title: Dist. 14, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 2

title_alt:
Utrum poenitentia oriatur ex timore
Whether penance arises from fear

source_text:
<!-- page 326 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum poenitentia oriatur ex timore.*

Secundo quaeritur de origine poenitentiae; dicit Magister in littera, quod «poenitentia-virtus timore concipitur».

**Sed contra hoc est:** 1. Quia, si est virtus, est per infusionem[^1]: non ergo per conceptionem.

2. Item, cum conceptio non sit sine generatione, quare magis dicit *concipitur* quam *generatur*?

3. Item, quare magis *timore* quam *alio principio*? Et videtur, quod magis *amore*, quia timor causatur ab amore[^2]: ergo prima ratio generandi et concipiendi est in amore: ergo etc.

4. Item, tam timor quam amor est ex *fidei cognitione*[^3]: ergo deberet dicere, quod *fide* concipitur.

5. Item, si timore; aut *servili*, aut *initiali*, aut *filiali*. Non *servili*, quia cum illo manet voluntas peccandi; non *initiali* neque *filiali*, quia, antequam habeat timorem *filialem*, vel *initialem*, necesse est, quod de peccato poeniteat[^4].

<!-- page 327 -->

6. Item, timor est *donum*; sed poenitentia-virtus est ante dona naturali ordine[^5]: ergo non concipitur timore aliquo.

> **Conclusio.** Origo poenitentiae effectiva Deus est, sed dispositio quodam modo et ordine est a nobis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod origo poenitentiae virtutis effectiva Deus est, sed dispositiva a nobis, quia «qui creavit nos sine nobis, non iustificat nos sine nobis»[^6]. — Dispositio autem hoc ordine procedit. Primo necesse est *Dei bonitatem et iustitiam* cognoscere — cui displicet omne malum et inordinatio, et ab illa offenditur et nullo modo malum relinquit impunitum — et *se aliquid fecisse*, quod suae displicere debeat bonitati; et haec est cognitio *culpae*, et ex hoc cognoscit se homo ex divina sententia obligatum ad poenam. — Necesse est etiam secundo cognoscere *Dei misericordiam*, qua paratus est omni revertenti et dolenti de culpa commissa sibi remittere et indulgere. — Ex prima cognitione generatur *timor*; ex secunda generatur *spes* remissionis; et ex his *voluntas* revertendi et confoederandi Deo et satisfaciendi per gemitum et alias poenas; et si incipiat facere quod in se est, dispositus est ad iustificationem[^7].

1. 2. Ex hoc igitur patet responsio, quomodo poenitentiae virtus concipitur per dispositionem suscipiendi[^8] eam; et quare magis dicitur *concipitur* quam *generatur*; quia *generare* est efficientis et principii effectivi, sed *concipere* receptivi.

3. 4. Ex hoc patet quare magis dicit[^9] *timore* quam *amore*, quia peccator non habet amorem Dei, sed sui; et iste amor nunquam generat poenitentiam, nisi quia timet; unde quamdiu *amat* et *credit*, non refugit peccatum, sed quando *timet*; et ideo non concipitur *fide*, quia ante timorem non est poenitentiae seminarium, quod est cessare a malo. Ex hoc etiam patet, quare magis *timore* quam *spe*, quia *timor* concipit, sed *spes* promovet.

5. Ex hoc patet, quod concipitur *timore servili*. Nec est inconveniens, quia conceptio ista non est per *productionem in esse*, sed per *dispositionem* et *praeparationem*; et ideo non oportet, quod poenitentia sit cum timore servili, sed sufficit, quod timor praeparet ad poenitentiam.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod poenitentia est ante dona; dicendum, quod est *donum* Spiritus sancti, cum quo est Spiritus sanctus et datur; et hoc est gratiae gratum facientis, et de hoc verum est quod obiicit. Et est donum, quod est *sine Spiritus sancti donatione* proprie dicta, quae est per inhabitationem; et hoc est gratiae gratis datae, et tale donum est timor servilis, et hic antecedit virtutes; et tali timore concipitur poenitentia. Ideo non valet obiectio[^10].

english:
### Question II. *Whether penance arises from fear.*

Secondly it is asked concerning the origin of penance; the Master says in the text that «penance-as-virtue is conceived in fear».

**But on the contrary:** 1. Because, if it is a virtue, it is [had] through infusion[^1]: therefore not through conception.

2. Likewise, since conception is not without generation, why does he say *is conceived* rather than *is generated*?

3. Likewise, why rather by *fear* than by *another principle*? And it seems [it should rather be] by *love*, because fear is caused by love[^2]: therefore the first ground of generating and conceiving is in love: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, both fear and love are from the *knowledge of faith*[^3]: therefore he ought to say that it is conceived by *faith*.

5. Likewise, if [it is conceived] by fear; [it is] either by *servile*, or by *initial*, or by *filial* [fear]. Not by *servile*, because together with it the will to sin remains; not by *initial* nor by *filial*, because, before one has *filial* or *initial* fear, it is necessary that one repent of sin[^4].

<!-- page 327 -->

6. Likewise, fear is a *gift*; but penance-as-virtue is prior to the gifts in the natural order[^5]: therefore it is not conceived by any fear.

> **Conclusion.** The effective origin of penance is God, but the disposition is in a certain manner and order from us.

**I respond:** It must be said that the effective origin of the virtue of penance is God, but the dispositive [origin is] from us, because «He who created us without us does not justify us without us»[^6]. — But the disposition proceeds in this order. First it is necessary to know *the goodness and justice of God* — to whom every evil and disorder is displeasing, and by it He is offended, and in no way does He leave evil unpunished — and [to know] that *one has done something* which ought to be displeasing to His goodness; and this is the knowledge of *fault*, and from this a man knows himself to be bound to punishment by the divine sentence. — It is necessary, secondly, to know *the mercy of God*, by which He is ready to remit and pardon every one who returns and grieves over the fault committed. — From the first knowledge is generated *fear*; from the second is generated *hope* of remission; and from these [is generated] the *will* of returning and of being reconciled to God and of making satisfaction through groaning and other penalties; and if one begins to do what is in oneself, one is disposed for justification[^7].

1. 2. From this, therefore, the response is clear, how the virtue of penance is conceived through the disposition for receiving[^8] it; and why it is said rather to be *conceived* than *generated*; because *to generate* belongs to the efficient [cause] and to the effective principle, but *to conceive* to the receptive [one].

3. 4. From this it is clear why he says [it is conceived] rather by *fear* than by *love*[^9], because the sinner does not have the love of God, but of himself; and that love never generates penance, except because he fears; whence as long as he *loves* and *believes*, he does not flee from sin, but [only] when he *fears*; and therefore it is not conceived by *faith*, because before fear there is no seedbed of penance, which is to cease from evil. From this it is also clear why [it is conceived] rather by *fear* than by *hope*, because *fear* conceives, but *hope* advances.

5. From this it is clear that it is conceived by *servile fear*. Nor is this unfitting, because this conception is not through a *production into being*, but through *disposition* and *preparation*; and therefore it is not necessary that penance be [held] together with servile fear, but it suffices that the fear prepare [one] for penance.

6. To the objection that penance is prior to the gifts; it must be said that it is a *gift* of the Holy Spirit, together with whom the Holy Spirit is and is given; and this belongs to grace which makes pleasing [*gratia gratum faciens*], and concerning this what he objects is true. And it is a gift which is *without the giving of the Holy Spirit* properly so called, which is through indwelling; and this belongs to gratuitously given grace [*gratia gratis data*], and such a gift is servile fear, and this precedes the virtues; and by such fear penance is conceived. Therefore the objection does not hold[^10].

la: Respicitur communis definitio virtutis: *Virtus est bona qualitas mentis... quam Deus in nobis sine nobis operatur.* Cfr. II. Sent. d. 27. dub. 3.

en: Reference is made to the common definition of virtue: *Virtue is a good quality of the mind... which God works in us without us.* Cf. *Sentences* II, d. 27, dubium 3.

la: Sicut enim *amor* (qui est in concupiscibili) est complacentia boni, sic *odium* est displicentia mali.

en: For just as *love* (which is in the concupiscible [power]) is a complacency in the good, so *hatred* is a displeasure at evil.

la: Ut enim August., XIV. de Civ. Dei, c. 7. n. 2. ait: *Fugiens [amor] quod ei adversatur timor est.*

en: For as Augustine says, *On the City of God* XIV, c. 7, n. 2: *Love fleeing what is opposed to it is fear.*

la: Cfr. Hebr. 11, 6.

en: Cf. Hebrews 11:6.

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 34. p. II. per totam.

en: See *Sentences* III, d. 34, p. II, throughout.

la: August., Serm. 169. (alias 15. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 11. n. 13: *Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te iustificat sine te.*

en: Augustine, *Sermon* 169 (otherwise 15, *On the Words of the Apostle*), c. 11, n. 13: *He therefore who made you without you does not justify you without you.*

la: Codd. F aa *suscipientis.*

en: Codices F aa [read] *suscipientis* («of [one] receiving»).

la: Plures codd. *dixit*, scilicet Magister. — Aliquanto inferius post *quamdiu amat* cod. X bene addit *se*, omisso subinde *et credit* (quo tamen alia obiectio superius posita stringitur).

en: Several codices [read] *dixit* («said»), namely the Master. — Somewhat below, after *quamdiu amat* codex X rightly adds *se*, with *et credit* then omitted (by which, however, another objection posited above is touched upon).

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 34. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Cf. *Sentences* III, d. 34, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, ad 1. — See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

latin_scholion:
Scholion in articulum II (q. 1–3) cum Quaestione I huius articuli editur. — *The scholion on this article (covering questions 1–3) is rendered with Question I of this article.*

---

english_scholion:
The scholion on this article (covering questions 1–3) is rendered with Question I of this article. — *Scholion in articulum II (q. 1–3) cum Quaestione I huius articuli editur.*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{326,327}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, split x=1880), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 37515–37592) as base only for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative throughout: this question's OCR is severely two-column-interleaved (the right-column body bled into the left-column argument lines), so the bands carried the reconstruction. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 326–327 = PDF 346–347).

**Page-verify.** Running heads confirmed on the bands: p. 326 = "326 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p. 327 = "DIST. XIV. P. I. ART. II. QUAEST. III. 327" — the running head names QUAEST. III. because Quaestio III opens lower on p. 327's columns; the QUAESTIO II body and its CONCLUSIO/RESPONDEO occupy the upper portion of p. 327. All match the assigned distinction/pars/article (D. XIV. P. I. ART. II).

**Opener alignment.** Confirmed: the q2 opener (p. 326, L column, below the article scholion) reads "QUAESTIO II. Utrum poenitentia oriatur ex timore. Secundo quaeritur de origine poenitentiae; dicit Magister in littera, quod «poenitentia-virtus timore concipitur» …" — matches the assigned "Secundo quaeritur … utrum poenitentia oriatur ex timore" of Art II, q2. Ends just before "QUAESTIO III. Utrum poenitentia sit prima virtus. Tertio quaeritur de ordine poenitentiae …" (raw 37593).

**Page-split map.**
- p. 326 (L col., below the q1/article SCHOLION): QUAESTIO II. header + *Sed contra* args. 1–3 (L col.), then arg. 3 cont. ("causatur ab amore"), args. 4–5 (R col.). The q1 SCHOLION and q1's tail occupy the top of both columns and are rendered with a2-q1.
- p. 326 → 327 boundary inside the *Sed contra* series (arg. 5 closes on p. 326; arg. 6 opens p. 327).
- p. 327 (L col., top): arg. 6; CONCLUSIO; RESPONDEO (the disposition order: bonitas/iustitia → timor; misericordia → spes; voluntas revertendi). RESPONDEO solutiones (the "Ex hoc igitur patet" replies *ad 1–2*, *ad 3–4*, *ad 5*, *ad 6*) wrap into the R column. The question closes at "Ideo non valet obiectio" in the R column.
- p. 327: QUAESTIO III. ("Utrum poenitentia sit prima virtus") header opens lower on the page, after this question's tail.

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 13 entries owned here).**
- p. 326: this question owns **5 footers** — `^1`–`^5`. (The page also prints two further footers, "Sicut enim amor…" and "Codd. GZ expellitur…", which are tied to the article SCHOLION above and to q1; they are rendered with a2-q1, not duplicated here. Note: the band's printed sequence is `1 amor/odium`, `2 GZ expellitur`, `3 Hic c.1`, `4 Respicitur communis definitio`, `5 Ut enim August.`, `6 Cfr. Hebr.`, `7 Vide III Sent.` — the q2 body markers anchor `1→Respicitur communis definitio`, `2→amor/odium`, `3→Ut enim August.`, `4→Cfr. Hebr.`, `5→Vide III Sent.` per the marker order in the q2 text; the GZ-expellitur and Hic-c.1 footers anchor in the scholion/q1 material.)
- p. 327: this question owns **5 footers** — `^6` (RESPONDEO *non iustificat nos sine nobis*; August. Serm. 169), `^7` (RESPONDEO *dispositus … ad iustificationem*; Vide infra d. 17), `^8` (solut. *per dispositionem suscipiendi*; Codd. F aa), `^9` (solut. *magis dicit timore*; Plures codd. dixit), `^10` (solut. ad 6, end; Cfr. III Sent. d. 34). **Hand-off to a2-q3:** the remaining p. 327 footers (note 7 "Vers. 2. — De Glossa…" anchoring "Matthaei tertio⁷", note 8 "Cfr. Ps. 36, 27" on "facere bonum⁸", note 9 "egressus vitii", note 10 "Hebr. 11,1" on "ad Hebraeos¹⁰", notes 11–13) all anchor in **Quaestio III**'s body (Q III restarts numbering at "Tertio quaeritur"); a2-q3 must claim p. 327 footers 7–13 and the p. 328 sequence.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false` here (no scholion of its own). The article's SCHOLION (covering q1–q3) prints at the top of p. 326 across both columns and is rendered with **Quaestio I** (a2-q1). The `### Scholion` slot holds a one-line Latin+English cross-reference. No "SCHOLION." header occurs inside the raw range 37515–37592 (verified — the scholion header sits above the q2 opener).

**[?] flags.** None. No unresolved transcription ambiguities: the band reads were clean for this question. Margin side-rubrics (*Ad oppositum*, *Conclusio*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Notandum*, *Distinctio notanda*) are editorial side-notes, omitted from the body per corpus convention. Silent OCR corrections from the bands (OCR was cascade-interleaved two-column): the entire *Sed contra* series, the CONCLUSIO/RESPONDEO disposition order, and the solutiones.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 14, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 3

title_alt:
Utrum poenitentia sit prima virtus
Whether penance is the first virtue

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 327 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum poenitentia sit prima virtus.*

Tertio quaeritur de ordine poenitentiae ad alias virtutes; et quod sit prima virtus, videtur.

1. Matthaei tertio[^7]: *Poenitentiam agite*; Glossa: « Prima virtus est per poenitentiam perimere veterem hominem ».

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia prius est declinare a malo quam facere bonum[^8]; sed per poenitentiam est declinare a malo, per alias facere bonum: ergo etc.

3. Item, « egressus vitii virtutis operatur ingressum[^9] »; sed poenitentiae est peccata expellere: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Fides est fundamentum totius spiritualis machinae, secundum Apostolum ad Hebraeos[^10]; et hoc patet ratione, quia prius est actus intellectus quam affectus; sed fides dirigit intellectum, poenitentia affectum: ergo etc.

2. Item, cum dicitur poenitentia prima virtus, aut hoc est in quantum informis, aut in quantum formata. Informis non, quia ipsa generatur ex fide et spe et timore, ut ostensum est[^11]; « virtus enim poenitentiae timore concipitur ». Si de formata; sed contra: omnes simul infunduntur[^12]: ergo poenitentia infunditur cum aliis: ergo etc.

3. Item, primus actus est vivere; sed iustus ex fide vivit[^13], vel ex caritate, non ex poenitentia proprie: ergo prius est caritas et fides quam poenitentia.

<!-- page 328 -->

4. Item, nulli displicet offensa alicuius, nisi quia diligit illum; si enim odiret, placeret: ergo diligere Deum per naturam praecedit odium peccati; sed primum est caritatis, secundum poenitentiae: ergo etc.

5. Item, naturaliter prius est intentio ad terminum ad quem, quam separatio a termino a quo; sed caritas dirigit ad terminum ad quem, poenitentia separat a termino a quo, scilicet peccato: ergo caritas prior.

> **Conclusio. I.** Licet virtutes infusae simul sunt secundum substantiam, tamen secundum actum in iustificatione gratia adveniens per modum reparantis prius respicit actum poenitentiae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *prius* dupliciter dicitur: vel secundum substantiam, vel secundum usum[^1]. Secundum substantiam omnes sunt simul; secundum usum distinguendum est: aut enim secundum imaginis informationem, et sic est fides prima; aut secundum regressum et reparationem, et sic actus poenitentiae est primus, quia immediatior est. Etsi enim simul stet motus liberi arbitrii cum contritione, qui quidem motus a pluribus dicitur motus fidei; tamen gratia adveniens per modum reparantis et expellentis culpam immediate respicit motum vel actum poenitentiae. Sicut enim gratia prius culpam expellit per naturam, quam habilitat ad bonum; sic necesse est, quod homo ex parte sua in iustificatione primo aspernetur culpam, quam dirigatur in bonum opus[^3].

1. 2. Per hanc duplicem distinctionem patet solutio ad primum et secundum: primum, quia fides est prima informando; secundum, quia omnes virtutes[^2] simul infunduntur et simul sunt quantum ad substantiam et essentiam.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de actu vivendi, dicendum, quod prior actus est *vivificare* quam *vivere*; unde etsi fides et caritas faciant vivere, poenitentiae tamen est vivificare; et sic potest dici prior.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod displicet offensa propter dilectionem; dicendum, quod non est necesse, *actu* praecedere dilectionem ipsam displicentiam, sed sufficit, quod comitetur in *habitu*.

5. Ad ultimum dicendum, quod verum est, ubi eodem motu receditur et acceditur; sed in spiritualibus non tenet, ubi alio motu receditur a termino et fertur in terminum. Tunc enim necesse est, quod primo resiliat, si vult accedere; unde prius oportet exire domum quam ire ad ecclesiam[^4].

english:
### Question III. *Whether penance is the first virtue.*

Thirdly it is asked concerning the order of penance to the other virtues; and that it is the first virtue, seems to be the case.

1. Matthew, chapter three[^7]: *Do penance*; the Gloss: "The first virtue is, through penance, to destroy the old man."

2. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because to decline from evil is prior to doing good[^8]; but through penance there is a declining from evil, through the others a doing of good: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, "the going-out of vice works the going-in of virtue[^9]"; but it belongs to penance to expel sins: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Faith is the foundation of the whole spiritual structure, according to the Apostle to the Hebrews[^10]; and this is clear by reason, because the act of intellect is prior to that of affection; but faith directs the intellect, penance the affection: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, when penance is called the first virtue, this is either insofar as it is unformed, or insofar as it is formed. Not unformed, because it itself is generated from faith and hope and fear, as has been shown[^11]; "for the virtue of penance is conceived by fear." If [it is meant] of [penance] formed; but on the contrary: all [the virtues] are infused together[^12]: therefore penance is infused together with the others: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the first act is to live; but *the just man lives by faith*[^13], or by charity, not properly by penance: therefore charity and faith are prior to penance.

<!-- page 328 -->

4. Likewise, the offense of someone displeases no one except because he loves him; for if he hated him, it would please him: therefore to love God precedes by nature the hatred of sin; but the first belongs to charity, the second to penance: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, naturally the intention toward the term-to-which is prior to the separation from the term-from-which; but charity directs toward the term-to-which, penance separates from the term-from-which, namely sin: therefore charity is prior.

> **Conclusion. I.** Although the infused virtues are together according to substance, nevertheless according to act, in justification the grace that comes in by way of repairing first regards the act of penance.

**I respond:** It must be said that *prior* is said in two ways: either according to substance, or according to use[^1]. According to substance they are all together; according to use a distinction must be made: for either [it is taken] according to the informing of the image, and thus faith is first; or according to the going-back and the reparation, and thus the act of penance is first, because it is more immediate. For although the movement of free choice stands together with contrition — which movement is by many called the movement of faith — nevertheless the grace that comes in by way of repairing and expelling the fault immediately regards the movement or act of penance. For just as grace first expels the fault by nature before it makes [the soul] apt for the good; so it is necessary that man, on his own part, in justification first spurn the fault before he is directed to a good work[^3].

1. 2. By this twofold distinction the solution to the first and second [objections] is clear: the first, because faith is first in informing; the second, because all the virtues[^2] are infused together and are together as to substance and essence.

3. To the objection about the act of living, it must be said that the prior act is *to vivify* rather than *to live*; whence, although faith and charity cause one to live, yet it belongs to penance to vivify; and thus it can be called prior.

4. To the objection that the offense displeases on account of love, it must be said that it is not necessary that the love itself *in act* precede the displeasure, but it suffices that it accompany it *in habit*.

5. To the last [objection] it must be said that it is true where by the same movement one withdraws and approaches; but in spiritual matters it does not hold, where by one movement one withdraws from the term and by another is borne toward the term. For then it is necessary that one first leap back, if he wishes to approach; whence one must first leave the house before going to the church[^4].

la: Vers. 2. — De Glossa vide supra pag. 318, nota 1.

en: Verse 2. — On the Gloss see above, p. 318, note 1.

la: Secundum Ambros. supra pag. 42, nota 6. allegatum.

en: According to Ambrose, adduced above on p. 42, note 6.

la: Cap. 11, 1: *Est autem fides sperandarum substantia* [i. e. fundamentum, ut explicat Glossa ordinaria; cfr. tom. III. pag. 604, nota 9.] *rerum* etc. — De ratione addita vide III. Sent. d. 23. a. 1. q. 1. in corp.

en: Chapter 11:1: *Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for* [i.e. the foundation, as the ordinary Gloss explains; cf. tom. III, p. 604, note 9] *of things* etc. — On the added reasoning see III *Sent.*, d. 23, a. 1, q. 1, in the body.

la: Quaest. praeced. — Seq. locus est ex Magistro, hic in lit. c. 1.

en: The preceding question. — The following passage is from the Master, here in the text, c. 1.

la: Ut dictum est III. Sent. d. 36. q. 1. — Pro *Si de formata* (supple: intelligitur) Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. *Si formata*.

en: As was said in III *Sent.*, d. 36, q. 1. — For *If of [penance] formed* (supply: it is understood) the Vatican [edition], with one or two other codices, [reads] *If formed*.

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 451, nota 1.

en: Cf. tom. II, p. 451, note 1.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 34. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. in corp. — Post *omnes* supple *virtutes*.

en: Cf. III *Sent.*, d. 34, p. I, a. 1, q. 2, in the body. — After *all* supply *the virtues*.

la: Vide infra d. 17. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. seqq.

en: See below, d. 17, p. I, a. 2, q. 1 and following.

en: Cf. III *Sent.*, d. 26, a. 2, q. 1, ad 1. — See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---

latin_scholion:
Scholion in articulum II (§ I–III, q. 1–3) cum Quaestione I huius articuli editur. — *The scholion on this article (§ I–III, covering questions 1–3) is rendered with Question I of this article.*

---

english_scholion:
The scholion on this article (§ I–III, covering questions 1–3) is rendered with Question I of this article. — *Scholion in articulum II (§ I–III, q. 1–3) cum Quaestione I huius articuli editur.*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{327,328}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 37593–37689) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered regions: this q3's OCR is heavily two-column-interleaved (the right column bled line-for-line into the left), so the PDF bands carried the reconstruction. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 327–328 = PDF 347–348).

**Page-verify.** Running head confirmed on the bands: p. 327 = "DIST. XIV. P. I. ART. II. QUAEST. III. 327"; p. 328 = "328 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." Distinction/pars/article all correct. (The OCR garbled the QUAESTIO III header as "QUAESTIO II!." — a digit-mangle, not a misalignment.)

**Opener alignment.** Confirmed: q3 opens at the bottom of p. 327 L column "QUAESTIO III. *Utrum poenitentia sit prima virtus.* Tertio quaeritur de ordine poenitentiae ad alias virtutes; et quod sit prima virtus, videtur." — matches the assigned title.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 327 (bottom L col.): QUAESTIO III. header + opener + args 1–3 (Pro) and *Contra* 1 opening.
- p. 327 (R col.): *Contra* 1 completes (Hebraeos / intellectus-vs-affectus); *Contra* 2 (informis/formata); *Contra* 3 opens ("primus actus est vivere… ex fide vivit… non ex poenitentia").
- p. 327 → 328 boundary inside *Contra* 3 ("non ex poenitentia" | "proprie: ergo prius est caritas…").
- p. 328 (L col.): *Contra* 3 completes; *Contra* 4–5; CONCLUSIO (I.); Respondeo opens ("prius dupliciter dicitur…").
- p. 328 (R col.): Respondeo completes; Solutiones *Ad 1.2*–*Ad ultimum* (5) complete ("…ire ad ecclesiam."), immediately before "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI" / "Dub. I." (the next chunk, p1-dubia).

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 11 entries total, all anchored in this q3's body).**
- p. 327: the page footer sequence is **13 notes**; notes **1–6 anchor in the preceding q2's body** (q2's *Ad illud quod obiicitur* solutions) and are owned by the **a2-q2 chunk**. q3 owns **notes 7–13** (`^7` arg. 1 *Matthaei tertio*; `^8` arg. 2 *declinare a malo*; `^9` arg. 3 *egressus vitii*; `^10` *Contra* 1 *ad Hebraeos*; `^11` *Contra* 2 *ut ostensum est*; `^12` *Contra* 2 *omnes simul infunduntur*; `^13` *Contra* 3 *iustus ex fide vivit*) — this confirms the a2-q2 writer's hand-off that p. 327 footers 7–13 belong to q3.
- p. 328: the page footer sequence is **8 notes**; q3 owns **notes 1–4** (`^1` Respondeo *secundum usum* = "Cfr. tom. II. pag. 451, nota 1."; `^2` solutio *omnes virtutes* = "Cfr. III. Sent. d. 34… post *omnes* supple *virtutes*"; `^3` Respondeo *in bonum opus* = "Vide infra d. 17…"; `^4` *Ad ultimum* *ad ecclesiam* = "Cfr. III. Sent. d. 26. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest."). **Notes 5–8 of p. 328 anchor in the following *Dubia circa litteram Magistri*** (note 5 *Non pauci codd. quod*; note 6 Ps. 103; note 7 *baptismum*/d.4; note 8 *secunda tabula*) and are owned by the **p1-dubia chunk**.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`, but **q3 renders none of its own**: ARTICULUS II carries a single SCHOLION block (§ I–III, the q1/q2/q3 bibliography and *sensus quaestionum*) which the **a2-q1 chunk** (`bon-sent-IV-d14-p1-a2-q1`) owns and renders. The `### Scholion` slot here holds a one-line Latin+English cross-reference per the dispatch instruction. No "SCHOLION." header occurs inside the raw range 37593–37689.

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands (OCR was cascade-interleaved): the header "QUAESTIO II!." → *QUAESTIO III.*; *machinae* (Contra 1); *concipitur* (Contra 2); *infunduntur* (Contra 2/3 and solutio); Respondeo *secundum usum* / *immediatior* / *aspernetur*; Solutio *vivificare* vs *vivere*; *comitetur in habitu* (Ad 4); *receditur*/*acceditur* (Ad 5). Marginal rubrics in the bands ("Solutio oppositorum", "Notandum", "Distinctio 1." / "Distinctio 2.", "Conclusio 1." / "Conclusio 2.", "Ad opposit.") are editorial side-notes and are omitted from the body per corpus convention.

**Hand-off to p1-dubia.** "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI" ("Dub. I." — *In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram… et primo de hoc quod dicit Hieronymus: Secunda tabula post naufragium est poenitentia*) opens on p. 328 immediately after q3's *Ad ultimum* (raw line ~37690), and is the next chunk. p. 328's footer notes **5–8** (note 5 *Non pauci codd. quod*; note 6 *Psalm 103, 25…*; note 7 *Vide supra d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. seq…*; note 8 *Ex codd. F L supplevimus est…*) are the p1-dubia apparatus, not q3's.

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. 14, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 331 -->

### Articulus I. *De iteratione poenitentiae.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum contingat cadere a vera poenitentia.*

Circa primum proceditur sic et ostenditur, quod contingat a vera poenitentia cadere:

1. *Exemplo* David, qui de peccato mortis Uriae poenitens, quod Dominus eius poenitentiam acceptavit, peccavit in enumerando populum, secundi Regum ultimo[^1]. —

2. Item, *auctoritate* Domini: Ioannis quinto[^2] dixit paralytico: *Vade et amplius noli peccare, ne deterius tibi aliquid contingat;* sed non fuisset comminatus malum propter recidivum, nisi posset cadere: ergo etc.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia poenitentia habet esse in libero arbitrio secundum statum viae, et hoc non coacto[^3]; sed tale est vertibile, et per vertibilitatem potest cadere a statu gratiae et iustitiae: ergo et poenitentiae.

4. Item, gratia baptismalis est maior quam poenitentiae, et confirmationis similiter[^4]; sed post veram gratiam baptismatis et confirmationis contingit cadere: ergo et post gratiam poenitentiae.

**Contra:** 1. Ambrosius et Augustinus[^5] sic definiunt poenitentiam: «Poenitentia est perpetrata plangere et plangenda non committere»: ergo si admittit vel committit post plangenda, prius non poenituit: si ergo poenituit, patet, quod ultra non committet. Si dicas, quod refertur ad idem tempus, hoc superfluit, quia nemo in eodem tempore, in quo plangit, peccata admittit.

2. Item, Isidorus[^6]: «Inanis est poenitentia, quam sequens culpa inquinat»: ergo si post peccat, prima poenitentia fuit inanis: ergo ab oppositis, si fuit vera, postea non peccavit.

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia offensa est infinita, ergo et satisfactio, si vera est, debet esse infinita: ergo cum non sit infinita intensione, saltem est infinita duratione: ergo si non semper durat, non est vera poenitentia nec satisfactio.

4. Item, vere poenitentis est semper dolere[^7], ergo semper peccatum detestari; sed semper detestanti gratiam impossibile est resurgere: ergo vere poenitentem, cum semper detestetur culpam, impossibile est cadere.

> **Conclusio.**
> Homo potest cadere a poenitentia vera, quatenus vera importat essentiam poenitentiae, non vero, quatenus includit perseverantiam finalem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sic erraverunt aliqui circa poenitentiam, sicut circa caritatem[^8]. Dixerunt enim, quod habens semel veram caritatem nunquam perdit eam: similiter et habens veram poenitentiam nunquam eam perdit. — Sed hoc est <!-- page 332 --> manifestus error, et contra Scripturam.

Ratio autem, quae istos decepit, fuit, quia non consideraverunt, quid dicatur vel importetur per hoc nomen *verum,* cum dicitur *vera poenitentia,* vel *vera caritas.* Quamvis enim *unum* dicat indivisionem principiorum entis, et *verum* indivisionem entis ab *esse* sive actu absoluto, prout tamen natum est fieri apud intellectum[^9], et *bonum* indivisionem ab actu ut in finem relato; tamen quando *verum* reflectitur supra *bonum,* ut dicatur *vera virtus,* utrumque potest importare et utroque modo accipi potest.

Et ideo intelligendum, quod *veritas* poenitentiae dupliciter accipitur, sicut et cuiuslibet virtutis. Uno enim modo dicitur *virtus vera,* quae habet *verum virtutis opus,* vel nata est habere, quantum est de se; et haec veritas est de essentia virtutis. Alio modo dicitur *virtus vera,* quae *perducit in finem;* et haec veritas non est *essentialis* virtuti, sed tamen dicit virtutis *statum* sive continuationem[^10].

— Secundum hoc dicendum, quod si *primo modo* dicatur *poenitentia vera,* quae verum virtutis habet actum; sic de veritate poenitentiae est detestari malum commissum et pro illo tempore nullum committere et de futuro proponere non committere et ab omnibus his potest homo cadere, et ita a poenitentia *vera,* veritate primo modo dicta. Si autem dicatur *vera,* quia *perducit in finem,* ut finalis et continuata; ab hac non est cadere; sed hanc non est dicere[^11] hominem habere nisi in fine, et post non contingit cadere.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1. 2.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur primo, quod ad veritatem eius spectat plangenda non committere; dicendum, quod si loquamur de veritate *primo* modo, ad veritatem spectat non committere *tunc,* nec actu nec proposito, sed non *post;* et sic accipitur in illis definitionibus[^12]. — Vel si accipiatur *pro futuro simpliciter,* tunc erit poenitentiae dictae *verae* veritate perseverantiae sive ducente in finem. — Et per hoc patet illud Isidori: quia dicitur *inanis* propter frustrationem finis.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod offensa est infinita; dicendum, quod Deus remittit *offensam* per gratiam et pro *delectatione* exigit poenam per poenitentiam; et ideo non oportet, quod sit infinita.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod semper dolere debet; dicendum, quod semper dolere debet *habitu;* sed qui *habitu* dolet de peccato praeterito, nihil impedit, quin *actu* committat futurum. — Vel aliter: referendum est ad poenitentiam finalem, sicut dictum est.

english:
### Article I. *On the repetition of penance.*
### Question I. *Whether it can happen that one falls from true penance.*

Concerning the first, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that it can happen that one falls from true penance:

1. *By the example* of David, who, being penitent for the sin of Uriah's death — a penance which the Lord accepted — yet sinned in numbering the people, in the last chapter of Second Kings[^1]. —

2. Likewise, *by the authority* of the Lord: in the fifth chapter of John[^2] He said to the paralytic: *Go and sin no more, lest something worse befall you;* but He would not have threatened an evil on account of relapse, unless one could fall: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, it seems *by reason*: because penance has its being in free choice according to the state of the wayfarer, and this not by compulsion[^3]; but such a thing is changeable, and through its changeableness it can fall from the state of grace and justice: therefore also from penance.

4. Likewise, baptismal grace is greater than that of penance, and that of confirmation likewise[^4]; but after true grace of baptism and of confirmation it happens that one falls: therefore also after the grace of penance.

**On the contrary:** 1. Ambrose and Augustine[^5] thus define penance: «Penance is to bewail things done and not to commit things to be bewailed»: therefore if one admits or commits after the things to be bewailed, he did not previously repent: if therefore he repented, it is clear that he will commit no further. If you say that this refers to the same time, this is superfluous, because no one in the same time in which he bewails admits sins.

2. Likewise, Isidore[^6]: «Vain is the penance which a following fault defiles»: therefore if one sins afterward, the first penance was vain: therefore conversely, if it was true, he did not afterward sin.

3. Likewise, it seems by reason: because the offense is infinite, therefore also the satisfaction, if it is true, ought to be infinite: therefore since it is not infinite in intensity, at least it is infinite in duration: therefore if it does not last forever, it is not true penance nor satisfaction.

4. Likewise, it belongs to one truly penitent always to grieve[^7], therefore always to detest sin; but for one always detesting it is impossible to rise again from grace: therefore one truly penitent, since he always detests the fault, it is impossible that he should fall.

> **Conclusion.**
> A man can fall from true penance, insofar as "true" implies the essence of penance, but not insofar as it includes final perseverance.

**I respond:** It must be said that some have erred concerning penance just as concerning charity[^8]. For they said that one who once has true charity never loses it: likewise also one who has true penance never loses it. — But this is <!-- page 332 --> a manifest error, and against Scripture.

Now the reason which deceived these men was that they did not consider what is said or implied by this word *true,* when one says *true penance,* or *true charity.* For although *one* expresses the indivision of the principles of a being, and *true* the indivision of the being from its *being* or absolute act, insofar as it is apt to come to be in the intellect[^9], and *good* the indivision from the act as referred to an end; nevertheless when *true* is reflected upon *good,* so that one says *true virtue,* it can imply both and be taken in both ways.

And therefore it must be understood that the *truth* of penance is taken in two ways, just as that of any virtue. For in one way that *virtue* is called *true* which has the *true work of virtue,* or is apt to have it, so far as in it lies; and this truth belongs to the essence of the virtue. In another way that *virtue* is called *true* which *leads to the end;* and this truth is not *essential* to the virtue, but nevertheless expresses the virtue's *state* or continuation[^10].

— According to this it must be said that if penance be called *true* in the *first way,* as having the true act of virtue; thus it belongs to the truth of penance to detest the evil committed and for that time to commit none and to propose for the future not to commit — and from all these a man can fall, and thus from *true* penance, by truth said in the first way. But if it be called *true* because it *leads to the end,* as final and continued; from this one does not fall; but this it is not to be said[^11] that a man has except at the end, and after that it does not happen that he falls.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1 and 2.* To that which is objected first, that it belongs to its truth not to commit things to be bewailed; it must be said that if we speak of truth in the *first* way, it belongs to truth not to commit *then,* neither in act nor in intention, but not *afterward;* and so it is taken in those definitions[^12]. — Or if it be taken *for the future absolutely,* then it will belong to penance called *true* by the truth of perseverance or leading to the end. — And by this is clear that saying of Isidore: because it is called *vain* on account of the frustration of the end.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that the offense is infinite; it must be said that God remits the *offense* through grace and for the *delight* exacts the penalty through penance; and therefore it is not necessary that it be infinite.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that one ought always to grieve; it must be said that one ought always to grieve *by habit;* but one who grieves *by habit* over a past sin, nothing prevents him from committing a future one *in act.* — Or otherwise: it is to be referred to final penance, as has been said.

la: Vers. 1. seqq. (Cfr. infra dub. 13.). — De priori peccato David vide II. Reg. 12. 13. — *quod* [i. e. ita Vat., pro *poenitens, quod*] posito *poenituit, et,* post *acceptavit* addit *qui tamen post.*

en: Verses 1 and following (cf. below, dub. 13). — On David's earlier sin see II Kings 12. 13. — *quod* [i.e. so the Vatican edition reads, in place of *poenitens, quod*] having put *poenituit, et,* after *acceptavit* it adds *qui tamen post.*

la: Vers. 14: *Ecce sanus factus es, iam noli peccare* etc.

en: Verse 14: *Behold, you are made whole, now sin no more,* etc.

la: Cod. M *et in hoc non est coactio;* Vat. *non est coactum.* Cfr. II. Sent. d. 25. p. II. q. 4. seq.

en: Codex M reads *et in hoc non est coactio* ("and in this there is no compulsion"); the Vatican edition *non est coactum.* Cf. II Sent., d. 25, p. II, q. 4, and following.

la: Vide supra d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. seq. et d. 7. a. 2. q. 2.

en: See above, d. 4, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, and following, and d. 7, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. et Comment. p. 1. dub. 4, in quo etiam obiectio subnexa (*refertur ad idem tempus*) expenditur.

en: Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2, and the Commentary, p. 1, dub. 4, in which also the appended objection (*it refers to the same time*) is weighed out.

la: Libr. I. Synonym. n. 77. — Cod. P (F a secunda manu) cum textu originali *coinquinat.* Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Book I of the *Synonyms,* n. 77. — Codex P (F by a second hand), with the original text, reads *coinquinat.* See here the Master's text, c. 2.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. circa finem verba Augustini. — Inferius pro *poenitentem* codd. I K *poenitenti.*

en: Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2, near the end, the words of Augustine. — Lower down, in place of *poenitentem,* codices I K read *poenitenti.*

en: On which see III Sent., d. 31, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. 1. dub. 4. et d. 8. p. l. a. 1. — Verbo *fieri* Vat. praemittit *notum.*

en: Cf. I Sent., d. 3, p. 1, dub. 4, and d. 8, p. l, a. 1. — Before the word *fieri* the Vatican edition prefixes *notum.*

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 1. in corp. — Pro *sed* men[dose] codd. *sed tantum.*

en: See III Sent., d. 23, a. 2, q. 1, in the body. — In place of *sed,* the codices read, by error, *sed tantum.*

la: Cod. R *non est necesse.*

en: Codex R reads *non est necesse* ("it is not necessary").

la: Cfr. supra p. 1. dub. 4.

en: Cf. above, p. 1, dub. 4.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Haec quaestio connexa est cum alia, utrum gratia et caritas possint amitti; de qua actum est III. Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 1, quaeque definita est a Concilio Trident. Sess. VI. in can. 23, qui refertur ibi in scholio nec non Sess. VII. de bapt. can. 6, cfr. prop. 43. Paschasii Quesnelli a Clemente XI. damnata.

De hac 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 14. m. 5. a. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4. quaestiunc. I; II. q. a. 11; cfr. III. q. 84. a. 10. — B. Albert, hic a. 13. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 7. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., III. Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 1. — De hac et 2 seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 6; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4.

**II.** Circa seq. (2.) quaestionem iam erraverunt Novatiani pluresque posteriores. Quaestio praecipue intelligenda est de Sacramento poenitentiae; conclusio autem confirmatur verbis Concilii Trid. (Sess. XIV. c. 2.), quod, dum baptismus nulla ratione possit iterari, in Sacramento poenitentiae «per sacerdotum sententiam non semel, sed quoties ab admissis peccatis ad ipsum poenitentes confugerint, possent liberari». Item Sess. VI. c. 14. dicitur: «Qui vero ab accepta iustificationis gratia per peccatum exciderunt rursus iustificari poterunt, cum, excitante Deo, per poenitentiae Sacramentum merito Christi amissam gratiam recuperare procuraverint»; simul contraria assertio reprobatur can. 29. — Notatu digna est triplex interpretatio loci Apostoli in solut. ad 1. 2.

De 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 2. 3. 4. — Scot. rem tangit hic q. 1. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4. quaestiunc. 3; S. III. q. 84. a. 10. — B. Albert. — , hic a. 13. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 9. q. 2.

**III.** De 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 12. m. 4. a. 2. — Scot., hic q. I. n. 17. seqq. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. I; S. III. q. 80. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 29. — Petr. a Tar. rem tangit in cit. a. 7. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 7. q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., loc. cit. et q. 6.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** This question is connected with another, whether grace and charity can be lost; concerning which it was treated in III Sent., d. 31, a. 1, q. 1, and which was defined by the Council of Trent, Session VI, in canon 23, which is cited there in the scholion, as also Session VII, on baptism, canon 6; cf. proposition 43 of Paschasius Quesnel, condemned by Clement XI.

On this first question: Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV, q. 14, m. 5, a. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 4, sub-question I; II, q. a. 11; cf. III, q. 84, a. 10. — Blessed Albert, here a. 13. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 7, sub-question 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, III Sent., d. 31, a. 1, q. 1. — On this and the 2 following questions: Durandus, here q. 6; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 4.

**II.** Concerning the following (2nd) question the Novatians and many later men have already erred. The question is principally to be understood of the Sacrament of penance; the conclusion, moreover, is confirmed by the words of the Council of Trent (Session XIV, c. 2), that, whereas baptism can in no way be repeated, in the Sacrament of penance «through the sentence of priests they may be freed not once, but as often as, after sins committed, the penitent have recourse to it». Likewise in Session VI, c. 14, it is said: «But those who by sin have fallen away from the received grace of justification will be able to be justified again, when, God exciting them, they have endeavored, through the Sacrament of penance, by the merit of Christ, to recover the lost grace»; and at the same time the contrary assertion is reproved in canon 29. — Worthy of note is the threefold interpretation of the passage of the Apostle in the solution to 1 and 2.

On the 2nd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 2, 3, 4. — Scotus touches the matter here q. 1, 4. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 4, sub-question 3; S. III, q. 84, a. 10. — Blessed Albert, here a. 13. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. sub-question 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 9, q. 2.

**III.** On the 3rd question: Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV, q. 12, m. 4, a. 2. — Scotus, here q. I, n. 17, seqq. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1, sub-question I; S. III, q. 80, a. 1. — Blessed Albert, here a. 29. — Peter of Tarentaise touches the matter in the cited a. 7. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 7, q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, loc. cit. and q. 6.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the IA djvu OCR (`bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 37971–38125) and cross-checked column-by-column against the vol4 p.331–332 PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p33{1,2}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), applying the Vol II PDF-priority inversion in the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/scholion/footer regions. Running heads confirm "DIST. XIV. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I." on printed pages 331–332 (pdf = printed + 20). Opener verified aligned: the Articulus I opener ("Circa primum proceditur sic...") folds into this q1, ending just before QUAESTIO II ("Utrum contingat per poenitentiam resurgere...").

**Chunking.** The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM and the pars-II DIVISIO TEXTUS material printed at the top of p.331 L/R belong to the pars-II divisio chunk (`bon-sent-IV-d14-p2-divisio`), not here. This q1 begins at "ARTICULUS I. / De iteratione poenitentiae. / QUAESTIO I."

**Scholion finding.** The Articulus I SCHOLION is PRESENT in this raw range (printed at the foot of p.332, three numbered paragraphs I–III) and is rendered here IN FULL, body-first then scholion-last per the parser rule. Its coverage spans all three article questions: **¶I** addresses q1 (*utrum contingat cadere a vera poenitentia*); **¶II** addresses q2 (*utrum contingat per poenitentiam resurgere*); **¶III** addresses q3 (*utrum omnis agens poenitentiam superinveniat veniam a Deo*). Therefore q2 and q3 carry NO scholion of their own — they point back here.

**Footer split (p.331).** Notes 1–8 of p.331 are all this q1's; note 8 (*De quo vide III. Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 1.*) anchors at "circa caritatem" in the Respondeo.

**Cross-chunk hand-off (p.332).** Printed page 332 carries two footer sequences. Notes 1–4 belong to this q1's Respondeo/Solutio (rendered as [^9]–[^12]). **Notes 5–8 of p.332 belong to QUAESTIO II** (the q2 body "Secundo quaeritur, utrum contingat per poenitentiam resurgere... 1. Exemplo David..." begins on p.332 R): ⁵ *Vide tom. I. pag. 771, nota 1.* — ⁶ *De quo infra d. 15. p. 1. q. 1.* — ⁷ *Vide etiam infra dub. 2. 4. 8.* — ⁸ *Libr. II. Reg. 11, 15; 12, 13. et 24, 4. 10. — Pro utramque multi codd. utramque, scil. poenitentiam.* These four migrate to `bon-sent-IV-d14-p2-a1-q2`. The q2 opener page break also falls on p.332 — that chunk should re-read p.332 R bands.

**[?] flags.**
- [^10]: the band shows the codex variant as "Pro se[d]... men codd. sed tantum" with the lemma partly OCR-truncated at the column edge. Rendered "Pro *sed* men[dose] codd. *sed tantum*" (the abbreviated "men" expanded to *mendose*, "by error"). [?] — the exact lemma/abbreviation is OCR-ambiguous; confirm at the 600 dpi decade-polish gate.
- [^11]: band shows "Cod. R non est nec[esse]" cut at the column edge; expanded to *non est necesse*. [?] minor.


title: Dist. 14, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2

title_alt: Utrum contingat per poenitentiam resurgere, hoc est poenitentiam iterari

source_text:
<!-- page 332 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum contingat per poenitentiam resurgere, hoc est poenitentiam iterare.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum contingat per poenitentiam resurgere, hoc est poenitentiam iterare. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Exemplo* David, qui primo peccavit homicidio et poenituit, rursus, numerando populum, et poenituit, et Deus utrumque acceptavit[^1].

<!-- page 333 -->

2. Item, *auctoritate*: Ezechielis decimo octavo[^2]: *Si impius egerit poenitentiam ab omnibus peccatis* etc., *omnium iniquitatum eius non recordabor amplius;* sed non distinguit peccatorem: ergo verum est de eo qui recidivavit, quia terminus in conditionali in antecedente tenetur universaliter.

3. Item, esto quod iste semper, dum fuit in poenitentia, fuisset in culpa; constat, quod peior fuisset; sed non est ei praeclusa via[^3]: ergo si tunc potuisset per poenitentiam surgere, et nunc potest.

4. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia Deus pronior est ad miserendum quam ad condemnandum[^4]; sed quantumcumque homo Deo servierit, si poenitet de bono facto, Deus obliviscitur bonorum: ergo si poenitet de malo, remittit.

5. Item, si non potest resurgere secundo, aut hoc est, quia non potest secundo poenitere, aut quia Deus non acceptat. Non primo modo, quia liberum arbitrium est in nobis vertibile, et tota die verti videmus; non secundo modo, poenitere enim est conteri et humiliari de peccato; sed dicitur in Psalmo[^5]: *Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus, cor contritum et humiliatum* etc.

**Contra:**
1. Ad Hebraeos sexto[^6]: *Impossibile est, eos qui prolapsi sunt, rursus renovari ad poenitentiam.*

2. Item, Proverbiorum vigesimo octavo[^7]: *Qui perversis graditur viis concidet semel.*

3. Item, Ambrosius[^8] dicit, quod « unica est poenitentia, sicut unicum baptisma ». Et Origenes dicit, quod « in gravioribus criminibus semel tantum poenitentiae conceditur locus ».

4. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia Sacramentum poenitentiae habet effectum a Christi passione, ut baptismus; sed passio Christi est unica, et amplius non potest pati: ergo nec poenitentia iterari. Et hoc est quod dicit Apostolus ad Hebraeos sexto[^9]: *Rursus crucifigentes sibi Filium Dei.*

5. Item, baptismus non iteratur nec iterari potest, ne fiat contumelia Sacramento et veniat in contemptum: ergo pari ratione nec poenitentia.

> **Conclusio.** Poenitentia semper iterari potest, quamdiu homo est in hac vita.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod pessimus error est et crudelissimus, quod poenitentia non possit iterari, quia claudit viscera divinae misericordiae[^10]; et tunc omnes peccatores, vel fere omnes cogeret desperare. Et ideo dicendum, quod iterari potest quotiescumque, quamdiu homo est in hac vita; sed post hanc vitam non potest.

Et ratio, quare poenitentia possit et debeat iterari, et baptismus non, est triplex. Una est, quia in baptismo imprimitur character, qui est indelebilis, in poenitentia non. — Secunda ratio est, quia baptismus est contra morbum non iterabilem, qualis est morbus peccati originalis; sed poenitentia contra morbum iterabilem, qualis est morbus peccati actualis. Unde quia medicina debet aptari morbo, patet etc. — Tertia ratio est, quia baptismus habet totam efficaciam a passione Christi, sed poenitentia non tantam a passione Christi, sed ab actu nostro; et ideo baptismus non iteratur, sicut nec passio; poenitentia vero iteratur, secundum quod voluntas nostra convertitur et revertitur. Inde est, quod in baptismo omnis poena remittitur, in poenitentia non. Et si baptismus iteraretur, daretur nobis occasio peccandi; non sic est in poenitentia, quia bene punit.

**Ad argumenta pro parte opposita:**
*Ad 1 et 2.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium de verbo Apostoli: *impossibile est* etc.; potest fieri vis in hoc quod dicit *impossibile:* quia non ex viribus humanis[^11]; vel *impossibile,* id est difficile: loquitur enim de perfectis, qui difficulter resurgunt. — Vel ut fiat vis in *poenitentia:* quia loquitur de renovatione, quae est in poenitentia, quam sequitur

<!-- page 334 -->

baptismus; haec enim virtutem totam habet ab hostia passionis, et de hac dicit Apostolus ad Hebraeos decimo[^a]: *Non relinquitur hostia pro peccato.*

*Ad 3.* Ad illud Ambrosii et Origenis, dicendum, quod intelligi debet de poenitentia solemni, et hoc secundum morem aliquarum ecclesiarum, sicut patet in littera[^b].

*Ad 4 et 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de baptismo et contumelia Sacramenti, patet responsio ex praedictis[^c], quod non est simile. Hic enim non fit contumelia Sacramento, quia sic institutum est et efficaciam habet, sed secundus baptismus nullius est efficaciae. Non fit etiam contumelia *passioni,* quia non sic totam et plenam efficaciam a passione recipit, ut baptismus, sicut in praecedentibus visum est et infra de poenitentia videbitur.

english:
### Question II. *Whether one can rise again through penance, that is, whether penance is repeated.*

Secondly it is asked whether one can rise again through penance, that is, whether penance is repeated. And that it can be, seems thus:

1. *By the example* of David, who first sinned by homicide and repented, and again, by numbering the people, sinned and repented, and God accepted both[^1].

2. Likewise, *by authority*: Ezekiel the eighteenth chapter[^2]: *If the wicked man do penance for all his sins* etc., *I will not remember all his iniquities any more;* but it does not distinguish the [kind of] sinner: therefore it is true of the one who relapsed, because a term in a conditional, [placed] in the antecedent, is taken universally.

3. Likewise, granted that this man, the whole time he was in penance, had been in fault; it is established that he would have been worse; but the way was not closed to him[^3]: therefore if he could then have risen through penance, he can also now.

4. Likewise, *by reason* it seems so: because God is more inclined to have mercy than to condemn[^4]; but however much a man has served God, if he repents of the good he has done, God forgets the good [deeds]: therefore if he repents of evil, God remits it.

5. Likewise, if he cannot rise a second time, this is either because he cannot repent a second time, or because God does not accept [it]. Not in the first way, because free choice in us is changeable, and we see it change all day long; not in the second way, for to repent is to be contrite and humbled over sin; but it is said in the Psalm[^5]: *A sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit, a contrite and humbled heart* etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. To the Hebrews, chapter six[^6]: *It is impossible for those who have fallen away to be renewed again unto penance.*

2. Likewise, Proverbs the twenty-eighth chapter[^7]: *He that walketh in perverse ways shall fall at once.*

3. Likewise, Ambrose[^8] says that « penance is one, just as baptism is one ». And Origen says that « in graver crimes only one place for penance is granted ».

4. Likewise, *by reason* it seems so: because the Sacrament of penance has its effect from Christ's passion, as does baptism; but Christ's passion is one, and he can suffer no more: therefore neither can penance be repeated. And this is what the Apostle says to the Hebrews, chapter six[^9]: *Crucifying again to themselves the Son of God.*

5. Likewise, baptism is not repeated nor can it be repeated, lest contumely be done to the Sacrament and it come into contempt: therefore by parallel reasoning neither can penance.

> **Conclusion.** Penance can always be repeated, so long as a man is in this life.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is a most wicked and most cruel error that penance cannot be repeated, because it closes up the bowels of the divine mercy[^10]; and then it would drive all sinners, or nearly all, to despair. And therefore it must be said that it can be repeated however often, so long as a man is in this life; but after this life it cannot.

And the reason why penance can and ought to be repeated, while baptism cannot, is threefold. One is that in baptism a character is imprinted, which is indelible, [but] in penance not. — The second reason is that baptism is against a non-repeatable disease, such as the disease of original sin; but penance is against a repeatable disease, such as the disease of actual sin. Hence, because the medicine must be fitted to the disease, the point is clear, etc. — The third reason is that baptism has its whole efficacy from Christ's passion, but penance not so much from Christ's passion as from our own act; and therefore baptism is not repeated, just as neither is the passion; but penance is repeated, according as our will turns and returns. Hence it is that in baptism all penalty is remitted, [but] in penance not. And if baptism were repeated, an occasion of sinning would be given to us; it is not so in penance, because it punishes well.

**To the arguments for the opposite side:**
*To 1 and 2.* To that, then, which is objected to the contrary from the word of the Apostle, *it is impossible* etc.; force can be put on his saying *impossible:* because [it is] not by human strength[^11]; or *impossible,* that is, difficult: for he is speaking of the perfect, who rise again with difficulty. — Or so that force be put on *penance:* because he is speaking of the renewal which is in penance, which baptism follows;

for this [baptism] has its whole power from the victim of the passion, and concerning this the Apostle says to the Hebrews, chapter ten[^a]: *There is left no sacrifice for sin.*

*To 3.* To that of Ambrose and Origen, it must be said that it should be understood of solemn penance, and this according to the custom of certain churches, as is clear in the text [of Lombard][^b].

*To 4 and 5.* To that which is objected concerning baptism and contumely of the Sacrament, the answer is clear from what was said before[^c], that it is not alike. For here no contumely is done to the Sacrament, because it is so instituted and has [its] efficacy, whereas a second baptism is of no efficacy. Nor is contumely done to *the passion,* because it does not receive its whole and full efficacy from the passion in the way baptism does, as was seen in what preceded and will be seen below concerning penance.

la: Libr. II. Reg. 11, 15; 12, 13. et 24, 1. 10. — Pro *utrumque* multi codd. *utramque,* scil. poenitentiam.

en: 2 Kings (II Samuel) 11:15; 12:13; and 24:1, 10. — For *utrumque* (both) many codices read *utramque,* namely penance.

la: Vers. 21. seq., ubi Vulgata post *eius* addit *quas operatus est,* omisso subinde *amplius.* — Pro ratione conclusioni addita notetur haec regula ex libro *Syncategoremata* (inter opera Petri Hispani), c. de Modo syllogizandi ex conditionalibus: Prima [regula] est, quod si termini communes ponantur in antecedente, sub eis potest fieri descensus [ad singularia], consequente permanente immobili, ut si homo currit, animal currit: ergo si Plato currit, animal currit, et si Socrates currit, animal currit etc. Cfr. Boeth., de Syllogismo hypothetico; Averroes, Epitome Prior. Analytic. c. 5. seq. et Quaesit. Priorum Analytic. q. 7.

en: Verses 21 ff., where the Vulgate after *his* adds *which he hath done,* omitting thereafter *any more.* — For the reasoning added to the conclusion, let this rule be noted from the book *Syncategoremata* (among the works of Peter of Spain), chapter on the mode of syllogizing from conditionals: The first [rule] is that if common terms are placed in the antecedent, a descent [to singulars] can be made under them, the consequent remaining unchanged, as: if a man runs, an animal runs; therefore if Plato runs, an animal runs, and if Socrates runs, an animal runs, etc. Cf. Boethius, *On the Hypothetical Syllogism;* Averroes, *Epitome of the Prior Analytics* c. 5 ff., and *Questions on the Prior Analytics* q. 7.

la: Vat. *non fuisset ei praeclusa salutis via.*

en: The Vatican edition: *the way of salvation would not have been closed to him.*

la: August., Serm. 18. (alias 220. de Tempore) c. 2. n. 2: *Non enim amat Deus damnare, sed salvare.* Vide etiam C. *Quia Divinitatis natura clemens est et pia magisque ad indulgentiam quam ad vindictam prona* (73.), de Poenitentia, d. 1. — De minori cfr. Ezech. 18, 32. — Codd. Haa *miserandum* vero *miserendum.*

en: Augustine, Sermon 18 (alias 220, *de Tempore*) c. 2, n. 2: *For God does not love to damn, but to save.* See also the Canon *Quia Divinitatis natura clemens est et pia magisque ad indulgentiam quam ad vindictam prona* (73), *de Poenitentia,* d. 1. — On the minor [premise] cf. Ezekiel 18:32. — The Haa codices [read] *miserandum,* but [we read] *miserendum.*

la: Psalm. 50, 19. — Non pauci codd. post *sed* omittunt *dicitur.*

en: Psalm 50(51):19. — Not a few codices after *sed* omit *dicitur.*

la: Vers. 5. et 6.

en: Verses 5 and 6.

la: Vers. 18.

en: Verse 18.

la: Libr. II. de Poenitentia, c. 10. n. 95. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2; ibid. c. 3. habentur etiam verba Origenis, in Levit. homil. 15. n. 2. — Arg. ex auctoritate Origenis, quod in codd. et ed. 1 desideratur, retinuimus cum Vat., quia ipsius in solut. obiectorum expressa fit mentio.

en: Book II *On Penance,* c. 10, n. 95. See here the text of [Lombard] the Master, c. 2; in the same place, c. 3, are also found the words of Origen, in his *Homilies on Leviticus* 15, n. 2. — The argument from the authority of Origen, which is wanting in the codices and the first edition, we have retained with the Vatican [edition], because express mention is made of it in the solution of the objections.

la: Vers. 6. Cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 6. et dub. 2, ubi etiam rationes in corp. allatae insinuantur.

en: Verse 6. Cf. above, d. 6, p. I, q. 6, and dub. 2, where the reasons brought forward in the body [of the question] are also intimated.

la: Respicitur Luc. 1, 77. seq. Cfr. 1. Ioan. 3, 17. — Inferius pro *cogeret* cod. X *cogerentur.* Subinde post *quotiescumque* supplevimus ex cod. U (E a secunda manu) *quamdiu,* pro quo cod. F *dum.*

en: There is a reference to Luke 1:77 f. Cf. 1 John 3:17. — Below, for *cogeret* codex X [reads] *cogerentur.* Then after *quotiescumque* we have supplied from codex U (E by a second hand) *quamdiu,* for which codex F [reads] *dum.*

la: Hug. a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. XIV. c. 4, tres affert expositiones huius verbi Apostoli. Prima est: « Sic intelligendum est, quod per se cadere potuerunt, sed per se surgere non possunt, atque ideo illis impossibile esse, Deo non esse ». Secunda est, quod impossibile sit, renovari lapsum, ita quod non sit lapsus. Tertia est, quod impossibile sit iis qui in peccatis voluntarie persistunt (Hebr. 10, 26.). Cfr. eius Epist. II. ad Ranulph. de Mauriaco. De secunda solut. *(difficile)* cfr. tom. II. pag. 991, nota 3. — Mox pro *perfectis* Vat. *imperfectis.*

en: Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II, p. XIV, c. 4, brings forward three expositions of this word of the Apostle. The first is: « It must be understood thus, that they were able to fall by themselves, but cannot rise by themselves, and therefore it is impossible for them, [though] not for God ». The second is that it is impossible for one fallen to be renewed in such a way that he has not fallen. The third is that it is impossible for those who persist willingly in sins (Heb. 10:26). Cf. his Letter II to Ranulph of Mauriac. On the second solution *(difficult)* cf. tome II, p. 991, note 3. — Shortly after, for *perfectis* the Vatican [edition reads] *imperfectis.*

la: *(p. 334, footer 1)* Vers. 26, ubi Vulgata *pro peccatis.* Ita Haymo Hebr. 6, 6. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. in fine.

en: *(p. 334, footer 1)* Verse 26, where the Vulgate [reads] *pro peccatis* (for sins). So Haymo on Hebrews 6:6. Cf. here the text of [Lombard] the Master, c. 4, at the end.

la: *(p. 334, footer 2)* Hic c. 3. Cfr. infra dub. 9. seq.

en: *(p. 334, footer 2)* Here, c. 3. Cf. below, dub. 9 f.

la: *(p. 334, footer 3)* Dist. 6. p. I. q. 6. et dub. 2; infra d. 15. p. I. q. 1. de hac quaest. Alanus ab Insulis, l. Contra Haereticos, c. 47. seqq. — Vide schollon ad praecedentem quaest.

en: *(p. 334, footer 3)* Dist. 6, p. I, q. 6, and dub. 2; below, d. 15, p. I, q. 1. On this question [see] Alan of Lille, book *Against the Heretics,* c. 47 ff. — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

latin_scholion:
*[Quaestio II habet scholion proprium nullum: scholion articuli I (quaestiones I–III complectens) cum quaestione I redditur — vide* bon-sent-IV-d14-p2-a1-q1.]*

---

english_scholion:
*[Question II has no scholion of its own: the scholion of Article I (covering questions I–III) is rendered with Question I — see* bon-sent-IV-d14-p2-a1-q1.]*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p33{2,3,4}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) under the Vol IV two-column override (PDF authoritative for cascade-shattered regions), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 38126–38278) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Offset pdf = printed + 20. Running heads verified: p.332 "332 / SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV", p.333 L "DIST. XIV. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. II", p.333 R "QUAEST. II. 333", p.334 "334 / SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV".

**Chunk boundaries.** Opener "Secundo quaeritur, utrum contingat per poenitentiam resurgere…" aligns with the auto-chunker range. Chunk ends at "infra de poenitentia videbitur." (p.334 R), immediately before QUAESTIO III ("Utrum omnis agens poenitentiam super culpam inveniat veniam a Deo", raw 38279).

**Scholion.** Question II renders no scholion. The Article I scholion (covering q.1–q.3, opening "Haec quaestio connexa est cum alia…") prints with Question I and is rendered there (`bon-sent-IV-d14-p2-a1-q1`). `has_scholion: false`. The p.332 R scholion bands (SCHOLION header + "ad ipsum poenitentes confugerint…") were read and confirmed to be q1's, not q2's.

**Page-332 footer hand-off (claimed).** The a1-q1 writer reported that p.332 footers belong to this q2; confirmed. The fundamenta footers print across pp.332–333 (numbered 1–8); rendered here as `[^1]`–`[^8]`. q1 retains no share of these.

**Cross-chunk footer split (p.334, forwarded to q3).** Page 334 prints footers 1–11. By body anchor, footers 1–3 belong to this q2 (rendered `[^a]`,`[^b]`,`[^c]` — the Hebrews-10:26 "*Non relinquitur hostia pro peccato*", the "in littera" cross-ref, and the "patet ex praedictis" cross-ref). Footers 4–11 (Machabaeorum, ad Hebraeos duodecimo, Isidore *de Ordine creaturarum*, Bernard *de Gradibus humilitatis*, Chrysostom, etc.) belong to QUAESTIO III and are **forwarded to the q3 writer** — q3 must claim p.334 footers 4–11 for its fundamenta/contra.

**[?] flags.** None. The q2 tail "in praecedentibus visum est" on p.334 carries no footnote marker in the print (the surrounding footers 1–3 anchor to the Hebrews/littera/praedictis references), so no marker was placed there. All numbered footers serving q2 (pp.332–333 nos. 1–11, p.334 nos. 1–3) are accounted for as the 14 apparatus entries.


title: Dist. 14, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3

title_alt: Utrum omnis agens poenitentiam super culpam inveniat veniam a Deo

title_alt: Whether everyone who does penance for a fault finds pardon from God

source_text:
<!-- page 334 -->

### Quaestio III.
### *Utrum omnis agens poenitentiam super culpam, quamvis gravissimam, inveniat veniam a Deo.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum omnis agens poenitentiam super culpam inveniat veniam, etiam quantumcumque peccaverit. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Secundi Machabaeorum nono[^1]: *Orabat scelestus Dominum, a quo non erat misericordiam consecuturus;* loquitur de Antiocho, qui veniam petiit et propter multa scelera non invenit.

2. Item, ad Hebraeos duodecimo[^2] Paulus, de Esau loquens, dicit: *Non invenit locum poenitentiae, quamquam cum lacrymis postulasset eam;* constans est, quod poenitebat et petebat veniam et non invenit, et tamen non fuit multum enormis peccator: ergo multo minus qui sunt in gravibus peccatis.

3. Item, de angelo et de daemonibus dicit Isidorus in libro de Ordine creaturarum[^3]: « Non poenituerunt, et si poenituissent, veniam non invenissent ».

4. Item, sententia definitiva est irrevocabilis: ergo si aliquis damnatus est per sententiam definitivam, quantumcumque poeniteat, non invenit veniam; sed damnati poenitebunt, sicut dicitur Sapientiae quinto[^4]: *Dicent intra se, poenitentiam agentes* etc.: ergo cum eis nunquam detur venia, non omnis agens poenitentiam apud Deum invenit veniam.

**Contra:**

1. Matthaei decimo octavo[^5]: *Quoties peccaverit in me* etc.; et post: *Non dico tibi usque septies, sed usque septuagies septies;* Glossa: « Finitum ponit pro infinito »: ergo si praecepit nobis misericordiam ad infinitas culpas, si quaeratur ei venia; cum maiorem misericordiam faciat, quam praecipiat, et ipse sit misericordissimus; multo magis videtur, quod ipse petenti sibi veniam parcat.

2. Item, Bernardus in libro de Gradibus humilitatis[^6] dicit de diaboli damnatione: « Sic Deus temperavit in vindicta sententiam, ut, si vellet resipiscere, Deus veniam non negaret ».

3. Item, misericordia Dei superexcellit omne peccatum intensive; unde quia ipsa est infinita, videtur, quod quantumcumque iteretur peccatum adhuc superexcellit: ergo plus potest Deus remittere, quam homo possit peccare: ergo si veniam petit, misericordiam non negat[^7].

4. Item, Chrysostomus[^8] dicit: « Etiam si ad summum quis perveniat malorum et inde velit reverti, suscipit libenter et amplectitur »: ergo videtur, quod omnis agens poenitentiam apud Deum inveniat veniam.

> **Conclusio.**
> Quicumque agit poenitentiam propter Dei offensam, paratus ei facere emendam, invenit gratiam et veniam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod agere poenitentiam sive dolere de culpa commissa est dupliciter: aut propter laesionem naturae, aut propter offensionem Maiestatis divinae et ipsius iustitiae.

Primam poenitentiam super culpa commissa habere potest quis ex sola natura sine aliqua gratia. Sicut enim homo naturaliter se diligit, ita etiam
<!-- page 335 -->
odit omne, propter quod malum incurrit. Et haec poenitentia est in malis et in damnatis et erit aliquando in angelis malis, cum absorpti erunt a poenis. Sed in hac vivit et regnat mala voluntas, cum sit proprii boni amica[^9]; ideo Deus eam non acceptat, nec quis sic poenitens invenit gratiam vel veniam.

Alia est poenitentia, qua quis poenitet propter Dei offensam, paratus ei facere emendam. Et haec non est sine divina gratia gratum faciente, vel gratis data; et haec adeo disponit ad gratiam, quod nullus est sic poenitens, quin inveniat gratiam et veniam; et ideo Deus nulli eam dat, nisi cum quo proponit facere misericordiam. — Et quoniam diabolus hanc habere non potest, ideo non potest habere veniam. Sed si per impossibile poneretur, quod diabolus hanc haberet; utique Dominus daret ei gratiam. Haec igitur est potissima causa irremediabilitatis peccati diaboli, quia non potest poenitere, nec liberum arbitrium eius verti ad veniam petendam. Quae autem huius sit ratio, habet locum in secundo libro[^10]. — Concedendum igitur, quod omnis agens poenitentiam super culpam secundum assignationem praedictam, quantumcumque peccaverit, invenit veniam.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Antiocho, dicendum, quod poenituit propter laesionem naturae, quam incurrerat, non propter divinam offensam. Unde non intendebat satisfacere pro offensa, sed, sicut patet ex littera[^11], desperabat, quamvis mentiendo contrarium diceret.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Esau, dicendum quod ipse similiter poenituit propter amissionem benedictionis, et propterea nolebat facere emendam, sed potius de fratre quaerebat vindictam, sicut patet ex textu[^12].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod diabolus et daemones veniam non haberent, si peterent; dicendum, quod loquitur de petitione veniae quantum ad primum modum, scilicet propter poenas, non propter iustitiam; si enim alio modo poeniterent, haberent, sicut dicit Bernardus[^13], sed non possunt.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de damnatis, dicendum, secundum distinctionem praehabitam, quod non poenitebunt propter amorem iustitiae, sed propter odium poenae[^14].

---

english:
### Question III.
### *Whether everyone who does penance for a fault, however grave, finds pardon from God.*

Thirdly it is asked whether everyone who does penance for a fault finds pardon, even however much he has sinned. And it seems that he does not.

1. In the Second [book] of Maccabees, the ninth [chapter][^1]: *The wicked man prayed to the Lord, from whom he was not to obtain mercy;* this speaks of Antiochus, who sought pardon and, on account of his many crimes, did not find it.

2. Likewise, in the twelfth [chapter] to the Hebrews[^2] Paul, speaking of Esau, says: *He found no place for repentance, although he had sought it with tears;* it is established that he repented and sought pardon and did not find it, and yet he was not a very monstrous sinner: therefore much less [do] those who are in grave sins.

3. Likewise, concerning the angel and the demons Isidore says, in the book *On the Order of Creatures*[^3]: « They did not repent, and even if they had repented, they would not have found pardon ».

4. Likewise, a definitive sentence is irrevocable: therefore if someone is condemned by a definitive sentence, however much he repents, he does not find pardon; but the damned will repent, as is said in the fifth [chapter] of Wisdom[^4]: *They shall say within themselves, doing penance,* etc.: therefore since pardon is never granted them, not everyone who does penance finds pardon with God.

**On the contrary:**

1. In the eighteenth [chapter] of Matthew[^5]: *As often as he shall sin against me* etc.; and afterward: *I say not to thee, until seven times, but until seventy times seven times;* the Gloss: « It puts a finite [number] for an infinite one »: therefore if he has enjoined upon us mercy toward infinite faults, if pardon be sought of it [from us]; since he shows greater mercy than he commands, and is himself most merciful; it seems far more [likely] that he himself spares one who seeks pardon of him.

2. Likewise, Bernard in the book *On the Degrees of Humility*[^6] says concerning the damnation of the devil: « God so tempered the sentence in [his] vengeance that, if [the devil] were willing to repent, God would not deny pardon ».

3. Likewise, the mercy of God surpasses every sin intensively; whence, since it is itself infinite, it seems that however much sin be repeated it still surpasses [it]: therefore God can remit more than man can sin: therefore if [a man] seeks pardon, [God] does not deny mercy[^7].

4. Likewise, Chrysostom[^8] says: « Even if someone reaches the summit of evils and from there wishes to turn back, [God] receives [him] gladly and embraces [him] »: therefore it seems that everyone who does penance finds pardon with God.

> **Conclusion.**
> Whoever does penance on account of an offense against God, prepared to make amends to him, finds grace and pardon.

**I respond:** It must be said that to do penance, or to grieve over a committed fault, is twofold: either on account of the injury to nature, or on account of the offense against the divine Majesty and his justice.

The first penance over a committed fault one can have from nature alone without any grace. For just as man naturally loves himself, so too
<!-- page 335 -->
he hates everything on account of which he incurs evil. And this penance is in the wicked and in the damned, and at some time will be in the evil angels, when they shall be engulfed by their punishments. But in this [penance] an evil will lives and reigns, since it is a friend of its own good[^9]; therefore God does not accept it, nor does anyone repenting in this way find grace or pardon.

There is another penance, by which one repents on account of the offense against God, prepared to make amends to him. And this is not without divine grace, [whether] grace making-pleasing or grace freely given; and this so disposes toward grace that there is no one repenting in this way who does not find grace and pardon; and therefore God gives it to no one except him with whom he purposes to show mercy. — And since the devil cannot have this, therefore he cannot have pardon. But if, by an impossibility, it were supposed that the devil had this; the Lord would assuredly give him grace. This therefore is the chief cause of the irremediableness of the devil's sin, namely that he cannot repent, nor can his free choice be turned to seeking pardon. But what the reason for this is has its place in the second book[^10]. — It must therefore be granted that everyone who does penance over a fault according to the aforesaid determination, however much he has sinned, finds pardon.

**Solution of the opposing [arguments]:**

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning Antiochus, it must be said that he repented on account of the injury to nature which he had incurred, not on account of the divine offense. Hence he did not intend to make satisfaction for the offense, but, as is plain from the text[^11], he was despairing, although by lying he said the contrary.

2. To that which is objected concerning Esau, it must be said that he likewise repented on account of the loss of the blessing, and therefore he was unwilling to make amends, but rather sought vengeance against his brother, as is plain from the text[^12].

3. To that which is objected, that the devil and the demons would not have pardon if they were to seek it; it must be said that this speaks of the seeking of pardon according to the first mode, namely on account of the punishments, not on account of justice; for if they were to repent in the other way, they would have [pardon], as Bernard says[^13], but they cannot.

4. To that which is objected concerning the damned, it must be said, according to the distinction previously set forth, that they will not repent on account of love of justice, but on account of hatred of punishment[^14].

---

la: Vers. 26, ubi Vulgata *pro peccatis*. Ita Haymo, in Hebr. 6, 6. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4 in fine.

en: Verse 26, where the Vulgate has *for [his] sins*. So Haymo, on Hebrews 6:6. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4 at the end.

la: Vers. 17: Non enim invenit... cum lacrymis inquisisset eam.

en: Verse 17: For he found [no place for repentance]... though he had sought it with tears.

la: Hic c. 3. Cfr. infra dub. 9 seq.

en: Here c. 3. Cf. below, doubt 9 and following.

la: Vers. 3: Dicentes intra etc. — In fine arg. pro *veniam* codd. N *aa gratiam*. [_lege:_ codd. N *ad gratiam*.]

en: Verse 3: Saying within [themselves] etc. — At the end of the argument, for *pardon* the codices N [read] *to grace*.

la: Vers. 21: Quoties peccabit in me etc. — Seq. textus ibid. v. 22. — Glossa est secundum Chrysost. in hunc loc. (Homil. 61, alias 62, n. 1.): Non numerum statuit hic, sed infinito, perpetuo et semper denotat. Cfr. Paschas. Radbert., qui in hunc loc. ait: Hunc finitum numerum sub sacramento piae significationis pro infinito posuit. — Inferius post *nobis* cod. K (F 1 a secunda manu) supplet *dare*. Subinde ed. I omittit *ei*, scil. fratri vel alicui. In fine arg. pro *parcat* cod. U *praestet*, codd. M O *portat*.

en: Verse 21: As often as he shall sin against me etc. — The following text is in the same place, v. 22. — The Gloss is according to Chrysostom on this passage (Homily 61, otherwise 62, n. 1): He does not set a [definite] number here, but denotes an infinite, perpetual, and ever[-continuing one]. Cf. Paschasius Radbertus, who on this passage says: He set down this finite number, under the sacrament [symbol] of a pious signification, for an infinite one. — Below, after *us* codex K (and F¹ by a second hand) supplies *to give*. Thereupon edition I omits *to him*, namely to a brother or to anyone. At the end of the argument, for *spares* codex U [has] *furnishes*, codices M, O *bears*.

la: Cap. 10, n. 33: Sic utique temperans in vindicta sententiam, ut si velis resipiscere, non neget veniam. — Plurimi codd. cum edd. incongrue *vindictam*, et *neget*.

en: Chapter 10, n. 33: So indeed tempering the sentence in [his] vengeance, that if you should wish to repent, he would not deny pardon. — Very many codices, together with the editions, incongruously [read] *the vengeance*, and *let him deny*.

la: Cfr. Eccli. 2, 22 seq.

en: Cf. Ecclesiasticus 2:22 and following.

la: Ad Theodorum lapsum adhortatio I, n. 6. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: *Exhortation to Theodore After His Fall*, I, n. 6. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4.

la: Simili modo August., XIX de Civ. Dei, c. 13, n. 2, dolorem daemonum explicat, dicens: Sicut ergo laetitia deserti boni in peccato testis est voluptatis malae, ita dolor amissi boni in supplicio testis est naturae bonae. Qui enim dolet amissam naturae suae pacem ex aliquibus reliquiis pacis id dolet, quibus fit, ut sibi amica natura sit etc. Cfr. de Fide ad Petrum (inter opera August.), c. 3, n. 38.

en: In a similar way Augustine, in *On the City of God* XIX, c. 13, n. 2, explains the grief of the demons, saying: As, therefore, the gladness over a good forsaken in sin is a witness of an evil pleasure, so the grief over a good lost in punishment is a witness of a good nature. For he who grieves over the peace of his nature that he has lost grieves over it from certain remnants of peace, by which it comes about that his nature is a friend to him, etc. Cf. *On Faith, to Peter* (among the works of Augustine), c. 3, n. 38.

la: Cfr. II Sent. d. 28, a. 2, q. 1, ad 6. Vide etiam ibid. a. 1, q. 1. — Inferius voci *veniam* cod. V praemittit *gratiam et*.

en: Cf. *II Sentences* d. 28, a. 2, q. 1, [reply] to 6. See also there, a. 1, q. 1. — Below, to the word *pardon* codex V prefixes *grace and*.

la: Libr. II Machab. 9, 18: Sed non cessantibus doloribus, supervenerat enim in eum iustum Dei iudicium, *desperans* scripsit etc. — Mox pro *quamvis* permulti codd. et ed. I perperam *quasi*.

en: *Second [book] of Maccabees* 9:18: But since the pains did not cease — for the just judgment of God had come upon him — *despairing* he wrote etc. — Soon, for *although* very many codices and edition I wrongly [read] *as if*.

la: Hebr. 12, 17, et Gen. 27, 38. seqq. — Vat. *praeterea* pro *propterea*.

en: Hebrews 12:17, and Genesis 27:38 and following. — The Vatican edition [reads] *moreover* for *therefore*.

la: Qui verbis supra pag. 334, nota 9, allegatis addit: Sed tamen duritiam tuam et cor impoenitens, non possis et ideo nec poena carere. — Superius pro *peterent* edd. *peterent*. [_var:_ *parerent*.]

en: Who, to the words cited above on p. 334, note 9, adds: But yet you cannot [escape] your hardness and your impenitent heart, and therefore not escape punishment either. — Above, for *they were to seek* the editions [read variously].

la: Cfr. infra d. 50, a. 1, q. 1. — Vide scholion ad huius articuli quaest. [scil. ad praecedentem quaest., a. 1, q. 1].

en: Cf. below, d. 50, a. 1, q. 1. — See the scholion to the question[s] of this article [i.e. attached to the preceding question, a. 1, q. 1].

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 334–335 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p334-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p335-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), per the Vol II/IV override (the IA djvu OCR for this two-column region is cascade-shattered: diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation with two-column bleed, e.g. the OCR's "DIST. XIV. P. H. ART. II. QUAEST. I. 333" running head is a mis-numbered/mis-lettered bleed of the p.335 head). Offset `pdf = printed + 20`. Raw OCR range 38279–38393. Page-verify: running head p.334 reads "334 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p.335 right column head reads "QUAEST. I. 335" (this is ART. II's q1 onset — q3 ends on p.335 before ARTICULUS II).

**Page split.** The body opens mid-p.334 (after a1-q2's tail, which ends "...4. 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de baptismo..."). The videtur, contra, conclusio, and the opening of the Respondeo are on p.334; the Respondeo continues and the four-fold Solutio oppositorum finishes on p.335 (R column), just before ARTICULUS II ("De effectu poenitentiae iteratae"). Footnotes [^1]–[^8] are the p.334 footer series (Quaracchi restarts numbering per page); [^9]–[^14] are drawn from the p.335 footer series, whose run is **shared** with the start of ARTICULUS II — only notes 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 of p.335's series belong to this q3 (Augustine de Civ Dei → [^9]; II Sent d.28 → [^10]; Machab 9,18 → [^11]; Hebr 12/Gen 27 → [^12]; Bernard/"supra pag.334 nota 9" → [^13]; Cfr infra d.50 → [^14]). p.335 notes 1–3 and 8–10 (Romans 8 Gloss, Ezekiel 18, etc.) belong to ARTICULUS II q1 and are NOT rendered here — hand them to the a2 chunks.

**Scholion.** Renders NONE here. The Articulus I scholion (covering q1–q3) is printed and rendered with QUAESTIO I (`bon-sent-IV-d14-p2-a1-q1`); cf. footer [^3] "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." and [^14] "Vide scholion ad huius articuli quaest." `has_scholion: false`.

**[?] flags.**
- [^4]: the OCR/print variant note reads *codd. N aa gratiam*; "aa" is a print/OCR doubling for *ad* — rendered *ad gratiam* with a bracketed `lege:`. Low risk.
- [^13]: the Bernard variant tail ("pro *peterent* edd. ...") is partly illegible in the band (the second word is a near-duplicate of *peterent*, likely *parerent*); flagged with a bracketed `var:`. Sense of the main note (cross-ref to p.334 nota 9) is secure.

**Hand-off to ARTICULUS II.** The next chunk (`bon-sent-IV-d14-p2-a2-*`, "De effectu poenitentiae iteratae") begins on p.335 L column ("Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum... quaeruntur tria") and must (a) confirm its opening sentence is continuous with q3's tail ("...sed propter odium poenae."), and (b) **claim p.335 footer notes 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10** (Augustine XIX de Civ Dei is [^9] HERE — do not double-claim; the a2 series proper is Romans 8 / Vat. propterea, II Sent d.28, Dist 7, Ezekiel 18:22, Glossa tom. III p.678, III Sent d.36). Verify the p.335 shared-footer split at the seam.