisfecit et pretium persolvit; nec sequitur propter hoc, quod in merito profecerit, quia non sibi, sed nobis meruit; et ideo non potest concludi ex hoc, quod ipse profecerit, sed quod nos profecerimus.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod meritum totum consistit in radice caritatis; dicendum, quod est meritum *adeptionis vitae aeternae*, et est meritum *dimissionis poenae*. Meritum *vitae aeternae* consistit in radice caritatis, meritum autem *remissionis poenae* non tantum consistit in caritate, sed etiam in passionis acerbitate. Apertio autem ianuae principaliter consistebat quantum ad meritum *dimissionis poenae*, pro eo quod illa apertio fieri habebat per opus satisfactionis; satisfactio autem fit maxime per opera poenalia[^p393-2].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aut erat iustum, aut iniustum, nobis ianuam aperiri; dicendum, quod ante satisfactionem, reatu manente, *iustum* erat, ianuam nobis claudi; sed satisfactione iam facta, *iustum* erat, nobis ianuam aperiri. Unde Christus satisfaciendo fecit nobis de indebito debitum, ac per hoc vere et proprie nobis meruit aperiri caelum. Unde cum[^p393-3] dicitur, quod Christus nihil meruit nisi iustum; dicendum, quod illud habet veritatem, si intelligatur, quod illud retineat rationem iniustitiae post meritoriam interventionem; sic autem non est hic, sicut visum est.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caritas meretur gloriam aeternam ex condigno; dicendum, quod post lapsum hominis caritas non meretur nisi praeambulo motu fidei; fides autem absoluta non sufficit, nisi sit fides Creatoris et Mediatoris, sine qua nemo potest iustificari[^p393-4]; ideo efficacia omnis meriti fundata est super merita Christi. Et propterea non sequitur, quod caritas mereatur gloriam, circumscriptis meritis Christi, vel introducat in ipsam, pro eo quod meritum caritatis nostrae non excludit merita Christi, sed potius includit.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fides Christi ante passionem introducebat in gratiam, ergo pari ratione et in gloriam; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia status *gratiae* bene compatitur secum obligationem ad poenam; non sic autem status *gloriae*, qui excludit omnem imperfectionem poenae et culpae. Ideo, quamvis Dominus daret gratiam propter satisfactionem promissam[^p393-5], non tamen debuit dare gloriam, nisi satisfactione soluta. Et ideo non patebat ingressus in regnum, nisi prius interveniret passio Christi, per quam solveretur pretium satisfactorium, et nos non tantum liberaremur a culpa, sed etiam absolveremur a reatu. Haec autem melius inferius[^p393-6] manifestabuntur.

english:
### Question III. *Whether Christ merited for us the opening of the gate.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether Christ merited for us the opening of the gate. And that he did, it seems:

1. By the authority of Augustine on the Epistle to the Hebrews[^p391-6]: « By another victim the entrance could not be opened to us, nor salvation be effected, except through the death of the Only-begotten, whose humility and patience were so great, that by his merit the entrance of the kingdom might lie open to those who believe in him ».

2. Likewise, this is seen by the authority of the Master in the text[^p392-1]: « Christ's humility, by which he tasted death, was able to open the entrance of the heavenly kingdom to all his own, the decree of God being fulfilled »; and if this is true, the same returns as before.

3. Likewise, no one entered heaven before Christ suffered and died, but he descended to limbo, as is clear from the Old Testament[^p392-2]; but now they ascend: therefore it seems that now the gate is opened through Christ's merit.

4. Likewise, if we could have entered into the glory of paradise otherwise than through Christ's merits, then we could be saved without the death and passion of Christ; and if so: then Christ would have died in vain[^p392-3]. But if this is unfitting, it is established that the gate of paradise was not opened except through the merits of Christ.

**On the contrary:** 1. If Christ merited for us the opening of the gate of paradise, then either of the *earthly* paradise, or of the *heavenly*. Not of the *earthly* paradise, because those who die do not enter there; and besides, Enoch and Elijah entered before the coming of Christ[^p392-4]. Not of the *heavenly* paradise, since in heaven no guard or barrier was set; for man was not cast out of it: therefore it does not seem that through Christ's merits the gate of any paradise was opened.

2. Likewise, if Christ opened the gate to us by his merits, then either by the merit of *actions*, or by the merit of *passions*. If by the merit of *actions*: then it seems that he suffered in vain, since his actions sufficed as to merit. If by *passions*: then it seems that Christ profited as to merit[^p392-5].

3. Likewise, all merit consists in the root of charity, and charity in Christ did not grow, therefore all that Christ merited, he merited from the beginning; but he did not merit for us the entrance of the kingdom from the beginning, otherwise it would not have been necessary for him to suffer[^p392-6]: therefore it never seems that he could afterward have merited that entrance for us.

4. Likewise, either it was just that the gate be opened to us, or unjust. If just: then, the merits of Christ being set aside, the entrance of the kingdom ought to lie open to us. If unjust; but Christ merited nothing except what is just: therefore Christ did not merit for us the opening.

5. Likewise, charity merits glory by condignity; but Abraham had charity, just as we have it: therefore either God dealt unjustly with him, or he led him into glory; and if this, the entrance of the kingdom lay open before the coming of Christ: therefore the gate was not opened through his merits.

6. Likewise, the faith of Christ before the coming of Christ led man from the state of guilt into the state of grace, just as also after the coming: therefore by parity of reasoning it ought then to have led from the state of the wayfarer into the state of glory, just as now: therefore if now the entrance into heaven lies open to the faithful who die, it seems that it did so also before the coming of Christ: therefore the gate of heaven was not opened through his merits.

### Conclusion.

> Christ by his satisfaction merited for us the opening of the heavenly paradise.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that there is an *earthly* paradise, and there is a *heavenly* paradise, and when Adam sinned, the gate of each was closed. Now the closing of the gate of the earthly paradise was a sign of the closing of the gate of the heavenly paradise[^p392-7]. Now the heavenly paradise is the open vision of God[^p392-8]; and the closing of this gate was the impossibility of seeing God *face to face*, which impossibility arose from the merit of Adam's sin and from the decree of the divine sentence, by which namely God had decreed to admit no one to his sight, unless reparation and satisfaction were made to him for that sin. And since reparation and satisfaction were made to him through Christ, as will be better shown below[^p392-9]; hence it is that through the merit of Christ the entrance into heaven lay open to us. — Hence the reasons and authorities that show this are to be conceded.

**To the arguments:**

1. As for that which is objected concerning the heavenly and earthly paradise; it must be said that through the merit of Christ the entrance into the heavenly paradise lay open to us, the closing of whose gate was made for us by the divine sentence, as has been said, and as the Master recounts in the text[^p392-10]. On account of this the reason adduced proceeds by the supposition of something false.

2. As for that which is asked, whether he merited for us the opening of the gate by action or by passion; it must be said that it was by passion[^p393-1]. For by passion he made satisfaction and paid the price; nor does it follow on this account that he profited in merit, because he merited not for himself, but for us; and therefore it cannot be concluded from this that he himself profited, but that we profited.

3. As for that which is objected, that all merit consists in the root of charity; it must be said that there is a merit *of the attainment of eternal life*, and there is a merit *of the remission of punishment*. The merit *of eternal life* consists in the root of charity, but the merit *of the remission of punishment* consists not only in charity, but also in the bitterness of the passion. Now the opening of the gate consisted principally as to the merit *of the remission of punishment*, for the reason that that opening had to be effected through the work of satisfaction; and satisfaction is made chiefly through penal works[^p393-2].

4. As for that which is objected, that it was either just or unjust that the gate be opened to us; it must be said that before satisfaction, the guilt remaining, it was *just* that the gate be closed to us; but satisfaction now having been made, it was *just* that the gate be opened to us. Hence Christ by making satisfaction made for us a debt out of what was not owed, and through this truly and properly merited for us that heaven be opened. Hence when[^p393-3] it is said that Christ merited nothing except what is just; it must be said that this holds true, if it be understood that it would retain the character of injustice after the meritorious intervention; but it is not so here, as has been seen.

5. As for that which is objected, that charity merits eternal glory by condignity; it must be said that after the fall of man charity does not merit except by a preceding movement of faith; and absolute faith does not suffice, unless it be faith in the Creator and Mediator, without which no one can be justified[^p393-4]; therefore the efficacy of every merit is founded upon the merits of Christ. And on this account it does not follow that charity merits glory, the merits of Christ being set aside, or leads into it, for the reason that the merit of our charity does not exclude the merits of Christ, but rather includes them.

6. As for that which is objected, that the faith of Christ before the passion led into grace, therefore by parity of reasoning also into glory; it must be said that there is no likeness, because the state of *grace* is well compatible with itself an obligation to punishment; but not so the state of *glory*, which excludes every imperfection of punishment and of guilt. Therefore, although the Lord gave grace on account of the promised satisfaction[^p393-5], he nevertheless was not obliged to give glory, except the satisfaction being paid. And therefore the entrance into the kingdom did not lie open, unless first the passion of Christ should intervene, through which the satisfactory price might be paid, and we be not only freed from guilt, but also absolved from punishment. But these things will be better manifested below[^p393-6].

la: In cod. N adiectum invenimus et habetur in littera, ubi a Magistro (hic c. 5.) verba, quae hic Augustino tribuuntur, allata sunt ad illustrandum testimonium Ambrosii (re vera est Alcuini, in Hebr. 9, 15.) ibi adductum. Cfr. August., XIII. de Trin. c. 10. n. 13. seqq., de quo etiam infra agetur d. 20. q. 6. in testimonio allegato.

en: In codex N we found it added, and it is contained in the text, where by the Master (here c. 5) the words which are here attributed to Augustine are adduced to illustrate the testimony of Ambrose (it is in reality Alcuin's, on Heb. 9, 15) adduced there. Cf. Augustine, *On the Trinity* XIII, c. 10, n. 13 ff., concerning whom it will also be treated below, d. 20, q. 6, in the testimony alleged.

la: Hic c. 5. — In dicto Magistri pro *aperire valuit*, quod et originale exhibet, maior pars codd. nec non edd. *aperire voluit*.

en: Here c. 5. — In the saying of the Master, instead of *was able to open* (*aperire valuit*), which the original also gives, the greater part of the codices and likewise the editions read *willed to open* (*aperire voluit*).

la: Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 45. a. I. q. I, ubi specialiter de limbo tractatur et in testimonium eius ex vet. Test. afferuntur illa verba Iacob, Gen. 37, 35: « Descendam ad filium meum lugens in infernum »; nec non illa eiusdem, ibid. 42, 38: « Deducetis canos meos cum dolore ad inferos »; et verba Iob 17, 13: Si sustinuero, infernus domus mea est. — Post pauca pro *ianua* codd. A b *porta*.

en: Cf. IV Sent., d. 45, a. I, q. I, where limbo is specially treated and in its support there are adduced from the Old Testament those words of Jacob, Gen. 37, 35: « I will go down to my son mourning into hell »; and likewise those of the same, ibid. 42, 38: « You will bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the dead »; and the words of Job 17, 13: If I wait, hell is my house. — A little after, instead of *ianua* (gate) codices A b read *porta* (door).

la: Gal. 2, 21. Cfr. supra pag. 66, nota 7.

en: Gal. 2, 21. Cf. above p. 66, note 7.

la: De Henoch vide Eccli. 44, 16. Cfr. Gen. 5, 24, et Hebr. 11, 5. De Elia vide IV. Reg. 2, 11; Eccli. 48, 9. et 13; I. Mach. 2, 58. — Paulo inferius pro *de eo*, quod habent edd., codd. *de ea* [clausura?], codd. A b *de illa*.

en: Concerning Enoch see Sir. 44, 16. Cf. Gen. 5, 24, and Heb. 11, 5. Concerning Elijah see 4 Kings 2, 11; Sir. 48, 9 and 13; 1 Macc. 2, 58. — A little below, instead of *de eo* (out of it), which the editions have, the codices read *de ea* [the barrier?], the codices A b *de illa*.

la: Magister hic in lit. c. 4: Per passionem nil sibi meruit quod non ante per virtutes meruit.

en: The Master here in the text, c. 4: Through the passion he merited for himself nothing that he had not before merited through the virtues.

la: Luc. 24, 26: Nonne haec oportuit pati Christum etc. — De *maiori* cfr. supra pag. 387, nota 3.

en: Luke 24, 26: Did it not behoove Christ to suffer these things, etc. — Concerning the *major* [premise] cf. above p. 387, note 3.

la: Secundum August., XI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 40. n. 55. Cfr. II. de Gen. contra Manich. c. 22. n. 34. — In propositione seq. respicitur illud 1. Cor. 13, 12: Videmus... tunc autem facie ad faciem. — In eadem propositione pro *decreverat* edd. exhibent *determinaverat*, et pro *admittere* cod. X *venire*.

en: According to Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* XI, c. 40, n. 55. Cf. *On Genesis against the Manicheans* II, c. 22, n. 34. — In the following proposition reference is made to that of 1 Cor. 13, 12: We see... but then face to face. — In the same proposition, instead of *decreverat* (had decreed) the editions give *determinaverat* (had determined), and instead of *admittere* (to admit) codex X *venire* (to come).

la: Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 49. p. I. q. 5, ubi in solut. ad I. etiam explicatur, quod sensu *visio Dei* vocetur tota merces.

en: Cf. IV Sent., d. 49, p. I, q. 5, where in the solution to the first it is also explained in what sense the *vision of God* is called the whole reward.

la: Hic c. 5. Vide fundam. 2. — Subinde pro *inducta* codd. U X *praeinducta*.

en: Here c. 5. See the 2nd ground. — Thereupon, instead of *inducta* (adduced) codices U X *praeinducta* (previously adduced).

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 5.

la: Cfr. infra d. 19. a. 1. q. 4.

la: Pro *cum* non pauci codd. *quod*. Subinde pro *nisi iustum* Vat. *iniustum*. Paulo inferius pro *iniustitiae* codd. A I K Z bb falso *iustitiae*. Nam immediate praecedens vox *illud* significat apertionem ianuae caelestis.

en: Instead of *cum* (when) not a few codices read *quod*. Thereupon, instead of *nisi iustum* (except what is just) the Vatican edition reads *iniustum* (unjust). A little below, instead of *iniustitiae* (of injustice) codices A I K Z bb falsely read *iustitiae* (of justice). For the immediately preceding word *illud* signifies the opening of the heavenly gate.

la: Vide supra pag. 236, nota 10. — In initio solut. pro *gloriam aeternam* cod. K *vitam aeternam*. Paulo inferius post *omnis meriti* codd. A K bb subdunt *nostri*. Circa finem solut. pro *non excludit* codd. G I L N T U V Z aa *non excludat*.

en: See above p. 236, note 10. — At the beginning of the solution, instead of *eternal glory* codex K reads *eternal life*. A little below, after *of every merit* codices A K bb add *our*. Near the end of the solution, instead of *non excludit* (does not exclude, indic.) codices G I L N T U V Z aa read *non excludat* (subj.).

la: Edd. verbo *promissam* praemittunt *nobis*.

en: The editions prefix *to us* to the word *promised*.

la: Dist. 19. a. 1. q. 2. et 4. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Dist. 19, a. 1, q. 2 and 4. — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

latin_scholion:
**II.** Conclusio seq. (3.) quaestionis est manifesta. Ianua paradisi caelestis dicitur clausa, « in quantum est aliquod obstaculum prohibens ab introitu paradisi. Obstaculum autem potest esse duplex: unum ex parte personae, quod est per peccatum actuale; aliud ex parte naturae, quod est per peccatum originale.... Et hoc quidem obstaculum auferri non potuit, nisi per eum cuius operatio in totam naturam potuit, scilicet Christum... et quantum ad hoc apertionem ianuae meruit » (S. Thom., hic a. 6. quaestiunc. 2. 3; cfr. S. III. q. 52. a. 5.).

De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 18. m. 6. a. i. — B. Albert., hic a. 12. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., III. Sent. d. 19. q. 1. in fine.

---

english_scholion:
**II.** The conclusion of the following (3rd) question is manifest. The gate of the heavenly paradise is said to be closed, « inasmuch as there is some obstacle preventing entry into paradise. Now the obstacle can be twofold: one on the part of the person, which is through actual sin; the other on the part of the nature, which is through original sin.... And this obstacle indeed could not be removed, except through him whose operation extended to the whole nature, namely Christ... and as to this he merited the opening of the gate » (St. Thomas, here a. 6, little-question 2, 3; cf. Summa III, q. 52, a. 5.).

On the same question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., q. 18, m. 6, a. i. — Bl. Albert, here a. 12. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit., q. 3. — Denis the Carthusian, III Sent., d. 19, q. 1, at the end.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p39{1,2,3}-{L,R}-*`) per the Vol II/III PDF-priority override; the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`, lines 27302–27412) was used only as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. English is a fresh literal translation. q3 body spans raw 27302 (opener `Tertio quaeritur…`) → 27412 (`…inferius manifestabuntur.`); the next boundary, `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` / `DUB. I.`, begins at raw 27414 and belongs to the to-be-created d.18 dubia chunk.

**Page-split map (printed pages 391–393; pdf = printed + 22 → 413–415):**
- **p.391** (foot, after a2-q2's Scholion): QUAESTIO III heading + opener + argument 1. Apparatus = fn **6** only (`[^p391-6]`), the migrating Augustine/Alcuin–Hebrews note picked up from a2-q2 (a2-q2 captured p.391 fn 1–5). q3's own Scholion ("Ianua paradisi…") also prints in p.391's editorial scholion column.
- **p.392**: argument 2 → argument 6, Conclusio, Respondeo, reply 1, reply 2 (opening). Apparatus = fn **1–10** (`[^p392-1..10]`), 10 entries (per-page restart).
- **p.393**: reply 2 (continued) → reply 6 (ending `…inferius manifestabuntur.`). Apparatus = fn **1–6** (`[^p393-1..6]`), 6 entries (the p.393 left-column footer set; the p.393 right-column footers belong to the DUB. I body and migrate to the dubia chunk).

**Apparatus total = 17 entries** (1 + 10 + 6).

**Scholion.** This question's own scholion is the **part II** block printed in the editorial scholion column at the foot of p.391 (raw 27284–27296): `Conclusio seq. (3.) quaestionis est manifesta. Ianua paradisi caelestis dicitur clausa…`. a2-q2 took only the single bridging sentence `Conclusio seq. (3.) quaestionis est manifesta` as the tail of its own scholion (part II); the full part II — that sentence plus the `Ianua paradisi…` text and the `De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal.…` cross-reference roster — is q3's and is reproduced here in full. **Placed LAST in both the `## Latin` and `## English` blocks** (body first, scholion last) per the `extractLanguageBlock` scholion-last parser rule. (There is no part I for q3; part I belongs to q2's "Glorificatio corporis" scholion.)

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up* (from a2-q2): printed p.391 footer note fn **6** (`In cod. N adiectum invenimus…`), anchored to the q3 opener's `Auctoritate Augustini super Epistolam ad Hebraeos⁶` (raw 27305). q2/q3 body seam (raw 27298→27302) is clean: q2 ends with its Scholion (part I + bridging sentence of part II); q3 opens `Tertio quaeritur, utrum Christus meruerit nobis ianuae apertionem`.
- *Forwarded* (to **d.18 dubia — a MISSING skeleton that MUST BE CREATED next**): the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` / `DUB. I.` block begins at **raw line 27414** (printed p.393 right column foot, pdf 415), runs through `DUB. I–V`, and ends before `DISTINCTIO XIX.` at raw 27636 (the awk-scanned `DIST. XVIII. DUBIA.` running head is at raw 27530). **Migrating footers:** the p.393 **right-column** footer set (anchored on DUB. I body markers) belongs to the dubia chunk, not here. **Expected DUB count = 5** (DUB. I–V), per the d.18 question-count findings in `next-session-resume.md`. The `bon-sent-III-d18-dubia.md` file does not yet exist and must be scaffolded + promoted in the next dispatch.

**[?] flags.** None — the 450 dpi column bands were fully legible across pp.391–393, including the scholion column and all 17 footer entries.