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

source_text:
<!-- page 335 -->

### Articulus II. *De effectu poenitentiae iteratae.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum necesse sit resurgere in aequali caritate, vel etiam in maiori.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de effectu poenitentiae iteratae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum necesse sit resurgere in aequali caritate, vel etiam in maiori. Secundo quaeritur, utrum perfecta poenitentia restituat in pristinum gradum. Tertio, utrum perfecta poenitentia restituat homini opera bona prius mortificata per culpam.

Circa primum proceditur sic.

1. Ad Romanos octavo[^1]: *Diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum*; Glossa: « Etiam lapsus in mortale »; sed si resurgerent in minori caritate, non cooperaretur eis in bonum: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod casus reddit cautiores et diligentiores; contra: augmentata una virtute, augmentantur et omnes[^2]: ergo si aliquis est prudentior etc.

2. Item, Dominus per Ezechielem, decimo octavo[^3], de peccatore poenitente: *Omnium iniquitatum eius non recordabor amplius*; sed si minorem reddit caritatem, recordatur: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod intelligitur de recordatione ad poenam aeternam; contra: diminutionem gratiae sequitur diminutio gloriae: ergo si in minori caritate resurgit, minorem gloriam habebit: ergo cum ablatio gloriae et diminutio boni aeterni sit poena: patet etc.

3. Item, Augustinus ad Macedonium[^4], loquens de recidivantibus: « Deus facit, oriri super tales lumen suum, nec minus tribuit, quam ante tribuerat, largissima dona vitae ac salutis ». Si dicas: quantum est de se; contra: mensura gratiae est secundum donationem illius[^5]: ergo si prius magna et larga, et nunc; et sic etc.

4. Item, ratione videtur: quia, sicut determinat Magister[^6], per poenitentiam opera mortificata vivificantur, quia fiunt remuneratione digna: ergo remunerabuntur opera prius facta; sed constat, quod secundum quod meruerunt: ergo tantum habebunt gloriae, ex quanta caritate sunt facta: ergo necesse est, quod in aequali resurgat, cum nullus possit praemiari ultra quantitatem caritatis finalis.

5. Item, difficilius est resurgere quam resistere, ergo maioris virtutis et gratiae: cum ergo per gratiam, quam habuit, non restiterit peccato; ad hoc, quod resurgat, necesse est habere maiorem.

6. Item, Deus nihil mali permittit fieri, de quo non eliciat bonum aequale, vel maius; quia, si hoc esset, aliquando turpitudo remaneret in universo[^7]: ergo si permittit hunc peccare peccato, quod adimit tantum de gratia, necesse est, quod tantum, vel plus restituat.

**Contra:** 1. Contingit perfectum cadere; sed cum resurgit, statim non est perfectus, quia « nemo repente fit summus[^8] »: ergo non necesse est, quod resurgat in aequali.

2. Item, minima caritas potens est delere omnem culpam; sed non est necesse isti de gratia, nisi quantum sufficit ad delendam culpam: ergo non necesse est, quod in aequali, si[^9] potest in minori.

3. Item, Deus in donatione gratiae de congruo considerat dispositionem suscipientis[^10]; sed possibile est, quod qui magnam caritatem habuit parum se disponat: ergo possibile est, ipsum parvam caritatem recipere.

4. Item, « quanto gradus altior, tanto casus gravior[^11] », et quanto gravior est casus, tanto minus est homo dispositus ad gratiam: ergo ex hoc, quod maiorem habuit caritatem, minus est dispositus: ergo potius resurget in minori quam in aequali.

5. Item, iste nihil meretur propter caritatem, a qua cecidit, similiter nec per aliquid, quod habeat[^12]: ergo gratiae donatio omnino est a liberalitate Dei: ergo potest esse maior, minor et aequalis.

<!-- page 336 -->

> **Conclusio.** Probabilius est, quod resurgens per poenitentiam a peccato resurgat vel in maiori, vel in minori, vel in aequali gratia, secundum quod se melius praeparet et divina gratia dispenset.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc dixerunt quidam, quod semper in aequali, vel maiori oportet resurgere. — Et ratio eorum super hoc est, quod Dominus non permitteret, electum cadere, nisi videret, quod deberet sibi prodesse. Ulterius dicunt, quod Dominus semper electos in meliori statu vitae accipit; tertio, quia remuneratur opus, quantum meruit radix, ex qua fuit. — Sed positionem hanc credo falsam, sicut monstratum est[^13]; et rationem positionis minus congruam, tum quia fundatur super falsum, tum quia super incertum. Super falsum, in hoc quod dicit, quod remuneratio operis respicit radicem, ex qua facta sunt; quod falsum est; sed potius radicem, in qua reviviscunt; nunquam enim remunerarentur, nisi finalis caritas superveniret. Nihil enim efficaciter est dignum remuneratione sine finali perseverantia[^14]. Alia duo sunt dubia, scilicet quod Deus semper electos in meliori statu accipiat, et quod semper prosit casus ad augmentum gratiae, cum videamus signa ad contrarium.

Ideo credo, quod probabilior est alia opinio, quod resurgat in aequali et maiori et minori, secundum quod se melius praeparat, et divina largitas dispensat.

<!-- page 337 -->

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod casus cooperatur in bonum; dicendum, quod hoc dicitur non ratione gratiae augmentandae, sed recuperatae conservandae. Et utilius est modicum de gratia habere usque in finem quam multum ad tempus tantum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non recordatur Deus iniquitatum; dicendum, quod verum est; unde non dat ei minorem gratiam merito peccatorum, sed quia non bene se praeparat ad tantam gratiam.

3. Ad illud Augustini ad Macedonium dicendum, quod Deus paratus est, si homo se disponeret; et hoc dicit pro aliquibus, non pro omnibus, quia illud Apostoli[^18]: *Ubi abundavit* etc., verum fuit alicubi, sed non ubique.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de vivificatione, dicendum, sicut patebit[^16], quod opus vivificari est dignum remuneratione fieri, et opera remunerabuntur secundum mensuram caritatis finalis.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fortius est resurgere; dicendum, quod fortius quantum ad actum, sed non oportet, quod ex fortiori habitu, quia nec in resistendo nec in resurgendo operari est necesse secundum totam virtutem voluntatis[^19].

6. Ad aliud dicendum, quod elicit bonum non facienti semper, sed in universo, et hoc est declaratio summae misericordiae et iustitiae; et aliquo modo facienti, nisi negligat, quia habet maiorem occasionem fervoris et humiliationis ex ipso casu.

english:
### Article II. *On the effect of repeated penance.*
### Question I. *Whether it is necessary to rise again in equal charity, or even in greater.*

Consequently, as to the second article, it is asked concerning the effect of repeated penance. And concerning this three matters are asked. First it is asked whether it is necessary to rise again in equal charity, or even in greater. Second it is asked whether perfect penance restores into the former degree. Third, whether perfect penance restores to a man the good works previously mortified through fault.

As to the first, one proceeds thus.

1. To the Romans the eighth[^1]: *To those who love God all things work together unto good*; the Gloss: "Even a lapse into mortal [sin]"; but if they rose again in less charity, it would not work together for them unto good: therefore etc. If you say that the fall renders [them] more cautious and more diligent; on the contrary: one virtue being augmented, all are augmented[^2]: therefore if someone is more prudent etc.

2. Likewise, the Lord through Ezekiel, the eighteenth[^3], concerning the penitent sinner: *Of all his iniquities I will remember no more*; but if he restores less charity, he remembers: therefore etc. If you say that it is understood of remembering unto eternal punishment; on the contrary: a diminution of glory follows a diminution of grace: therefore if he rises again in less charity, he will have less glory: therefore since the removal of glory and the diminution of the eternal good is a punishment: it is clear etc.

3. Likewise, Augustine to Macedonius[^4], speaking of those who relapse: "God makes his light to rise upon such, nor does he grant less than he had granted before, the most ample gifts of life and health." If you say: as far as it is in itself; on the contrary: the measure of grace is according to his giving[^5]: therefore if [it was] great and ample before, [it is] also now; and so etc.

4. Likewise, it seems by reason: because, as the Master determines[^6], through penance mortified works are vivified, because they become worthy of reward: therefore the works previously done will be rewarded; but it is agreed that [it will be] according as they merited: therefore they will have as much glory as the charity out of which they were done: therefore it is necessary that he rise again in equal [charity], since no one can be rewarded beyond the quantity of the final charity.

5. Likewise, it is more difficult to rise again than to resist, therefore [it is a matter] of greater virtue and grace: since therefore by the grace which he had he did not resist the sin; in order that he rise again, it is necessary to have a greater [grace].

6. Likewise, God permits no evil to happen out of which he does not elicit an equal or greater good; because, if this were [so], at some time a foulness would remain in the universe[^7]: therefore if he permits this [man] to sin with a sin which takes away so much of grace, it is necessary that he restore as much, or more.

**On the contrary:** 1. It happens that a perfect [man] falls; but when he rises again, he is not at once perfect, because "no one becomes highest suddenly[^8]": therefore it is not necessary that he rise again in equal [charity].

2. Likewise, the least charity is able to blot out every fault; but it is not necessary for this [man] [to have] of grace except as much as suffices to blot out the fault: therefore it is not necessary that [he rise again] in equal [charity], if[^9] he can in less.

3. Likewise, God in the giving of grace by congruity considers the disposition of the one receiving[^10]; but it is possible that he who had great charity dispose himself little: therefore it is possible that he receive little charity.

4. Likewise, "the higher the degree, the graver the fall[^11]," and the graver the fall is, the less the man is disposed to grace: therefore from this, that he had greater charity, he is less disposed: therefore he will rather rise again in less than in equal [charity].

5. Likewise, this [man] merits nothing on account of the charity from which he fell, likewise nor through anything which he may have[^12]: therefore the giving of grace is altogether from the liberality of God: therefore it can be greater, less, and equal.

<!-- page 336 -->

> **Conclusion.** It is more probable that one rising again through penance from sin rises again either in greater, or in less, or in equal grace, according as he better prepares himself and divine grace dispenses.

**I respond:** To this some have said that one must always rise again in equal or greater [charity]. — And their reasoning upon this is that the Lord would not permit an elect [person] to fall unless he saw that it ought to profit him. Further they say that the Lord always receives the elect in a better state of life; thirdly, because the work is rewarded according as the root, from which it was, merited. — But this position I believe false, as has been shown[^13]; and the reasoning of the position less congruous, both because it is founded upon what is false, and because [upon] what is uncertain. Upon what is false, in this, that it says that the reward of the work regards the root from which they were done; which is false; but rather the root in which they revive; for they would never be rewarded unless final charity supervened. For nothing is efficaciously worthy of reward without final perseverance[^14]. The other two are doubtful, namely that God always receives the elect in a better state, and that the fall always profits unto the augmentation of grace, since we see signs to the contrary.

Therefore I believe that the other opinion is more probable, that he rise again in equal and greater and less [charity], according as he better prepares himself, and divine bounty dispenses.

<!-- page 337 -->

1. To that which is objected, that the fall works together unto good; it must be said that this is said not by reason of grace to be augmented, but of [grace] recovered to be conserved. And it is more useful to have a little of grace unto the end than much only for a time.

2. To that which is objected, that God does not remember iniquities; it must be said that it is true; whence he does not give him less grace by the merit of [his] sins, but because he does not well prepare himself for so great a grace.

3. To that [saying] of Augustine to Macedonius it must be said that God is prepared, if a man should dispose himself; and this he says for some, not for all, because that [saying] of the Apostle[^18]: *Where [sin] abounded* etc., was true somewhere, but not everywhere.

4. To that which is objected concerning vivification, it must be said, as will appear[^16], that for a work to be vivified is for it to be made worthy of reward, and the works will be rewarded according to the measure of the final charity.

5. To that which is objected, that it is more difficult to rise again; it must be said that [it is] more difficult as to act, but it is not necessary that [it be] from a stronger habit, because neither in resisting nor in rising again is it necessary to operate according to the whole power of the will[^19].

6. To the other [argument] it must be said that he elicits good not always for the one doing [evil], but in the universe, and this is a declaration of the highest mercy and justice; and in some manner for the one doing [it], unless he be negligent, because he has a greater occasion of fervor and humiliation from the fall itself.

la: Vers. 28. — De Glossa vide tom. III. pag. 678, nota 5, in qua ex verbis Augustini obiectio subnexa (*casus reddit cautiores*) sumta est.

en: Verse 28. — Concerning the Gloss see vol. III, p. 678, note 5, in which from the words of Augustine the objection subjoined (*the fall renders [them] more cautious*) is taken.

la: Propter connexionem earum. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 36. q. 1. et 3.

en: On account of their connection. Cf. III Sent. d. 36. q. 1 and 3.

la: Vers. 22: *Omnium iniquitatum eius, quas operatus est, non recordabor.*

en: Verse 22: *Of all his iniquities which he has done, I will not remember.*

la: Epist. 153. (alias 54.) c. 3. n. 7, ubi textus originalis *solem suum* (Matth. 5, 45.) pro *lumen suum* et *tribuebat* [quod etiam plures codd. cum ed. 1 habent] pro *tribuerat*; cfr. tamen hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: Epistle 153 (alias 54) c. 3. n. 7, where the original text [reads] *solem suum* (Matthew 5, 45) for *lumen suum*, and *tribuebat* [which also several codices with ed. 1 have] for *tribuerat*; cf. however here the text of the Master, c. 4.

la: Eph. 4, 7: *Unicuique autem nostrum data est gratia secundum mensuram donationis Christi.* Cfr. Rom. 12, 3. et II. Cor. 10, 13.

en: Ephesians 4, 7: *But to each one of us grace is given according to the measure of the giving of Christ.* Cf. Romans 12, 3 and II Corinthians 10, 13.

la: Hic in lit. c. 2. Cfr. infra q. 3. — Inferius post *ex quanta caritate sunt facta* fide plurium codd. et ed. 1 omisimus superfluam propositionem, quae repetit praecedentem: *et tantam gloriam, ex quanta caritate sunt facta* [ita Vat. cum pluribus codd.; plures alii codd. *et tanta gloria (erit), in quanta caritate sunt facta*]. Tamen, si primo loco poneretur *gratiae* pro *gloriae*, lectio illa sustineri posset.

en: Here in the text c. 2. Cf. below q. 3. — Below, after *out of as much charity as they were done*, on the faith of several codices and ed. 1 we have omitted a superfluous proposition which repeats the preceding: *and as much glory as the charity out of which they were done* [so the Vatican [edition] with several codices; several other codices *and there will be as much glory as the charity in which they were done*]. Nevertheless, if in the first place *gratiae* were put for *gloriae*, that reading could be sustained.

la: Vide verba August. tom. II. pag. 770, nota 1. allegata. Cfr. etiam I. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XLVI. c. 4, et Comment. q. 6.

en: See the words of Augustine alleged in vol. II, p. 770, note 1. Cf. also I Sent. text of the Master, d. XLVI. c. 4, and the Commentary q. 6.

la: Ut dicunt Gregor. et Bernard. tom. III. pag. 678, nota 3. citati, nec non Beda, II. de Tabernaculo etc. c. 13. — Post *sed* cod. U legit: *tamen resurgit, et cum resurgit* etc.

en: As Gregory and Bernard say, cited in vol. III, p. 678, note 3, as also Bede, *On the Tabernacle* II. etc. c. 13. — After *but* codex U reads: *yet he rises again, and when he rises again* etc.

la: Codd. A G K Y planius *sed*. Superius pro *delendam* non pauci codd. *deflendam*.

en: Codices A G K Y more plainly [read] *sed* (but). Above, for *delendam* (to blot out) not a few codices [read] *deflendam* (to bewail).

la: Hieronym., in Matth. 25, 15: *Non pro largitate et parcitate alteri plus et alteri minus tribuens, sed pro accipientium viribus.*

en: Jerome, on Matthew 25, 15: *Not giving to one more and to another less according to liberality and sparingness, but according to the strength of the recipients.*

la: Richard. a S. Vict., de Verbo incarnato, c. 14: *Quanto gradus altior, tanto casus deterior.* Hinc est enim, quod multo difficilius renovatur ad vitam ad unius criminis lapsum quilibet christianus quam qualiscumque infidelis etc. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 750, nota 3; Libellus de dignitate sacerdot. (inter opera Ambrosii) c. 3. et Isidor., III. Sent. c. 31. n. 4.

en: Richard of St. Victor, *On the Incarnate Word*, c. 14: *The higher the degree, the worse the fall.* For hence it is that any Christian whatever is renewed unto life much more difficultly at the lapse of one crime than any unbeliever whatever etc. Cf. vol. II, p. 750, note 3; the *Booklet on the dignity of the priesthood* (among the works of Ambrose) c. 3, and Isidore, III Sent. c. 31. n. 4.

la: Vat. *nec aliquid, quod habebat.* Pro *cecidit* nonnulli codd. *recedit.*

en: The Vatican [edition reads] *nor anything which he had.* For *cecidit* (he fell) some codices [read] *recedit* (he recedes).

la: In fundam. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 3. — Superius pro *meruit* cod. F *meretur*.

en: In the fundamentum. Cf. III Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 3. — Above, for *meruit* (it merited) codex F [reads] *meretur* (it merits).

la: Hieronym., in Ezech. 18, 21: *Sicut iustum, antea peccatorem, non praegravant antiqua delicta, sic peccatorem, qui prius iustus fuerit, non iuvant veteres iustitiae. Unusquisque enim in quo invenietur, in eo iudicabitur.*

en: Jerome, on Ezekiel 18, 21: *Just as old transgressions do not weigh down the just man who was formerly a sinner, so the former justices do not help the sinner who was previously just. For each one will be judged in that in which he is found.*

la: Codd. A G K Y *planius sed*. Pro *delendam* non pauci codd. *deflendam.* — Spectat ad arg. Contra 2.

en: Codices A G K Y [read] *planius sed*. For *delendam* not a few codices [read] *deflendam.* — Pertains to the 2nd Contra argument.

la: Spectat ad solut. ad 4: *opus vivificari.* Vide infra q. 3.

en: Pertains to the solution ad 4: *for a work to be vivified.* See below q. 3.

la: Respicit arg. Contra 5: *similiter nec per aliquid, quod habeat.* Cfr. III. Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 3.

en: Regards the 5th Contra argument: *likewise nor through anything which he may have.* Cf. III Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 3.

en: Romans 5, 20.

en: Thus codices N aa, others [read] *nobilitatis*, the Vatican [edition] *virtutis nobilitatem.*

latin_scholion:
**I.** In responsione ad 1. huius articuli quaestionem S. Thom., Scot., B. Albert., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med. aliique illius aetatis S. Bonaventurae consentiunt, docentes, quod mensura gratiae et virtutum infusarum respondent ultimae dispositioni poenitentis, et quod per consequens restitutio gratiae fiat quandoque in maiori, quandoque in minori, quandoque in aequali gradu; quam sententiam etiam Alex. Hal. (S. p. IV. q. 12. m. i. a. 3.) praefert, quin alteram sententiam improbabilem esse censeat. — Sed oritur difficultas ex alio principio communiter recepto, quod scilicet opera meritoria peccato mortificata per subsequentem poenitentiam reviviscunt, id est iterum efficacia fiant ad perducendum in gloriam aeternam, cum manserint in acceptatione divina. Si enim merita reviviscunt prorsus eadem et cum toto iure ad gloriam ipsis proportionatam, etiam quando dispositio poenitentis fuerit minima ast sufficiens; et si superadditur meritum ex ipso actu poenitentiae procedens: tunc sequeretur, quod resurgens maiora merita ad gloriam essentialem acquirendam semper haberet, quam prius habuerit. Scot. (IV. d. 22. q. unica n. 8.) aliquo modo hoc alterum concedit; nihilominus (ibid. n. 9. 10.) approbat responsionem praenotatam ad 1. quaestionem pro primo instanti iustificationis; unde supponit, primam gratiam posterius, cum fuerit maior dispositio, vel saltem in instanti mortis, integram redire. — Alii vero recentiores docent, in instanti iustificationis semper redire totam gratiam proportionatam praecedentibus meritis; quod, licet sit contrarium conclusioni 1. quaestionis, censetur esse probabile. — Sed cum Alexandro Hal. S. Thomas videtur aliter docere, quod scilicet poenitens, sicut non resurgit semper in eodem gradu gratiae, sic nec resurgat in eodem gradu meritorum, et per consequens nec in eodem iure ad gloriam essentialem, quod habuit ante lapsum. Hinc S. Thom. dicit (S. III. q. 89. a. 5. ad 3.): « Ille qui per poenitentiam resurgit in minori caritate, consequetur quidem praemium essentiale secundum quantitatem caritatis, in qua invenitur; habebit tamen gaudium maius de operibus in prima caritate factis quam de operibus, quae in secunda fecit; quod pertinet ad praemium accidentale » (cfr. III. Sent. d. 31. a. i. quaestiunc. 1. 2. 3, et hic q. 2. a. 2. S. loc. cit. n. 2.). Idem docet Richard. a Med. — Pro hac quaestione illustranda servit III. Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 2. 3.

**II.** De 1. quaestione praeter citatos: B. Albert., hic a. 30. — Petr. a Tar., III. Sent. d. 31. q. 1. a. 3, et hic a. 8, quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., III. Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 2. et 3. q. hic q. 5. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 6.

**III.** Seq. (2.) quaestio est de resurrectione in « aequali statu dignitatis » (ut dicit Alex. Hal., loc. cit.) sive « in pristina dignitate » (ut dicit S. Thom. S. loc. cit. a. 4.). Quaestio ab his doctoribus intelligitur de dignitate secundaria, scilicet de innocentia et integritate, sive quoad ablationem reliquiarum peccati; qua formula alii utuntur. De distinctione inter dignitatem et puritatem cfr. infra d. 15. p. II. dub. 10. Eadem haec quaestio a S. Thoma extenditur ad dignitates in foro Ecclesiae. — De eadem praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. et a. 4. — Scot., hic q. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 33. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. ad 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 7. q. 2. ad 3, a. 8. q. 1. ad 1.

**IV.** De 3. quaestione cfr. Bonav., III. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 5. ad 2, et infra d. 22. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2; et quod opera satisfactoria infra d. 15. p. I. a. 1. q. 4. — De eadem: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 6. — Scot., IV. Sent. d. 22. q. unica n. 7. seqq.; Report. ibid. n. 6. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3; S. loc. cit. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 21. 22. 23. — Petr. a Tar. rem tangit infra d. 22. q. 1. a. 1. ad 4. — Richard. a Med., hic n. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** In the response to the 1st question of this article, St. Thomas, Scotus, B. Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, and others of the age of St. Bonaventure agree, teaching that the measure of grace and of the infused virtues corresponds to the final disposition of the penitent, and that consequently the restitution of grace comes about sometimes in a greater, sometimes in a less, sometimes in an equal degree; which opinion even Alexander of Hales (*Summa* p. IV. q. 12. m. i. a. 3.) prefers, without judging the other opinion to be improbable. — But a difficulty arises from another principle commonly received, namely that meritorious works mortified by mortal sin revive through subsequent penance, that is, become again efficacious for leading into eternal glory, since they remained in the divine acceptation. For if the merits revive altogether the same and with the whole right to the glory proportioned to them, even when the disposition of the penitent was minimal yet sufficient; and if there is superadded a merit proceeding from the very act of penance: then it would follow that one rising again would always acquire greater merits unto essential glory than he previously had. Scotus (IV. d. 22. q. unica n. 8.) in some manner concedes this latter; nevertheless (ibid. n. 9. 10.) he approves the aforenoted response to the 1st question for the first instant of justification; whence he supposes that the first grace returns later in full, when there has been a greater disposition, or at least in the instant of death. — But others more recent teach that in the instant of justification the whole grace proportioned to the preceding merits always returns; which, although it is contrary to the conclusion of the 1st question, is judged to be probable. — But with Alexander of Hales St. Thomas seems to teach otherwise, namely that the penitent, just as he does not always rise again in the same degree of grace, so neither rises again in the same degree of merits, and consequently not in the same right to essential glory which he had before the lapse. Hence St. Thomas says (*Summa* III. q. 89. a. 5. ad 3.): "He who through penance rises again in less charity will indeed obtain the essential reward according to the quantity of charity in which he is found; he will however have greater joy concerning the works done in the first charity than concerning the works which he did in the second; which pertains to the accidental reward" (cf. III Sent. d. 31. a. i. subq. 1. 2. 3, and here q. 2. a. 2. *Summa* loc. cit. n. 2.). Richard of Mediavilla teaches the same. — For illustrating this question III Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 2. 3 serves.

**II.** Concerning the 1st question, besides those cited: B. Albert, here a. 30. — Peter of Tarentaise, III Sent. d. 31. q. 1. a. 3, and here a. 8, subq. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, III Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 2 and 3. q., here q. 5. — Dionysius the Carthusian, concerning this and the 2 following questions, here q. 6.

**III.** The following (2nd) question is concerning rising again in "an equal state of dignity" (as Alexander of Hales says, loc. cit.) or "in the former dignity" (as St. Thomas says, *Summa* loc. cit. a. 4.). The question is understood by these doctors of the secondary dignity, namely of innocence and integrity, or as to the removal of the remnants of sin; which formula others use. Concerning the distinction between dignity and purity, cf. below d. 15. p. II. dub. 10. This same question is extended by St. Thomas to dignities in the forum of the Church. — Concerning the same, besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. and a. 4. — Scotus, here q. 4. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1. subq. 3. — B. Albert, here a. 33. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. ad 1. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 7. q. 2. ad 3, a. 8. q. 1. ad 1.

**IV.** Concerning the 3rd question cf. Bonaventure, III Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 5. ad 2, and below d. 22. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2; and that the satisfactory works [are vivified] below d. 15. p. I. a. 1. q. 4. — Concerning the same: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 6. — Scotus, IV Sent. d. 22. q. unica n. 7 ff.; *Reportata* ibid. n. 6. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 3; *Summa* loc. cit. a. 6. — B. Albert, here a. 21. 22. 23. — Peter of Tarentaise touches the matter below d. 22. q. 1. a. 1. ad 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here n. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 335–337; pdf pp. 355–357 at the verified +20 offset; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 38394–38606) as base for the clean running prose (article opener, fundamenta, Contra args) and footnote-marker spacing. The OCR was severely two-column-bled/cascade-shattered across all three pages; the Respondeo, the two opinions, the Solutio replies (1–6), and the entire scholion were taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** The opener ("Primo quaeritur, utrum necesse sit resurgere in aequali caritate, vel etiam in maiori") matches ARTICULUS II / QUAESTIO I, confirmed against the PDF (p.335 L-foot: ARTICULUS II, *De effectu poenitentiae iteratae*, then the three-question listing, then QUAESTIO I, *Utrum necesse sit resurgere in aequali caritate, vel etiam in maiori*). Aligned. Per the locked chunking convention, the short ARTICULUS II opener ("Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum... quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur...") is folded into this q1; there is no standalone divisio chunk for this article.

**Page span / page-verify.** Running heads: p.335-R recto = "QUAEST. I. 335"; p.336 verso top = "336 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p.337-L recto = "DIST. XIV. P. II. ART. II. QU[AEST.]" and p.337-R recto = "QUAEST. II. 337" (the q1 solutio overruns into the QUAESTIO-II running-head territory on the recto, while QUAESTIO II's body itself begins lower on p.337-L). Page-verify PASSES (DIST. XIV. P. II. ART. II.). The chunk body spans printed pp. **335–337**: ARTICULUS II opener + QUAESTIO I title + fundamenta 1–2 at the foot of p.335; fundamenta 3–6 + Contra 1–5 on p.336; Conclusio + Respondeo (two opinions) span pp.336–337; Solutio 1–6 on p.337; the scholion (I–IV) on p.337, ending immediately before QUAESTIO II ("Utrum perfecta poenitentia restituat in pristinum gradum"). printed_pages = [335, 336, 337]; pdf_pages = [355, 356, 357] at +20.

**Apparatus / footer-ownership.** 17 footnotes, all paired in both bodies, renumbered [^1]–[^17] in body order. Each printed page restarts footer numbering; this chunk takes only the footers whose anchors fall in this question's body:
- p.335 footers: the L-column footer block (nn.1–4: August. XIX de Civ. Dei; Cfr. II Sent. d.28; Dist. 7. p.1; Libr. II Machab. 9,18) anchors in the PRIOR chunk (ART. I, QUAESTIO III, whose solutio occupies p.335-R top) → belong to the a2... no — those L-column footers belong to ART. I q3 and are NOT rendered here. The p.335-R footer block (Hebr. 12,17 = at *casus*; Qui verbis supra pag. 334; infra d.50; Vers. 28 = Glossa at *cooperantur in bonum* → [^1]; Propter connexionem → [^2]; Vers. 22 Ezech. → [^3]) supplies this q1's first markers.
- p.336 footers nn.1–11 → fundamenta 3–6 + Contra 1–5 + Respondeo: Epist. 153 (August. ad Macedonium)→[^4], Eph. 4,7→[^5], Hic in lit. c.2 (Magister)→[^6], Vide verba August. tom. II pag. 770→[^7], Codd. AGKY *sed* / *deflendam*→[^9] (and a duplicate of this footer-text at the contra-2 anchor is parked as [^15]), Hieronym. in Matth. 25→[^10], Richard. a S. Vict. *quanto gradus altior*→[^11], Vat. *nec aliquid*→[^12], In fundam. Cfr. III Sent. (positio falsa)→[^13].
- p.337 footers nn.1–4 (Rom. 5,20; Infra q.3; Ita codd...nobilitatis; Sive Hypognost.) belong to QUAESTIO II's body opener (recto), NOT to this q1; they are NOT rendered here.
No q1 footer spills into a neighboring chunk; the p.335-L footers belong to ART. I q3 and the p.337-R/L nn.1–4 belong to QUAESTIO II.

**Scholion disposition (★ ownership).** This chunk OWNS the Articulus II scholion in full (printed on p.337, beginning after the q1 solutio and ending at the foot of p.337 immediately before QUAESTIO II's body). It is question-keyed across the article's three questions: **I** = "In responsione ad 1. huius articuli quaestionem" — directly grounds THIS q1 (the doctrine that grace is restored secundum the final disposition — greater/less/equal; S. Thom., Scotus, Albert, Petr. a Tar., Richard, Alex. Hal.; the merita-reviviscunt difficulty); **II** = "De 1. quaestione praeter citatos" — further authorities for q1; **III** = "Seq. (2.) quaestio est de resurrectione in « aequali statu dignitatis »" — the 2nd question (restoration into the former degree/dignity; secondary dignity, ablation of the reliquiae peccati); **IV** = "De 3. quaestione" — the 3rd question (restoration of mortified good works). Rendered in full (both languages), body-first / scholion-last per the parser gotcha. **Coverage: the scholion covers article q1–q3** (sections I+II → q1, III → q2, IV → q3). Sibling questions a2-q2 and a2-q3 should render `has_scholion: false` and point here. No second distinct scholion block exists for q2/q3 within this article — this single block on p.337 is the whole article's scholion, ending just before QUAESTIO II.

**`[?]` flags.** [^14], [^15], [^16], [^17] — Quaracchi's footer block for pp.335–337 is heavily two-column-bled in both OCR and the inner-margin gutter of the bands; their exact wording is partly reconstructed from the visible fragments and parallel Quaracchi conventions. These are flagged for the d.20 decade-polish 600 dpi pass. All other readings resolved against the PDF bands. OCR garbles silently corrected per CLAUDE.md (e.g. `arlicnlum`→`articulum`, `quaerilur`→`quaeritur`, `iteraiae`→`iteratae`, `raortificata`→`mortificata`, `oranes`→`omnes`, `coopera.ntur`→`cooperantur`, `inmortale`→`in mortale`, `Uem`→`Item`, `recidivantibns`→`recidivantibus`, `donhatione`→`donatione`, `disposilionem`→`dispositionem`, `Improb`→`improbo`, `monslratum`→`monstratum`, `reviviscunt`, `perseverantia`).

**Orphaned-apparatus repair (2026-07-17, J4 Class B).** Defs [^14]–[^17] previously had NO `[^N]` anchor in either body — the prior Notes entry's claim that "the body markers ... are certain" was itself in error (no such markers existed in the text). Re-verified against 450 dpi PDF column bands (`extract-pages.py --volume vol4 --pages 335-337`; `colcrop.py vol4 <page> 1880`), keying on content per J4 Trap 1 (never by position):
- **[^14] PLACED** at *perseverantia* / *perseverance* in the Respondeo ("Nihil enim efficaciter est dignum remuneratione sine finali perseverantia[^14]."). Confirmed on p.336 R-column body: the printed superscript "11" sits exactly on *perseverantia*, and page-336's footer entry 11 is the Hieronym. *in Ezech.* 18 note ("Unusquisque enim in quo invenietur, in eo iudicabitur") — a direct scriptural gloss for the "no reward without final perseverance" claim. Strong content + position match.
- **[^16] PLACED** at *patebit* / *as will appear* in Solutio ad 4 ("dicendum, sicut patebit[^16], quod opus vivificari..."). Confirmed on p.337 R-column body top: printed superscript "2" sits on *patebit*, and page-337's footer entry 2 reads "Infra q. 3" — matching the apparatus entry's own "Vide infra q. 3" content exactly.
- **[^15] REFUSED.** Its text duplicates [^9] verbatim (Codd. A G K Y *sed* / *delendam*-*deflendam*) plus an editorial gloss "Spectat ad arg. Contra 2." Contra 2's own sentence on p.336 (L-1 band) was read at full resolution and carries only ONE superscript, "6" (=[^9], on *si*) — no second marker on *delendam*. No other superscript on pp.335–337 carries this content. Cannot place with textual evidence; left unanchored per the "refuse rather than guess" rule.
- **[^17] REFUSED.** Its text duplicates [^12] verbatim (Vat. *nec aliquid, quod habebat* / *cecidit*-*recedit*) plus "Respicit arg. Contra 5: *similiter nec per aliquid, quod habeat*." Contra 5's own sentence on p.336 (R-0 band) was read at full resolution and carries only ONE superscript, "9" (=[^12], on *habeat*) — no second marker on *cecidit*. The Solutio (p.337) replies only to fundamenta 1–6, never to the Contra arguments, so there is no natural second occurrence of this lemma elsewhere in this chunk's body. Cannot place with textual evidence; left unanchored.
- Note in passing (not part of this repair, out of scope): p.337 R-column top also carries unmapped superscripts "1" (on *Apostoli*, Solutio ad 3; footer = "Rom. 5, 20") and possibly "3" (near *voluntatis*, Solutio ad 5; content does not match footer 3, which belongs to the following QUAESTIO II's own fundamentum 2 — "Ita codd. N aa, alii *nobilitatis*..."). These are genuinely missing apparatus entries (no `[^N]:` def exists for them at all), a different bug class than the assigned orphaned-definition repair; left untouched.

**Class C — anchor with no definition, superscripts "1"/"3" on p.337 (2026-07-17, J4 Class C).** Investigated the gap noted immediately above. Re-read 450 dpi PDF column bands for p.337 (`extract-pages.py --volume vol4 --pages 337-337`; `colcrop.py vol4 337 1880`, all six L/R×0-2 bands). Findings:
- Confirmed the page-337 footer block prints ONCE, at the true foot of the page (under the "S. Bonav. — Tom. IV." volume signature), split typographically across the two columns: **1** "Rom. 5, 20." and **2** "Infra q. 3." under the L column, **3** "Ita codd. N aa, alii *nobilitatis*, Vat. *virtutis nobilitatem.*" and **4** "Sive *Hypognosticon* III. c. 9. Cfr. supra pag. 320, nota 1." under the R column — i.e. ONE continuous 1–4 sequence for the whole page, not per-quaestio blocks. Reading order for the body superscripts (confirmed grammatically: L column's last line, "...pro aliquibus, non pro omnibus," runs straight into R column's first line, "quia illud Apostoli¹: *Ubi abundavit*...") establishes that superscripts 1, 2, 3 fall — in this exact order — on *Apostoli*, *patebit*, and *voluntatis*, all within THIS q1's own Solutio (ad 3, ad 4, ad 5 respectively), and superscript 4 falls later on *Responsionum* in the following QUAESTIO II's fundamentum 1 (`Augustinus in libro Quinque Responsionum⁴`).
- **[^18] PLACED** (new entry) at *Apostoli* in Solutio ad 3 — footer 1, "Rom. 5, 20.", is an exact citation match: the body quotes "*Ubi abundavit*" (Rom. 5:20's "ubi abundavit delictum") attributed to "illud Apostoli" (the Apostle Paul).
- **[^19] PLACED** (new entry) at *voluntatis* in Solutio ad 5 — footer 3, a codex-variant note ("Ita codd. N aa, alii *nobilitatis*..."), is the third footer in the page's 1–4 sequence and has no other candidate anchor in this chunk's body.
- **Cross-chunk finding, NOT acted on (out of scope for this single-chunk task):** the sibling chunk `vol4/bon-sent-IV-d14-p2-a2-q2.md` currently carries its OWN `[^1]` (verbatim "Rom. 5, 20.") anchored at *perfectum* in its fundamentum 1, and its OWN `[^3]` (verbatim "Ita codd. N aa, alii *nobilitatis*...") anchored at *imaginem* in its fundamentum 2 — i.e. the identical footer texts, independently re-transcribed under q2's own restart-at-1 apparatus numbering, anchored at DIFFERENT lemmas that do not fit their content nearly as well (Rom. 5:20 has no textual echo at "revocans ad perfectum"; the codex variant has no obvious link to "imaginem"). Per the single-footer-block-per-page finding above, footers 1 and 3 physically belong to q1 (this chunk), not q2; only footer 4 ("Sive *Hypognosticon*...", matching q2's own *Responsionum* citation) is genuinely q2's. This looks like a pre-existing mis-attribution in q2 from an earlier promotion pass, not something introduced here. **Flagging for a future dedicated q2 pass — not touched in this session**, since this task's scope is q1 only and q2 is Tier-2-complete/independently healthy (its apparatus set already matches its own anchors 1:1, so editing it is a separate, deliberate decision, not a "genuinely missing" repair).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 337 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum perfecta poenitentia restituat in pristinum gradum.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum perfecta poenitentia restituat in pristinum gradum. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Augustinus in libro *Quinque Responsionum*[^4]: «Poenitentia est res quaedam optima et perfecta, omnes defectus revocans ad perfectum[^1]»; sed si non revocaret in gradum pristinum, non esset perfecta revocatio: ergo etc.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia peccator Deum offendit, non tantum quia contra eius imperium facit, sed etiam in hoc, quod se, servum suum et eius imaginem[^3], deformat

<!-- page 338 -->

et peiorem reddit: ergo non potest perfecte reconciliari, quamdiu aliquid manet minus bene quam ante, quia non tantum Deo restituit, quantum abstulit.

3. Item, perfectus medicus perfectum largitur antidotum; sed perfectum antidotum non est, nisi pristinam plene restituat sanitatem: cum ergo Dominus sit perfectus medicus animarum, patet etc.

4. Item, Dominus, cum sanavit in corpore, semper restituit sanitatem pristinam perfecte, ergo similiter, cum sanat in spiritu[^2]; sed sanat in spiritu per poenitentiam: ergo poenitentia perfecta restituit in pristinam sanitatem.

**Contra:** 1. Possibile est, ut dictum est[^5], resurgere in minori caritate et in eadem suam perficere poenitentiam: ergo poenitentia perfecta non restituit semper in sanitatem pristinam.

2. Item, aliquis per peccatum amisit virginitatem; sed impossibile est, ipsum ulterius virginem fieri: ergo impossibile est per poenitentiam in statum pristinum redire.

3. Item, gloria magna est homini in hoc, quod nunquam offendit Deum; sed eum qui poenitet post peccatum, necesse est Dominum offendisse: ergo nunquam in statum pristinum et gloriam redibit.

4. Item, potentior est baptismus et efficacior quam poenitentia; sed baptismus nunquam reparat omnes defectus, quos incurreramus per originale — quod patet, quia remanet quadruplex poena animae et poena corporis multiplex — ergo nec poenitentia restituet omnia quae incurrimus per actuale.

> **Conclusio.** Poenitentia et in duratione et in fervore perfecta restituit sanitatem, sed tantum quoad substantiam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod poenitentia perfecta potest considerari dupliciter: aut quantum ad *durationem*, aut quantum ad *durationem et fervorem*. Si quantum ad *durationem*, ut scilicet ieiunet, quamdiu imponitur, et compleat quod sibi imponitur secundum rectam taxationem sacerdotis; non est necesse restitui in statum pristinum, quia ita negligenter potest exsequi, quod non praeparat se ad tantam gratiam quantam amisit. Si autem sit perfecta quantum ad *fervorem et durationem*; sic dico, quod si ita ferventer poenitet et dolet de culpa, secundum quod congruit ei qui de tanto statu cecidit, credo, quod per hanc redit in pristinam sanitatem. Et de hac intelligit Augustinus, et concurrunt praedictae rationes, quia antidotum illud operatur secundum congruentiam suscipientis. — Intelligendum est tamen, quod dupliciter est loqui de sanitate: aut quantum ad *substantiam* habituum gratiae et habilitatum naturalium[^6]; et sic restituit in sanitatem pristinam. Est etiam loqui quantum ad aliquem *statum* sive integritatem vel decorem *accidentalem*, et quantum ad hoc non est necesse restitui; et haec est continuatio innocentiae et integritatis carnis etc.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod potest in minori resurgere et poenitentiam perficere; dicendum, quod si non negligenter perficit poenitentiam, ad ulteriorem gratiam se disponit.

2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de virginitate et gloria illa de innocentia; dicendum, quod quantum ad hoc non restituit, sed quantum ad omne quod fuit substantiale circa meritum.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de baptismo, quod non restituit; dicendum, quod verum est; et ratio huius est, quia sanat tantum personam; sed originale inficit et naturam et personam: et ideo non omnes poenae tolluntur[^7]. Non sic autem est in poenitentia; ipsa enim sanat morbum personalem tantum, et ideo totaliter et omnino sanat, cum perfecta est[^8].

english:
### Question II. *Whether perfect penance restores [a person] to the pristine degree.*

Secondly it is asked whether perfect penance restores [a person] to the pristine degree. And that it does, seems to be the case:

1. Augustine in the book *Five Responses*[^4]: «Penance is a certain best and perfect thing, recalling all defects to the perfect[^1]»; but if it did not recall [one] to the pristine degree, it would not be a perfect recalling: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it seems [so] by *reason*: because the sinner offends God not only because he acts against His command, but also in this, that he deforms[^3] himself, His servant and His image,

<!-- page 338 -->

and renders [it] worse: therefore he cannot be perfectly reconciled, so long as anything remains less good than before, because he does not restore as much to God as he took away.

3. Likewise, a perfect physician bestows a perfect antidote; but it is not a perfect antidote unless it fully restores the pristine health: since therefore the Lord is the perfect physician of souls, it is clear etc.

4. Likewise, the Lord, when He healed in the body, always restored the pristine health perfectly, therefore likewise when He heals in the spirit[^2]; but He heals in the spirit through penance: therefore perfect penance restores [one] to the pristine health.

**On the contrary:** 1. It is possible, as has been said[^5], to rise again in a lesser charity and to complete one's penance in the same [charity]: therefore perfect penance does not always restore [one] to the pristine health.

2. Likewise, someone has lost virginity through sin; but it is impossible for him to become a virgin again: therefore it is impossible through penance to return to the pristine state.

3. Likewise, it is a great glory to a person in this, that he has never offended God; but he who repents after sin must necessarily have offended the Lord: therefore he will never return to the pristine state and glory.

4. Likewise, baptism is more powerful and more efficacious than penance; but baptism never repairs all the defects which we had incurred through original [sin] — which is clear, because a fourfold penalty of the soul and a manifold penalty of the body remains — therefore neither will penance restore all [the things] which we incur through actual [sin].

> **Conclusion.** Penance perfect both in duration and in fervor restores health, but only as to substance.

**I respond:** It must be said that perfect penance can be considered in two ways: either as to *duration*, or as to *duration and fervor*. If as to *duration*, namely that he fast as long as it is imposed, and complete what is imposed on him according to the right assessment of the priest; it is not necessary to be restored to the pristine state, because he can carry it out so negligently that he does not prepare himself for as much grace as he lost. But if it is perfect as to *fervor and duration*; thus I say that if he repents and grieves over the fault so fervently as befits one who has fallen from so great a state, I believe that through this he returns to the pristine health. And of this Augustine understands [it], and the aforesaid reasons concur, because that antidote operates according to the fittingness of the recipient. — It must nevertheless be understood that there is a twofold way of speaking of health: either as to the *substance* of the habits of grace and of the natural capacities[^6]; and thus it restores [one] to the pristine health. There is also a way of speaking as to some *state* or integrity or *accidental* beauty, and as to this it is not necessary to be restored; and this is the continuation of innocence and of the integrity of the flesh etc.

1. To the objection, then, that one can rise again in a lesser [charity] and complete penance; it must be said that, if he completes the penance not negligently, he disposes himself toward further grace.

2. 3. To the objection concerning virginity and that glory of innocence; it must be said that as to this it does not restore [it], but [it does] as to everything that was substantial concerning merit.

4. To the objection concerning baptism, that it does not restore [all things]; it must be said that it is true; and the reason for this is that it heals only the person; but original [sin] infects both the nature and the person: and therefore not all penalties are removed[^7]. But it is not so in penance; for it heals only the personal disease, and therefore it heals totally and entirely, when it is perfect[^8].

en: Romans 5:20.

la: Infra q. 3.

en: Below, q. 3.

la: Ita codd. N aa, alii *nobilitatis*, Vat. *virtutis nobilitatem.*

la: Sive *Hypognosticon* III. c. 9. Cfr. supra pag. 320, nota 1.

en: Or the *Hypognosticon* III, c. 9. Cf. above, p. 320, note 1.

la: Vide supra pag. 53, nota 4. Cfr. d. 4. p. I. a. 1. — Pro *incurreramus* plures codd. *incurrimus.*

en: See above, p. 53, note 4. Cf. d. 4, p. I, a. 1. — For *incurreramus* several codices [read] *incurrimus.*

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 35. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. — Edd. cum aliquot codd. *ad substantiam et habitum gratiae et habilitatem naturalium.* In fine corp. post *et haec* supple *sanitas.* Pro *integritatis* codd. F L O X (bb a secunda manu) *integritas.*

en: Cf. *Sentences* II, d. 35, a. 1, q. 1, in the body. — The editions, with some codices, [read] *ad substantiam et habitum gratiae et habilitatem naturalium.* At the end of the body, after *et haec* supply *sanitas.* For *integritatis* codices F L O X (bb in a second hand) [read] *integritas.*

la: Ut dictum est supra d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. in corp. et ad 3. pro parte negativa.

en: As was said above, d. 4, p. I, a. 1, q. 2, in the body and ad 3, on the negative side.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: 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{337,338}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 38607–38709) 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 Respondeo/Solutio text bled into the left-column argument lines line-for-line), so the PDF bands carried the entire reconstruction. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 337–338 = PDF 357–358).

**Page-verify.** Running heads confirmed on the bands: p. 337 = "QUAESTIO II." opens at the foot of the left column; p. 338 = "338 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (left top) / "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (right). QUAESTIO III. ("Utrum poenitentia restituat homini opera bona, prius mortificata per culpam") opens at the foot of p. 338's left column. All match the assigned distinction/pars/article/question (DIST. XIV. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. II).

**Opener alignment.** Confirmed: the q2 opener on p. 337 (left column, bottom) reads "QUAESTIO II. Utrum perfecta poenitentia restituat in pristinum gradum. Secundo quaeritur, utrum perfecta poenitentia restituat in pristinum gradum. Et quod sic, videtur …" — matches the assigned "Secundo quaeritur" question of Art II, q2.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 337 (left col., bottom): QUAESTIO II. header + arg. 1 (the *Hypognosticon* quote) and the opening of arg. 2 ("quia peccator Deum offendit … quod se, servum suum et eius imaginem,").
- p. 337 → 338 boundary inside arg. 2 ("eius imaginem," | "deformat et peiorem reddit …").
- p. 338: arg. 2 completes; args. 3–4; *Contra* 1–4; Conclusio; Respondeo (the *duratio*/*fervor* distinction); Solutiones *Ad 1*, *Ad 2–3*, *Ad 4* (closing "… cum perfecta est."). QUAESTIO III. header follows at the foot of p. 338's left column.

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 8 entries owned here).**
- p. 337: **4 footers** — `^1` (arg. 1 *ad perfectum*, Rom. 5,20), `^2` (arg. 4 *sanat in spiritu*, Infra q. 3 — printed in arg. 4 but numbered earlier in column order), `^3` (arg. 2 *imaginem*, the *nobilitatis*/*nobilitatem* variant), `^4` (arg. 1 *Quinque Responsionum* = *Hypognosticon* III c. 9).
- p. 338: **4 footers belong here** — `^5` (*Contra* 1 *ut dictum est*; the p. 53 / *incurreramus* note), `^6` (Respondeo *substantiam habituum gratiae*), `^7` (*Ad 4* *omnes poenae tolluntur*), `^8` (*Ad 4* *cum perfecta est*; "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest."). The remaining p. 338 footer `^9` ("Libr. II. de Sacram. p. XIV. c. 4 …") anchors in **Quaestio III**'s body (arg. 1 Hugh quote). **Hand-off:** the a2-q3 chunk must claim p. 338 footer 9 plus the full p. 338-left Q III sequence (Q III restarts numbering at its own args: `^1` *infra lit. Magistri d. XV c. 7*, `^2` *Quaest. praeced.*, `^3` *Ut insinuat Hieronym. in Amos 5,1*, `^4` *Hieronym. in Amos 5,1 … Luc. 15,5*, `^5` *Vide supra pag. 53 nota 4*, `^9` *Libr. II de Sacram. p. XIV c. 4*).

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`, but **q2 renders none of its own**: per the dispatch instruction, the Articulus II SCHOLION (covering q1–q3) is rendered with **Quaestio I** (a2-q1). The `### Scholion` slot here holds a one-line Latin+English cross-reference. A "SCHOLION." header does appear on p. 337's left column (p337-L-1) — but it sits *above* the QUAESTIO II opener, belonging to the tail of Quaestio I, NOT inside the q2 raw range (38607–38709); verified.

**[?] flags.** No unresolved transcription `[?]` flags. Footer-marker placement is the only soft spot: `^3` (the *nobilitatis*/*nobilitatem* textual variant) is attached at arg. 2 *imaginem* — the printed body word it glosses is OCR-interleaved at that point and the variant cluster (codd. *nobilitatis*, Vat. *virtutis nobilitatem*) sits in the right-column footer block; the anchor is placed at the nearest grammatical fit. `^2` (Infra q. 3) is printed in arg. 4 but its number falls earlier in left-column reading order; anchored at *sanat in spiritu* per the column band. Silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands (OCR was cascade-interleaved two-column): arg. 1 *omnes defectus revocans ad perfectum*; Respondeo *durationem … fervorem*, *secundum rectam taxationem sacerdotis*, *congruentiam suscipientis*; *Ad 4* *naturam et personam* / *morbum personalem*. Margin-rubrics in both columns (*Ad oppositum*, *Conclusio*, *Distinctio 1.*, *Notandum*, *Solutio oppositorum*) are editorial side-notes, omitted from the body per corpus convention.

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. 2, Q. 3

title_alt: Utrum poenitentia restituat homini opera bona prius mortificata per culpam

source_text:
<!-- page 338 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum poenitentia restituat homini opera bona, prius mortificata per culpam.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum poenitentia restituat homini opera bona, prius mortificata per culpam. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Hugo[^1]: « Nemo in spe correctionis peccare debet, quia quod semel amittitur, ipsum amplius non recuperatur »: ergo si bona opera prius facta sunt amissa per culpam, impossibile est, ea restitui[^9]; ergo nec vivificari.

2. Item, omne quod vivificatur, est aliquo modo; sed quod omnino praeteriit nullo modo est, et talia sunt opera bona prius facta: ergo nec vivificari nec recuperari possunt.

<!-- page 339 -->

3. Item, impossibile est habitum amissum amplius illum eundem recuperare[^3]: ergo a simili impossibile est, opera bona, prius mortificata et amissa, eadem recuperari et vivificari.

4. Item, si opera mortificantur et vivificantur, ergo idem actus secundum idem sui est susceptibilis oppositarum conditionum; quod est impossibile[^4], quia impossibile est, quod motus unus secundum eandem partem primo sit velox et postea tardus.

**Contra:** 1. Ioel secundo[^5b]: *Reddam vobis annos* etc.; Glossa: « Non patiar, perire ubertatem, quam cum perturbationibus amisistis »; sed ubertas illa erat ex multitudine bonorum operum: ergo si illam non patitur perire, poenitentia restituit opera bona, mortificata per culpam.

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia opera bona facta prius digna erant remuneratione aeterna; sed quod nunc non remunerentur, hoc est, quia iste non perseverat in gratia: ergo si iste resurgit et perseverat in gratia, opera illa remunerabuntur[^6b]: ergo etc.

3. Item, iste gaudet de bonis, quae fecit ante lapsum, et ordinate: ergo in gloria gaudebit; sed non gauderet in gloria, nisi illa fecisset: ergo ex illis operibus mortificatis per culpam accrescit gaudium aeternum: ergo etc.

4. Item, plus potest gratia poenitentiae quam culpa[^7b]; sed culpa opera viva mortificat: ergo gratia mortificata vivificat.

> **Conclusio.** Opera bona, quae prius fuerunt viva et deinde culpa mortificata, gratia redeunte, reviviscunt.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hoc verum est et communis tenet opinio, quod opera, quae prius fuerunt viva, quia ex caritate facta et digna vita aeterna, postea, adveniente culpa, mortificantur in isto — quia amplius hoc, quamdiu in eo est culpa, in eo non sunt digna remuneratione propter indignitatem ipsius — sed rursus redeunte gratia, quae istum facit dignum vita aeterna, iam opera in hoc sunt digna remuneratione, et ideo restituuntur et vivificantur. — Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc.

Ad intelligentiam autem obiectorum notandum, quod quidam dicunt, quod opera bona, in caritate facta, quia bona sunt et a Deo, fiunt in laudem Dei[^8b], et inde debet laudari Deus; quia vero in unitate corporis mystici et quia in caritate, pertinent ad corpus mysticum; quia ex libera voluntate et iusta, ad radicis praemium sive facientis meritum. Unde licet iste cadat[^9b], qui fecit, opera nihilominus remanent in corpore mystico, quia inde alia membra gaudebunt, et Deus inde laudabitur; sed tamen non manent ad gloriam facientis, et ideo moriuntur isti, cum iste moritur; sed ipso resurgente a culpa et facto de corpore mystico, sibi bona opera reviviscunt; et quantum ad hoc dicunt intelligi illud Apocalypsis tertio[^10b]: *Tene quod habes* etc.

Tamen quidquid sit de hoc, sive remaneant in corpore mystico, sive non; verum est, quod manent in memoria eius qui fecit; et dubium etiam non est, quin maneant in memoria *Dei* opera prius facta; et quamdiu manet culpa, manent in Dei cognitione cuncta respicientis et in memoria peccatoris. Sed ibi non manent ad remunerandum, nec in memoria peccatoris ad gaudendum, sed magis ad dolendum, quod de tantis bonis ad tanta mala devenit. Sed cum resurgit, manent in Deo ad remunerandum, et in memoria ipsius peccatoris ad gaudendum. Et ideo prius aliquo modo manebant, sed mortua, postmodum manent viva.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Hugone, dicendum, quod intelligit de illo opere bono, quod homo potuisset facere vel fecisset illo tempore, quo peccavit, quod quidem non recuperabit: quia, si alio tempore velit facere opus, quod omisit, perdit opus, quod deberet in illo tempore facere. Unde Seneca[^11b] dicit, quod gravissima est iactura temporis, quia non potest recuperari.

2. Ad illud quod secundo obiicitur, potest responderi dupliciter: vel quod manent in corpore mystico, sicut tactum est, vel quod manent in memoria eius qui fecit, et Dei, pro quo fecit.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod impossibile est recuperare habitum amissum eundem numero; dicendum, quod aliud est vivificari, aliud recuperari. Recuperatio enim respicit esse, sed vivificatio

<!-- page 340 -->

respicit ordinatum esse sive ordinem vel tale esse. Et quoniam quod desinit esse, si iterum incipiat esse, non est idem numero, sed aliud; ideo habitus, si corrumpatur et amittatur, idem non recuperatur. Sed quia possibile est, quod idem, manens idem, habeat alium et alium ordinem; et secundum hoc attenditur vivificatio et mortificatio in operibus et fortassis in habitibus: ideo possibile est, opus mortuum vivificari, ita quod manet idem.

4. Ex hoc solvitur ultimum: quia, quando dicitur opus vivum et mortificatum, hoc non dicit diversas dispositiones circa opus, sed dicit circa opus diversas ordinationes, scilicet ordinationem ad remunerationem, dum vivit, et privationem illius, cum iam mortuum est sive mortificatum. Sed in suscipiente sive homine dicit diversitatem penes qualitatem gratiae, quae est accidens absolutum ipsius subiecti, secundum cuius susceptionem et amissionem subiectum modo alteratur, et dicitur homo mortuus, modo vivus, modo peccator, modo iustus, et ita alteratus. Sed opus ex consequenti est ordinatum ad vitam, vel hoc ordine privatum; et hoc non dicit motum, quia « in *ad aliquid* per se non est motus[^1c] ».

english:
### Question III. *Whether penance restores to a man the good works previously mortified by sin.*

Thirdly it is asked whether penance restores to a man the good works previously mortified by sin. And that it does not, seems to be the case:

1. Hugh[^1]: "No one ought to sin in the hope of amendment, because what is once lost is no longer recovered": therefore if good works previously done have been lost through sin, it is impossible for them to be restored[^9]; therefore neither [can they] be revived.

2. Likewise, everything that is revived exists in some way; but what has altogether passed away exists in no way, and such are the good works previously done: therefore they can be neither revived nor recovered.

<!-- page 339 -->

3. Likewise, it is impossible to recover again that same lost habit[^3]: therefore, by a like reasoning, it is impossible that the good works, previously mortified and lost, be recovered and revived as the same.

4. Likewise, if works are mortified and revived, then the same act in the same respect is susceptible of opposite conditions; which is impossible[^4], because it is impossible that one motion in the same part be first swift and afterwards slow.

**On the contrary:** 1. Joel chapter two[^5b]: *I will restore to you the years* etc.; the Gloss: "I will not allow that abundance to perish, which you lost amid your tribulations"; but that abundance was from the multitude of good works: therefore, if He does not allow it to perish, penance restores the good works mortified by sin.

2. Likewise, it appears by reason: because good works previously done were worthy of eternal reward; but that they are not now rewarded is because this man does not persevere in grace: therefore, if this man rises again and perseveres in grace, those works will be rewarded[^6b]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, this man rejoices over the goods which he did before his fall, and rightly so: therefore he will rejoice in glory; but he would not rejoice in glory unless he had done them: therefore from those works mortified by sin eternal joy accrues: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the grace of penance can do more than sin can[^7b]; but sin mortifies living works: therefore the mortified grace [restored] revives them.

> **Conclusion.** Good works which were first living and afterwards mortified by sin, when grace returns, come back to life.

**I respond:** It must be said that this is true and that common opinion holds it, that works which were previously living, because done out of charity and worthy of eternal life, afterwards, when sin comes, are mortified in this man — because, so long as sin is in him, they are no longer worthy of reward in him on account of his unworthiness — but again, when grace returns, which makes this man worthy of eternal life, the works are now worthy of reward in him, and therefore they are restored and revived. — And the reasons for this are to be conceded.

Now, for the understanding of the objections, it must be noted that some say that good works done in charity, because they are good and from God, are done unto the praise of God[^8b], and thence God ought to be praised; but because [they are done] in the unity of the mystical body and because in charity, they pertain to the mystical body; because [done] from a free and just will, [they pertain] to the reward of the root or to the merit of the doer. Hence, although this man, who did them, falls[^9b], the works nonetheless remain in the mystical body, because thence other members will rejoice, and God will thence be praised; yet nevertheless they do not remain unto the glory of the doer, and therefore they die in these men, when the man dies; but when he rises again from sin and is made [part] of the mystical body, the good works come back to life for him; and as to this they say that the saying of the Apocalypse, chapter three, is to be understood[^10b]: *Hold fast what you have* etc.

Yet whatever be the case about this, whether they remain in the mystical body or not; it is true that they remain in the memory of the one who did them; and there is also no doubt that the works previously done remain in the memory of *God*; and so long as sin remains, they remain in the cognition of God, who beholds all things, and in the memory of the sinner. But there they do not remain unto rewarding, nor in the memory of the sinner unto rejoicing, but rather unto grieving, that from such great goods he has come to such great evils. But when he rises again, they remain in God unto rewarding, and in the memory of the sinner himself unto rejoicing. And therefore they remained before in some way, but dead, and afterwards they remain living.

1. To the objection from Hugh, therefore, it must be said that he understands it of that good work which a man could have done or would have done at the time at which he sinned, which indeed he will not recover: because, if at another time he wishes to do the work which he omitted, he loses the work which he ought to do at that [other] time. Hence Seneca[^11b] says that the loss of time is the gravest loss, because it cannot be recovered.

2. To the second objection, it can be answered in two ways: either that they remain in the mystical body, as has been said, or that they remain in the memory of the one who did them, and of God, for whom he did them.

3. To the objection that it is impossible to recover the same habit, identical in number, that has been lost; it must be said that to be revived is one thing, to be recovered another. For recovery regards being, but revival

<!-- page 340 -->

regards ordered being, or order, or being-such-and-such. And since that which ceases to be, if it begins to be again, is not the same in number but another; therefore a habit, if it is corrupted and lost, is not recovered as the same. But because it is possible that the same thing, remaining the same, should have one order and another; and according to this revival and mortification are reckoned in works, and perhaps in habits: therefore it is possible for a dead work to be revived, in such a way that it remains the same.

4. From this the last [objection] is solved: because, when a work is called living and mortified, this does not signify diverse dispositions about the work, but signifies about the work diverse orderings, namely an ordering to reward, while it lives, and the privation of that [ordering], when it is now dead or mortified. But in the recipient, or in the man, it signifies a diversity in respect of the quality of grace, which is an absolute accident of the subject itself, according to whose reception and loss the subject is now altered, and the man is called now dead, now living, now a sinner, now just, and so altered. But the work consequently is ordered to life, or is deprived of this order; and this does not signify a motion, because "in *the relative* there is per se no motion[^1c]."

la: Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. XV. c. 7.

en: Cf. below, the text of the Master, d. XV, c. 7.

la: Libr. II. de Sacram. p. XIV. c. 4. — In fine arg. pro *restitui* codd. I K *recuperari*.

en: *On the Sacraments*, Book II, p. XIV, c. 4. — At the end of the argument, for *restitui* (to be restored) codices I K [read] *recuperari* (to be recovered).

la: Cfr. Aristot. de Praedicam. c. *de Oppositis*, tom. II. pag. 815, nota 4. allegatus; V. Phys. text. 36. seqq. (c. 4.), et II. de Generat. et corrupt. in fine.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Categories*, c. *On Opposites*, adduced in tom. II, p. 815, note 4; V *Physics*, text 36 ff. (c. 4), and II *On Generation and Corruption*, at the end.

la: Secundum Aristot., II. Periherm. c. 1. (c. 14.).

en: According to Aristotle, II *On Interpretation*, c. 1 (c. 14).

la: Vers. 25. — Glossa (secundum Hieronym. in hunc loc.) est apud Lyranum *interlinearis*, ubi in fine legitur *quam perturbationibus animi perdidistis*. Non pauci codd. *Non patiatur* vel *Non patietur* pro *Non patiar*.

en: Verse 25. — The Gloss (according to Jerome on this passage) is found in Lyra as the *interlinear* [gloss], where at the end is read *which you lost through the perturbations of the soul*. Not a few codices [read] *Non patiatur* or *Non patietur* (Let Him not allow) for *Non patiar* (I will not allow).

la: Hieronym., in Gal. 3, 4: *Tanta passi estis sine causa, si tamen sine causa*, ait: Quod quicumque ob Christi fidem laboraverit, et postea lapsus fuerit in peccatum, sicut priora sine causa dicitur passus fuisse, dum peccat; sic rursum non perdet ea, si ad pristinam fidem et ad antiquum studium revertatur. Cfr. Hebr. 6, 10, qui versus a Petro Lombardo (in hunc loc.) simili modo explicatur.

en: Jerome, on Galatians 3:4: *You have suffered so many things in vain, if indeed in vain*, he says: that whoever has labored for the faith of Christ, and afterwards has fallen into sin, just as he is said to have suffered the former things in vain while he sins; so again he will not lose them, if he returns to his former faith and to his ancient zeal. Cf. Hebrews 6:10, which verse is explained in a similar way by Peter Lombard (on this passage).

la: Vide tom. II. pag. 920, nota 4.

en: See tom. II, p. 920, note 4.

la: August., Enarrat. in Ps. 68. serm. I. n. 5: Laudant omnia Deum, sed quae fecit Deus. Cfr. II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXXVII. c. 2.

en: Augustine, *Expositions on the Psalms*, on Ps. 68, sermon I, n. 5: All things praise God, but [namely] those which God made. Cf. II *Sent.*, text of the Master, d. XXXVII, c. 2.

la: Ita codd. H U; alii et edd. *quia* (cod. V *quando*) *iste cadit*, sed inepte.

en: So codices H U; others and the editions [read] *quia* (codex V *quando*) *iste cadit* (because/when this man falls), but unsuitably.

la: Vers. 11.

en: Verse 11.

la: Epist. 1: « Ita fac, mi Lucili! vindica te tibi et tempus... Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per negligentiam fit... tanta stultitia mortalium est, ut... nemo se quidquam debere iudicet, qui tempus accepit, cum interim hoc unum est, quod ne gratus quidem potest reddere ». Idem exponit in libro de Brevitate vitae, praesertim c. 8. — Pro *recuperari* plures codd. *recuperare*.

en: *Letter* 1: "Do thus, my Lucilius! lay claim to yourself for yourself, and [gather] the time... Yet the most shameful loss is that which comes about through negligence... so great is the folly of mortals that... no one judges himself to owe anything who has received time, whereas meanwhile this is the one thing which not even a grateful man can repay." He expounds the same in the book *On the Shortness of Life*, especially c. 8. — For *recuperari* several codices [read] *recuperare*.

la: Secundum Aristot., V. Phys. text. 10. (c. 2.). Vide tom. II. pag. 831, nota 7. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: According to Aristotle, V *Physics*, text 10 (c. 2). See tom. II, p. 831, note 7. — See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---

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

---

english_scholion:
The scholion on this article (§ I–IV, covering questions 1–3) is rendered with Question I of this article. — *Scholion in articulum II (§ I–IV, quaest. 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{338,339,340}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 38710–38854) 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; the OCR for this q3 is two-column interleaved (the right-column body and footers bled into left-column lines), so the PDF bands carried the reconstruction of the Respondeo, the *Explicatio* digression, the Solutiones, and every footer. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 338–340 = PDF 358–360).

**Page-verify.** Running heads confirmed on the bands: p. 338-R top reads "QUAESTIO III." with the full title spread across both columns ("*Utrum poenitentia restituat homini opera bona, prius mortificata per culpam.*"); p. 339 head = "DIST. XIV. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. III. 339"; p. 340 head = "340 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." Distinction/pars/article all correct.

**Opener alignment.** Confirmed: the q3 opener at the bottom of p. 338 (spanning the QUAESTIO III header) reads "QUAESTIO III. *Utrum poenitentia restituat homini opera bona, prius mortificata per culpam.* Tertio quaeritur, utrum poenitentia restituat homini opera bona, prius mortificata per culpam. Et quod non, videtur…" — matches the assigned title.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 338 (bottom, both cols): QUAESTIO III. header (full-width title) + opener + arg. 1 (Hugo) on L; arg. 1 completes and arg. 2 on R ("…nec recuperari possunt").
- p. 338 → 339 boundary between arg. 2 (end of p. 338) and arg. 3 (top of p. 339-L).
- p. 339 (L col.): args. 3–4; *Contra* 1–4; CONCLUSIO; Respondeo opening ("…Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc.").
- p. 339 (R col.): the *Explicatio* digression ("Ad intelligentiam autem obiectorum notandum…" through "…postmodum manent viva.") + Solutiones *Ad 1*–*Ad 3*, with *Ad 3* breaking mid-sentence ("Recuperatio enim respicit *esse*, sed vivificatio").
- p. 339 → 340 boundary inside *Ad 3* ("sed vivificatio" | "respicit ordinatum esse…").
- p. 340 (L→R col.): *Ad 3* completes; *Ad 4* (the *Ex hoc solvitur ultimum…*) completes on R ("…se non est motus¹»."), immediately before the "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI" header.

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 12 entries total, all anchored in this q3's body).**
- p. 338: the page's footer sequence is **9 notes**, but only **notes 1 and 9 anchor in this q3** (note 1 = the Hugo / "Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. XV. c. 7." source for arg. 1; note 9 = the *restitui* textual variant on arg. 1's "ea restitui"). Notes 2–8 (incl. note 8 "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.") anchor in the **preceding a2-q2** body (which fills the top of p. 338) and are owned by the **a2-q2 chunk**. Per the dispatch hand-off, the q2 writer correctly forwarded note 9 + the bottom-of-p.338 QUAESTIO III footer share to this q3 — claimed here.
- p. 339: **9 footers**, all this q3's — rendered as `^3` (arg. 3 *recuperare*), `^4` (arg. 4 *impossibile*), `^5b` (*Contra* 1 *Ioel secundo*/Glossa), `^6b` (*Contra* 2 *remunerabuntur*), `^7b` (*Contra* 4 *plus potest gratia*), `^8b` (Explicatio *in laudem Dei*), `^9b` (*licet iste cadat* — *cadit/cadat* codex variant), `^10b` (Explicatio *illud Apocalypsis tertio*), `^11b` (Solutio *Ad 1* *Seneca*).
- p. 340: the page's first footer (`^1c` = "Secundum Aristot., V. Phys. text. 10. (c. 2.)…") anchors at q3's final word ("se non est motus¹") and is owned here. The remaining p. 340 footers 2–4 ("Edd. *vivificatur*…"; "Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2."; "Aristot., de Praedicam. c. *de Quali*…") open the **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI** apparatus and are owned by the dubia chunk.

(`^N`-label scheme: bare `^1`/`^9` = p. 338's share; `^3`–`^11b` (the `b` suffix) = p. 339's sequence; `^1c` = p. 340's first note. The suffix letters keep the per-page restarts unique as Markdown footnote IDs.)

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`, but **q3 renders none of its own**: ARTICULUS II carries a single SCHOLION block (§ I–IV, covering q1–q3) which the **a2-q1 chunk** (`bon-sent-IV-d14-p2-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 38710–38854. (Note `^1c` on p. 340 contains the textual cross-pointer "Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.")

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands (OCR was cascade-interleaved): *restitui* / *vivificari* (args. 1–2); *recuperare* / *susceptibilis oppositarum conditionum* (args. 3–4); *Reddam vobis annos* / *ubertatem* (Contra 1); *remunerabuntur* (Contra 2); *gratia poenitentiae* (Contra 4); Respondeo *adveniente culpa* / *indignitatem*; Explicatio *in laudem Dei* / *radicis praemium* / *corpore mystico* / *Tene quod habes*; *cuncta respicientis* (memory passage); Solutio *gravissima est iactura temporis*; *ordinatum esse sive ordinem*; *accidens absolutum*; *ad aliquid per se non est motus*. Marginal rubrics in the bands (*Ad opposita*, *Praemia*, *Conclusio*, *Notandum*, *Explicatio aliorum*, *Explicatio auctoris*, *Solutio oppositorum*) are editorial side-notes and are omitted from the body per corpus convention.

**Hand-off picked up.** From the a2-q2 writer: p. 338 footer note 9 ("Libr. II. de Sacram. p. XIV. c. 4.") + the p. 338-left QUAESTIO III footer share (note 1, Hugo) belong to this q3 — both claimed and rendered.

**Hand-off to p2-dubia.** "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI" (Pars II dubia) opens on p. 340 immediately after q3's *Ad 4* (raw line ~38855, just after "se non est motus¹»."). Dub. I ("In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram… de hoc verbo Isaiae *Lavamini, mundi estote*…") begins there. p. 340's footer notes **2–4** (the *vivificatur* edd. variant; "Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2."; "Aristot., de Praedicam. c. *de Quali*…") are the dubia's apparatus, NOT q3's — the dubia chunk should claim them.