title: Dist. 21, Part 2, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XXI, Pars II)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. XXI, Part II)

source_text:
<!-- page 571 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit, quod *omnia criminalia saltem semel oportet in confessione exprimi.* Videtur enim falsum, quia ad hoc, quod contritio valeat, non oportet singillatim conteri de quolibet, immo iustificatur in contritione de omnibus[^p571-3]: ergo pari ratione videtur de confessione.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod non est simile, quia contritio est in conspectu Dei, qui uno aspectu videt omnia; sed confessio est in conspectu hominis, qui non potest plene noscere morbum nisi audiendo mortalia singula. Et iterum, confessio fit ad erubescentiam, contritio vero ad peccati detestationem per iustitiam. Detestatio autem intenditur in collectione multorum malorum, sed erubescentia in explicatione singulorum[^p571-4].

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *venialia sufficit generaliter confiteri, nisi aliqua sint frequenter iterata.* Videtur enim non bene dicere, quia iteratio non trahit in aliud genus: ergo quantumcumque iterentur, venialia sunt: ergo sufficit illa generaliter confiteri, sicut et alia.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod consuetudo frequenter ducit in libidinem et contemptum; ideo propter dubium et vitandum periculum, quando timetur probabiliter aliquod horum, est veniale peccatum confitendum, et sufficit stare in generalitate, nec oportet ad singula descendere; si tamen velit descendere, laudabile est valde et utile et pernecessarium volenti ascendere ad perfectionem[^p571-5].

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Humilitatis causa non debet fateri se reum.* Videtur enim contrarium dicere Augustinus in libro *Confessionum*[^p571-6], ubi dicit sic: *Si quaeris a me, utrum iustus sim; respondeo, quod non*; sed constat, quod Augustinus iustus erat, et hoc ex humilitate dicebat et bene et meritorie.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod fateri se reum vel iniustum est dupliciter: aut prout reatus et iniustitia[^p571-7] simpliciter privat iustitiam; et hoc modo non debet se quis fateri reum, nisi habeat mortalis conscientiam. Alio modo est fateri se reum et iniustum, prout privat iustitiae perfectionem; et secundum hoc omnis homo potest se iniustum fateri, secundum illud Isaiae sexagesimo quarto[^p571-8]: *Ut pannus menstruatae universae iustitiae nostrae.* Nec iustificatur homo comparatus Deo, secundum Iob; et hoc modo Augustinus dicebat se non esse iustum.

<!-- page 572 -->

Et nota, quod confessio debito modo facta debet habere sexdecim conditiones; unde versus[^p571-1]:

*Sit simplex, humilis confessio, pura, fidelis,*
*Et frequens, nuda, discreta, libens, verecunda,*
*Integra, secreta, lacrymabilis, accelerata,*
*Fortis et accusans et sit parere parata.*

Sufficientia autem et numerus harum conditionum potest accipi sic. Quaedam enim sunt conditiones, quae sunt et debent esse in confessione secundum sui rectam *quantitatem*; quaedam secundum rectum *ordinem* et *societatem*; quaedam secundum rectam *qualitatem*. — Si secundum rectam *quantitatem*, hoc tripliciter[^p571-2]: aut quantum ad *integritatem*, aut quantum ad *numerositatem*, aut quantum ad *diuturnitatem*; et sic sunt tres conditiones, scilicet quod sit *integra*, *frequens* et *accelerata*. — Si quantum ad *associationem*, sic debet habere societatem duarum partium, scilicet contritionis et satisfactionis. Quantum ad contritionem, sic *lacrymabilis*; quantum ad satisfactionem, sic *parere parata*; vel quantum ad utrumque, et sic *fortis*. — Quantum ad *qualitatem*, aut ipsius confitentis, aut confessionis. Si confitentis, sic sunt quinque conditiones: secundum vim rationalem est *simplex*; secundum concupiscibilem debet esse *libens*; secundum irascibilem *humilis*, in sermone *fidelis* et in signo *verecunda*; et sic sunt quinque. — Si in se consideretur, sic debet esse *pura*, ut nihil intermisceat; debet esse *nuda*, ut nihil celatum teneat; quantum ad circumstantias debet esse *discreta*, ut nihil addat; debet esse *secreta*, ut aliis non noceat; debet esse *accusatoria*, ut se ipsum puniat. — Et sic sunt tres ex parte quantitatis, tres ratione adiuncti, quinque ratione subiecti et quinque ratione sui; et sic in universo sunt sexdecim[^p572-3].

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit in solvendo: *Sed aliud est favore vel odio proprium sacerdotem contemnere* etc. Videtur enim male solvere, quia ex hac solutione quilibet, cui vult, posset confiteri, dum non contemnat proprium sacerdotem. — Sed contrarium habetur in decretali[^p572-4], ubi dicitur, quod «si ex causa vult accedere ad alium, petat primo et obtineat licentiam, quia aliter non poterit solvere vel ligare».

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod illud verbum Augustini[^p572-5] intelligitur quantum ad electionem sacerdotis, antequam subditus alicui se subiiciat et curam animae committat; sed verbum Urbani *post* commissionem; ex tunc enim tenetur ei confiteri nec debet alii, nisi petat licentiam. — Tamen in quinque casibus habetur licentia[^p572-6] pro obtenta. Primus est, si sit vagabundus. — Secundus est, si renuntiavit domicilium. — Tertius, si peccavit vel offendit in aliena parochia. — Quartus, propter sacerdotis ignorantiam, vel malitiam, quia est revelator confessionis, vel sollicitator ad malum. — Ultimus est in casu necessitatis, ut si sit in articulo mortis, vel debeat intrare iustum bellum[^p572-7].

english:
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that he says, that *all mortal sins ought at least once to be expressed in confession.* For it seems false, because for contrition to be valid, it is not necessary to be contrite over each [sin] one by one; rather one is justified in contrition over all of them[^p571-3]: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems [the same] concerning confession.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is not similar, because contrition is in the sight of God, who sees all things with one glance; but confession is in the sight of man, who cannot fully know the disease except by hearing the individual mortal sins. And again, confession is made for shame, but contrition for the detestation of sin through justice. Now detestation is intensified in the gathering together of many evils, but shame in the unfolding of individual ones[^p571-4].

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says, that *it suffices to confess venial sins in general, unless some be frequently repeated.* For it seems not to be well said, because repetition does not draw [a sin] into another genus: therefore however much they be repeated, they are venial: therefore it suffices to confess them in general, like the others.

**I respond:** It must be said that custom frequently leads into lust and contempt; therefore on account of the doubt and to avoid the danger, when it is probably feared [that there is] any of these, the venial sin is to be confessed, and it suffices to remain in generality, nor is it necessary to descend to particulars; if, however, he wishes to descend, it is very laudable and useful and most necessary for one wishing to ascend to perfection[^p571-5].

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *For the sake of humility one ought not to confess oneself guilty.* For Augustine seems to say the contrary in the book of the *Confessions*[^p571-6], where he says thus: *If you ask me whether I am just; I respond that [I am] not*; but it is certain that Augustine was just, and he said this out of humility, both well and meritoriously.

**I respond:** It must be said that to confess oneself guilty or unjust is twofold: either insofar as guilt and injustice[^p571-7] simply deprive [one] of justice; and in this way one ought not to confess oneself guilty, unless he have the consciousness of mortal [sin]. In another way it is to confess oneself guilty and unjust, insofar as it deprives [one] of the perfection of justice; and according to this every man can confess himself unjust, according to that [text] of Isaiah sixty-four[^p571-8]: *As a menstruous cloth is all our justice.* Nor is man justified compared with God, according to Job; and in this way Augustine said himself not to be just.

<!-- page 572 -->

And note that a confession made in due manner ought to have sixteen conditions; whence the verses[^p571-1]:

*Let confession be simple, humble, pure, faithful,*
*And frequent, naked, discreet, willing, modest,*
*Whole, secret, tearful, hastened,*
*Strong and accusing, and let it be prepared to obey.*

Now the sufficiency and number of these conditions can be taken thus. For certain conditions there are which are and ought to be in confession according to its right *quantity*; certain according to right *order* and *association*; certain according to right *quality*. — If according to right *quantity*, this [is] threefold[^p571-2]: either as to *wholeness*, or as to *frequency*, or as to *duration*; and so there are three conditions, namely that it be *whole*, *frequent*, and *hastened*. — If as to *association*, thus it ought to have the company of two parts, namely of contrition and of satisfaction. As to contrition, thus *tearful*; as to satisfaction, thus *prepared to obey*; or as to both, and thus *strong*. — As to *quality*, either of the one confessing, or of the confession. If of the one confessing, thus there are five conditions: according to the rational power it is *simple*; according to the concupiscible it ought to be *willing*; according to the irascible *humble*, in speech *faithful*, and in sign *modest*; and so there are five. — If it be considered in itself, thus it ought to be *pure*, so that it mingle nothing in; it ought to be *naked*, so that it keep nothing hidden; as to circumstances it ought to be *discreet*, so that it add nothing; it ought to be *secret*, so that it harm not others; it ought to be *accusatory*, so that it punish itself. — And so there are three on the part of quantity, three by reason of the adjunct, five by reason of the subject, and five by reason of itself; and so in all there are sixteen[^p572-3].

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says in resolving: *But it is another thing to despise one's own priest out of favor or hatred* etc. For it seems to resolve badly, because from this solution anyone could confess to whom he wills, so long as he does not despise his own priest. — But the contrary is had in the decretal[^p572-4], where it is said that «if for a cause he wishes to go to another, let him first ask and obtain license, because otherwise [the other priest] cannot loose or bind».

**I respond:** It must be said that that word of Augustine[^p572-5] is understood as to the choice of the priest, before the subject subjects himself to anyone and commits the care of his soul; but the word of Urban [refers to] *after* the commission; for from then on he is bound to confess to him and ought not [to confess] to another, unless he ask license. — Yet in five cases license is held[^p572-6] as obtained. The first is, if he be a vagabond. — The second is, if he has renounced his domicile. — The third, if he has sinned or given offense in another parish. — The fourth, on account of the priest's ignorance, or malice, because he is a revealer of confession, or a solicitor to evil. — The last is in the case of necessity, as if he be in the article of death, or ought to enter a just war[^p572-7].

la: Vide supra d. 16. p. 1. a. 4. q. 2.

la: Cfr. supra d. 17. p. III. a. 2. q. 2. — Cod. A *in expressione* (codd. H V W et ed. 1 *expletione*) *singulorum.* — Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 18. m. 4. a. 5. § 1; B. Albert., hic a. 11; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Compare above, d. 17, p. III, a. 2, q. 2. — Codex A [reads] *in expressione* ["in the expression"] (codices H V W and ed. 1 [read] *expletione* ["in the unfolding"]) *singulorum*. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 18, m. 4, a. 5, § 1; Blessed Albert, here, a. 11; St. Thomas, here, on the text.

la: Vide supra d. 17. p. III. a. 2. q. 1. — Superius post *probabiliter* edd. perperam legunt: *aliquod* [Vat. *aliquid*] *horum esse veniale peccatum, confitendum est.* — Idem dub. solvitur a S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: See above, d. 17, p. III, a. 2, q. 1. — Further up, after *probabiliter* ["probably"] the editions wrongly read: *aliquod* [Vat. *aliquid*] *horum esse veniale peccatum, confitendum est* ["that any of these is a venial sin, it is to be confessed"]. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here, on the text.

la: Verba haec, quae eodem modo etiam a B. Alberto (hic a. 12.) afferuntur, in recentioribus edd. Confessionum non inveniuntur; sententia in ipsis expressa collecta fuisse videtur ex iis locis, in quibus August. fatetur, se esse etiam post conversionem suam imperfectum et peccatorem neque omnino mundum in conspectu Dei (I. c. 3. n. 6; X. c. 28. n. 39. c. 30. n. 42. c. 31. n. 47. seq. c. 35. n. 37. c. 37. n. 60. et XIII. c. 4. n. 5.). Cfr. etiam III. contra Crescon. donatist. c. 80. n. 92.

en: These words, which in the same way are also adduced by Blessed Albert (here, a. 12), are not found in the more recent editions of the *Confessions*; the opinion expressed in them seems to have been gathered from those places in which Augustine confesses himself to be, even after his conversion, imperfect and a sinner and not wholly clean in the sight of God (book I, c. 3, n. 6; book X, c. 28, n. 39; c. 30, n. 42; c. 31, n. 47 f.; c. 35, n. 37; c. 37, n. 60; and book XIII, c. 4, n. 5). Compare also [Augustine,] *Against Cresconius the Donatist*, book III, c. 80, n. 92.

la: Edd. *reatus est iniustitia,* sic.

en: The editions [read] *reatus est iniustitia* ["guilt is injustice"], thus.

la: Vers. 6: *Et quasi pannus* etc. (edd. cum plurimis codd. *vestrae*). — Seq. textus est Iob 9, 2: *Vere scio, quod ita sit, et quod non iustificetur homo compositus Deo.* Gregor. (IX. Moral. c. 2. n. 2.) haec verba exponens ait: *Homo quippe Deo suppositus iustitiam percipit, compositus amittit, quia quisquis se auctori bonorum comparat, bono se, quod acceperat, privat. Qui enim accepta bona sibi arrogat, suis contra Deum donis pugnat* etc.

en: Verse 6: *And as a cloth* etc. (the editions with very many codices [read] *vestrae* ["your"]). — The following text is Job 9:2: *Truly I know that it is so, and that man is not justified compared with God.* Gregory (*Morals* IX, c. 2, n. 2), expounding these words, says: *For man placed under God receives justice, but compared [with God] loses it, because whoever compares himself with the author of good things deprives himself of the good which he had received. For he who arrogates to himself the good things received fights with his own gifts against God* etc.

la: Cfr. Petr. Blesens., Poema 4. de Poenitentia, in quo versus his similes occurrunt.

en: Compare Peter of Blois, *Poem* 4, *On Penance*, in which verses similar to these occur.

la: Vide Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de *Quanto.*

en: See Aristotle, *On the Categories*, the chapter on *Quantity*.

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Bernard., Serm. 40. de Diversis n. 6. et Serm. 16. in Cantic. n. 8. seqq.; Alan. ab Insulis, de Sex Alis Cherubim; Innocent. III., Serm. de Poenitentia; B. Albert., d. 17. a. 36; S. Thom., ibid. q. 3. a. 4. quaestiunc. 4.

en: Compare, on this doubt, St. Bernard, *Sermon* 40 *On Various Subjects*, n. 6, and *Sermon* 16 *On the Canticle*, n. 8 ff.; Alan of Lille, *On the Six Wings of the Cherub*; Innocent III, *Sermon on Penance*; Blessed Albert, d. 17, a. 36; St. Thomas, ibid., q. 3, a. 4, sub-question 4.

la: Quae incipit *Omnis utriusque sexus*; cfr. supra pag. 452, nota 3. — Post *non poterit* codd. F G supplent *eum*, edd. substituunt *solvi vel ligari* pro *solvere vel ligare.*

en: [The decretal] which begins *Omnis utriusque sexus* ["Everyone of either sex"]; compare above, page 452, note 3. — After *non poterit* ["cannot"] codices F G supply *eum* ["him"]; the editions substitute *solvi vel ligari* ["to be loosed or bound"] for *solvere vel ligare* ["to loose or bind"].

la: Hic in lit. c. 9. allegatum: *Poenitens eligat sacerdotem.*

en: Here in the text [of the Master], c. 9, what is alleged [is]: *Let the penitent choose a priest.*

la: Edd. addunt *petita.* Inferius pro *renuntiavit* Vat. *mutavit.*

en: The editions add *petita* ["having been sought"]. Further down, for *renuntiavit* ["has renounced"] the Vatican [edition reads] *mutavit* ["has changed"].

la: Cfr. supra d. 17. p. III. a. 1. q. 2. et d. 19. a. 3. q. 1. in corp. — Idem dub. solvitur a S. Thoma et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Compare above, d. 17, p. III, a. 1, q. 2, and d. 19, a. 3, q. 1, in the body. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here, on the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Vol IV two-column PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p571..p572-{L,R}-*` at split x=1880, dpi 450) under the VOL II OVERRIDE (PDF authoritative for the cascade-shattered IA djvu OCR), cross-checked against the raw OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 62583–62760). Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 571–572 = pdf 591–592).

**Page placement.** The chunk header DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI spans both columns roughly mid-printed-p.571 (running head "DIST. XXI. P. II. DUBIA. 571"). Dub. I, II open in the p.571 left column; Dub. III opens in the p.571 right column and continues into p.572. The chunk ends with Dub. IV "...vel debeat intrare iustum bellum" in the p.572 right column, immediately before the centered DISTINCTIO XXII / Cap. I littera ("Si peccata dimissa redeant").

**Cross-chunk hand-off (p.571 split).** The PRIOR chunk d21-p2-a2-q3 (printed_pages 568–571) closes at the top of p.571 in BOTH columns — its tail runs "...nis via recte agendi... Et sic patet totum. Ex hoc autem, quod dictum est, non debet sacerdos sumere audaciam... sacramentalis confessio." (the "Restrictio notanda" marginal). The p.571 footers **1** (Codd. M O V W Z... praeciperet revelari) and **2** (Plures codd. Sacramenti confessio... Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.) belong to a2-q3, NOT to this dubia chunk. This chunk's p.571 apparatus therefore begins at footer 3.

**Page-split map.** Dub. I–III(opening, through "Augustinus dicebat se non esse iustum") on p.571; Dub. III(continuation: "Et nota... sexdecim conditiones" verse + the quantity/quality analysis)–Dub. IV(full) on p.572.

**Apparatus split.** 13 entries: p.571 footers **3–8** (6 dubia notes), p.572 footers **1–7** (7 dubia notes). The p.572 right-column block "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM" (its own footers 1 "Dist. XVII...", 2 "In Epist. ad Eph...", 3 "C. Si Iudas...") belongs to the DISTINCTIO XXII littera and is deliberately excluded.

**[?] flags.** None. The cascade-shattered OCR was fully recoverable against the PDF bands; all four dubia are `[?]`-free.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 22

title_alt: De reditu peccatorum dimissorum; et quid in poenitentia sit Sacramentum et res

title_alt: On the return of forgiven sins; and what in penance is the Sacrament and the reality

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 572 -->

### Cap. I. *Si peccata dimissa redeant.*

Cumque multis auctoritatibus supra[^1] sit assertum, in vera cordis contritione peccata dimitti ante confessionem vel satisfactionem ei etiam, qui aliquando in crimen relapsurus est; quaeritur, si post cordis contritionem confiteri contempserit, vel in peccatum idem vel simile reciderit, an peccata dimissa redeant. Cuius quaestionis solutio obscura est et perplexa, aliis asserentibus, aliis contra negantibus, peccata semel dimissa ulterius replicari ad poenam. Qui vero dicunt, peccata dimissa redire, subditis se muniunt testimoniis. Ambrosius[^2] ait: « Donate invicem, si alter in alterum peccet; alioquin Deus repetit dimissa. Si enim in his contemptus fuerit, sine dubio revocabit sententiam, per quam misericordiam dederat, sicut in Evangelio de servo nequam legitur, qui in conservum suum impius deprehensus est ». Item Rabanus[^3]: « Nequam servum
<!-- page 573 -->
tradidit Deus tortoribus, quoadusque redderet universum debitum; quia non solum peccata, quae post baptismum homo egit, reputabuntur ei ad poenam, sed etiam peccata originalia, quae in baptismo ei sunt dimissa ». Item Gregorius[^4]: « Ex dictis evangelicis constat, quia, si ex corde non dimittimus quod in nos delinquitur, et hoc rursum exigitur, quod iam nobis per poenitentiam dimissum fuisse gaudebamus ». Item Augustinus[^5]: « Dicit Deus: *Dimitte, et dimittetur tibi;* sed ego prius dimisi, dimitte vel postea. Nam si non dimiseris, revocabo te, et quidquid dimiseram, replicabo tibi ». Item: « Qui divini beneficii oblitus, suas vult vindicare iniurias, non solum de futuris peccatis veniam non merebitur, sed etiam praeterita, quae iam sibi dimissa credebat, ad vindictam ei replicabuntur ». Item Beda[^6]: « *Revertar in domum meam* etc. Timendus est iste versiculus, non exponendus, ne culpa, quam in nobis exstinctam credebamus, per incuriam nos vacantes opprimat ». Item: « Quemcumque enim post baptisma sive pravitas haeretica, seu mundana cupiditas arripuerit, mox omnium prosternet in ima vitiorum ». Item Augustinus[^7]: « Redire dimissa peccata, ubi fraterna caritas non est, apertissime Dominus in Evangelio docet in illo servo, a quo Dominus dimissum debitum petiit, eo quod ille conservo suo debitum nollet dimittere ». — His auctoritatibus innituntur qui dicunt, peccata dimissa redire, si replicantur. — Quibus opponitur: si quis pro peccato, de quo poenituit et indulgentiam accepit, iterum punitur; non videtur iustum. Si punitur pro eo quod peccavit, et non emendavit, iustitia est aperta; si vero requiritur quod fuerat condonatum, vel iniustitia est, vel iustitia occulta. Videtur etiam Deus bis in idipsum iudicare, et duplex tribulatio consurgere[^8]; quod Scriptura negat. — Sed ad hoc potest dici, quod neque duplex tribulatio consurgit, neque iudicat Deus bis in idipsum. Hoc enim fieret, si post condignam satisfactionem et sufficientem poenam iterum puniret; sed non satisfecit digne et sufficienter qui non perseveravit. Debuit enim iugem peccati habere memoriam, non ad faciendum, sed ad cavendum; debuit non *oblivisci omnes retributiones Dei,* quae tot sunt, quot sunt peccatorum remissiones: tot ergo debuit cogitare dona Dei, quot mala sua, ac pro illis usque in finem gratias agere. Sed quia ingratus ad *vomitum sicut canis rediit,* ante acta bona mortificavit et peccatum dimissum revocavit, ut, cui humiliato ante Deus peccatum dimiserat, eidem post elato et ingrato imputet.

Sed quia absonum videtur, ut peccata dimissa iterum imputentur; placet quibusdam[^9], neminem pro peccatis semel dimissis iterum a Deo puniri; sed ideo dicuntur *dimissa redire* et imputari, quia propter ingratitudinem ita reus et peccator constituitur, ut ante fuerat. Sic enim quod dimissum fuerat dicitur *exigi,* quia remissionis perceptae ingratus ita reus fit, ut ante fuerat. — Utrique parti quaestionis probati favent doctores; ideoque alicui parti non praeiudicans, studioso lectori iudicium relinquo, addens, mihi tutum fore ac saluti propinquum sub mensa dominorum micas edere[^10].

### Cap. II. *Quid sit Sacramentum et res.*

Post praedicta restat investigare, quid in actione poenitentiae sit Sacramentum et res. Sacramentum enim *signum* est sacrae rei; quid igitur hic *signum* est? Et quae est *res* sacra huius signi? — Quidam dicunt, Sacramentum hic esse quod *exterius* tantum geritur, scilicet exterior poenitentia, quae est *signum* interioris poenitentiae, scilicet contritionis cordis et humiliationis. — Quod si non omne Sacramentum evangelicum id efficit, quod figurat; exterior enim poenitentia non efficit interiorem, potius interior causa est exterioris. — Sed ad hoc inquiunt illi, hoc esse intelligendum de illis Sacramentis, quae in novo testamento instituta sunt, ut est Sacramentum baptismi, confirmationis et corporis Christi. Sacramentum vero poenitentiae, sicut et coniugii, ante tempus gratiae, etiam a primordio humani generis fuit[^11]. Utrumque enim institutum fuit in primis parentibus. — Item, si *exterior* poenitentia Sacramentum est, et *interior* res Sacramenti, saepius praecedit res Sacramentum quam Sacramentum rem. — Sed nec hoc inconveniens est. Nam et in aliis Sacramentis, quae efficiunt quod figurant, hoc saepe contingit.

Quidam autem dicunt, *exteriorem* poenitentiam et *interiorem* esse Sacramentum, nec duo Sacramenta, sed unum, ut species panis et vini non duo sunt Sacramenta, sed unum. Et sicut in Sacramento corporis, ita etiam in hoc Sacramento dicunt aliud esse *tantum Sacramentum,* scilicet exteriorem poenitentiam; aliud *Sacramentum et rem,* scilicet interiorem poenitentiam; aliud *rem et non Sacramentum,* scilicet remissionem peccatorum. Interior enim poenitentia et *res* est Sacramenti, id est exterioris poenitentiae, et *Sacramentum* remissionis peccati, quam et significat[^12] et facit. Exterior quoque poenitentia et interioris signum est et remissionis peccatorum.

---

english:
<!-- page 572 -->

### Chap. I. *Whether forgiven sins return.*

And since it has been asserted above[^1] by many authorities that, in true contrition of heart, sins are forgiven before confession or satisfaction — even for one who is at some point going to relapse into a crime — it is asked whether, if after contrition of heart he has scorned to confess, or has fallen back into the same or a like sin, forgiven sins return. The solution of this question is obscure and perplexed, some asserting, others on the contrary denying, that sins once forgiven are charged again unto punishment. Those, however, who say that forgiven sins return fortify themselves with the following testimonies. Ambrose[^2] says: « Forgive one another, if one sin against the other; otherwise God demands back the things forgiven. For if in these matters he be despised, without doubt he will revoke the sentence by which he had granted mercy, as is read in the Gospel concerning the wicked servant, who was caught being impious toward his fellow servant ». Likewise Rabanus[^3]: « The wicked servant
<!-- page 573 -->
God handed over to the torturers, until he should pay back the whole debt; because not only the sins which a man committed after baptism will be reckoned to him unto punishment, but also the original sins which were forgiven him in baptism ». Likewise Gregory[^4]: « From the evangelical sayings it is established that, if we do not forgive from the heart what is committed against us, that too is demanded back again, over which we rejoiced that it had already been forgiven us through penance ». Likewise Augustine[^5]: « God says: *Forgive, and it shall be forgiven you;* but I have first forgiven, forgive at least afterward. For if you do not forgive, I will recall you, and whatever I had forgiven, I will charge again to you ». Likewise: « He who, forgetful of the divine benefit, wishes to avenge his own injuries, will not only not merit pardon for future sins, but even the past ones, which he believed had already been forgiven him, will be charged back to him unto vengeance ». Likewise Bede[^6]: « *I will return into my house* etc. That verse is to be feared, not to be expounded, lest the fault which we believed extinguished in us, through negligence oppress us as we lie idle ». Likewise: « For whomever, after baptism, either heretical depravity or worldly cupidity has seized, it will soon lay him prostrate in the depths of the vices ». Likewise Augustine[^7]: « That forgiven sins return, where fraternal charity is not, the Lord most plainly teaches in the Gospel, in that servant from whom the Lord demanded back the forgiven debt, because he was unwilling to forgive his fellow servant his debt ». — Upon these authorities rely those who say that forgiven sins return, if they are charged again. — Against whom it is objected: if anyone is punished again for a sin of which he repented and received indulgence, it does not seem just. If he is punished for what he sinned and did not amend, the justice is open; but if what had been remitted is required back, either it is injustice, or a hidden justice. It also seems that God judges twice for the same thing, and that a double tribulation arises[^8]; which Scripture denies. — But to this it can be said that neither does a double tribulation arise, nor does God judge twice for the same thing. For this would happen if, after condign satisfaction and sufficient punishment, he punished again; but he who did not persevere did not satisfy worthily and sufficiently. For he ought to have kept a continual memory of the sin, not for the doing of it, but for the avoiding of it; he ought *not to forget all the retributions of God,* which are as many as are the remissions of sins: as many gifts of God, therefore, ought he to have pondered as his own evils, and for them to give thanks unto the end. But because, ungrateful, *he returned to the vomit like a dog,* he mortified the good things previously done and recalled the forgiven sin, so that to him — to whom, when humbled beforehand, God had forgiven the sin — to the same, afterward lifted up and ungrateful, he may charge it.

But because it seems absurd that forgiven sins should be charged again, it is pleasing to some[^9] that no one is punished again by God for sins once forgiven; but they are said *to return* forgiven and to be charged because, on account of ingratitude, he is so constituted guilty and a sinner as he had been before. For thus what had been forgiven is said *to be required back,* because the man ungrateful for the remission received becomes so guilty as he had been before. — For both parts of the question approved doctors are favorable; and therefore, prejudging neither part, I leave the judgment to the studious reader, adding that it will be safe for me and near to salvation to eat crumbs under the table of the masters[^10].

### Chap. II. *What the Sacrament is and the reality.*

After what has been said, it remains to investigate what in the action of penance is the Sacrament and the reality. For a Sacrament is a *sign* of a sacred thing; what, therefore, is here the *sign?* And what is the sacred *reality* of this sign? — Some say that the Sacrament here is what is done *exteriorly* only, namely exterior penance, which is the *sign* of interior penance, namely of contrition of heart and of humiliation. — But if not every evangelical Sacrament effects what it figures — for exterior penance does not effect the interior, rather the interior is the cause of the exterior — . — But to this those men reply that this is to be understood of those Sacraments which were instituted in the new testament, as is the Sacrament of baptism, of confirmation, and of the body of Christ. But the Sacrament of penance, like that of marriage also, existed before the time of grace, even from the beginning of the human race[^11]. For both were instituted in the first parents. — Likewise, if *exterior* penance is the Sacrament, and the *interior* is the reality of the Sacrament, the reality more often precedes the Sacrament than the Sacrament the reality. — But neither is this unfitting. For in the other Sacraments also, which effect what they figure, this often happens.

Some, however, say that exterior penance and interior are the Sacrament, and not two Sacraments, but one, just as the species of bread and wine are not two Sacraments, but one. And just as in the Sacrament of the body, so also in this Sacrament they say that one thing is the *Sacrament only,* namely exterior penance; another the *Sacrament and the reality,* namely interior penance; another the *reality and not the Sacrament,* namely the remission of sins. For interior penance both is the *reality* of the Sacrament — that is, of exterior penance — and is the *Sacrament* of the remission of sin, which it both signifies[^12] and effects. Exterior penance too is both the sign of the interior and of the remission of sins.

---

la: Dist. XVII. c. I. et XIV. c. ult.

en: Distinction XVII, c. I, and XIV, last chapter.

la: In Epist. ad Eph. 4, 32; cfr. Hugo de S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. XIV. c. 9. — De servo nequam vide Matth. 18, 33. — Pro *peccet* solae edd., excepta 1, *peccat.*

en: On the Epistle to the Ephesians 4:32; cf. Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II, p. XIV, c. 9. — On the wicked servant see Matt. 18:33. — For *peccet* the editions alone, except the 1st, have *peccat.*

la: C. *Si Iudas* (I.), de Poenitent. d. 4. § I.

en: The canon *Si Iudas* (1), *On Penance* dist. 4, § 1.

la: Libr. IV. Dialog. c. 60; C. *Constat ex dictis* (2.), ibid.

en: *Dialogues,* bk. IV, c. 60; the canon *Constat ex dictis* (2), ibid.

la: Serm. 83. (alias 15. de Verbis Dom.) c. 6. n. 7; C. *Dixit Dominus* (3.), ibid. Locus Scripturae est Luc. 6, 37. — Pro *sed ego* can. et Vat. *si ego.* — Seq. locus C. *Qui divini* (4.), ibid.; sententia fere occurrit in August., ibid.

en: Sermon 83 (elsewhere 15, *On the Words of the Lord*), c. 6, n. 7; the canon *Dixit Dominus* (3), ibid. The Scripture passage is Luke 6:37. — For *sed ego* the canon and the Vatican edition have *si ego.* — The following passage is the canon *Qui divini* (4), ibid.; the sentence occurs nearly verbatim in Augustine, ibid.

la: Libr. IV. in Evang. Luc. 11, 24; C. *Revertar in domum* (5.), ibid.; seq. locus ibid. v. 26; C. *Quaecumque enim* (6.), ibid. — Pro *incuriam* edd., exceptis Vat. 4, 6, *incautelam,* refragante canone.

en: Bk. IV on the Gospel of Luke 11:24; the canon *Revertar in domum* (5), ibid.; the following passage ibid., v. 26; the canon *Quaecumque enim* (6), ibid. — For *incuriam* the editions, except the Vatican 4 and 6, have *incautelam,* against the canon.

la: Libr. I. de Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. 12. n. 20; ad verbum in C. *Quomodo exaudit* (41.), de Consecrat. d. 4. § 6. — Inferius pro *redire, si replicantur,* solae edd., excepta 1, *si replicantur, redire* simpliciter.

en: Bk. I *On Baptism against the Donatists,* c. 12, n. 20; word for word in the canon *Quomodo exaudit* (41), *On Consecration,* dist. 4, § 6. — Below, for *redire, si replicantur,* the editions alone, except the 1st, read simply *si replicantur, redire.*

la: Nahum I, 9. Vulgata: *Consummationem ipse faciet, non consurget* etc, cfr. supra d. XV. c. 1. De seqq. cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 102. n. 3. 4. — Infra respiciuntur Ps. 102, 2, et II. Petr. 2, 22.

en: Nahum 1:9. The Vulgate: *He himself will make an end, it will not rise up* etc., cf. above, dist. XV, c. 1. On what follows cf. Augustine, *Expositions on the Psalms* 102, n. 3–4. — Below are referred to Ps. 102:2, and 2 Peter 2:22.

la: Scilicet Hugoni, Sum. Sent. tr. 6. c. 13.

en: Namely to Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum,* tract 6, c. 13.

la: Cfr. Matth. 15, 27.

la: Cfr. De coniugio Gen. 2, 22, sed de poenitentia Gen. 3, 18. seqq. Cod. Erf. notat, quod I. opinio fuit Gandolphi.

en: Cf., on marriage, Gen. 2:22, but on penance Gen. 3:18 ff. The Erfurt codex notes that the 1st opinion was Gandolph's.

la: Plures edd. et aliqui codd. *signat.*

en: Several editions and some codices read *signat* (marks) [for *significat,* signifies].

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 62761–62911), with PDF column-band reads authoritative on the cascade-fragmented two-column body and footers. Bands: `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p572-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p573-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (vol4 split x=1880). The p572 band was generated this session (`colcrop.py vol4 572 1880`); the OCR for both pages is severely shattered (diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation + two-column bleed). English is a fresh literal parallel. Two-column Vol IV → VOL II OVERRIDE applied. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 572–573 = pdf 592–593).
- **Page span correction.** The dispatch estimated pp. 573–574, but the band running-heads and text place the littera on pp. **572–573**: the distinctio-opening title *DISTINCTIO XXII.* falls mid-page on p.572 (below the tail of d.XXI's commentary — the *Respondeo* on choosing a confessor and the five cases of licence, notes ⁵⁶⁷, which belong to the d.XXI chunk and are EXCLUDED); p.573 (running-head digit "573" verified on band p573-R-0) carries the littera's continuation and end; p.574 (band p574-L-0, digit "574") opens the *COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXII* (raw L62912, the next chunk) and is EXCLUDED.
- **This is the LITTERA MAGISTRI of Distinction XXII** — Peter Lombard's two chapters: Cap. I (*Si peccata dimissa redeant* — whether sins forgiven through contrition return if confession is scorned or the sin repeated; the Ambrose/Rabanus/Gregory/Augustine/Bede testimonies for return, the objection of double punishment, and Lombard's non-committal referral to the reader) and Cap. II (*Quid sit Sacramentum et res* — what in penance is Sacrament, Sacrament-and-reality, and reality-only; the two opinions on exterior vs. interior penance). SINGLE-block distinction — no *Pars* division in the Master's text; frontmatter carries no `pars` field.
- **Page-verify.** p.572: end of d.XXI commentary (top), then centered *DISTINCTIO XXII.* + *Cap. I. / Si peccata dimissa redeant.*; footer carries the d.XXI commentary notes (left block 1–5 + right continuation on Urbani II / *renuntiavit*, and notes ⁶⁷) followed by the *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* block (littera notes 1–3) = claimed here as `[^1]–[^3]`. p.573 running-head *DISTINCTIO XXII. 573*; the whole page is littera, footer notes 1–9 = `[^4]–[^12]`.
- **Seam.** p.572→p.573 break falls mid-quote inside the Rabanus testimony: p.572 ends « Nequam servum », p.573 opens « tradidit Deus tortoribus… » — grammatically continuous, no text lost. The littera ends on p.573 with « …et remissionis peccatorum »; immediately below, the *COMMENTARIUS* begins (next chunk, EXCLUDED).
- **Marginalia trimmed** (editorial, not Lombard's text): p.572 d.XXI labels (*Quoad associationem,* *Quoad qualitatem ex parte confitentis,* *Ex parte confessionis*); p.573 littera-structure labels *Dubium 3, Non solvit Magister, Opinio 1, Obiectio 1, Replicatur, Obiectio 2, Replicatur, Opinio 2,* and the running left-margin reference fragments the OCR captured.
- **No scholion** — littera chunk.
- **`[?]` flags: none.** Bands legible throughout. OCR-vs-band corrections silently applied where the band is unambiguous, notably note `[^10]` **Matth. 15, 27** (raw OCR "Malth. IS, 27"): the band reads "15," and the lemma — *sub mensa dominorum micas edere* (crumbs under the masters' table) — is the Canaanite woman of Matt. 15:27, confirming 15 over 18. Other silent fixes: *reputabuntur, dimissa, Gregorius, Augustinus, Beda, exstinctam, prosternet, auctoritatibus, condignam, satisfactionem, retributiones, remissiones, vomitum, humiliato, absonum, imputentur, ingratitudinem, praeiudicans, Sacramentum, figurat, confirmationis, coniugii, primordio, significat.*

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. 22, Divisio Textus

title_alt:
Divisio textus
Division of the text

source_text:
<!-- page 574 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXII.

*De damno confessionis omissae.*

> Cumque multis auctoritatibus supra sit assertum etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

In particula praecedenti egit Magister de utilitate confessionis recte factae. In hac parte agit de damno confessionis omissae. Unde quaerit, utrum propter omissionem confessionis redeant peccata dimissa. Et habet haec pars quatuor particulas. In prima movet quaestionem. In secunda ponit unam opinionem cum sua confirmatione, ibi: *Qui vero dicunt, peccata dimissa* etc. In tertia solvit quae videntur facere contra praedictam rationem, ibi: *Illis auctoritatibus innituntur.* In quarta ponit aliam opinionem, ibi: *Sed quia absonum videtur, ut peccata* etc., ubi ponit aliam opinionem magis temperatam.

*Post praedicta restat investigare.* Haec est ultima pars huius partis, in qua agit de poenitentia, secundum quod habet rationem signi, quae fuit divisa contra totam partem[^1]. Sunt autem in hac parte duae particulae secundum duplicem opinionem, quam ponit, quid sit in poenitentia signum, et quid signatum. Primam ponit ibi: *Post praedicta restat* etc. Secundam ibi: *Quidam autem dicunt, exteriorem poenitentiam* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis tria principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur quantum ad primam partem de reditu peccati.

Secundo quaeritur de poenitentia in ratione Sacramenti, et hoc quantum ad secundam partem.

Tertio ad intelligentiam totius partis praecedentis quaeritur de poenitentia in ratione fundamenti.

Quantum ad primum quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum peccata redeant quantum ad maculam.

Secundo, utrum redeant quantum ad reatum.

---

english:
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXII.

*On the harm of omitted confession.*

> And since it has been asserted above by many authorities, etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

In the preceding section the Master treated of the usefulness of confession rightly made. In this section he treats of the harm of omitted confession. Whence he asks whether, on account of the omission of confession, sins that have been forgiven return. And this section has four subsections. In the first he raises the question. In the second he sets down one opinion together with its confirmation, there: *But those who say that forgiven sins* etc. In the third he resolves the things which seem to tell against the aforesaid account, there: *They rely on those authorities.* In the fourth he sets down another opinion, there: *But since it seems unfitting that sins* etc., where he sets down another, more moderate opinion.

*It remains, after the aforesaid, to investigate.* This is the last part of this section, in which he treats of penance insofar as it has the character of a sign, which was divided off against the whole section[^1]. Now there are in this part two subsections according to the twofold opinion which he sets down as to what in penance is the sign and what is the thing signified. He sets down the first there: *It remains, after the aforesaid* etc. The second there: *But certain ones say that exterior penance* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of the present distinction three things principally are asked.

First it is asked, with respect to the first part, concerning the return of sin.

Secondly it is asked concerning penance in its character as a Sacrament, and this with respect to the second part.

Thirdly, for the understanding of the whole preceding part, it is asked concerning penance in its character as a foundation.

With respect to the first, two things are asked.

First it is asked whether sins return with respect to the stain.

Secondly, whether they return with respect to the guilt.

---

la: Supra d. 17. p. I. *divisio textus.* Superius edd. et codd. falso *minus temperatam* pro *magis temperatam*; cfr. infra a. 1. q. 1. iudicium de 2. opinione.

en: Above, d. 17, p. I, *the division of the text.* Above, the editions and codices falsely [read] *minus temperatam* ("less moderate") for *magis temperatam* ("more moderate"); cf. below, a. 1, q. 1, the judgment on the second opinion.

translators_notes:
- The COMMENTARIUS header, subtitle *De damno confessionis omissae*, and the lemma *Cumque multis auctoritatibus supra sit assertum etc.* were verified against the p. 574 R-column band (running head SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.).
- The single footnote marker in this chunk sits at *quae fuit divisa contra totam partem*¹ (right column of the DIVISIO), confirmed on band `vol4-p574-R-0`. Notes 2 (*Vers. 8*, at *Primae Petri quarto*), 3 (*Cfr. supra d. 14…*), 4 (*Vide supra pag. 493…*), and 5 (*Ita codd. K M R S T…*) all anchor in the Q1 body of the next chunk and are not claimed here.
- No `[?]` ambiguities: the DIVISIO and TRACTATIO are clean running prose in the OCR and fully legible on the column bands.


title: Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 574 -->

### Articulus I. *De reditu peccati.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum peccata dimissa redeant quantum ad maculam.*

Quod autem redeant quantum ad maculam, videtur.

1. Primae Petri quarto[^2]: *Caritas operit multitudinem peccatorum*; sed remoto operimento, remanet et apparet illud quod cooperiebatur: si ergo peccatum sequens removet caritatem, videtur, quod peccata per ipsam dimissa facit in conspectu Dei apparere et esse.

2. Item, sicut se habet culpa ad mortificandum, ita se habet caritas ad vivificandum, et e converso; sed caritas subsequens vivificat opera sua mortificata[^3]: ergo pari ratione culpa sequens facit redire mala prius deleta.

3. Item, peccati deletio est effectus gratiae immediatus; sed remota causa proxima et immediata, removetur effectus[^4]: ergo remota gratia, privatur deletio culpae. Si ergo peccatum gratiam privat, per cuius actum est deletio peccati: ergo peccata priora remanent indeleta.

4. Item, ista duo sunt, quae per culpam constituuntur[^5], scilicet deformitas et pronitas; sed possibile est, peccata priora redire quantum ad deformitatem

<!-- page 575 -->

et pronitatem: ergo etc. *Probatio minoris*: deformitas consistit in deturpatione imaginis, pronitas in inclinatione ad actum aliquem secundum excessum; sed pronitas remanet post peccatum et potest per culpam sequentem intendi, et anima deformari: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Nihil, quod omnino cedit in non-ens, iteratur omnino idem[^1b]; sed culpa, cum deletur, omnino non est: ergo impossibile est, per sequentem actum eandem culpam numero renovari.

2. Item, nihil reducit aliquid deletum ad *esse*, nisi quod potest facere *esse*; sed unus actus non facit nisi unam maculam sive culpam in anima: ergo impossibile est, plura genera peccatorum redire per unam culpam.

3. Item, contrarium non reducit ad *esse* suum contrarium[^2b]; sed possibile est, quod aliquis, qui primo peccavit per avaritiam, postmodum recidivet per prodigalitatem: si ergo prodigalitas non reducit avaritiam ad *esse*, patet etc.

4. Item, si peccata dimissa redeunt quantum ad culpam, aut ergo quia *homo* hoc facit, aut quia *Deus*. *Homo* non, quia non potest eodem peccato numero bis peccare; *Deus* non, quia neminem potest facere peccatorem[^3b]: ergo nullo modo hoc est: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.** *Dimissa peccata nullo modo redeunt quoad culpam.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliquorum opinio fuit, quod priora peccata redirent et priora demerita, sicut ostensum fuit supra[^4b], quod redeunt priora merita et reviviscunt per gratiam subsequentem. Dicebant enim, bona et mala quantum ad mortificationem et deletionem et quantum ad reditum et vivificationem pari passu ambulare, secundum illud quod Dominus dicit Ezechielis decimo octavo[^5b] de viro iusto, quod si se a iustitia avertit, omnium iustitiarum eius non recordabitur, et de peccatore resurgente, quod non recordatur iniquitatum. — Sed tamen illud non videtur intelligibile, quod eadem caritas amissa redeat, si est habitus creatus, nec quod eadem culpa similiter; si enim omnino deletur, non redit eadem, quae prius, sed nova.

Et ideo fuit secunda opinio magis aliquantulum temperata, quod peccata non redeant nisi per *quatuor peccatorum genera*, scilicet per odium fraternum, per apostasiam, per contemptum confitendi, et per hoc, quod dolet, se poenituisse. Unde fecerunt versus:

> *Fratres odit, apostata fit, spernitque fateri,*
> *Poenituisse piget; pristina culpa redit.*

Ratio autem eorum praeter auctoritates, quae hoc dicere videntur et tanguntur in littera[^6b], fuit, quia Dominus remittit culpam sub quadruplici conditione, scilicet si ipse dimittat proximo, si perseveret in fide, si confiteatur culpam, si perpetuo detestetur culpam commissam. Et quoniam pactio frangitur, non existente conditione, quando aliquis peccat aliquo genere praedictorum peccatorum; dicunt, culpam redire. — Sed nec ista positio debet teneri, licet fuerit magni clerici, scilicet Praepositivi[^7b], quoniam non rectum habet fundamentum. Constat enim, culpam non deleri nisi per gratiam; constat etiam, ad praesentiam gratiae omnino deleri culpam. Si enim gratia praesens est; culpa omnino deleta est; quodsi deleta est et iam non est, nec est qui faciat, eam esse in anima; et ideo non videtur probabile, quod propter aliquam conditionem deficientem culpa dimissa iterum redeat.

Et ideo est positio probabilis et recta, quam tenent moderni doctores, quod peccata dimissa nullo modo redeant quoad culpam. — Et concedendae sunt rationes quoad partem istam.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur primo de remotione operimenti, dicendum, quod aliud est operiri in conspectu hominis, aliud in conspectu Dei. In conspectu hominis cooperiri potest aliquid, ita tamen, quod propter hoc non desinit; sicut pictura operitur panno, non quia non sit, sed quia non apparet. In conspectu autem Dei, quem nihil potest latere, *operire est facere, quod non sit*[^8b]; et hoc modo caritas operit priora peccata delendo; et ideo, cum iam non sint, remoto operimento, non apparent.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod gratia vivificat opera mortificata; respondetur ad hoc, quod non est

<!-- page 576 -->

simile, tum ex parte *gratiae*, tum ex parte *bonorum*, tum ex parte *divinae misericordiae*. Ex parte *gratiae*, quoniam ipsa est potentior ad bonum, quam culpa in malum. Ex parte *bonorum*, quia connexio est in bonis, et manent in unitate corporis mystici; non sic est in malis. Ex parte *divinae misericordiae*, quae «pronior est ad miserendum quam ad condemnandum[^1c]». Et ideo non valet. — Sed aliter potest dici, quod aliud est *bona opera mortificari*, aliud *peccata deleri*. Bona namque *opera* mortificantur, non quia esse desinant, sed quia reputantur indigna remuneratione aeterna propter indignitatem solam peccantis. Sed *peccata deleri* vere dicit peccati expulsionem et remotionem talis vitii ab anima. Unde sicut caritas, quae est habitus animae, nunquam eadem redit, si amittatur; sic nec culpa eadem redire potest.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de effectu immediato, dicendum, quod effectus habet comparari ad aliquam causam dupliciter: aut sicut ad *introducentem et conservantem*, ut lumen ad solem, et sic locum habet illa maxima[^2c]; aut sicut ad *introducentem solum*, et sic non habet locum. Si enim cultellus infligit plagam, non oportet, quod destructo cultello, destruatur plaga. Sic in proposito est intelligendum, quod gratia in suo primo adventu facit, culpam, quam invenit in anima, amplius non esse.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de deformitate et pronitate, dicendum, quod *neutra* redit omnino eadem numero. Sed quamvis de *pronitate* aliquo modo possit esse verum; non intenditur tamen *deformitas*, quae est in privatione boni, et nota displicentiae eadem esse non potest; et haec est culpa, proprie loquendo, sicut planum est in secundo libro[^3c].

english:
### Article I. *On the return of sin.*
### Question I. *Whether forgiven sins return as to their stain.*

That they do return as to the stain, is [thus] shown.

1. First of Peter, chapter four[^2]: *Charity covers a multitude of sins*; but when the covering is removed, that which was being covered remains and appears: if therefore a subsequent sin removes charity, it seems that it makes the sins forgiven through it appear and be in the sight of God.

2. Likewise, as fault is disposed toward mortifying, so charity is disposed toward vivifying, and conversely; but subsequent charity vivifies its own mortified works[^3]: therefore by parallel reasoning a subsequent fault makes the evils previously blotted out return.

3. Likewise, the blotting-out of sin is an immediate effect of grace; but when the proximate and immediate cause is removed, the effect is removed[^4]: therefore, grace being removed, the blotting-out of the fault is taken away. If therefore sin deprives [of] the grace by whose act the blotting-out of sin comes about: therefore the prior sins remain unblotted-out.

4. Likewise, there are these two things which are constituted through fault[^5], namely deformity and proneness; but it is possible for the prior sins to return as to deformity

<!-- page 575 -->

and proneness: therefore etc. *Proof of the minor*: deformity consists in the disfigurement of the image, proneness in an inclination toward some act by way of excess; but proneness remains after the sin and can be intensified through a subsequent fault, and the soul deformed: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Nothing which passes wholly into non-being is repeated wholly the same[^1b]; but fault, when it is blotted out, wholly is not: therefore it is impossible for the same fault to be renewed numerically through a subsequent act.

2. Likewise, nothing brings back something blotted out to *being*, except that which can make [it] *be*; but one act makes only one stain or fault in the soul: therefore it is impossible for several kinds of sins to return through one fault.

3. Likewise, a contrary does not bring back its contrary to *being*[^2b]; but it is possible that someone who first sinned through avarice afterward relapses through prodigality: if therefore prodigality does not bring avarice back to *being*, it is clear etc.

4. Likewise, if forgiven sins return as to fault, then either [it is] because *man* does this, or because *God*. Not *man*, because he cannot sin twice with numerically the same sin; not *God*, because he can make no one a sinner[^3b]: therefore in no way is this [so]: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** *Forgiven sins in no way return as to fault.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the opinion of some was that the prior sins would return, and the prior demerits, just as it was shown above[^4b] that the prior merits return and revive through subsequent grace. For they said that goods and evils walk with equal step as to mortification and blotting-out and as to return and vivification, according to that which the Lord says in Ezekiel eighteen[^5b] concerning the just man, that if he turns himself away from justice, none of his [acts of] justice will be remembered, and concerning the sinner rising again, that his iniquities are not remembered. — But nevertheless that does not seem intelligible, that the same charity, once lost, should return, if it is a created habit, nor that the same fault likewise; for if it is wholly blotted out, there returns not the same [fault] as before, but a new one.

And therefore there was a second opinion, somewhat more tempered, that sins do not return except through *four kinds of sins*, namely through fraternal hatred, through apostasy, through contempt of confessing, and through this, that one is grieved to have repented. Whence they made verses:

> *He hates [his] brothers, becomes an apostate, and scorns to confess,*
> *He is loath to have repented; the former fault returns.*

But their reason, besides the authorities which seem to say this and are touched upon in the [Master's] text[^6b], was this: that the Lord remits fault under a fourfold condition, namely if he himself forgive his neighbor, if he persevere in faith, if he confess the fault, if he perpetually detest the committed fault. And since the pact is broken when the condition does not exist, when someone sins by any kind of the aforesaid sins; they say the fault returns. — But neither ought this position to be held, although it was [that] of a great cleric, namely of Praepositivus[^7b], since it does not have a right foundation. For it is agreed that fault is not blotted out except through grace; it is agreed also that at the presence of grace the fault is wholly blotted out. For if grace is present, the fault is wholly blotted out; and if it is blotted out and now is not, there is none who could make it be in the soul; and therefore it does not seem probable that, on account of some failing condition, a forgiven fault should return again.

And therefore that is a probable and correct position, which the modern doctors hold, that forgiven sins in no way return as to fault. — And the arguments are to be granted as regards this part.

1. To that which is objected, first, concerning the removal of the covering, it must be said that it is one thing to be covered in the sight of man, another in the sight of God. In the sight of man something can be covered, yet in such a way that on account of this it does not cease [to be]; as a picture is covered by a cloth, not because it is not, but because it does not appear. But in the sight of God, from whom nothing can be hidden, *to cover is to make that it not be*[^8b]; and in this way charity covers the prior sins by blotting them out; and therefore, since they now are not, once the covering is removed, they do not appear.

2. To that which is objected, that grace vivifies mortified works; it is answered to this, that it is not

<!-- page 576 -->

alike, whether on the part of *grace*, or on the part of *goods*, or on the part of *divine mercy*. On the part of *grace*, because it itself is more powerful toward good than fault [is] toward evil. On the part of *goods*, because there is a connection in goods, and they remain in the unity of the mystical body; it is not so in evils. On the part of *divine mercy*, which «is more inclined to have mercy than to condemn[^1c]». And therefore it does not hold. — But it can be said otherwise, that it is one thing for *good works to be mortified*, another for *sins to be blotted out*. For good *works* are mortified, not because they cease to be, but because they are reckoned unworthy of eternal reward on account of the sinner's guilt alone. But *for sins to be blotted out* truly means the expulsion of sin and the removal of such a vice from the soul. Whence just as charity, which is a habit of the soul, never returns the same, if it is lost; so neither can the same fault return.

3. To that which is objected concerning the immediate effect, it must be said that an effect can be compared to a cause in two ways: either as to [something] *introducing and conserving*, as light to the sun, and thus that maxim[^2c] holds place; or as to [something] *introducing only*, and thus it does not hold place. For if a knife inflicts a wound, it is not necessary that, the knife being destroyed, the wound be destroyed. Thus in the matter at hand it must be understood that grace, at its first coming, makes the fault, which it finds in the soul, be no more.

4. To that which is objected concerning deformity and proneness, it must be said that *neither* returns numerically wholly the same. But although concerning *proneness* it can in some way be true; nevertheless *deformity* is not intended [here], which is in the privation of good, and the mark of displeasure cannot be the same; and this is fault, properly speaking, as is plain in the second book[^3c].

la: Vers. 8.

en: Verse 8.

la: Cfr. supra d. 14. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. — Post *opera sua* (codd. F U Z omittunt *sua*, pro quo codd. E M W aa *bona*) edd. addunt *prius*.

en: Cf. above d. 14. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. — After *opera sua* (codices F U Z omit *sua*, for which codices E M W aa [read] *bona*) the editions add *prius*.

la: Vide supra pag. 493, nota 6.

en: See above p. 493, note 6.

la: Ita codd. K M R S T, in aliis et edd. minus bene *quae culpam constituunt*.

en: So codices K M R S T; in the others and the editions, less well, *quae culpam constituunt* [which constitute the fault].

la: Vide supra pag. 339, nota 1. — Avicenna, *Metaph.* tr. 3. c. 4: *Quod annihilatum est non reducitur.*

en: See above p. 339, note 1. — Avicenna, *Metaphysics* tr. 3. c. 4: *That which is annihilated is not brought back.*

la: Aristot., VIII. *Phys.* text. 64. (c. 8.): *Contraria mutuo se corrumpunt et impediunt.*

en: Aristotle, VIII *Physics*, text 64 (c. 8): *Contraries mutually corrupt and impede one another.*

en: Distinction 14. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. Cf. also d. 15. p. I. q. 4.

la: Vers. 24, ubi de iusto a iustitia se avertente, et v. 22, ubi de peccatore resurgente.

en: Verse 24, where [it speaks] of the just man turning himself away from justice, and v. 22, where [it speaks] of the sinner rising again.

la: Hic c. 1. Vide etiam Gratian., *de Poenitentia* d. 4.

en: Here c. 1. See also Gratian, *On Penance* d. 4.

la: Sum. p. II. quaest., quae sic inscribitur: *Nunc de reditu peccatorum quaeritur, scilicet an peccata redeant*, ubi ait: *Quidam dicunt, quod peccata non redeunt, sed dicuntur redire; quia quaedam ingratitudo inest isti, quae aequipollet omnibus istis peccatis... Nobis autem videtur generaliter verum, quod peccata non redeunt; sunt tamen casus, in quibus redeunt, scilicet fraterno odio, de quo habemus exemplum in servo nequam* [Matth. 18, 32. seqq.], *pro apostasia, ut in Iuda; pro eo quod quis non vult confiteri post contritionem, vel satisfacere post confessionem; et qui agit poenitentiam poenitentiae* [a secunda manu additur *de quo*], *ut dicit Ambrosius: Hoc maxime cavendum est, ne quis agat poenitentiam poenitentiae* [II. *de Poenitentia*, c. 9. n. 86: *Sed eos qui poenitentiam agunt, hoc solum poenitere non debet, ne ipsius poenitentiae agant poenitentiam*]. *Auctoritates ergo illae, quae dicunt, peccata non redire, ad generalitatem referendae sunt; quae dicunt, redire, ad casus exceptos.*

en: Summa, p. II, a question inscribed thus: *Now it is asked concerning the return of sins, namely whether sins return*, where he says: *Some say that sins do not return, but are said to return; because a certain ingratitude is present in this [man], which is equivalent to all these sins... But to us it seems generally true that sins do not return; there are, however, cases in which they do return, namely by fraternal hatred, of which we have an example in the wicked servant* [Matt. 18:32 ff.], *for apostasy, as in Judas; for the fact that someone is unwilling to confess after contrition, or to make satisfaction after confession; and he who does penance for [his] penance* [by a second hand is added *de quo*], *as Ambrose says: This must be most avoided, that anyone do penance for [his] penance* [II *On Penance*, c. 9. n. 86: *But those who do penance, of this alone they ought not to repent, lest they do penance for their very penance*]. *Therefore those authorities which say that sins do not return are to be referred to the general [rule]; those which say they return, to the excepted cases.*

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XVIII. c. 4, verba August. in Ps. 31, 1: *Beati... quorum tecta sunt peccata.*

en: Cf. above the Master's text, d. XVIII. c. 4, the words of Augustine on Ps. 31, 1: *Blessed... whose sins are covered.*

la: Vide supra pag. 333, nota 3. — De secunda ratione cfr. supra d. 14. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. in corp. [ubi etiam ... insinuatur], et III. Sent. d. 36. q. 1. seqq.; de prima cfr. Rom. 5, [...] d. 13. seqq., et tom. II. pag. 920, nota 4.

en: See above p. 333, note 3. — On the second reason cf. above d. 14. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. in the body [where also ... it is intimated], and III Sent. d. 36. q. 1. seqq.; on the first cf. Rom. 5, [...] d. 13. seqq., and tom. II. p. 920, note 4.

la: Scil. remota causa proxima et immediata, removetur effectus. Cfr. supra d. 21. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. ad 6.

en: Namely, when the proximate and immediate cause is removed, the effect is removed. Cf. above d. 21. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. ad 6.

la: Dist. 32. a. 1. q. 1; d. 33. a. 2. q. 1; d. 34. a. 2. q. 3; et d. 35. per totam. — Codd. N aa addunt *per essentiam*.

en: Distinction 32. a. 1. q. 1; d. 33. a. 2. q. 1; d. 34. a. 2. q. 3; and d. 35. throughout. — Codices N aa add *per essentiam* [by essence].

latin_scholion:
**I.** De duabus huius art. quaestionibus plura habet Gratianus (*de Poenitent.* d. 4.), et post eum illa aetate serio in utramque partem disputatum est. Guliel. Parisiens. (*de Sacram. poenitent.* c. 19.) diffuse probare nititur, peccata dimissa redire recidivo, non quidem quoad culpam, sed quoad poenam, sive propter legem iustitiae, sive propter ingratitudinem; denique sic concludit: «Summa omnium est, poenas peccatorum iam dimissorum redire ex integro de iure et iustitia, vel potius recidivantes peccatores redire et recidere in ipsas, quantum est de iure et iustitia meritorum ipsorum. Fines autem misericordiae Dei vel limites non hic et alibi praescribimus, sed immensitatem eius semper et veneramur et praedicamus». De hoc Gulielmi loco dicit Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 1.): «Diligenti legenti formidinem incutit grandem; aliarum etiam opinionum solvit obiecta... hocque ad minus convincit, quod peccata vehementer, immo ineffabiliter aggravantur per recidivationem frequentem». — Sed Guliel. Antissiod. (S. p. IV. tr. 6. q. 7. c. 6.), S. Thom. aliique posteriores consentiunt sententiae nostri auctoris quoad utramque quaestionem. (Cfr. etiam supra d. 14. p. II. a. 2. et 1. et hic dub. 3.).

De utraque quaestione: Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 1-4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1-4. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., loc. cit.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the two questions of this article Gratian has much (*On Penance* d. 4), and after him, in that age, it was seriously disputed on both sides. William of Paris (*On the Sacrament of Penance* c. 19) strives at length to prove that forgiven sins return by relapse, not indeed as to fault, but as to penalty, whether on account of the law of justice, or on account of ingratitude; finally he concludes thus: «The sum of all is that the penalties of sins already forgiven return in full by right and justice, or rather that relapsing sinners return and relapse into them, as far as concerns the right and justice of their own merits. But the ends or limits of God's mercy we do not here and elsewhere prescribe, but we always both venerate and proclaim its immensity». Concerning this passage of William, Dionysius the Carthusian says (here q. 1): «To the diligent reader it strikes great dread; it also solves the objections of the other opinions... and it convinces at least of this, that sins are gravely, indeed unspeakably, aggravated by frequent relapse». — But William of Auxerre (S. p. IV. tr. 6. q. 7. c. 6.), St. Thomas, and other later [authors] agree with the opinion of our author as to both questions. (Cf. also above d. 14. p. II. a. 2. and 1. and here dub. 3.).

On both questions: Scotus, in both Writings, here the single question. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Blessed Albert, here a. 1-4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 1-4. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, in the place cited.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{574,575,576}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 62951–63161) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/scholion/footer regions. Offset pdf = printed + 20. Running heads confirmed: p. 574 top "574 ... SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (the COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXII / DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM fill the upper page and belong to the divisio chunk); p. 575 "DIST. XXII. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 575"; p. 576 "576 ... SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (OCR digit-mangling: 575 printed "875", 576 printed "S76").

**Chunk boundaries.** This chunk owns ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I onward (raw L62951). The pars-level TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM opener ("Quantum ad primum quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, utrum peccata redeant quantum ad maculam. Secundo, utrum redeant quantum ad reatum.") prints *above* the ARTICULUS I header and belongs to the divisio chunk, not here. The chunk ends with the article Scholion; QUAESTIO II ("Utrum peccata dimissa redeant quantum ad reatum poenae", raw L63162) opens on p. 576 immediately after the scholion and belongs to the a1-q2 chunk.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 574: ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I headers; the "Quod autem redeant... videtur" opener + affirmative args 1–4 (marginal rubric *Ad oppositum.*). Break falls inside arg 4 ("...redire quantum ad deformitatem | et pronitatem").
- p. 575: arg 4 tail (*Probatio minoris*); *Contra* 1–4; CONCLUSIO; RESPONDEO (opinion 1 + refutation, opinion 2 / Praepositivus + refutation, opinion 3 = *positio recta*); *Solutio oppositorum* replies 1–2. Break falls inside reply 2 ("...respondetur ad hoc, quod non est | simile").
- p. 576: reply 2 tail (the threefold *dissimilitudo* + the *bona opera mortificari / peccata deleri* distinction); replies 3–4; then the full-width SCHOLION (§I, two-column) covering both questions; then QUAESTIO II begins (a1-q2).

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 15 entries, all anchored in this q1's body).**
- p. 574 (4 footers, `^2`–`^5`): note 1 ("Supra d. 17. p. I. divisio textus...") anchors above ARTICULUS I in the divisio TRACTATIO and is NOT rendered here; `^2` Vers. 8 (arg 1); `^3` d.14 + *opera sua* var. (arg 2); `^4` pag. 493 nota 6 (arg 3); `^5` codd. KMRST var. (arg 4).
- p. 575 (8 footers, `^1b`–`^8b`): `^1b` Avicenna (Contra 1); `^2b` Aristot. Phys. (Contra 3); `^3b` II Sent. d.37 (Contra 4); `^4b` d.14 (Respondeo, opinion 1); `^5b` Ezech. vers. (Respondeo); `^6b` Gratian (opinion-2 Ratio); `^7b` Praepositivus's long Summa quote — spans both columns of the p.575 footer block (opinion 2); `^8b` Master's text + Ps. 31,1 (reply 1). All eight anchor in this q1.
- p. 576 (3 footers, `^1c`–`^3c`): `^1c` pag. 333 nota 3 (reply 2, mercy quote); `^2c` the *remota causa* maxim + d.21 cross-ref (reply 3); `^3c` dd. 32–35 cross-refs + cod. var. (reply 4). Notes 4+ on p.576 (Matt. 18 vers.; d.15 p.I; Gratian *Episcopus qui mancipium*; etc.) anchor in QUAESTIO II's body and belong to the a1-q2 chunk.

**Scholion disposition (TASK FINDING).** `has_scholion: true`. The **Articulus I scholion** is the article's only scholion. It prints full-width on p. 576 immediately after q1's replies, before QUAESTIO II, and **explicitly covers both questions of the article** ("De duabus huius art. quaestionibus...", and the closing "De utraque quaestione:" doctor-list on Scotus, Thomas, Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, Durandus, Dionysius Carthusianus). It is a **single section (§I)** — there is no §II — comprising the Gratian/William-of-Paris/Dionysius discussion plus the doctor-list. It is **rendered IN FULL here (body first, scholion last)**. The sibling **a1-q2 renders no scholion** by design and should point here. The scholion carries all its citations inline (no footnote markers).

**Silent OCR→PDF corrections (cascade-shattered regions).** Respondeo/Solutio re-set from bands: *pari passu ambulare*, *quatuor peccatorum genera*, the couplet *Fratres odit... pristina culpa redit*, *pactio frangitur*, *Praepositivi*, *operire est facere quod non sit*, *tum ex parte gratiae... bonorum... divinae misericordiae*, *pronior est ad miserendum quam ad condemnandum*, reply-3 *introducentem et conservantem / illa maxima / cultellus infligit plagam*, reply-4 *neutra redit omnino eadem numero*. Scholion: OCR "inerrabiliior/inenarrabilior" corrected to **ineffabiliter** (band), "D. Albert" → **B. Albert** (band). Marginal rubrics in the columns (*Ad oppositum.*, *Contra.*, *Conclusio.*, *Respondeo.*, *Opinio 2.*, *Ratio.*, *Improbatur.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Distinctio.*, *Notandum.*, *Alia solutio.*, *Differt tripliciter.*, *Opinio 3. et conclusio.*) are editorial side-glosses, omitted from the body per corpus convention.

**[?] flags.**
- `^1c`: the note wraps across the L/R crop seam (x≈1880) and the OCR interleaves it with the adjacent Q.II note. Two spans are unresolved: the bracket content "[ubi etiam ... insinuatur]" and the connector between "Rom. 5," and "d. 13. seqq." (rendered "[...]"). The "d. 13" digit is itself uncertain (band could read 15). Content is a bibliographic cross-reference only; doctrine unaffected.
- `^2c`: OCR reads d. 21 p. I a. 2 "q. 1. ad 6"; the quaestio digit is faint (could be q. 4). Rendered per OCR as q. 1.


title: Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 576 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum peccata dimissa redeant quantum ad reatum poenae.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum peccata dimissa redeant quantum ad reatum. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per textum Matthaei decimo octavo[^1]: *Serve nequam, omne debitum dimisi tibi* etc.; et post: *Tradidit eum tortoribus, quousque redderet* etc.; et post: *Sic Pater vester* etc.: ergo Dominus debitum, quod dimiserat, iterum exigit: ergo etc.

2. Item, ponatur, quod aliquis ante completam satisfactionem cadat in culpam; constat, quod satisfacere non potest extra gratiam[^2]; ponatur ergo, quod decedat; iste reatum secum portat, qui non potest solvi per poenam satisfactoriam: ergo punitur poena aeterna.

3. Item, quot peccata sunt dimissa, tot tenetur gratias agere, tot etiam tenetur detestari continue peccata; sed cum peccat uno peccato, omittit gratias agere et peccata detestari: ergo tot poenarum reus erit, quot prius erat[^3].

4. Item, in legibus humanis servus manumissus redigitur in servitutem, quando dominum suum attrectat manu cruenta, vel pro alia enormi offensa[^4]: ergo si leges istae a lege procedant aeterna,

<!-- page 577 -->

videtur, quod Deus similiter faciat: ergo ita recidivantem assidue reputat obligatum ad poenam, sicut prius reputabat.

**Contra:**
1. *Non iudicat Deus bis in idipsum*, Nahum primo[^5], non ergo bis punit: si ergo aliquis pro peccato commisso poenituit et se punivit, videtur, quod amplius pro illo non puniatur, quantumcumque peccat alias: ergo etc.

2. Item, reatus poenae aeternae est inseparabiliter annexus culpae; sed culpa non potest redire[^6]: ergo etc.

3. Item, si reatus peccatorum praecedentium redit, ergo nulla est in mundo utilitas, quod quis bene fecit et poenituit; sed hoc videtur impium dicere: ergo etc.

4. Item, *dona Dei sunt sine poenitentia*[^7]: ergo si Deus aliquid condonat, non poenitet de condonatione: ergo non potest reatus redire, quem Deus dimisit vel a quo solvit.

> **Conclusio.** Peccata omnino dimissa non redeunt per sequentem culpam nisi quoad poenam damni.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliqui voluerunt dicere, peccata praecedentia redire quoad *reatum*, quia per culpam sequentem tot reatibus obligatur ad poenam, quot prius erat obligatus. Et ratio huius tangitur in littera[^8]. Dicebant enim, quod quot peccata commiserat, tot vinculis obligabatur, cum veniebat ad poenitentiam, ut detestaretur praeterita mala; et ideo, cum peccat, omnia vincula rumpit: et ideo tot reatibus reus est, quot prius peccata commisit. — Sed illud nihil est: primum, quia sufficit una detestatione detestari cetera, nec tenetur simul et semel divisim detestari omnia[^9]: ergo in uno non peccat nisi omissione unica.

Aliorum opinio fuit, quod peccata priora redeant per recidivum quantum ad *aequivalentiam*, pro eo quod ingratitudo, quae est conditio peccati, adeo aggravat peccatum, ut sit ita reus, sicut per omnia peccata praecedentia reus fuerat. — Sed illud adhuc non videtur[^10]: primo, quia ingratitudo pensatur secundum quantitatem beneficii; sed maius beneficium praestat Deus conservando innocentiam quam revocando ad poenitentiam: ergo gravius peccavit, cum primo innocentiam perdidit, quam quando post recidivavit: ergo ingratitudo non facit, quod adeo sit peccatum grave, ut praecedentia. — Praeterea, ingratitudo ista est peccati *circumstantia* a parte *peccantis*; sed magis aggravat peccatum *libido* vel *genus* peccati, quam aggravat *circumstantia*: ergo nunquam propter ingratitudinem unum peccatum leve secundum genus aequipollebit peccatis praecedentibus gravibus et enormibus.

Et ideo aliter dicendum, quod reatus est obligatio ad poenam, poena autem peccati duplex est, scilicet poena *damni* et *sensus*. Possumus ergo loqui de reatu peccati dupliciter: aut quantum ad poenam *damni*, aut quantum ad poenam *sensus*. Si autem quantum ad poenam *damni*; sic, quia *qui peccat in uno factus est omnium reus*[^11], credendum est, quod peccata dimissa redeunt. Si autem loquamur quantum ad poenam *sensus*; sic distinguendum est: quia quaedam peccata sunt *omnino* dimissa quantum ad poenam et culpam, et talia nullo modo redeunt; quaedam autem dimissa sunt *in parte*, et de talibus fienda[^12] est satisfactio. Et quoniam culpa sequens tollit potentiam satisfaciendi, quamdiu manet; per hoc ipsum iste obligatur ad supplicium aeternum, non ratione *sui principaliter*, sed ratione *annexi*; et sic intelligendum est, peccata redire. — Verum est tamen, quod aliquo modo aggravat culpam sequentem praecedens remissio, quia est ibi contemptus praestiti beneficii, non tamen ita, quod faciat aequivalentiam.

*Ad 1 et 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de auctoritate Matthaei, dicendum, quod altero horum modorum intelligendum est. Et similiter sequens obiectum patet, quia verum concludit.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de tentionibus, iam responsum est per interemptionem[^13], quia non tot tentionibus tenetur, sed ea sola tentione, qua tenetur conteri.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de servo manumisso, dicendum, quod in legibus humanis illud fit ad cautelam et terrorem; et ideo non oportet sic in lege divina reperiri. — Rationes autem ad oppositum, quibus ostenditur, quod reatus non omnino redit, verum concludunt[^14].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether forgiven sins return as to the debt of punishment.*

Secondly it is asked whether forgiven sins return as to the debt [of punishment]. And that they do, it seems:

1. By the text of Matthew, chapter eighteen[^1]: *Wicked servant, I forgave you all that debt* etc.; and afterward: *He delivered him to the torturers, until he should repay* etc.; and afterward: *So also my Father* etc.: therefore the Lord again exacts the debt which He had forgiven: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, suppose that someone, before completed satisfaction, falls into fault; it is agreed that one cannot make satisfaction outside grace[^2]; suppose, then, that he dies: he carries the debt with him, and it cannot be discharged by a satisfactory punishment: therefore he is punished with eternal punishment.

3. Likewise, for as many sins as have been forgiven, for so many is he bound to give thanks, and for so many likewise is he bound continually to detest [his] sins; but when he sins by one sin, he omits to give thanks and to detest [his] sins: therefore he will be guilty of as many punishments as he was before[^3].

4. Likewise, in human laws a manumitted slave is reduced back to servitude when he lays hands on his master with a bloody hand, or for another enormous offense[^4]: therefore, if those laws proceed from the eternal law,

it seems that God does likewise: therefore He continually reckons the one relapsing bound to punishment, just as He reckoned him before.

**On the contrary:**
1. *God does not judge twice for the same thing*, Nahum chapter one[^5]; therefore He does not punish twice: if, then, someone has repented and punished himself for a committed sin, it seems that he is no longer punished for it, however much he sins otherwise: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the debt of eternal punishment is inseparably annexed to fault; but fault cannot return[^6]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if the debt of preceding sins returns, then there is no usefulness in the world in the fact that someone has done well and repented; but this seems impious to say: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, *the gifts of God are without repentance*[^7]: therefore if God pardons something, He does not repent of the pardon: therefore the debt which God has forgiven, or from which He has released, cannot return.

> **Conclusion.** Sins wholly forgiven do not return through a subsequent fault, except as to the punishment of loss.

**I respond:** It must be said that some wished to say that preceding sins return as to the *debt*, because through the subsequent fault one is bound by as many debts to punishment as he was bound before. And the ground of this is touched upon in the [Master's] text[^8]. For they said that by as many sins as he had committed, by so many bonds was he bound, when he came to penitence, so as to detest past evils; and therefore, when he sins, he breaks all the bonds: and therefore he is guilty of as many debts as he formerly committed sins. — But that is nothing: first, because a single detestation suffices to detest the rest, nor is he bound to detest all separately at one and the same time[^9]: therefore in [the] one he does not sin except by a single omission.

The opinion of others was that prior sins return through relapse as to *equivalence*, for the reason that ingratitude, which is a condition of sin, so aggravates the sin that he is as guilty as he had been guilty through all the preceding sins. — But that still does not seem [right][^10]: first, because ingratitude is weighed according to the magnitude of the benefit; but God confers a greater benefit in preserving innocence than in calling back to penitence: therefore he sinned more gravely when he first lost innocence than when he afterward relapsed: therefore ingratitude does not bring it about that the sin is as grave as the preceding ones. — Moreover, that ingratitude is a *circumstance* of the sin on the part of the *sinner*; but *lust* or the *kind* of sin aggravates the sin more than a *circumstance* aggravates: therefore never on account of ingratitude will one sin, light according to its kind, be equivalent to preceding grave and enormous sins.

And therefore it must be said otherwise, that the debt is an obligation to punishment, and the punishment of sin is twofold, namely the punishment of *loss* and of *sense*. We can therefore speak of the debt of sin in two ways: either as to the punishment of *loss*, or as to the punishment of *sense*. If, however, as to the punishment of *loss*; thus, because *he who sins in one is made guilty of all*[^11], it is to be believed that forgiven sins return. But if we speak as to the punishment of *sense*; then it must be distinguished: because certain sins are *wholly* forgiven as to punishment and fault, and such in no way return; but certain [others] have been forgiven *in part*, and concerning such satisfaction is to be made[^12]. And since the subsequent fault takes away the power of making satisfaction, so long as it remains, by this very fact that person is bound to eternal punishment, not by reason of *itself principally*, but by reason of *the annexed [fault]*; and thus it is to be understood that sins return. — Yet it is true that the preceding remission in some way aggravates the subsequent fault, because there is there a contempt of the benefit conferred, yet not so as to make equivalence.

*To 1 and 2.* To that which is objected from the authority of Matthew, it must be said that it is to be understood in one or the other of these ways. And likewise the following objection is clear, because it concludes truly.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning temptations, answer has already been given through interception[^13], because he is not bound by so many temptations, but by that sole temptation by which he is bound to be contrite.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning the manumitted slave, it must be said that in human laws this is done for caution and terror; and therefore it need not be found thus in the divine law. — But the reasons to the contrary, by which it is shown that the debt does not wholly return, conclude truly[^14].

---

la: Vers. 32. 34. et 35: *Sic et Pater meus caelestis faciet vobis, si non remiseritis* etc.

en: [Matthew 18], verses 32, 34, and 35: *So also my heavenly Father will do to you, if you do not forgive* etc.

la: Vide supra d. 15. p. 1. q. 3. — Inferius pro *satisfactoriam* cod. A *temporalem*.

en: See above, d. 15, p. 1, q. 3. — Below, for *satisfactoriam* (satisfactory) codex A [reads] *temporalem* (temporal).

la: Ut insinuatur hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Pro *poenarum* cod. aa *peccatorum*.

en: As is intimated here in the Master's text, c. 1. — For *poenarum* (of punishments) codex aa [reads] *peccatorum* (of sins).

la: Vide Gratian. C. *Episcopus, qui mancipium* (38.), seqq. c. 12. q. 2, et Iustinian., Authent. *Ut libert. de ceter.* (collat. 6. tit. 6.) § *Illud.* Cfr. etiam C. VI. de Libertis et eor. lib. (tit. 7.) lex *Si manumissus ingratus circa patronum suum exstiterit* (2.); Idem Iustinian. in I. Institut. tit. 5. ait: *Libertini sunt, qui ex iusta servitute manumissi sunt; manumissio autem est de manu datio; nam quamdiu aliquis in servitute est, manui et potestati suppositus est, et manumissus liberatur potestate* etc. — Leges humanas, dummodo iustae sint, fundari in lege aeterna, docet August., l. de Lib. Arb. c. 6. n. 15. (cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 26. m. 7.). — Circa finem arg. multi codd. omittunt *recidivantem*, post *assidue* supplentes *te*, codd. F G L U autem omittunt *assidue*.

en: See Gratian, C. *Episcopus, qui mancipium* (38.) and following, c. 12, q. 2, and Justinian, Authent. *Ut libertorum de cetero* (collation 6, tit. 6) § *Illud.* Cf. also C. VI, *On Freedmen and their children* (tit. 7), the law *Si manumissus ingratus circa patronum suum exstiterit* (2.); the same Justinian, in the first [book] of the Institutes, tit. 5, says: *Freedmen are those who have been manumitted from a just servitude; and manumission is a giving from the hand; for as long as anyone is in servitude, he is subject to hand and power, and the manumitted man is freed from that power* etc. — That human laws, provided they are just, are founded on the eternal law, Augustine teaches, book I *On Free Choice*, c. 6, n. 15 (cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. III, q. 26, m. 7). — Near the end of the argument many codices omit *recidivantem* (the one relapsing), supplying after *assidue* the word *te*; but codices F G L U omit *assidue*.

la: Vers. 9. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1, ubi etiam lectio Vulgatae habetur. — Inferius pro *puniatur* codd. et ed. 1 *puniat*, scil. Deus.

en: [Nahum 1], verse 9. See here the Master's text, c. 1, where also the Vulgate reading is found. — Below, for *puniatur* (he be punished) the codices and edition 1 [read] *puniat* (he punish), namely God.

la: Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced.

en: As was shown in the preceding question.

la: Rom. 11, 29: *Sine poenitentia enim sunt dona et vocatio Dei.*

en: Romans 11:29: *For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance.*

la: Hic c. 1. — Post *poenitentiam* cod. aa addit *necesse erat.*

en: Here, c. 1. — After *poenitentiam* codex aa adds *necesse erat* (it was necessary).

la: Cfr. supra d. 16. p. I. a. 4. q. 2. — Ex codd. G K substituimus *omnia* pro *omnino.*

en: Cf. above, d. 16, p. I, a. 4, q. 2. — From codices G K we have substituted *omnia* (all) for *omnino* (wholly).

la: Edd. *illud non videtur verum.*

en: The editions [read] *illud non videtur verum* (that does not seem true).

la: Iac. 2, 10: *Quicumque... offendat autem in uno* etc.

en: James 2:10: *Whoever... but offends in one* etc.

la: Cod. aa *facienda.* Aliquanto inferius pro *est tamen* edd. *est etiam.*

en: Codex aa [reads] *facienda* (to be done). Somewhat below, for *est tamen* the editions [read] *est etiam.*

la: Sive negationem; cfr. tom. 1. pag. 87, nota 4.

en: Or negation; cf. tome 1, p. 87, note 4.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for p. 577 (`vol4-p577-{L,R}-{0,1,2}`), authoritative here since the IA djvu OCR of this two-column spread is cascade-shattered. The p. 576 opener (title + fundamenta 1–4) was reconstructed from the IA djvu OCR (clean running prose; no p. 576 band was supplied) and is corroborated by the p. 577 band, on which fundamentum 4 concludes (*videtur, quod Deus similiter faciat…*).

**Page span / the p. 576 seam with a1-q1.** This quaestio runs pp. 576–577 (**not** 578). Fundamenta 1–4 print on p. 576, sharing that page with the tail of a1-q1 (its respondeo/solutiones and the Article I scholion, which occupy p. 576's left column); q2's opener occupies p. 576's right column and the top of p. 577's left column. The body proper (Contra → Conclusio → Respondeo → replies) fills p. 577, and the quaestio ends at the foot of p. 577's right column (*…verum concludunt*); ARTICULUS II begins at the top of p. 578. The task brief named p. 577 as the shared page, but by the band evidence p. 577 is entirely q2; the actual q1/q2 body seam falls on p. 576.

**Footnote split.** p. 576's footnote block is shared with a1-q1. I claim only the four notes whose content anchors in q2's fundamenta ([^1] Matt. 18; [^2] d. 15 / *satisfactoriam*; [^3] Master's littera / *poenarum*; [^4] Gratian–Justinian on the manumitted slave). The remaining p. 576 left-column notes (*de prima/secunda ratione*, d. 14, Rom. 8:13; *remota causa… removetur effectus*, cf. d. 21; d. 32–35 *per essentiam*) belong to a1-q1's solutiones and are left to that chunk. Note [^4] is the cross-page footnote: it begins in p. 576's right-column footer and continues in p. 577's left-column footer (*…manumissio autem est de manu datio; nam quamdiu…*). p. 577's own footnote sequence restarts at 1 and supplies [^5]–[^14] (10 notes), all anchored in q2's body. **Apparatus total: 14** (4 on p. 576, 10 on p. 577). Quaracchi restarts numbering per printed page; renumbered [^1]–[^14] here in reading order.

**No scholion.** Article I's single scholion (§I–§II) lives in a1-q1, covering qq. 1–2; `has_scholion: false` here. This is confirmed internally by [^14] (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* — "See the scholion to the preceding question").

**`[?]` flags.** None unresolved. The only residual uncertainty is the p. 576 footnote apportionment between q1 and q2 (no p. 576 band supplied); it is resolved here by content-matching each note to its argument, and the 4/10 split is internally consistent (fundamenta markers ↔ [^1]–[^4]; p. 577 markers ↔ [^5]–[^14]).