title: Dist. 21, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 548 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum peccata venialia possint deleri a gratia sine contritione sive interiore poena.*

Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, utrum venialia possint deleri a gratia sine contritione sive interiori poena. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per illud, quod habetur in littera[^1], quod est verbum Gregorii: «Quod est gutta aquae ad caminum ignis, hoc est veniale ad fervorem caritatis»: ergo videtur, quod in solo caritatis fervore possit deleri veniale.

2. Item, sicut colligitur ex verbis Augustini in libro Confessionum[^2], veniale non est aliud quam minor amor Dei: ergo quod excludit remissionem amoris excludit veniale et delet; sed caritas, nulla facta meditatione, potest magis et magis inflammari: ergo etc.

3. Item, possibile est, iustum, qui habet venialia, mori dormiendo, vel ita quod cadat in furiam: ergo cum ultra non sit locus poenitentiae, et necesse sit, illa venialia deleri, quia aliquando, cum habeat gratiam, perveniet ad gloriam: ergo possunt venialia deleri per gratiam sine poenitentia.

<!-- page 549 -->

4. Item, mortale improportionaliter plus offendit Deum quam veniale; sed minima contritio sufficit ad delendum mortale cum gratia[^3]: ergo ad delendum veniale sufficit sola gratia.

5. Item, venialia delentur virtute Sacramenti extremae unctionis, virtute etiam eucharistiae — sicut supra[^4] habitum est, et expresse dicit Ambrosius — et per orationem dominicalem et benedictionem episcopalem, sicut dicunt magistri communiter: ergo non est necessarium conteri, quia alia est via deletionis. — Cum ergo per haec remittantur et etiam per contritionem et exteriorem satisfactionem et per baptismum; quaeritur, per quam naturam communem insit his haec passio communis.

**Contra:**
1. Supra distinctione decima sexta[^5] habetur, ubi agitur de remissione venialium sive de poenitentia — dicit Magister — quod «ad remissionem venialium sufficit oratio dominica cum aliquo ieiunio et eleemosynis; sic tamen, ut praecedat contritio aliquantula»: ergo non potest pro illa culpa fieri satisfactio congrua, nisi praecedat interior poenitentia: ergo etc.

2. Item, maioris adhaerentiae est veniale quam mortale; sed mortale nunquam deletur, nisi liberum arbitrium ab eo dissentiat per actum contritionis: ergo multo fortius videtur de veniali.

3. Item, quando aliquae duae formae sese compatiuntur, una per se non expellit aliam; sed veniale simul stat cum gratia: ergo gratia per se non delet veniale: ergo necesse est, aliquid addi ultra, quod cum veniali peccato oppositionem habeat. Sed hoc non est nisi poenitentia interior: ergo etc.

4. Item, ratio, quare mortale non potest deleri sine actu detestationis, est, quoniam voluntate actum est et voluntate acceptante[^6], et ideo non potest deleri nisi voluntate detestante; sed peccata venialia ut in pluribus voluntarie committuntur et durant in nobis, quamdiu voluntas vult in talibus versari: ergo videtur, quod venialia non possunt deleri sine contritione interna.

5. Item, possibile est, unum veniale deleri sine alio; sed hoc non est nisi per aliquid, quod magis aspicit unum veniale quam aliud, ratione cuius gratiae effectus potius est supra unum quam supra aliud; sed tale non est gratia nec Sacramentum, sed solus actus interior liberi arbitrii: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.** Quamvis venialia peccata valde congrue per poenitentiam deleantur, tamen possunt deleri per gratiam aliter adiutam, scilicet solo libero arbitrio consonante, et aliquo exterius adiuvante.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc voluerunt aliqui dicere, quod peccata venialia, quia quodam modo sunt voluntaria, sine actu voluntatis detestantis illa deleri non possunt. Quia tamen longe minus habent de ratione voluntarii quam mortalia, ideo quantulacumque contritio sufficit sive in generali, sive in speciali. Unde dixerunt, quod si quis cum impoenitentia de venialibus decedat, mortaliter peccat; si quis vero praeter usum liberi arbitrii decedat, postmodum delentur per gratiam cum detestatione voluntaria. Nam anima, quae est in gratia, statim dum in se conspicit culpam, illam detestatur, et gratia existens in anima eam delet. — Sed tamen illud difficile est sustinere tam in hoc saeculo quam in futuro: in hoc, inquam, saeculo, quoniam multi sunt modi remittendi peccata venialia praeter poenitentiam[^7], ut puta, cum aliquis devote suscipit episcopalem benedictionem et aquae benedictae aspersionem[^8] et consimilia; in futuro, quia, cum nullus sit usus liberi arbitrii meritorius post mortem, in nullo videtur possibile, quod gratia culpam deleat, cooperante motu voluntatis animae iam exutae. Et sic modus iste dicendi non videtur omnino conveniens.

<!-- page 550 -->

Propter hoc igitur aliter dici oportet. Et ut intelligamus modum deletionis venialium, notandum, quod triplex est genus peccati, scilicet originale, actuale mortale et veniale. Et primum quidem minimam habet rationem voluntarii, immo nullam habet rationem voluntarii in nobis. Alterum autem genus peccati, scilicet mortale, simpliciter tenet rationem voluntarii, licet non ita, sicut peccatum Adae, quod nullum habuit inclinativum. Veniale peccatum quodam modo tenet medium. Unde quodam modo habet rationem poenae, quodam modo culpae; et rursus quodam modo est voluntarium, quodam modo involuntarium. Habemus enim necessitatem committendi aliquod veniale in communi, quamvis ad nullum in particulari[^9].

Primum igitur peccatum, quoniam aliunde contractum est, potest deleri, libero arbitrio nihil omnino agente, sed Sacramento solo exterius adiuvante, sicut patet in parvulis. — Secundum genus peccati, quoniam voluntarie contractum est, non potest deleri, nisi libero arbitrio consonante et adiuvante; ideo in iustificatione impii requiritur motus liberi arbitrii, per quem consonet gratiae, et ulterius contritio, per quam adiuvat[^10]. — Veniale peccatum potest deleri, libero arbitrio consonante et aliquo exterius adiuvante; unde si liberum arbitrium gratiae non repugnat, volendo persistere in culpa, et gratia virtute Sacramenti, vel rei sacramentalis vigoratur; culpam venialem delet vel universaliter, vel particulariter. Unde credendum est, quod aliquo nihil de peccatis suis cogitante, sed tantum passionem Christi recolente in Sacramento eucharistiae, recogitante, inquam, ferventer, quod venialia peccata vel omnia, vel quaedam remittuntur ei per gratiam sic adiutam. Et omnia illa, sive sacramenta, sive sacramentalia, ut eucharistia et unctio et baptismus et aquae aspersio et episcopalis benedictio et contritio et misericordiae exhibitio et orationis dominicae devota exoratio, faciunt ad venialium deletionem, non per propriam naturam, sed per eam naturam, qua gratiam gratum facientem ad hunc actum adiuvant et vigorant.

Si quaeras: quomodo adiuvant? dicendum, quod in talibus ut plurimum est humiliatio et devotio, quae est actus gratia informatus, repugnans ipsi veniali peccato, quod fervorem caritatis et devotionem, quantum est ex se, diminuit. Vel ea ratione, qua est in eis poenalitas, quae repugnat inordinatae delectationi, prout[^11] illa poena iuncta est ordini gratiae. — Et sic potest responderi, quod quamvis venialia valde congrue per poenitentiam deleantur, possunt tamen per gratiam aliter adiutam deleri. — Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod praecedere debet aliquantula contritio; dicendum, quod Magister non determinat praecise modum delendi veniale peccatum, sed modum perfecte satisfaciendi. Nemo autem perfecte satisfacit pro culpa, nisi etiam interius in corde doleat, quantumcumque non se exterius punit; et hoc dico vel in generali, vel in speciali. Venialia autem non solum per vim poenitentiae, sed etiam aliis modis deleri possunt, ut tactum est.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod veniale est maioris adhaerentiae; dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de adhaerentia venialis: aut quantum ad maculam, aut quantum ad pronitatem, quae est via ad illam. Si loquamur quantum ad notam displicentiae, plus adhaeret mortale quam veniale[^12]. Si autem quantum ad pronitatem, e contrario est; deletio autem non est respectu pronitatis, sed potius respectu maculae peccati.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod veniale se compatitur cum gratia etc.; dicendum, quod verum est, quod se compatitur quantum ad inhaerentiam; et ideo gratia non delet per sui essentiam vel inhaerentiam; et propter hoc oportet ei addi aliquod adiutorium vel liberi arbitrii[^13], vel alicuius alterius poenalitatis, vel Sacramenti, ratione cuius effectus vel actus gratiae repugnat veniali. Quamvis enim gratia secundum essentiam stet cum veniali, tamen caritas ad fervorem excitata consumit culpam, sicut fornax ignis modicam aquae guttam.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod veniale est voluntarium; dicendum, quod non sic, sicut mortale; tamen, quia aliquo modo voluntarium est, nunquam deletur, nisi voluntas consonet[^14]. Unde vix contingit, quod ei qui proponit manere in veniali peccato, utpote in verbis otiosis, quod etiam si confiteatur, remittatur ei culpa, nisi forte pro opere illo contra se ipsum insurgat, et adeo rugitus rationis fremat, quod bestiales motus sensualitatis gressum figant, ad modum leonis, quo rugiente, cetera animalia gressum figunt.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod veniale unum deletur sine alio; dicendum, quod hoc possibile est duplici modo: vel quia voluntas habitudinaliter[^15] adhaeret uni, et non alii; et tunc culpa remittitur, cui non inhaeret, et remanet culpa, cui voluntas adhaerebat; vel ideo, quia voluntas unum peccatum magis detestatur quam alterum. Unde gratia magis delet culpam venialem, in cuius deletione magis voluntas consonat, vel adiuvat[^16].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether venial sins can be destroyed by grace without contrition or interior pain.*

Secondly it is asked, concerning this, whether venial sins can be destroyed by grace without contrition or interior pain. And it seems that they can:

1. By that which is had in the text[^1], which is a saying of Gregory: "What a drop of water is to the furnace of fire, this the venial sin is to the fervor of charity": therefore it seems that a venial sin can be destroyed by the fervor of charity alone.

2. Likewise, as is gathered from the words of Augustine in the book of the *Confessions*[^2], a venial sin is nothing other than a lesser love of God: therefore that which excludes the lessening of love excludes and destroys the venial sin; but charity, with no meditation made, can be inflamed more and more: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it is possible that a just man who has venial sins die in his sleep, or in such a way that he falls into a frenzy: therefore, since beyond there is no place for penitence, and it is necessary that those venial sins be destroyed, because at some point, since he has grace, he will arrive at glory: therefore venial sins can be destroyed by grace without penitence.

4. Likewise, a mortal sin disproportionately offends God more than a venial one; but the least contrition suffices to destroy a mortal sin together with grace[^3]: therefore to destroy a venial sin grace alone suffices.

5. Likewise, venial sins are destroyed by the power of the Sacrament of extreme unction, and also by the power of the eucharist — as was held above[^4], and as Ambrose expressly says — and through the Lord's prayer and the episcopal blessing, as the masters commonly say: therefore it is not necessary to be contrite, because there is another way of destruction. — Since, therefore, they are remitted through these and also through contrition and exterior satisfaction and through baptism; it is asked, through what common nature this common property belongs to these.

**On the contrary:**
1. In the sixteenth distinction above[^5] it is had, where the remission of venial sins or penitence is treated — the Master says — that "for the remission of venial sins the Lord's prayer suffices together with some fasting and almsgiving; yet so that some little contrition precede": therefore for that fault no fitting satisfaction can be made, unless interior penitence precede: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, a venial sin is of greater adherence than a mortal one; but a mortal sin is never destroyed, unless free choice dissent from it through an act of contrition: therefore much more strongly does it seem so of the venial sin.

3. Likewise, when any two forms are mutually compatible, one does not of itself expel the other; but a venial sin stands together with grace: therefore grace of itself does not destroy the venial sin: therefore it is necessary that something further be added which has opposition to the venial sin. But this is nothing other than interior penitence: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the reason why a mortal sin cannot be destroyed without an act of detestation is that it was committed by the will and by the accepting will[^6], and therefore it cannot be destroyed except by the detesting will; but venial sins are for the most part committed voluntarily and endure in us, so long as the will wishes to be engaged in such things: therefore it seems that venial sins cannot be destroyed without internal contrition.

5. Likewise, it is possible for one venial sin to be destroyed without another; but this is only through something which regards one venial sin more than another, by reason of which the effect of grace is rather upon the one than upon the other; but such a thing is not grace nor a Sacrament, but only the interior act of free choice: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** Although venial sins are very fittingly destroyed through penitence, nevertheless they can be destroyed through grace otherwise aided, namely by free choice alone consenting, and by something assisting from without.

**I respond:** It must be said that to this some have wished to say that venial sins, because they are in a certain way voluntary, cannot be destroyed without an act of the will detesting them. Yet because they have far less of the character of the voluntary than mortal sins, therefore however small a contrition suffices, whether in general or in particular. Whence they said that if anyone die impenitent of venial sins, he sins mortally; but if anyone die without the use of free choice, afterward they are destroyed through grace with voluntary detestation. For the soul, which is in grace, as soon as it beholds the fault in itself, detests it, and the grace existing in the soul destroys it. — Yet this is difficult to maintain both in this world and in the world to come: in this world, I say, because there are many ways of remitting venial sins besides penitence[^7], as for example when someone devoutly receives the episcopal blessing and the sprinkling of blessed water[^8] and the like; in the world to come, because, since there is no meritorious use of free choice after death, in no way does it seem possible that grace destroy the fault, with the motion of the will of the soul already stripped cooperating. And so this manner of speaking does not seem altogether fitting.

On account of this, therefore, it must be said otherwise. And that we may understand the manner of the destruction of venial sins, it must be noted that there is a threefold kind of sin, namely original, actual mortal, and venial. And the first indeed has the least character of the voluntary, nay rather it has no character of the voluntary in us. But the other kind of sin, namely mortal, simply holds the character of the voluntary, although not in the way that the sin of Adam did, which had no inclining cause. The venial sin in a certain way holds the middle. Whence in a certain way it has the character of punishment, in a certain way of fault; and again in a certain way it is voluntary, in a certain way involuntary. For we have a necessity of committing some venial sin in general, although not any one in particular[^9].

The first sin, therefore, since it is contracted from elsewhere, can be destroyed with free choice doing nothing at all, but with the Sacrament alone assisting from without, as is plain in little children. — The second kind of sin, since it is contracted voluntarily, cannot be destroyed except with free choice consenting and assisting; therefore in the justification of the impious a motion of free choice is required, by which it consents to grace, and further a contrition, by which it assists[^10]. — The venial sin can be destroyed with free choice consenting and something assisting from without; whence if free choice does not resist grace by willing to persist in the fault, and grace is strengthened by the power of a Sacrament or of a sacramental, it destroys the venial fault either universally or particularly. Whence it must be believed that, when someone is thinking nothing of his sins, but only recollecting the Passion of Christ in the Sacrament of the eucharist, recollecting, I say, fervently, the venial sins, either all or some, are remitted to him through grace thus aided. And all those things — whether sacraments or sacramentals, such as the eucharist and unction and baptism and the sprinkling of water and the episcopal blessing and contrition and the showing of mercy and the devout entreaty of the Lord's prayer — contribute to the destruction of venial sins, not through their proper nature, but through that nature by which they assist and strengthen grace-making-pleasing toward this act.

If you ask: how do they assist? it must be said that in such things there is for the most part humility and devotion, which is an act informed by grace, repugnant to the venial sin itself, which diminishes, so far as is of itself, the fervor of charity and devotion. Or by that reason by which there is in them a penal quality, which is repugnant to disordered delight, insofar as[^11] that punishment is joined to the order of grace. — And so it can be answered that although venial sins are very fittingly destroyed through penitence, they can nevertheless be destroyed through grace otherwise aided. — And the reasons adduced for this are to be conceded.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that some little contrition ought to precede; it must be said that the Master does not determine precisely the manner of destroying the venial sin, but the manner of satisfying perfectly. But no one satisfies perfectly for a fault, unless he also grieve interiorly in his heart, however much he does not punish himself exteriorly; and this I say either in general or in particular. But venial sins can be destroyed not only by the power of penitence, but also by other ways, as has been touched on.

2. To that which is objected, that a venial sin is of greater adherence; it must be said that there are two ways of speaking of the adherence of a venial sin: either as to the stain, or as to the proneness, which is the way to it. If we speak as to the mark of displeasing, a mortal sin adheres more than a venial[^12]. But if as to proneness, it is the contrary; but destruction is not with respect to proneness, but rather with respect to the stain of sin.

3. To that which is objected, that a venial sin is compatible with grace etc.; it must be said that it is true that it is compatible as to inherence; and therefore grace does not destroy through its essence or inherence; and on account of this it must have added to it some aid, whether of free choice[^13], or of some other penal quality, or of a Sacrament, by reason of which the effect or act of grace is repugnant to the venial sin. For although grace according to essence stands together with the venial sin, nevertheless charity excited to fervor consumes the fault, as the furnace of fire consumes a slight drop of water.

4. To that which is objected, that a venial sin is voluntary; it must be said that it is not so as a mortal sin is; yet, because it is in some way voluntary, it is never destroyed unless the will consents[^14]. Whence it scarcely happens, for one who proposes to remain in venial sin, as for instance in idle words, that even if he confess, the fault be remitted to him, unless perhaps for that deed he rise up against himself, and the roaring of reason so rages that the bestial motions of sensuality fix their step, after the manner of the lion, at whose roaring the other animals fix their step.

5. To that which is objected, that one venial sin is destroyed without another; it must be said that this is possible in two ways: either because the will adheres dispositionally[^15] to one and not to another; and then the fault is remitted to which it does not inhere, and the fault remains to which the will adhered; or for this reason, because the will detests one sin more than another. Whence grace destroys more the venial fault in whose destruction the will more consents or assists[^16].

---

la: Hic c. 5.

en: Here c. 5.

la: Libr. X. c. 29. n. 40. Verba vide supra d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. fundam. 3. — Inferius post *meditatione* [sive consideratione], pro quo codd. A H *medicatione*, cod. F *mediatione*, codd. P Q addunt *de veniali*.

en: Book X, c. 29, n. 40. For the words see above d. 12, p. II, a. 1, q. 3, fundam. 3. — Further on, after *meditatione* [or *consideratione*], for which codices A and H read *medicatione*, codex F *mediatione*; codices P and Q add *de veniali*.

la: Contritio enim, ut supra d. 16. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. dicitur, nominat quid informatum gratia (cum qua coniunctum esse non potest peccatum mortale).

en: For contrition, as is said above d. 16, p. I, a. 2, q. 2 in the body, names something informed by grace (with which a mortal sin cannot be conjoined).

la: Dist. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. — De extrema unctione idem probatur infra d. 23. a. 1. q. 1. — Sententia Ambrosii (IV. de Sacram. c. 6. n. 28.) relata est supra lit. Magistri, d. XII. c. 6, et Comment. ibid. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. fundam. 3. Cfr. etiam supra lit. Magistri, d. XVI. c. 4. seqq., ubi de oratione dominica. — Mox pro *et per* cod. U *quod per*.

en: Distinction 12, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. — On extreme unction the same is proved below d. 23, a. 1, q. 1. — The opinion of Ambrose (*On the Sacraments* IV, c. 6, n. 28) was reported above in the Master's text, d. XII, c. 6, and in the Commentary there, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, fundam. 3. Cf. also above in the Master's text, d. XVI, c. 4 ff., where the Lord's prayer is treated. — Presently, for *et per* codex U reads *quod per*.

la: Cap. 6. — Sola ed. 1 omittit *dicit Magister*.

en: Chapter 6. — Edition 1 alone omits *dicit Magister*.

la: Ut dictum est supra d. 17. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4.

en: As was said above d. 17, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, ad 4.

la: Cfr. C. *Aquam sale* (20.), de Consecrat. d. 3, et S. Bonav. Exposit. in Luc. 18, 13.

en: Cf. the Canon *Aquam sale* (20), *De Consecratione* d. 3, and St. Bonaventure, *Exposition on Luke* 18, 13.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 40. a. 2. q. 1. et supra d. 12. p. II. dub. 4. — Ante *nullum* addidimus *ad* ex codd.

en: See II Sent. d. 40, a. 2, q. 1, and above d. 12, p. II, dub. 4. — Before *nullum* we have added *ad* from the codices.

la: Edd. cum uno alteroque cod. *adiuvatur*. Inferius pro *volendo* nonnulli codd. *nolendo*.

en: The editions, with one or another codex, read *adiuvatur*. Further on, for *volendo* several codices read *nolendo*.

la: Permulti codd. *ut pro*, edd. *et prout*, quae etiam subinde *ordinanti* pro *ordini*.

en: Very many codices read *ut* for *prout*, the editions *et prout*, which likewise thereafter read *ordinanti* for *ordini*.

en: Cf. above d. 16, p. I, a. 4, q. 2, ad 3 and 4.

la: Vat. *liberum arbitrium*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *liberum arbitrium*.

la: Supple: gratiae. — Edd. substituunt *detestetur*.

en: Supply: *gratiae*. — The editions substitute *detestetur*.

la: Vat. *habitualiter*, quae etiam inferius pro *adhaerebat* cum ed. 1 *adhaerebit*, cod. O *adhaeret*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *habitualiter*, which likewise further on, for *adhaerebat*, with edition 1 reads *adhaerebit*; codex O, *adhaeret*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450/600 dpi PDF bands for printed pp. 548, 549, 550 (offset pdf = printed + 20; vol4 columns read full-page-width because the inner column margin curves into the binding gutter and clips a 1660/1880 split). Raw OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 60491–60693) supplied the running prose but was badly column-shattered (q1/q2 two-column bleed), so the PDF was authoritative throughout per the Vol II override. The opener "*Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, utrum venialia possint deleri a gratia sine contritione sive interiori poena*" confirms alignment with QUAESTIO II.

**PAGE-SPAN CORRECTION.** The auto-frontmatter (and the dispatch brief) listed printed_pages [547,548,549]. That is wrong: **q2 spans pp. 548–550.** Printed p. 547 + the top of p. 548 belong to QUAESTIO I (whose conclusio is "*Peccata venialia sine gratia gratum faciente non delentur*" — a different question). QUAESTIO II's title and body begin in the lower-right of p. 548 and the Respondeo/replies run through p. 550, ending at "...magis voluntas consonat, vel adiuvat" immediately before "ARTICULUS II." (p. 550 right column). Frontmatter printed_pages/pdf_pages/source updated to 548–550 / 568–570.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. A `SCHOLION.` header *does* appear physically on p. 548, but it sits **between q1 and q2** — it is the scholion to QUAESTIO I and is rendered with `bon-sent-IV-d21-p1-a1-q1`. Footer `[^16]` on p. 550 ("*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*") confirms the scholion belongs to the preceding question.

**Apparatus / page-split map.** 16 footer entries, matched to body anchors and renumbered sequentially:
- p. 548 footers 3–4 → `[^1]`–`[^2]` (q2 args 1–2; p. 548 footers 1–2 belong to q1, the preceding chunk).
- p. 549 footers 1–7 → `[^3]`–`[^9]` (args 4–5, Contra 1 & 4, Respondeo).
- p. 550 footers 1–7 → `[^10]`–`[^16]` (Respondeo tail + replies 1–5).

**Cross-chunk hand-off.** *Before* (p1-a1-q1): p. 548 footers 1 (*Cfr. II. Sent. d. 28...*) and 2 (*Vide supra pag. 84... verba Aristot.*) anchor q1 body (top of p. 548) — they migrate to q1, not here. *After* (p1-a2-q1, "*Consequenter quantum ad secundum quaeritur de purgatione*"): begins at the bottom of p. 550 left column ("ARTICULUS II." running head / "De purgatione"); its first footers (p. 550 footers 1–2 of the a2 block: *Edd. cum uno... / Permulti codd...*) — note p. 550 has a SECOND footer sequence at the very bottom for a2; q2's last p. 550 footer is `[^16]` (footer 7). No shared-page footer ambiguity on p. 549.

**[?] flags.** None. All readings resolved against the PDF bands; OCR garbles silently corrected per the OCR-cleanup rules.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 21, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 550 -->

### Articulus II. *De purgatione, quae fit per purgatorium.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum in purgatorio post hanc vitam fiat purgatio aliqua ab aliqua culpa, an solum a poena.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de purgatione, quae fit per purgatorium. De qua duo quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, utrum in purgatorio post hanc vitam fiat aliqua purgatio ab aliqua culpa, an solum a poena. Secundo, utrum purgatio illa fiat per ignem materialem.

<!-- page 551 -->

Quantum ergo ad primum ostenditur, quod fiat ibi purgatio a culpa:

1. *Primo* per illud quod dicitur Matthaei duodecimo[^1]: *Qui dixerit contra Spiritum sanctum verbum, non remittetur ei neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro*: ergo implicat Dominus, aliqua peccata remitti in futuro; sed non nisi in purgatorio: ergo etc.

2. Item, Gregorius quarto Dialogorum[^2] dicit, quod «*quaedam leves culpae remittuntur in futuro*», et ibi multa dicit, quae ad hoc ostendendum faciunt. Si dicas, quod hoc intelligit quantum ad reatum poenae; hoc non solvit, quia in futuro, utpote in purgatorio, non solum fit purgatio a reatu culparum venialium, verum etiam mortalium in his qui poenitentiam in hac vita non complent.

3. Item, omnis purgatio, secundum quod huiusmodi, respicit foeditatem aliquam; foeditas autem animae culpa est[^3]: ergo videtur, quod purgatorius ignis sit contra culpam. Si dicas, quod est contra pronitatem vel sequelam vel aliquid tale; tunc quaero: cum liberum arbitrium post hanc vitam sit ita immobile respectu pronitatis, sicut respectu voluntatis; quare talis sequela potest purgari, et non venialis culpa, cum plus laedat animam sequela mortalis quam culpa venialis?

4. Item, quod purgat aliquid aliquo modo[^4] habet oppositionem ad illud; sed poena poenae non opponitur: ergo si est ibi purgatio, non est a poena: ergo a culpa aliqua.

**Contra:** 1. Super illud primae Ioannis quinto[^5]: *Est peccatum ad mortem*; Glossa: «*Quod in hac vita non corrigitur, frustra post mortem venia eius postulatur*»: ergo nulla post mortem ibi culpa purgatur.

2. Item, Damascenus[^6]: «*Quod est hominibus mors, hoc est angelis casus*», et e converso; sed angeli post casum a nulla culpa possunt liberari: ergo nec homines post mortem.

3. Item, Gregorius in Dialogis[^7]: «*Talis in iudicio quisque futurus est, qualis de corpore exivit*»: si ergo exivit cum veniali: patet etc.

4. Item, liberum arbitrium medium est inter profectum in bono et liberationem a malo culpae; sed post mortem non potest in bono proficere: ergo nec a culpa aliqua resurgere.

5. Item, facilius est labi in veniale quam liberari a veniali; sed post mortem non potest anima venialiter peccare: ergo nec a veniali resurgere.

6. Item, veniale in nobis non est nisi ratione fomitis[^8]: ergo ablato fomite, veniale non manet; sed fomes aufertur in morte, non post mortem: ergo et veniale.

> **Conclusio.** Post hanc vitam poena purgatorii potest purgare non solum a poena, sed etiam a culpa peccati venialis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliquorum magistrorum et bene intelligentium opinio fuit, quod nullum peccatum post mortem dimittitur, pro eo quod liberi arbitrii quantum ad meritum vel demeritum omnino cessat usus. Unde dicunt, quod venialia omnino[^9] remittuntur aut per poenitentiam, aut per finalem gratiam, si non adsit locus poenitentiae, si forte morte praeoccupatus moritur iustus homo.

Rationem autem huius positionis et intelligentiam per hunc modum assignant. Dicunt enim, quod triplex est gratia, scilicet baptismalis, poenitentialis et finalis; et quaelibet harum gratiarum pro sui initio dominium habet in ipsa anima. Pro eo quod dominatur in ipso ingressu, ut gratia baptismalis, vel status sui principio, ut finalis[^10], delet omnem culpam, non tantum mortalem, verum etiam venialem. Dominatur autem gratia baptismalis

<!-- page 552 -->

ex virtute Sacramenti, gratia poenitentialis ex subiectione et conformitate liberi arbitrii, gratia finalis ex perfecta conformitate omnium virium animae ad ipsam gratiam. Cum enim ipsa[^1b] separatur a carne, iam pronitates et perturbationes, quae inerant animae ex carne, recedunt, et potentiae animae tranquillantur et gratiae subiiciuntur; ac per hoc venialia delentur, sive sint in parte animae rationali, sive in parte animae sensibili. Et ita nullum veniale dimittitur post hanc vitam, sed in illo puncto, in quo potest dici: haec est finalis gratia, quae dominium sibi vindicat et omnem expellit culpam. — Si ergo obiiciatur eis, quod in futuro purgantur et remittuntur peccata; respondetur secundum eos, quod remittuntur quantum ad reatum sive poenam, et purgantur quantum ad scoriam sive sequelam. Et illud videtur magister Hugo[^2b] sensisse, qui ait sic, loquens de remissione peccati: «*Aliquando Deus remittit secundum pietatem, aliquando secundum severitatem, aliquando secundum utrumque. Per incendium purgatorii scoria peccati excoquitur, per lavacrum baptismi peccati macula abluitur, per flagellum satisfactionis peccati palea excutitur*». — Sed licet ista opinio sit multum rationi consona, tamen auctoritates Sanctorum videntur expresse contraire. Nam ipse Gregorius dicit in Moralibus[^3b], quod «*aliqua peccata dimittuntur post hanc vitam*». Et si tu dicas, quod intelligit quantum ad reatum, sicut obiectum fuit; sic de omnibus posset intelligi culpis. — Item, Isidorus tractans illud Matthaei tertio[^4b]: *Ipse vos baptizabit in Spiritu sancto et igni*: «*Peccata, quae praecesserunt, Spiritus sanctus per aquae baptismum abluet, et quaedam ex eis quae postea sequuntur criminibus per ignem purgatorium remittet*». Cum ergo peccata praecedentia non solum quantum ad poenam, sed etiam quantum ad culpam abluantur: ergo in purgatorio quaedam quantum ad culpam sunt remittenda. Rursus, cum gratia dominium habeat in anima statim in ipsa separatione, propter quid non purgat a peccati scoria vel sequela, sicut a veniali culpa?

Et propter hoc est hic secundus modus dicendi, quem approbat Magister in littera[^5b], et Sanctorum multiplex confirmat auctoritas. Dicendum ergo, quod aliqua peccata, utpote venialia, non solum in hoc saeculo, sed etiam in purgatorio remitti possunt et remittuntur, quando quis pertransit cum venialibus, pro eo quod gratia non fuit adiuta finaliter ad illa delenda, et ideo indiget auxilio. — Quoniam ergo voluntas potest gratiae post hanc vitam esse conformis, quamvis non possit esse adiutrix, pro eo quod cessavit tempus meriti; ideo indiget adiutorio exteriori. Et cum non sit locus Sacramenti, habet adiutorium ignis punitivi sive purgatorii; qui ideo dicitur purgatorius, quoniam anima[^6b] purgatur a peccati scoria et a veniali culpa, si cum illa transeat. Et hoc possibile est, quia, sicut ostensum est in praecedenti problemate, ad deletionem venialis sufficit, quod liberum arbitrium se conformet gratiae, nec est necesse, quod adiuvet. — Concedendum ergo, aliquos post hanc vitam a veniali culpa posse purgari.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod frustra post mortem venia postulatur de eo quod non corrigitur; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur de mortali. — Vel fiat vis in hoc quod dicit, quod in hac vita non corrigitur: verum est vel in se, vel in merito. Quamvis autem non corrigatur aliquod veniale, cum quo quis transit — non corrigatur, inquam, in se — meruit tamen corrigi, quia qui decedit in caritate per illam meruit etiam post hunc statum ab his emundari, quae retardant praemium caritatis.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de casu angelorum et morte hominum, dicendum, quod simile est quantum ad liberi arbitrii invertibilitatem sive quantum ad peccatum mortale, non quantum ad omnia; nam mali angeli possunt in poenis proficere, quamvis non possunt a malo resurgere[^7b]. Per oppositum, ratione boni meriti praeteriti boni homines possunt a malo eripi, quamvis non possunt in malum labi, quia in bono, in quo moriuntur, sunt confirmati.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Gregorio, dicendum, quod sicut ipsemet subiungit[^8b], illud intelligitur quantum ad mortalia, non quantum ad venialia, quia ipsemet excipit illa.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod liberum arbitrium tenet medium; dicendum, quod falsum est pro statu illo. Est enim in statu, in quo potest ad ingressum in gloriam disponi per impedimenti remotionem, quamvis non possit mereri; quoniam ad

<!-- page 553 -->

deletionem venialis et ad remissionem reatus peccati sufficit praesentia gratiae et poenae cum consonantia liberi arbitrii et adiutorio meriti praeteriti.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod facilius est labi in malum; dicendum, quod verum est quantum ad liberum arbitrium vertibile, non quantum ad omnem statum animae.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ablato fomite, aufertur veniale; dicendum, quod verum est quantum ad potestatem peccandi de futuro; non tamen oportet auferri veniale prius perpetratum, quia non omnis causa introducendi est causa conservandi, sicut in multis exemplis patet. Destructo enim cultello, non potest infligi plaga; si tamen cultellus destruatur, non oportet, propter hoc sanari plagam prius inflictam.

english:
### Article II. *On the purgation which is made through purgatory.*
### Question I. *Whether in purgatory after this life there is any purgation from any fault, or only from pain.*

Consequently, as regards the second article, it is asked concerning the purgation which is made through purgatory. Concerning which two [things] are asked. First it is asked whether in purgatory after this life there is any purgation from any fault, or only from pain. Second, whether that purgation is made through material fire.

As regards the first, then, it is shown that there is made there a purgation from fault:

1. *First*, by that which is said in Matthew, chapter twelve[^1]: *He who shall speak a word against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come*: therefore the Lord implies that some sins are remitted in the world to come; but not except in purgatory: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Gregory in the fourth [book] of the Dialogues[^2] says that «*certain light faults are remitted in the world to come*», and there he says many things which serve to show this. If you say that he understands this as regards the liability of penalty; this does not resolve [it], because in the world to come, namely in purgatory, there is made a purgation not only from the liability of venial faults, but also of mortal [faults] in those who do not complete penance in this life.

3. Likewise, every purgation, as such, regards some foulness; but the foulness of the soul is fault[^3]: therefore it seems that the purgatorial fire is against fault. If you say that it is against the proneness or the consequence [of sin] or something of the sort; then I ask: since free choice after this life is as immovable with respect to proneness as with respect to the will; why can such a consequence be purged, and not venial fault, since the consequence of a mortal [sin] harms the soul more than a venial fault?

4. Likewise, that which purges something in some way[^4] has an opposition to it; but pain is not opposed to pain: therefore if there is a purgation there, it is not from pain: therefore from some fault.

**On the contrary:** 1. Upon that [passage] of the First [Letter] of John, chapter five[^5]: *There is a sin unto death*; the Gloss: «*That which is not corrected in this life, in vain is pardon for it sought after death*»: therefore no fault is purged there after death.

2. Likewise, the Damascene[^6]: «*What death is to men, that the fall is to angels*», and conversely; but angels after the fall can be freed from no fault: therefore neither can men after death.

3. Likewise, Gregory in the Dialogues[^7]: «*Each one will be in the judgment such as he went out from the body*»: if, therefore, he went out with a venial [sin]: it is clear etc.

4. Likewise, free choice is a mean between advancement in good and liberation from the evil of fault; but after death it cannot advance in good: therefore neither can it rise again from any fault.

5. Likewise, it is easier to lapse into a venial [sin] than to be freed from a venial [sin]; but after death the soul cannot sin venially: therefore neither can it rise again from a venial [sin].

6. Likewise, the venial [sin] in us exists only by reason of the tinder [of sin][^8]: therefore, the tinder being removed, the venial [sin] does not remain; but the tinder is taken away in death, not after death: therefore the venial [sin] too [is taken away in death].

> **Conclusion.** After this life the pain of purgatory can purge not only from pain, but also from the fault of venial sin.

**I respond:** It must be said that the opinion of some masters, men of good understanding, was that no sin is remitted after death, on the ground that the use of free choice, as regards merit or demerit, wholly ceases. Hence they say that venial [sins] are entirely[^9] remitted either through penance, or through final grace, if there be no place for penance, if perchance a just man dies forestalled by death.

But they assign the reason of this position and the understanding [of it] in this way. For they say that grace is threefold, namely baptismal, penitential, and final; and each of these graces, by its beginning, has dominion in the soul itself. On the ground that the grace which has dominion at the very entrance, like baptismal grace, or at the beginning of its state, like final [grace][^10], blots out every fault, not only mortal, but even venial. But baptismal grace has dominion

by the power of the Sacrament, penitential grace by the subjection and conformity of free choice, final grace by the perfect conformity of all the powers of the soul to that grace. For when the soul itself[^1b] is separated from the flesh, now the pronenesses and disturbances which were in the soul from the flesh recede, and the powers of the soul are tranquilized and made subject to grace; and through this the venial [sins] are blotted out, whether they be in the rational part of the soul or in the sensible part of the soul. And so no venial [sin] is remitted after this life, but at that point at which it can be said: this is final grace, which claims dominion for itself and expels every fault. — If, then, it be objected against them that in the world to come sins are purged and remitted; it is answered, according to them, that they are remitted as regards the liability or penalty, and purged as regards the dross or consequence. And master Hugh[^2b] seems to have held this, who speaks thus, speaking of the remission of sin: «*Sometimes God remits according to mercy, sometimes according to severity, sometimes according to both. Through the fire of purgatory the dross of sin is decocted, through the laver of baptism the stain of sin is washed away, through the scourge of satisfaction the chaff of sin is shaken out*». — But although this opinion is much in accord with reason, nevertheless the authorities of the Saints seem expressly to be contrary. For Gregory himself says in the Morals[^3b] that «*some sins are remitted after this life*». And if you say that he understands [this] as regards the liability, as was objected; thus it could be understood of all faults. — Likewise, Isidore, treating that [passage] of Matthew, chapter three[^4b]: *He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire*: «*The sins which preceded the Holy Spirit will wash away through the baptism of water, and some of those which afterward follow upon crimes he will remit through purgatorial fire*». Since, therefore, the preceding sins are washed away not only as regards the penalty, but also as regards the fault: therefore in purgatory certain [sins] are to be remitted as regards the fault. Again, since grace has dominion in the soul at once at the very separation, why does it not purge from the dross or consequence of sin, just as from venial fault?

And on account of this there is here a second mode of speaking, which the Master approves in the [Sentences] text[^5b], and which the manifold authority of the Saints confirms. It must be said, therefore, that some sins, namely venial [ones], can be and are remitted not only in this world, but also in purgatory, when someone passes over with venial [sins], on the ground that grace was not finally assisted to blot them out, and therefore needs help. — Since, then, the will can be conformed to grace after this life, although it cannot be its helper, on the ground that the time of merit has ceased; therefore it needs an external help. And since there is no place for the Sacrament, it has the help of punitive or purgatorial fire; which is therefore called purgatorial, because the soul[^6b] is purged from the dross of sin and from venial fault, if it pass over with that. And this is possible, because, as was shown in the preceding problem, for the blotting out of a venial [sin] it suffices that free choice conform itself to grace, nor is it necessary that it assist. — It must be granted, therefore, that some after this life can be purged from venial fault.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that after death pardon is sought in vain for that which is not corrected; it must be said that that is understood of mortal [sin]. — Or let emphasis be placed on this, that he says that in this life it is not corrected: it is true either in itself or in merit. But although some venial [sin] be not corrected, with which one passes over — not corrected, I say, in itself — yet he merited to be corrected, because he who departs in charity merited through it to be cleansed even after this state from those things which retard the reward of charity.

2. To that which is objected concerning the fall of the angels and the death of men, it must be said that it is similar as regards the invertibility of free choice, or as regards mortal sin, not as regards all things; for the evil angels can advance in penalties, although they cannot rise again from evil[^7b]. Conversely, by reason of past good merit good men can be snatched from evil, although they cannot lapse into evil, because they are confirmed in the good in which they die.

3. To that which is objected concerning Gregory, it must be said that, as he himself adds[^8b], that is understood as regards mortal [sins], not as regards venial [sins], because he himself excepts those.

4. To that which is objected, that free choice holds a mean; it must be said that it is false for that state. For it is in a state in which it can be disposed for entrance into glory through the removal of an impediment, although it cannot merit; because for

the blotting out of a venial [sin] and for the remission of the liability of sin there suffices the presence of grace and of pain, with the consonance of free choice and the help of past merit.

5. To that which is objected, that it is easier to lapse into evil; it must be said that it is true as regards mutable free choice, not as regards the whole state of the soul.

6. To that which is objected, that, the tinder being removed, the venial [sin] is taken away; it must be said that it is true as regards the power of sinning in the future; nevertheless it is not necessary that a venial [sin] previously committed be taken away, because not every cause of introducing [something] is a cause of conserving [it], as is clear in many examples. For, the knife being destroyed, a wound cannot be inflicted; yet if the knife be destroyed, it is not necessary, on this account, that a wound previously inflicted be healed.

la: Vers. 32.

en: Verse 32.

la: Cap. 39. Cfr. Glossa ordinaria in Matth. 12, 32. apud Strabum et Lyranum nec non C. *Qualis hinc* (4.), d. 25. — Inferius verbis *hoc intelligit* plures codd. cum edd. perperam interserunt *non*. In fine arg. cod. aa addit: *et ita nil esset illa differentia, quam assignat, quod parva delentur, magna autem non.* Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6, ubi eadem instantia fertur et solvitur.

en: Chapter 39. Cf. the ordinary Gloss on Matt. 12:32 in Strabus and Lyra, and also C. *Qualis hinc* (4.), d. 25. — Below, in the words *he understands this* several codices, with the editions, wrongly insert *not*. At the end of the argument codex aa adds: *and so there would be no such difference as he assigns, that small [sins] are blotted out, but great ones are not.* See here the Master's text, c. 6, where the same objection is raised and resolved.

la: Cfr. supra d. 18. p. II. dub. 4.

en: Cf. above d. 18. p. II. dub. 4.

la: Plures codd. *aliud*.

en: Several codices [read] *aliud* [another thing].

la: Vers. 16. — Glossa, quae est interlinearis apud Lyranum, sumta est ex Gregor., XVI. Moral. c. 68. n. 82, et habetur etiam apud Bedam, in hunc locum.

en: Verse 16. — The Gloss, which is interlinear in Lyra, is taken from Gregory, XVI Morals, c. 68. n. 82, and is also had in Bede, on this passage.

la: Libr. II. *de Fide orthod.* c. 4: *Oportet autem scire, quod hominibus est mors, hoc angelis esse lapsum. Post lapsum enim non est ipsis poenitentia, sicut nec hominibus post mortem.* Cfr. II. Sent. d. 7. p. 1. a. I. q. 1.

en: Book II, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 4: *But it must be known that what death is to men, that the fall is to the angels. For after the fall there is no penance for them, just as neither for men after death.* Cf. II Sent. d. 7. p. 1. a. I. q. 1.

la: Libr. IV. c. 39: *Qualis hinc quisque egreditur, talis in iudicio praesentatur.*

en: Book IV, c. 39: *Such as each goes forth from here, such is he presented in the judgment.*

la: Sive concupiscentiae; cfr. tom. II. pag. 767, nota I.

en: Or of concupiscence; cf. tom. II. p. 767, note I.

la: Cod. aa *omnia*.

en: Codex aa [reads] *omnia* [all things].

la: Praebemus lectionem cod. V; alii codd., ut codd. L R S T X, cum hac lectione conveniunt, eo excepto, quod omittant exempla, scil. *ut gratia baptismalis* et *ut finalis*, codd. I K tantum *ut gratia baptismalis*, quod codd. F G perperam substituunt pro *ut finalis*; cod. M omittit solum *ut finalis*; edd., omisso *ut finalis*, pro *vel* substituunt *quae in*. Secundum Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 15. m. 3. a. 3. § 5. gratia poenitentialis in...

en: We provide the reading of codex V; the other codices, like codices L R S T X, agree with this reading, except that they omit the examples, namely *like baptismal grace* and *like final [grace]*, codices I K only *like baptismal grace*, which codices F G wrongly substitute for *like final [grace]*; codex M omits only *like final [grace]*; the editions, omitting *like final [grace]*, for *or* substitute *which in*. According to Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV. q. 15. m. 3. a. 3. § 5, penitential grace in...

la: Cod. X supplet *anima*. Inferius post *sive sint* codd. R S T addunt *ex parte vel*.

en: Codex X supplies *the soul*. Below, after *whether they be* codices R S T add *on the part of, or*.

la: Potius Richard. a S. Vict. (cfr. supra pag. 477, nota 2.) in lib. *de Potestate ligandi et solvendi*, c. 28; textus originalis post utrumque, sive ut ipse habet, *secundum moderationem utriusque* plura subiungit, et inferius pro *abluitur* substituit *absque poena diluitur*. Hug. a S. Vict., II. *de Sacram.* p. XVI. c. 4. simpliciter dicit, quod in purgatorio «*qui ab hac vita cum quibusdam culpis, iusti tamen... exierunt, ad tempus cruciantur, ut purgentur*».

en: Rather Richard of St. Victor (cf. above p. 477, note 2.) in the book *On the Power of Binding and Loosing*, c. 28; the original text, after *both*, or as he himself has it, *according to the moderation of both*, adds many things, and below for *is washed away* substitutes *is dissolved without penalty*. Hugh of St. Victor, II *On the Sacraments* p. XVI. c. 4. says simply that in purgatory «*those who departed from this life with certain faults, yet [being] just... are tormented for a time, that they may be purged*».

la: Libr. IV. *Dialog.* (non *Moral.*) c. 39, iam supra fundam. 2, allegato. In eodem fundam. etiam seq. obiectio tacta fuit.

en: Book IV of the *Dialogues* (not the *Morals*), c. 39, already cited above in fundamentum 2. In the same fundamentum the following objection too was touched upon.

la: Vers. II. (Plurimi codd. *Marc.* I, 8.). — Isidor., *de Ordine creatur.* c. 14. n. 7: *Hoc est, qui peccata vestra, quae praecesserunt, Spiritu sancto per aquae baptismum abluet vel solvet, et quaedam ex his quae postea sequentur criminibus etc.*

en: Verse II. (Most codices [read] *Mark* I, 8.). — Isidore, *On the Order of Creatures*, c. 14. n. 7: *This is, he who will wash away or loose your sins, which preceded, by the Holy Spirit through the baptism of water, and some of those which afterward follow upon crimes etc.*

la: Hic c. 6. — Praeter auctoritates Gregorii et Isidori cfr. lib. *de Vera et falsa Poenitentia* (inter opera August.), c. 4. n. 9.

en: Here c. 6. — Besides the authorities of Gregory and Isidore, cf. the book *On True and False Penance* (among the works of Augustine), c. 4. n. 9.

la: Cod. X supplet *ibi*.

en: Codex X supplies *there*.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 6. a. 2. q. I. seq. et d. 7. p. I. a. 1. q. I. seqq. Auctoritate codd. bis posuimus *possunt* pro *possint*.

en: Cf. II Sent. d. 6. a. 2. q. I. f. and d. 7. p. I. a. 1. q. I. ff. On the authority of the codices we have twice put *possunt* [they can, indic.] for *possint* [subj.].

la: Loc. cit.: *Sed tamen de quibusdam levibus culpis esse ante iudicium purgatorius ignis credendus est etc.*

en: In the place cited: *But nevertheless concerning certain light faults a purgatorial fire is to be believed [to exist] before the judgment etc.* ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Opinio I. hic relata fuit plurium antiquorum magistrorum, quam duobus modis explicat et probabiliorem esse censet Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 15. m. 3. a. 3. § 5; sed plurimi posteriores Scholastici cum Ss. Thoma et Bonav. eandem reprobant. Scot. autem (hic q. I. n. 8. seqq.) manet dubius, utrum morienti cum solis venialibus culpa remittatur in ultimo instanti huius vitae, an initio alterius.

De eadem quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 3. quaestiunc. I; de Malo q. 7. a. II. — B. Albert., hic a. I. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. I. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. I.

**II.** Purgationem animarum post hanc vitam fieri per ignem, quin tamen excludantur aliae poenae, negant Graeci, affirmant nunc communiter Latini, quorum sententia gravissimis auctoritatibus confirmatur, nondum autem ab Ecclesia definita est; nec constat, quod omnes purgandi illam poenam sensus patiantur. — De modo talis purgationis redit sermo infra d. 44. p. II. a. 2. 3.

De eadem (2.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 4. a. 4. § I. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. 3. — B. Albert., supra d. 20. a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 2. quaestiunc. I. — Richard. a Med. rem tangit supra d. 20. a. 2. q. I.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Opinion I, related here, was that of many of the ancient masters, which Alexander of Hales explains in two modes and judges to be the more probable, S. p. IV. q. 15. m. 3. a. 3. § 5; but most of the later Scholastics, with Sts. Thomas and Bonaventure, reject it. Scotus, however (here q. I. n. 8. ff.), remains doubtful whether, for one dying with venial [sins] alone, the fault is remitted in the last instant of this life, or at the beginning of the other.

On the same question: St. Thomas, here q. I. a. 3. quaestiuncula I; On Evil q. 7. a. II. — Bl. Albert, here a. I. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 2. quaestiuncula I. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 2. — Durandus, here q. I.

**II.** That the purgation of souls after this life is made through fire, yet without the other penalties being excluded, the Greeks deny, [but] the Latins now commonly affirm, whose opinion is confirmed by the weightiest authorities, yet has not been defined by the Church; nor is it established that all who are to be purged suffer that penalty of sense. — On the manner of such purgation the discourse returns below, d. 44. p. II. a. 2. 3.

On the same (2nd) question: Alexander of Hales, in the place cited, m. 4. a. 4. § I. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. I. a. I. quaestiuncula 3. — Bl. Albert, above d. 20. a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I. a. 2. quaestiuncula I. — Richard of Mediavilla touches the matter above, d. 20. a. 2. q. I.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{550,551,552,553}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 60694–60970) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/scholion/footer regions. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 550–553 = PDF 570–573).

**Page-verify (TASK CORRECTION).** The auto-rechunk frontmatter named printed pages 549–551, and the task page-hint estimated ~550–552. Running-head verification proves the chunk spans **550–553**: the ARTICULUS II opener (`Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum…` + the two-question `De qua duo quaeruntur` listing) prints at the foot of **p. 550** (running head "550 ... SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."); **QUAESTIO I** body opens on **p. 551** (running head "DIST. XXI. P. I. ART. II. QUAEST. I. 551") and runs through **p. 552** ("552 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."); the reply-6 tail and the article's **SCHOLION** (§I–§II) finish on **p. 553** ("DIST. XXI. P. I. ART. II. QUAEST. II. 553" — the running head already advances to QUAEST. II, but the scholion physically prints at the foot of 553 before QUAESTIO II's body). `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages` set to 550–553 / 570–573.

**Opener alignment confirmed.** The `Primo quaeritur… an solum a poena` matches `title_la`; `Secundo… per ignem materialem` is the sibling a2-q2 (raw 60971+, body opens on p. 553). The article subtitle prints as *De purgatione, quae fit per purgatorium* (the task gave the abbreviated *De purgatione purgatorii*); the fuller printed form is used.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 550: ARTICULUS II header + subtitle; opener (`Consequenter…` + the two-question listing). The page's footers 1–7 belong to the PRECEDING quaestio (a1-q-last), NOT this chunk (footer 7 = "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.").
- p. 551: q1 opener `Quantum ergo ad primum…`; pro-args 1–4; *Contra* args 1–6; CONCLUSIO; RESPONDEO (opinio I report + the *triplex gratia* explanation, ending "Dominatur autem gratia baptismalis"). Footers `^1`–`^10` (left col 1–6, right col 7–10).
- p. 551 → 552 boundary inside Respondeo ("…Dominatur autem gratia baptismalis | ex virtute Sacramenti…"). Page break placed there.
- p. 552: Respondeo continues (opinio I cont., Hugh/Richard text, Gregory + Isidore authorities, opinio II = Magister's mode, the *Concedendum* close); replies 1–4 and the start of reply 4's tail. Footers `^1b`–`^8b` (left col 1–2, right col 3–8).
- p. 552 → 553 boundary inside reply 4 ("…quoniam ad | deletionem venialis…"). Page break placed there.
- p. 553: reply 4 tail; replies 5–6; then the SCHOLION (§I left col, §II right col), fully contained on p. 553. QUAESTIO II body begins on p. 553 (right col, raw 60971+, folded by a2-q2). p. 553's footers 1–6 belong to QUAESTIO II, NOT this chunk.

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 18 entries, all anchored in this q1's body).**
- p. 551 (10 footers): `^1` Vers. 32 (arg 1); `^2` Cap. 39 + Glossa/cod. aa var. (arg 2); `^3` Cfr. d. 18 (arg 3); `^4` Plures codd. *aliud* (arg 4); `^5` Vers. 16 + Glossa source (Contra 1); `^6` Damasc. *de Fide orthod.* (Contra 2); `^7` Libr. IV c. 39 (Contra 3); `^8` *Sive concupiscentiae* (Contra 6); `^9` Cod. aa *omnia* (Respondeo, opinio I); `^10` long cod.-collation on the *gratia baptismalis/finalis* examples (Respondeo).
- p. 552 (8 footers): `^1b` Cod. X *anima* + R S T var. (Respondeo cont.); `^2b` Richard/Hugh a S. Vict. text (Hugh quotation); `^3b` Libr. IV *Dialog.* not *Moral.* (Gregory authority); `^4b` Vers. II + Isidor. *de Ordine creatur.* (Isidore authority); `^5b` Hic c. 6 + *de Vera et falsa Poenit.* (opinio II / Magister); `^6b` Cod. X *ibi* (purgatorius clause); `^7b` Cfr. II Sent. + *possunt/possint* (reply 2); `^8b` Loc. cit. Gregory quotation (reply 3).

**Scholion disposition (TASK FINDING).** `has_scholion: true`. The **Articulus II carries a single scholion block (§I–§II)** printed at the foot of p. 553 after q1's body, **rendered IN FULL here (body first, scholion last)**. The scholion has NO footnote markers — its citations are inline, so it contributes nothing to the apparatus. It covers **both questions of Articulus II**: §I → this q1 (opinio-I doctor-list: Thomas/Albert/Peter/Richard/Durandus/Scotus); §II → the sibling **a2-q2** ("De eadem (2.) quaestione…": the per-ignem doctor-list + the Greeks/Latins note + the cross-ref to d. 44). **The sibling a2-q2 renders no scholion of its own and cross-refs "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest."** (its own p. 550 opener footer 7), pointing back to THIS chunk's `### Scholion`.

**Cross-chunk hand-offs.**
- **From the prior chunk (a1-q-last / a1-q6):** p. 550's footers 1–7 anchor in the preceding quaestio's body, which closes at the top of p. 550 ("…magis voluntas consonat, vel adiuvat"); they belong to that chunk, NOT here. No body or footer migrates INTO this q1 from p. 550 except the ARTICULUS II opener itself.
- **To the sibling a2-q2 (raw 60971+):** q2 ("Utrum purgatio purgatorii fiat per ignem materialem") opens on p. 553 right col **after** this scholion and runs onto p. 554; it opens its own per-page footer sequence (p. 553 footers 1–6 are q2's). No footer migrates from this q1 to q2. q2 must reference THIS chunk's `### Scholion` (§II addresses q2) rather than re-rendering it.

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Notable silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands: arg 1 *Qui dixerit contra Spiritum sanctum verbum…* (OCR fragmented across columns); Respondeo *triplex est gratia… baptismalis, poenitentialis et finalis* (OCR scattered); the Hugh-of-St-Victor quotation *Per incendium purgatorii scoria peccati excoquitur…* (OCR `excoquitur`/`palea excutitur`); reply 6 cultellus/plaga example. The marginal rubrics in the columns (*Opinio 1.*, *Opinio 2.*, *Conclusio.*, *Explicatur.*, *Triplex gratia.*, *Ad obiectionem respondent.*, *Non probationi consona.*, *Notandum.*) 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. 21, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 553 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum purgatio purgatorii fiat per ignem materialem.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum purgatio illa fiat per ignem materialem, aut per spiritualem. Et quod sit spiritualis, videtur:

1. Per Glossam super illud primae ad Corinthios tertio[^1]: *Si cuius opus arserit*: «Exuritur autem illius opus, qui hic temporalia dilexit, quoniam sine dolore non pereunt quae hic cum amore possessa sunt»; et Augustinus de Civitate Dei, vigesimo primo, exponens illud dicit[^2]: «Necesse est, ut tantum urat dolor, quantum haeserat amor»: si ergo hoc totum est spirituale, non videtur, quod ille ignis purgans sit aliquid nisi spirituale quid.

2. Item, quod purgatur et a quo purgatur et ipsa purgatio est quid spirituale: ergo videtur, quod illud similiter, per quod purgatur; hoc autem est ignis purgatorius: ergo etc.

3. Item, nihil corporale extrinsecum facit aliquid ad animae iustificationem[^3], ergo nec ad culpae remissionem; sed in purgatorio emundatur anima a culpa: ergo non videtur, quod uratur flamma materiali.

4. Item, si anima purgatur per poenam corporalem; cum poena mortis sit suprema poenarum, ergo videtur, quod ibi deberet omnino purgari: ergo nullo modo indiget purgari[^4] igne materiali.

5. Item, videtur, quod nulla ad hoc sit necessitas, quia vehemens dolor et fervens amor per se sine aliquo exteriori sufficit delere poenam et culpam; sed statim, separata anima, cum liberum arbitrium consonet animae gratiae, fervet caritas, et detestatur, quantum potest, culpam prius commissam, et hoc generat fervorem et dolorem: ergo statim deletur omnis culpa.

**Contra:**
1. Sicut dicitur in Glossa super illud[^5]: *Sic salvus erit* etc., et habetur in littera: «Gravior est ille ignis, quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita»: ergo animae habebunt aliquod afflictivum extra; illud autem aut est corporale, aut spirituale; non spirituale, quia tunc vel esset Angelus, vel esset anima, vel Deus, quorum nullum esse potest: ergo necesse est, quod sit corporale.

2. Item, nos videmus, quod recta ordinatione fit, quod anima, quae rebus corporalibus se subiecerat libidinose, utpote per conversionem ad bonum[^6]

<!-- page 554 -->

commutabile, iustificatur per materialia et corporalia Sacramenta[^7]: ergo pari ratione post hanc vitam purgari debet per afflictiva corporalia.

3. Item, si anima post mortem purificatur, aut ergo dolore, qui veniat ex contritione, aut dolore, qui veniat ex rei amissione, aut dolore, qui veniat ex exteriori afflictione. Non primo modo, quia non est amplius locus meriti, nec quantum ad contritionem nec quantum ad alios actus virtutum; non secundo modo, quia dolor de amissione[^8] est potius sapiens rationem culpae quam rationem purgationis, quia venit ex inordinato amore: ergo tertio modo purgatur dolore, qui venit ex afflictione exteriori: ergo etc.

4. Item, si ignis ille esset spiritualis; cum non sit Deus — hoc constat — necesse est, quod in diversis diversificetur et plurificetur: ergo quot essent animae, tot essent ignes purgatorii et tot purgatoria: si ergo hoc est inconveniens, patet, quod non est spiritualis.

> **Conclusio.** Ignis purgatorii est materialis sive corporalis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Augustinus videtur dubitare, utrum ignis ille sit *materialis*, an *spiritualis*, qui cruciabit vel nunc cruciat animas[^9] non solum de igne purgatorio, sed etiam de igne infernali, in quo dives ille ardebat — non solum super Genesim ad litteram[^9b], verum etiam in libro de Civitate Dei. Unde et per modum dubitationis dicit in Glossa super illud primae ad Corinthios tertio: *Qui aedificat lignum, foenum* etc., ponens opinionem dicentium, igne materiali et temporali animas post hanc vitam purgari; dicit: «Non redarguo, quia forsitan verum est». Et hoc ipsum ponitur in littera, et satis videtur rationabilis sua dubitatio. Dives enim, qui erat in inferno, et cuius lingua urebatur, linguam corporalem non habebat. Et qui portat lignum, foenum, stipulam, non portat secum haec materialia, sed spiritualia, quae sic nominantur per metaphoram; quare non similiter de igne spirituali metaphorice competit intelligere?

Sed quamvis egregius doctor Augustinus visus fuerit dubitare, alii tamen doctores nobis auferunt dubitationem, quoniam hoc cognoverunt multiplici ratione, ut Gregorius in quarto Dialogorum[^10] et Isidorus de Ordine creaturarum, et communiter tenent doctores temporis nostri, ignem purgatorium esse materialem sive corporalem. — Sed qualiter talis ignis agat in animas eas affligendo, hoc magnam habet quaestionem et infra[^11] inquiretur de poenis animarum. Qualiter autem agat purgando, diversitas est inter doctores.

Quidam enim dicere voluerunt, quod praeter vim punitivam data est illi igni vis spiritualis purgativa, ratione cuius purgat a veniali macula, vel etiam a peccati scoria, sicut Sacramenta habent vim sanctificandi sibi datam[^12]. — Sed illud non oportet ponere, scilicet quod ultra punitionem habeat vim novam, cum multas animas dicat Gregorius[^13] purgari per diversa loca, et talis culpae mundificatio proprie sit ab ipsa gratia.

Et ideo est aliorum positio, ut videtur, magis recta, quod ille ignis per eandem naturam et punit et purgat, quoniam puniendo iuvat gratiam, et gratia, habens adiutorium poenae et consonantiam voluntatis nostrae — quae, quamvis non sit adiutrix, non tamen impedit — potens est purgare culpam et peccati scoriam, ita ut purgatio talis sit a gratia, libero arbitrio consonante, et exteriore poena adiuvante, secundum conformitatem ad remissionem venialium, quae sit in hac vita[^14].

Si tamen quaeras: quomodo poena adiuvat gratiam ad delendum sive purgandum maculam? dicendum, quod hoc facit divina iustitia; vel etiam per eum modum potest intelligi, per quem dicitur, quod infirmitas gravis sobriam facit animam[^15], id est, virtus hoc facit, quodam modo adiuta per poenam. — Si autem quaeras, utrum statim, cum gratia habet illud adiutorium, culpam deleat et purget scoriam: dici potest, quod utrumque est satis probabile, vel quod statim vigoretur gratia, ut venialem culpam deleat, cum a poena est adiuta, et deinceps punitur pro obligatione; vel potest dici, quod poena magis et magis disponat, et postmo-

<!-- page 555 -->

dum, ex quo disposuit sufficienter, gratia ipsa in instanti delet culpam, si qua est. Quodcumque horum dicatur, non videtur de facili improbari posse. — Concedendum igitur, ignem illum materialem esse sive corporalem.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Glossa et de Augustino, dicendum, quod Augustinus non negat[^16], quin ille ignis materialis sit, qui animas purgabit, sed exponit, hoc de spirituali posse intelligi. Tamen ipse Augustinus satis in sermonibus suis, de purgatorio loquens, innuit, ignem materialem esse, sicut est ignis inferni.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod spiritualis est purgatio; dicendum, quod verum est, et ideo effective sive formaliter est per quid spirituale, scilicet per gratiam; sed tamen, quia anima peccavit cum carne et peccando carnem sibi praeposuit, et ita corpus praeposuit spiritui; divina iustitia decrevit, etiam in purgatione rei corporali ipsam subiicere[^17].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non iustificat[^18]; dicendum, quod verum est per se; tamen exterior punitio excitat et adiuvat interiorem gratiam, ut possit perducere ad iustificationem perfectam.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de poena mortis, dicendum, quod ipsa poena mortis est debitum originalis peccati nec est ordinata ad animae purgationem, nisi voluntarie suscipiatur, cum quis potest evadere, ut in Martyribus, vel etiam sustineatur voluntarie, cum ab alio infligitur[^19]; sed poena purgatorii ad hoc est.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de dolore et amore, dicendum, quod illi sunt motus voluntarii; et ideo non oportet, quod sint in summo in anima iam[^20] exuta; praeterea, iam per se non sufficiunt, cum non restet amplius merendi spatium: et ideo necesse est, exterius adhiberi ignem purgatorium, sicut parvulis, qui non possunt per se mereri, subvenit baptismatis Sacramentum[^21].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the purgation of purgatory takes place through material fire.*

Secondly it is asked whether that purgation takes place through material fire, or through spiritual fire. And it seems that it is spiritual:

1. Through the Gloss on that text of First Corinthians, chapter three[^1]: *If anyone's work shall be burned*: "But the work of him who here loved temporal things is burned up, since the things possessed here with love do not perish without pain"; and Augustine, *On the City of God*, book twenty-one, expounding that text, says[^2]: "It is necessary that the pain burn as much as the love had clung." If therefore all this is spiritual, it does not seem that that purging fire is anything but something spiritual.

2. Likewise, what is purged and that by which it is purged and the purgation itself are something spiritual: therefore it seems that likewise so is that through which it is purged; but this is the purgatorial fire: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, nothing corporeal and extrinsic contributes anything to the justification of the soul[^3], therefore neither to the remission of fault; but in purgatory the soul is cleansed from fault: therefore it does not seem that it is burned by material flame.

4. Likewise, if the soul is purged by corporeal punishment; since the punishment of death is the supreme of punishments, then it seems that it ought there to be purged entirely: therefore it in no way needs to be purged[^4] by material fire.

5. Likewise, it seems that there is no necessity for this, because vehement pain and fervent love by themselves, without anything exterior, suffice to blot out punishment and fault; but immediately, the soul being separated, since the free will is in accord with the soul's grace, charity grows fervent, and detests, as much as it can, the fault previously committed, and this begets fervor and pain: therefore immediately every fault is blotted out.

**On the contrary:**
1. As is said in the Gloss on that text[^5]: *So he shall be saved* etc., and is held in the text: "That fire is heavier than anything a man can suffer in this life": therefore the souls will have some afflictive thing outside; but that is either corporeal or spiritual; not spiritual, because then it would be either an Angel, or a soul, or God, none of which can be: therefore it is necessary that it be corporeal.

2. Likewise, we see that it comes about by right ordering that the soul, which had subjected itself lustfully to corporeal things, namely by conversion to a changeable good[^6]

<!-- page 554 -->

is justified by material and corporeal Sacraments[^7]: therefore by parity of reasoning, after this life it ought to be purged by corporeal afflictions.

3. Likewise, if the soul is purified after death, then it is either by a pain that comes from contrition, or by a pain that comes from the loss of a thing, or by a pain that comes from exterior affliction. Not in the first way, because there is no longer a place of merit, neither as to contrition nor as to the other acts of virtue; not in the second way, because pain over loss[^8] savors rather of the character of fault than of the character of purgation, since it comes from disordered love: therefore in the third way it is purged by a pain that comes from exterior affliction: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, if that fire were spiritual; since it is not God — this is established — it is necessary that it be diversified and multiplied among diverse things: therefore as many as the souls were, so many would be the purgatorial fires and so many purgatories: if therefore this is unfitting, it is plain that it is not spiritual.

> **Conclusion.** The fire of purgatory is material or corporeal.

**I respond:** It must be said that Augustine seems to doubt whether that fire is *material* or *spiritual* which will torment, or now torments, souls[^9] — not only as to the purgatorial fire, but also as to the infernal fire, in which that rich man burned — not only in *On Genesis according to the Letter*[^9b], but also in the book *On the City of God*. Whence also by way of doubt he says, in the Gloss on that text of First Corinthians chapter three: *Who builds wood, hay* etc., setting down the opinion of those who say that souls are purged by material and temporal fire after this life; he says: "I do not refute it, because perhaps it is true." And this same thing is set down in the text, and his doubt seems reasonable enough. For the rich man, who was in hell and whose tongue was burned, did not have a corporeal tongue. And he who carries wood, hay, stubble does not carry these material things with him, but spiritual things, which are so named by metaphor; why then is it not fitting to understand likewise of spiritual fire metaphorically?

But although the eminent doctor Augustine seemed to doubt, other doctors nevertheless take away the doubt from us, since they knew this by manifold reasoning, as Gregory in the fourth book of the *Dialogues*[^10] and Isidore *On the Order of Creatures*, and the doctors of our time commonly hold that the purgatorial fire is material or corporeal. — But how such a fire acts upon the souls by afflicting them, this has great difficulty and will be inquired into below[^11] concerning the punishments of souls. But how it acts in purging, there is diversity among the doctors.

For some have wished to say that, besides the punitive power, there has been given to that fire a spiritual purgative power, by reason of which it purges from venial stain, or even from the dross of sin, just as the Sacraments have a sanctifying power given to them[^12]. — But it is not necessary to posit that, namely that beyond punishment it has a new power, since Gregory says[^13] that many souls are purged through diverse places, and such a cleansing of fault is properly from grace itself.

And therefore there is the position of others, which seems more correct, that that fire by one and the same nature both punishes and purges, since by punishing it aids grace, and grace, having the help of punishment and the consonance of our will — which, although it is not a helper, nevertheless does not impede — is able to purge fault and the dross of sin, so that such purgation is from grace, the free will consenting, and exterior punishment aiding, according to conformity to the remission of venial sins which takes place in this life[^14].

If, however, you ask: how does punishment aid grace in blotting out or purging the stain? it must be said that divine justice does this; or also it can be understood in that manner by which it is said that a grave infirmity makes the soul sober[^15], that is, virtue does this, in a certain way aided by punishment. — But if you ask whether immediately, when grace has that help, it blots out the fault and purges the dross: it can be said that either is probable enough, either that grace is at once invigorated so as to blot out the venial fault, when it is aided by punishment, and thereafter is punished by way of obligation; or it can be said that punishment more and more disposes, and after-

<!-- page 555 -->

ward, once it has disposed sufficiently, grace itself in an instant blots out the fault, if there be any. Whichever of these be said, it does not seem that it can easily be disproved. — Therefore it must be conceded that that fire is material or corporeal.

1. To that, then, which is objected from the Gloss and from Augustine, it must be said that Augustine does not deny[^16] that that fire which will purge souls is material, but expounds that this can be understood of a spiritual fire. Yet Augustine himself, in his sermons, speaking of purgatory, sufficiently intimates that the fire is material, as is the fire of hell.

2. To that which is objected, that the purgation is spiritual; it must be said that this is true, and therefore effectively or formally it is through something spiritual, namely through grace; but nevertheless, because the soul sinned with the flesh and by sinning set the flesh before itself, and thus set the body before the spirit; divine justice decreed that, even in the purgation, it should be subjected to the corporeal thing[^17].

3. To that which is objected, that it does not justify[^18]; it must be said that this is true in itself; yet the exterior punishment excites and aids the interior grace, so that it may be able to lead to perfect justification.

4. To that which is objected about the punishment of death, it must be said that the punishment of death itself is a debt of original sin and is not ordained to the purgation of the soul, unless it be voluntarily undertaken, when one is able to escape, as in the Martyrs, or even be voluntarily endured, when it is inflicted by another[^19]; but the punishment of purgatory is for this purpose.

5. To that which is objected about pain and love, it must be said that these are voluntary movements; and therefore it is not necessary that they be at their highest in the soul now stripped[^20]; moreover, by themselves they no longer suffice, since there no longer remains a space for meriting: and therefore it is necessary that the purgatorial fire be applied externally, just as the Sacrament of baptism comes to the aid of little children, who cannot merit by themselves[^21].

---

la: Vers. 15. — Glossa est apud Petr. Lombard. et sumta ex August., Enchirid. c. 68. n. 18. — Seq. locus August. est XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 26. n. 4. — Circa finem arg. post *est spirituale* cod. aa addit *quia dolor dicit quid spirituale*.

en: Verse 15. — The Gloss is found in Peter Lombard and taken from Augustine, *Enchiridion* c. 68, n. 18. — The following passage of Augustine is *On the City of God* XXI, c. 26, n. 4. — Near the end of the argument, after *est spirituale* codex aa adds *quia dolor dicit quid spirituale*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. ad 1. et infra d. 22. a. 1. q. 1. ad 3.

en: Cf. above d. 4, p. I, a. 1, q. 2, ad 1, and below d. 22, a. 1, q. 1, ad 3.

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 4. et d. 17. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. seqq.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 7. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. et d. 23. p. II. q. 1. et 3. — Post *non* codd. E F R S T addunt *tamen*, cod. G legit *quantum ad liberi arbitrii vertibilitatem, non quantum* etc.

en: See II Sent. d. 7, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, and d. 23, p. II, q. 1 and 3. — After *non* codices E F R S T add *tamen*; codex G reads *quantum ad liberi arbitrii vertibilitatem, non quantum* etc.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 3, 13. — De Glossa, quam refert Petr. Lombard. in hunc loc. et hic in lit. c. 2, cfr. etiam supra pag. 519, nota 2. et 3. In hac Glossa, contradicente textu originali, plurimi codd. et ed. 1 omittunt *homo*, pro quo in cod. I secunda manus substituit *quis*.

en: Letter, I Cor. 3, 13. — On the Gloss, which Peter Lombard reports on this passage and here in the text c. 2, cf. also above p. 519, notes 2 and 3. In this Gloss, against the original text, very many codices and edition 1 omit *homo*, for which in codex I a second hand substitutes *quis*.

la: Sic codd. B F R S T, ita tamen, ut pro *nullo modo* cod. F legit *exhibeat non*, et verbo *indiget* codd. S T praemittant *debet aut*; alii codd. verba *ergo nullo modo indiget purgari* vel omittunt vel substituunt pro ipsis cum edd. *non* (cod. E *sine*, cod. X a secunda manu *magis quam*).

en: So codices B F R S T, yet in such a way that for *nullo modo* codex F reads *exhibeat non*, and before the word *indiget* codices S T prefix *debet aut*; other codices either omit the words *ergo nullo modo indiget purgari* or substitute for them, with the editions, *non* (codex E *sine*, codex X by a second hand *magis quam*).

la: Ut insinuat Hug. a S. Vict., l. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 3. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 11.

en: As Hugh of St. Victor intimates, book *On the Sacraments* p. IX, c. 3. Cf. above the text of the Master, d. I, c. 11.

la: Cod. aa supplet *rerum scilicet temporalium*, Vat. *de huiusmodi amissione*, et mox *ordinato* perperam pro *inordinato*.

en: Codex aa supplies *rerum scilicet temporalium*; the Vatican edition, *de huiusmodi amissione*; and soon *ordinato* wrongly for *inordinato*.

la: Libr. XII. c. 32. n. 61. seqq., et XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 10. n. 2, ubi ait: *Dicerem quidem, sic arsuros sine ullo suo corpore spiritus, sicut ardebat apud inferos ille dives, quando dicebat: Crucior in hac flamma* [Luc. 16, 24.], *nisi convenienter responderi cernerem, talem fuisse illam flammam, quales oculi, quos levavit... qualis lingua... qualis digitus Lazari, de quo id sibi fieri postulavit, ubi tamen erant sine corporibus animae. Sic ergo incorporalis et illa flamma, qua exarsit* etc.

en: Book XII, c. 32, n. 61 ff., and XXI *On the City of God*, c. 10, n. 2, where he says: "I would indeed say that spirits will burn thus without any body of their own, just as that rich man burned in hell when he said: *I am tormented in this flame* [Luke 16, 24], did I not see that it can be fittingly answered that that flame was of such a kind as were the eyes which he lifted up... such the tongue... such the finger of Lazarus, of whom he asked this to be done for him, where nevertheless the souls were without bodies. So therefore incorporeal also is that flame by which he burned" etc.

la: Seq. Glossa in 1. Cor. 3, 13. exhibetur a Petro Lombardo (in hunc loc. et hic in lit. c. 2.) et sumta est ex August., XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 26. n. 4. — Inferius pro *temporali* edd. cum uno alterove cod. *corporali*.

en: The following Gloss on 1 Cor. 3, 13 is given by Peter Lombard (on this passage and here in the text c. 2) and is taken from Augustine, XXI *On the City of God*, c. 26, n. 4. — Further on, for *temporali* the editions, with one or another codex, read *corporali*.

la: Cap. 28. seq., ubi de igne inferni (vide infra lit. Magistri, d. XLIV. c. 7.); cfr. c. 39, ubi de purgatorio; item Isidor., de Ordine creatur. c. 13. n. 7. et 9.

en: Chapter 28 f., where he treats of the fire of hell (see below the text of the Master, d. XLIV, c. 7); cf. c. 39, where he treats of purgatory; likewise Isidore, *On the Order of Creatures* c. 13, n. 7 and 9.

en: Distinction 44, p. II, a. 3, q. 2.

la: Secundum Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 15. m. 4. a. 4. § 2, pro hac opinione valet illud verbum ex Serm. 252. (alias Homil. 16. ex 50 homil.) in append. serm. August. n. 3: *Quantum exegerit culpa, tantum sibi ex homine vindicabit quaedam flammae rationabilis disciplina.* Cfr. ibid. Serm. 15. (alias 82. de Tempore) n. 4, ubi vocatur «ignis ille arbiter». — Pro *sanctificandi* (cfr. supra pag. 19, nota 2.) plures codd. et edd. *satisfaciendi*.

en: According to Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV, q. 15, m. 4, a. 4, § 2, that word from Sermon 252 (otherwise Homily 16 of the 50 homilies) in the appendix of Augustine's sermons, n. 3, supports this opinion: "As much as fault has exacted, so much will a certain disciplining of rational flame claim for itself from the man." Cf. ibid. Sermon 15 (otherwise 82, *On the Season*) n. 4, where it is called "that arbiter fire." — For *sanctificandi* (cf. above p. 19, note 2) several codices and editions read *satisfaciendi*.

la: Libr. IV. Dialog. c. 40. Cfr. supra d. 20. p. I. q. 6. exemplum de Paschasio. — Inferius edd. *fit* pro *sit*.

en: Book IV of the *Dialogues* c. 40. Cf. above d. 20, p. I, q. 6, the example of Paschasius. — Further on, the editions read *fit* for *sit*.

la: Vide supra a. I. q. 2.

en: See above a. I, q. 2.

en: Ecclesiasticus 31, 2.

la: Immo loc. cit. hoc affirmat (cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. XLIV. c. 6.). Praeter sermones paulo superius citt. vide etiam Serm. 104. (alias 41. de Sanctis) in append. serm. August. — Circa finem solut. voci *ignem* cod. Z praemittit *huic*.

en: Indeed in the place cited he affirms this (cf. below the text of the Master, d. XLIV, c. 6). Besides the sermons cited a little above, see also Sermon 104 (otherwise 41, *On the Saints*) in the appendix of Augustine's sermons. — Near the end of the solution, before the word *ignem* codex Z prefixes *huic*.

la: Ita edd. et plurimi codd., sed aeque bene codd. H I, *subiacere*. Superius post *et ita* [cod. *et quia*] non pauci codd. *corpus praesupponit spiritum* [vel *spiritui*], cod. I *corpus postposuit spiritum*.

en: So the editions and very many codices, but equally well codices H I, *subiacere*. Above, after *et ita* [codex *et quia*] not a few codices read *corpus praesupponit spiritum* [or *spiritui*]; codex I, *corpus postposuit spiritum*.

la: Supple cum Vat. *corporale extrinsecum*. Inferius post *per se* cod. aa addit *sive directe*. Subinde pro *excitat* permulti codd. et ed. 1 *exercitat*.

en: Supply, with the Vatican edition, *corporale extrinsecum*. Further on, after *per se* codex aa adds *sive directe*. Then for *excitat* very many codices and edition 1 read *exercitat*.

la: Cfr. August., XIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 3. seqq. — Superius voci *ordinata* cod. K (I a secunda manu) praemittit *de se*.

en: Cf. Augustine, XIII *On the City of God*, c. 3 ff. — Above, before the word *ordinata* codex K (I by a second hand) prefixes *de se*.

la: Pro *iam* plurimi codd. *non*, quae lectio, etsi in se non sit falsa, nihil tamen facit ad solut. Post *exuta* cod. aa subnectit: *quia extra corpus non potest dolor augmentari*.

en: For *iam* very many codices read *non*, which reading, although in itself not false, nevertheless contributes nothing to the solution. After *exuta* codex aa subjoins: *because outside the body pain cannot be increased*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 60969–61168), reflowed column-by-column (left then right) and verified against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 553, 554, 555 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{553,554,555}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`; offset pdf = printed + 20). The opener "*Secundo quaeritur, utrum purgatio illa fiat per ignem materialem*" confirms alignment with QUAESTIO II. **Page-span correction:** the page hint estimated pp. 552–554; eyes-on running heads show q2 actually prints on **pp. 553–555** (p553 running head `DIST. XXI. P. I. ART. II. QUAEST. II.`; p551 is a2-q1). Raw OCR page numbers are digit-mangled (`554`→ actual 554 body; `b5b`→555; `5o6`→556).

**Scholion disposition.** This quaestio renders **no scholion** (`has_scholion: false`). A `SCHOLION.` header does appear at the top of printed p. 553 (raw line 60950) *before* the QUAESTIO II header (raw line 60969), but it is the **Articulus II** scholion (covering q1+q2) and is rendered once with QUAESTIO I (`bon-sent-IV-d21-p1-a2-q1`). The q2 reply 5 footnote `[^21]` explicitly cross-refers "*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*", confirming q2 carries no scholion of its own.

**Apparatus / page-split map.** 21 footer entries rendered across the three printed pages, matched to body anchors:
- p. 553 footers 1–6 → `[^1]`–`[^6]` (affirmative args 1–4 + Contra args 1–2; footer 6 = *Sic codd. B F R S T* on the "nullo modo indiget purgari" variant).
- p. 554 footers 1–9 → `[^7]`–`[^15]` (footer 1 *Ut insinuat Hug.* anchors Contra arg 2 "Sacramenta" → `[^7]`; footer 3 *Libr. XII… de Civ. Dei* = the long Augustine quotation → `[^9]`; Quaracchi prints the Glossa-provenance note separately, rendered as `[^9b]`).
- p. 555 footers 1–6 → `[^16]`–`[^21]` (replies 1–5; footer 6 = the unnumbered `^` entry *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* anchored at reply 5 "Sacramentum"). The remaining p. 555 footers (7–10: *Vers. 12 Si quis autem superaedificat*, *Hic c. 3 Enchirid.*, *Cfr. supra d. 20 p. II dub. 3*, *Codd. omittunt etiam*) belong to ARTICULUS III, q. 1, and are **not** rendered here.

**Cross-chunk hand-off ← q1.** The shared printed page p. 553 carries the Articulus II SCHOLION at its top; that footer block and the scholion belong to `bon-sent-IV-d21-p1-a2-q1`. q2's body begins immediately after (QUAESTIO II, raw 60969).

**Cross-chunk hand-off → a3-q1.** ARTICULUS III ("*De liberatione a purgatorio*", QUAESTIO I "*Utrum in purgatorio unus liberetur ante alium*") begins at raw line 61169, sharing printed p. 555 with q2's replies. Its footers (p. 555 footers 7–10, plus the p. 556 footers) belong to a3-q1, not here.

**[?] flags.** None. All readings resolved against the PDF bands; OCR garbles (`purgalio`, `cura`/`cum`, `raortis`/`mortis`, `iustificalionem`, `b5b`→555, `5o6`→556, `mhmmei`→naturam) silently corrected per the OCR-cleanup rules.