Dist. 19, Art. 1, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/19/q/bon-sent-III-d19-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### 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: *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: *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: *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; 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: *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: *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: 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; 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. 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 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. 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 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 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: *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. 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: *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: *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 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; 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; 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: *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, 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.