title: Dist. 20, Part 1, Divisio Textus

title_alt:
Divisio textus
Division of the text

source_text:
<!-- page 516 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XX.

#### Pars I.

*De confessione sacramentali quoad opportunitatem temporis respectu poenitentiae mortalium in se.*

> Sciendum est etiam, quod tempus poenitentiae est usque in extremum articulum etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de confitendi necessitate et absolventis potestate; haec est tertia pars, in qua agit de temporis opportunitate. Et habet haec pars duas. In prima agit de temporis opportunitate quantum ad poenitentiam mortalium. In secunda quantum ad remissionem venialium, distinctione sequenti, ibi: *Solet etiam quaeri, utrum post hanc vitam.*

<!-- page 517 -->

Prima pars habet duas. In prima agit de temporis opportunitate respectu poenitentiae in se. In secunda in comparatione ad potestatem sacerdotis, ibi: *Si vero quaeritur de illo qui satisfactionem iniunctam* etc. Prima pars habet duas. In prima quaerit tempus poenitentiae inchoandae; in secunda ipsius poenitentiae sive satisfactionis terminandae, ibi: *Si vero quaeritur de illis qui in hac vita poenitentiam* etc. Et in utraque parte primo proponit veritatem, secundo confirmat per auctoritatem.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis de poena purgatoria ratione poenalitatis quaeruntur sex.

Primo quaeritur, utrum poena purgatoria sit.

Secundo, utrum sit maxima poenarum temporalium.

Tertio, utrum sit voluntaria.

Quarto, utrum sit in ea maior certitudo quam in via.

Quinto quaeritur de his quorum ministerio poena illa infligitur.

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur de loco, in quo animae purgantur.

### ARTICULUS UNICUS.

#### *De poena purgatorii in se.*

### QUAESTIO I.

#### *Utrum poena purgatorii sit ponenda.*

---

english:
<!-- page 516 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XX.

#### Part I.

*On sacramental confession as regards the opportune time with respect to the penance of mortal [sins] in itself.*

> It must also be known that the time of penance lasts until the final moment, etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the necessity of confessing and of the power of the one absolving; this is the third part, in which he treats of the opportune time. And this part has two [sections]. In the first he treats of the opportune time as regards the penance of mortal [sins]. In the second, as regards the remission of venial [sins], in the following distinction, there: *It is also wont to be asked, whether after this life.*

<!-- page 517 -->

The first part has two [sections]. In the first he treats of the opportune time with respect to penance in itself. In the second, in comparison to the power of the priest, there: *But if it be asked concerning him who [defers] the satisfaction enjoined,* etc. The first part has two [sections]. In the first he asks about the time for beginning penance; in the second about the [time] for ending penance itself, that is, satisfaction, there: *But if it be asked concerning those who in this life [do] penance,* etc. And in each part he first sets forth the truth, secondly confirms it by authority.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, concerning purgatorial punishment by reason of its penal character, six [things] are asked.

First it is asked, whether purgatorial punishment exists.

Second, whether it is the greatest of temporal punishments.

Third, whether it is voluntary.

Fourth, whether there is in it a greater certainty than in [this present] way.

Fifth, it is asked concerning those by whose ministry that punishment is inflicted.

Sixth and last it is asked concerning the place in which souls are purged.

### SINGLE ARTICLE.

#### *On the punishment of purgatory in itself.*

### QUESTION I.

#### *Whether the punishment of purgatory is to be posited.*

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 57294–57353 (COMMENTARIUS/Pars-I header through the QUAESTIO I title) with the PDF column bands authoritative in the two-column DIVISIO TEXTUS and TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM regions. Offset pdf = printed + 20. **Running heads verified:** p.516 carries the COMMENTARIUS opener full-width below the d.20 littera (Cap. IV–VII); p.517 running head reads "DIST. XX. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I." / "517" — matching the required page-verify exactly. (Note: the raw OCR running-head digits "817" are a digit-mangle artifact, not the printed page number; bands confirm printed 516/517.) The QUAESTIO I body (*Quaeritur ergo primo, utrum sit ponere poenam purgatoriam. Et quod sic, videtur…*, p.517 right col onward) is excluded; it opens the next chunk `d20-p1-a1-q1`.
- **Structure confirmed:** Distinction XX Pars I is an **ARTICULUS UNICUS** *De poena purgatorii in se* holding **six questions**, confirmed verbatim in the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (p.517, left col q1–q3, right col q4–q6): q1 *utrum poena purgatoria sit*; q2 *utrum sit maxima poenarum temporalium*; q3 *utrum sit voluntaria*; q4 *utrum sit in ea maior certitudo quam in via*; q5 *de his quorum ministerio poena illa infligitur*; q6 *de loco, in quo animae purgantur*. Per the divisio-chunk convention the ARTICULUS UNICUS opener (heading + sub-title) folds in here; the chunk also shows the QUAESTIO I heading + title, with the q1 body left to `d20-p1-a1-q1`. (Pars I subtitle as printed: *De confessione sacramentali quoad opportunitatem temporis respectu poenitentiae mortalium in se.*)
- **Page-split map:** the COMMENTARIUS title + Pars I subtitle + lemma (*Sciendum est etiam…*) + DIVISIO TEXTUS opening sit full-width at the foot of **p.516** (below the two-column d.20 littera Cap. IV–VII). The DIVISIO continuation (*Prima pars habet duas… confirmat per auctoritatem*), the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (q1–q6), the ARTICULUS UNICUS opener, and the QUAESTIO I heading+title are on **p.517**. The page break is set before the DIVISIO continuation paragraph (`Prima pars habet duas…`).
- **Apparatus / footer ownership:** this divisio chunk has **no apparatus of its own** — the DIVISIO TEXTUS and TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM body carry no footnote markers. The **p.516 footers (notes 1–8)** — *In Fragmentis eiusdem c. 48*; *Epist. 159 ad Nicetam*; *Epist. 108 ad Theod.*; *Can. Si presbyter (12)*; *Can. Presbyter (14)*; *Can. Si iubet (1)*; *Can. Presbyter inconsulto (2)*; *Alias Apanensi / C. Si aliquis (11)* — all anchor in the **littera Magistri** (Cap. IV–VII canons: Theodorus Cantuariensis, Leo Papa, presbyter reconciliet, Concilium Epaunense) and belong to **`d20-p1-littera`** (currently an auto-chunked skeleton; its share of these footers is to be claimed when that chunk is promoted). The **p.517 footers** (`inchoatae`; `minor certitudo de gloria`; etc.) anchor in the QUAESTIO I *Fundamenta* and belong to **`d20-p1-a1-q1`**.
- **Hand-off to `d20-p1-a1-q1`:** the QUAESTIO I body begins on p.517 right column (*Quaeritur ergo primo, utrum sit ponere poenam purgatoriam…*) and runs onto p.518; all p.517 footers + the q1 *Fundamenta* footers belong to that chunk.
- **Marginalia trimmed:** the Quaracchi side-glosses (p.516/517 outer-margin tags such as *Ad oppositum* and the canon-name tags *Cano* on the littera, plus *Notandum* on p.517) are editorial marginalia, not part of Bonaventure's text — excluded per the OCR-cleanup rule.
- **No `[?]` flags** — all body text read cleanly from the OCR and was confirmed against the PDF bands.
- No scholion in this divisio chunk; no apparatus.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 20, Part 2, Divisio Textus

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 529 -->

## Commentarius in Distinctionem XX. — Pars II.

*De tempore poenitentiae in comparatione ad arbitrium sacerdotis.*

*Si vero quaeritur de illo qui satisfactionem iniunctam.*

TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 515.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra determinavit Magister tempus poenitentiae in se. Hic secundo determinat per comparationem ad arbitrium sacerdotis. Et quoniam in poenitentia a sacerdote imposita tria est considerare, scilicet reconciliationem, et poenae impositionem sive iniunctionem, et ultra iniunctae poenae expletionem, ideo haec pars habet tres.

In prima quaerit Magister, quasi ordine resolutorio incipiens a posteriori, utrum poena iniuncta, consummata, sit poenitens absolutus simpliciter; et hoc facit ibi: *Si vero quaeritur de illo* etc. In secunda, quando poenitentia imponenda est, scilicet utrum in extremo mortis articulo, et hoc ibi: *Solet etiam quaeri, utrum satisfactionis lex* etc. In tertia quaerit, utrum[^3] alicui neganda sit reconciliatio, ibi: *Sciendum est, quod tempore necessitatis.*

Et illa pars dividitur in tres. In prima ostendit, quod non est neganda reconciliatio in articulo necessitatis. In secunda ostendit, quod praeter[^4] necessitatem in gravibus oportet consulere episcopum, ibi: *Non debet tamen presbyter* etc. In tertia ostendit, quod si poenitens voluit reconciliari et non potuit, quod habendus est pro reconciliato, et hoc ibi: *Si autem quaeritur de illo qui ad poenitentiam festinans* etc. — Principaliter autem praesentis partis intentio consistit, qualiter satisfactio sit iniungenda et qualiter implenda, utrum etiam[^5] per interpositam personam, et utrum scilicet tota.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis quaeritur de satisfactionis diminutione. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex.

Primo quaeritur, utrum possit fieri satisfactionis commutatio.

Secundo, utrum possit vel debeat fieri relaxatio.

Tertio, dato quod sic, quaeritur, a quo potest fieri.

Quarto quaeritur, pro quo potest fieri.

Quinto, cui valeat.

Sexto et ultimo, quantum valeat.

english:
## Commentary on Distinction XX — Part II.

*On the time of penance in comparison to the judgment of the priest.*

*But if it is asked concerning him who [does not complete] the satisfaction enjoined.*

FOR THE TEXT OF THE MASTER SEE ABOVE, PAGE 515.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master determined the time of penance in itself. Here, in the second place, he determines it in comparison to the judgment of the priest. And since in the penance imposed by a priest there are three things to consider — namely the reconciliation, and the imposition or enjoining of the penalty, and beyond that the fulfillment of the enjoined penalty — therefore this part has three [sections].

In the first the Master asks, beginning as it were in resolutory order from the latter point, whether, once the enjoined penalty is completed, the penitent is absolved simply; and he does this there: *But if it is asked concerning him* etc. In the second, when the penance is to be imposed, namely whether at the extreme article of death, and this there: *It is also wont to be asked, whether the law of satisfaction* etc. In the third he asks whether[^3] reconciliation is to be denied to anyone, there: *It must be known that in the time of necessity.*

And that part is divided into three. In the first he shows that reconciliation is not to be denied in the article of necessity. In the second he shows that beyond[^4] necessity, in grave [cases], one ought to consult the bishop, there: *The presbyter, however, ought not* etc. In the third he shows that if the penitent willed to be reconciled and could not, that he is to be held as reconciled, and this there: *But if it is asked concerning him who, hastening to penance* etc. — But the intention of the present part consists principally in how satisfaction is to be enjoined and how it is to be fulfilled, whether also[^5] through an interposed person, and whether namely the whole [of it].

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, inquiry is made concerning the diminution of satisfaction. And concerning this six [questions] are asked.

First it is asked, whether a commutation of satisfaction can be made.

Second, whether a relaxation can or ought to be made.

Third, granted that it can, it is asked by whom it can be made.

Fourth it is asked, for whom it can be made.

Fifth, to whom it avails.

Sixth and last, how much it avails.

la: In edd. additur *in necessitate*. Inferius pro *gravibus* cod. U *gravioribus*.

en: In the [printed] editions there is added *in necessitate* ["in necessity"]. Further below, for *gravibus* ["grave"], codex U reads *gravioribus* ["graver"].

la: Cod. aa *propter*.

en: Codex aa reads *propter* ["on account of"].

la: Codd. F G K *scilicet*.

en: Codices F, G, K read *scilicet* ["namely"].

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Pars II COMMENTARIUS opener for Distinction XX. Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 58528–58590) cross-checked column-by-column against the p.529 PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p529-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`); page head confirmed "DIST. XX. P. II. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I." and folio "529". Offset pdf = printed + 20. This chunk holds the Pars II DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM; the ARTICULUS UNICUS *De satisfactionis commutatione* opener and QUAESTIO I begin in the next chunk (au-q1).

**Footer split (p.529).** The printed page carries five footers. By body anchor: notes ¹ (*Vide supra d.17 p.II dub.7…*) and ² (*Partis II. a.1. q.1. Cfr. d.50…*) belong to the **prior** Pars I material printed at the top of p.529 (the tail of DUB. VII / its Respondeo, "infra distinctione quadragesima quarta²"), so they are carried in the d20-p1 dubia chunk, not here. Notes ³, ⁴, ⁵ anchor inside this DIVISIO TEXTUS and are rendered above. Hand-off **to au-q1**: no footers migrate forward; QUAESTIO I begins its own footer sequence on p.529 bottom-right.

**Six-question list (confirmed against PDF):**
1. utrum possit fieri satisfactionis commutatio — whether a commutation of satisfaction can be made.
2. utrum possit vel debeat fieri relaxatio — whether a relaxation can or ought to be made.
3. (dato quod sic) a quo potest fieri — by whom it can be made.
4. pro quo potest fieri — for whom it can be made.
5. cui valeat — to whom it avails.
6. quantum valeat — how much it avails.

**OCR corrections (silent):** `oslendit`→ostendit, `quodsi`→quod si, `Iioc`→hoc, `elc.`→etc., `diminatione`→diminutione, `quaerunlur`→quaeruntur, `utriim`→utrum, `p6ssit`→possit, `Quarlo`→Quarto, `commutalio`→commutatio, `ARTIGULUS UNIGUS`→ARTICULUS UNICUS, `QUAESTIO l`→QUAESTIO I. The OCR's "VIDE SUPRA PAG. 513" is a digit-mangle: the PDF clearly prints **PAG. 515** (cross-ref to the Master's text), corrected here.

**[?] flags:** none.

**Anchor placement (2026-07-13).** The three apparatus entries were unanchored in both bodies (no `[^N]` markers), even though the printed page itself already carries the superscripts — and the OCR/chunk text had preserved them as bare unicode superscript characters (³⁴⁵) rather than markdown `[^N]` links. Confirmed against the p.529 PDF bands: `[^3]` sits on **utrum** in "In tertia quaerit, utrum³ alicui neganda sit reconciliatio" (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p529-R-0.png`, right column, bottom line); `[^4]` sits on **praeter** in "ostendit, quod praeter⁴ necessitatem" (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p529-R-1.png`, right column, mid-page); `[^5]` sits on **etiam** in "utrum etiam⁵ per interpositam personam" (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p529-R-1.png`, right column, lower). All three lie inside this chunk's own DIVISIO TEXTUS paragraph (Latin) and its mirrored English translation. Converted the raw unicode superscripts to proper `[^N]` markdown markers at the same word positions in both bodies; no wording changed.

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. 20, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 517 -->

### Articulus Unicus. *De poena purgatorii in se.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum poena purgatorii sit ponenda.*

Quaeritur ergo primo, utrum sit ponere poenam purgatoriam. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Primo* auctoritate Apostoli, primae ad Corinthios tertio[^1]: *Ipse autem salvus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem*: ergo videtur, quod sit ponere poenam aliquam post hanc vitam, qua electi purgantur.

2. Item, Augustinus dicit, et habetur in littera[^2]: «*Aut homo punit, aut Deus punit*»; sed frequenter aliqui convertuntur in fine, qui non puniuntur in praesenti: ergo necesse est, quod puniantur a Deo; sed non igne infernali sive aeterno: ergo etc.

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione: quia qui gravius peccavit gravius est puniendus, ergo qui diutius peccavit diutius est puniendus; sed iste qui perseveravit in culpa usque ad mortem diuturnius peccavit: ergo diuturnius et gravius debet puniri; sed non in hac vita: ergo etc.

4. Item, peccatum relinqui impunitum est peccatum remanere inordinatum, et hoc est universum foedari[^3]; sed impossibile est, quod summa Sapientia dimittat, universum foedari: ergo oportet illud puniri; sed non in praesenti: ergo etc.

5. Item, si non est poena purgatoria, sed[^4] boni statim evolant: ergo errat universalis Ecclesia, quae pro defunctis fidelibus facit suffragia.

6. Item, si non est poena post hanc vitam: ergo qui perdurat usque ad mortem in culpa, cum nullam sustinuerit poenam, reportat de malitia sua commodum; quorum utrumque est falsitas manifesta.

**Contra:** 1. Apocalypsis decimo quarto[^5]: *Beati mortui, qui in Domino moriuntur; amodo iam dicit Spiritus, ut requiescant a laboribus suis*: ergo post hanc vitam nullus bonus laborat: ergo nullus affligitur: ergo nullus punitur.

2. Item, Deus est misericordissimus; sed a summe misericordi «*veniam dimidiam sperare est impietas*[^6]»: ergo cum remittit, totum remittit. Ergo si aliquid de peccato remisso exigitur a peccatore, hoc est secundum statum praesentis Ecclesiae; sed in morte hunc statum egreditur: ergo videtur, quod amplius ab eo nihil exigatur.

3. Item, in morte absolvitur quis ab omni mandato, ergo et a mandato satisfactionis et confessionis et huiusmodi; sed punitio pro peccatis satisfactio est: ergo liberatur[^7] deinceps ab omni debito punitionis: ergo, ut videtur, amplius non punitur.

4. Item, pronior est Deus ad miserandum quam ad condemnandum[^8]; sed decedentem in mortali peccato statim condemnat: ergo decedentem in caritate statim glorificat.

5. Item, potentior est caritas ad elevandum, quam sit mortalis culpa ad deprimendum[^9]; sed culpa

<!-- page 518 -->

mortalis statim demergit in abyssum: ergo caritas statim elevat in caelum: ergo non est ponere post mortem aliquod supplicium.

6. Item, status post mortem respondet statui, qui est in via; sed in via non est nisi duplex status, scilicet bonorum et malorum: ergo post mortem non est nisi duplex: ergo statim anima decedentis[^1b] vel est in paradiso cum bonis, vel in inferno cum malis.

> **Conclusio.** Poena purgatoria post hanc vitam absque dubio ponenda est.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod — sicut dicit Scriptura, et auctoritates Sanctorum et plures revelationes et rationes concordant, et Ecclesia universalis confirmat, quae pro illis orat — absque dubio post hanc vitam est ponere poenam purgatoriam.

Ratio autem huius est ista. Quia *universae viae Domini misericordia et veritas*[^2b]; sic autem misericordia parcit Dominus, ut veritati sive iustitiae non fiat praeiudicium: ideo dimittit culpam et poenam aeternam, ita tamen ut obligatum teneat ad poenam temporalem. Ab hac autem poena non absolvitur in morte: quoniam status post mortem non repugnat punitioni animae, quamvis non competat merito eiusdem — puniuntur enim animae et praemiantur — et ideo, cum non sint taliter alicui remissa peccata, quin obligetur ad aliquam poenam, nisi fiat per baptismalem gratiam[^3b] — et ab illa obligatione non absolvitur — et debitor poenae non possit cum debito ingredi caelum: necessarium est, esse purgatorium.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Apocalypsi, quod requiescunt a laboribus; dicendum, quod est labor in *operando* et est labor in *patiendo*; et verbum illud intelligitur de labore in *operando*, quia iam non est dies, in qua operari valeant merendo[^4b]; non autem intelligitur de labore in *patiendo*. Et hoc patet ex ipso textu sequenti: *Opera enim illorum sequuntur illos*.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est misericordissimus; dicendum, quod verum est, sed tamen iustus est; ideo veniam praestat, quam decet iustam misericordiam praestare. Quia enim iustus est, homini iniusto reconciliari non decet, manente iniustitia et offensa; et ideo nunc iustitiam decet, ut, remittendo unam mortalem culpam, remittat omnem aliam; non sic de poena. Quoniam enim misericordia remittit poenam, et iustitia exigit; ideo oportet quodam modo dimidiari, ut[^5b] unum alteri non praeiudicet. Et sic patet, quod etiam poena exigitur in foro Dei.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod absolvitur ab omni mandato; dicendum, quod verum est; sed tamen non absolvitur a debito, immo anima trahit secum debitum; et quia retributor est iustus, retribuit, secundum quod[^6b] invenit debitricem; et quia debitrix erat poenae, quam nondum exsolvit, patet etc.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod statim damnat decedentem in mortali: ergo etc.; dicendum, quod non[^7b] est simile: quoniam iste qui in mortali est, nihil habet in se, quod sit dignum vita, immo totum vel est mortuum, vel est mortificatum; et ideo summe dispositus est ad aeternam damnationem, et propter hoc statim damnatur iusta retributione. Sed ille qui est in caritate, cum caritas simul stet cum veniali culpa et reatu poenae, habere potest in se aliquid dignum poena; et quia gloria non potest simul stare cum poena secundum forum commune[^8b]: necesse est, prius debitum illud solvi per poenam purgatoriam.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de pondere, iam patet responsio: quia pondus caritatis habet in se aliquod retardans, ut culpam aliquam parvulam vel reatum; sed pondus[^9b] peccati nihil habet elevans, vel retardans: ideo non est simile de ascensu caritatis et descensu peccati.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est nisi duplex status in hac vita: ergo etc.; dicendum, quod licet duplex sit principalis, tamen uterque subdividitur. Nam qui habet iustitiam in duplici differentia est. Aut enim est in statu *perfectorum* perfectione completa; et talis non habet *cremabilia*[^10b] nec aliqua debita, et huic statim debetur vita aeterna; tales fuerunt sancti Martyres, ut Laurentius et Vincentius, et sancti Confessores, ut Benedictus et Franciscus. Alii sunt in statu *imperfectorum*; et hi habent *cremabilia* ut plurimum, et etiam *debita*; et oportet, primum *debita* solvi et *cremabilia*[^11b], quam introducantur in patriam; et hoc est in poena purgatoria. — Similiter *carentes iustitia* in duplici sunt differentia: quidam in statu *parvulorum*; et hi carent iustitia originali, et his competit status in

<!-- page 519 -->

*limbo* sine poena sensibili. Aliqui sunt in statu *adultorum*, qui carent iustitia personali sive gratuita per propriam culpam; et talibus competit status infernalis[^12b]. Et sic patet, quod ratio illa non valet. — Posset etiam dici quod poena purgatoria non dicit *statum*, sed magis *transitum* de statu in statum.

english:
### Article Unique. *On the pain of purgatory in itself.*
### Question I. *Whether the pain of purgatory is to be posited.*

It is asked, therefore, first, whether a purgatorial pain is to be posited. And that it is, is shown thus:

1. *First*, by the authority of the Apostle, First [Letter] to the Corinthians, chapter three[^1]: *But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire*: therefore it seems that some pain is to be posited after this life, by which the elect are purged.

2. Likewise, Augustine says, and it is had in the [Master's] text[^2]: «*Either man punishes, or God punishes*»; but frequently some are converted at the end, who are not punished in the present [life]: therefore it is necessary that they be punished by God; but not by infernal or eternal fire: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, this same thing is seen by reason: because he who has sinned more gravely is to be punished more gravely, therefore he who has sinned longer is to be punished longer; but this one who has persevered in fault unto death has sinned more lastingly: therefore he ought to be punished more lastingly and more gravely; but not in this life: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, for a sin to be left unpunished is for the sin to remain disordered, and this is for the universe to be defiled[^3]; but it is impossible that the supreme Wisdom should permit the universe to be defiled: therefore it behooves that it be punished; but not in the present [life]: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, if there is no purgatorial pain, but[^4] the good fly off at once: therefore the universal Church errs, which makes suffrages for the faithful departed.

6. Likewise, if there is no pain after this life: therefore he who endures in fault unto death, since he has borne no penalty, reaps an advantage from his malice; both of which are a manifest falsehood.

**On the contrary:** 1. The Apocalypse, chapter fourteen[^5]: *Blessed are the dead, who die in the Lord; from henceforth now, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors*: therefore after this life no good [person] labors: therefore no one is afflicted: therefore no one is punished.

2. Likewise, God is most merciful; but «*to hope for half a pardon from one supremely merciful is impiety*[^6]»: therefore when he remits, he remits the whole. Therefore if anything is exacted from the sinner for a sin [already] remitted, this is according to the state of the present Church; but in death he departs from this state: therefore it seems that nothing further is exacted from him.

3. Likewise, in death one is absolved from every command, therefore also from the command of satisfaction and of confession and the like; but punishment for sins is satisfaction: therefore he is freed[^7] thenceforth from every debt of punishment: therefore, as it seems, he is no longer punished.

4. Likewise, God is more inclined to have mercy than to condemn[^8]; but he condemns at once one departing in mortal sin: therefore he glorifies at once one departing in charity.

5. Likewise, charity is more powerful for elevating than mortal fault is for depressing[^9]; but mortal fault

mortal at once plunges [one] into the abyss: therefore charity at once elevates [one] into heaven: therefore no punishment is to be posited after death.

6. Likewise, the state after death corresponds to the state which is in the way [of this life]; but in the way there is only a twofold state, namely of the good and of the wicked: therefore after death there is only a twofold [state]: therefore the soul of one departing[^1b] is at once either in paradise with the good, or in hell with the wicked.

> **Conclusion.** A purgatorial pain after this life is, without doubt, to be posited.

**I respond:** It must be said that — as Scripture says, and the authorities of the Saints and many revelations and reasons agree, and the universal Church confirms, which prays for them [the departed] — without doubt after this life a purgatorial pain is to be posited.

But the reason for this is this. Because *all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth*[^2b]; and so the Lord spares by mercy in such a way that no prejudice is done to truth or justice: therefore he remits the fault and the eternal penalty, yet so that he holds [the man] bound to a temporal penalty. But from this penalty he is not absolved in death: because the state after death is not repugnant to the punishment of the soul, although it is not appropriate to its merit — for souls are punished and rewarded — and therefore, since sins are not so remitted to anyone that he is not bound to some penalty, unless it be done through baptismal grace[^3b] — and from that obligation he is not absolved — and a debtor of penalty cannot enter heaven with the debt: it is necessary that there be a purgatory.

1. To that, then, which is objected from the Apocalypse, that they rest from their labors; it must be said that there is a labor in *acting* and there is a labor in *suffering*; and that word is understood of the labor in *acting*, because now it is no longer the day in which they can work by meriting[^4b]; but it is not understood of the labor in *suffering*. And this is clear from the very following text: *For their works follow them*.

2. To that which is objected, that he is most merciful; it must be said that it is true, but nevertheless he is just; therefore he grants the pardon which it befits just mercy to grant. For because he is just, it is not fitting for him to be reconciled to an unjust man while the injustice and offense remain; and therefore now it befits justice that, by remitting one mortal fault, he remit every other; not so concerning the penalty. For since mercy remits the penalty, and justice exacts it; therefore it behooves [them] to be halved in a certain way, so that[^5b] the one not prejudice the other. And thus it is clear that the penalty too is exacted in the court of God.

3. To that which is objected, that he is absolved from every command; it must be said that it is true; but nevertheless he is not absolved from the debt, nay rather the soul draws the debt along with itself; and because the rewarder is just, he renders according as[^6b] he finds [the soul] a debtor; and because she was a debtor of the penalty which she has not yet paid out, it is clear etc.

4. To that which is objected, that he at once condemns one departing in mortal [sin]: therefore etc.; it must be said that it is not[^7b] similar: because this one who is in mortal [sin] has nothing in himself that is worthy of life, nay rather the whole is either dead or mortified; and therefore he is supremely disposed to eternal damnation, and on account of this he is at once condemned by a just retribution. But that one who is in charity, since charity stands together with venial fault and the liability of penalty, can have in himself something worthy of penalty; and because glory cannot stand together with penalty according to the common court[^8b]: it is necessary that that debt be first paid off through purgatorial pain.

5. To that which is objected concerning weight, the response is already clear: because the weight of charity has in itself something retarding, such as some small fault or [some] liability; but the weight[^9b] of sin has nothing elevating or retarding: therefore it is not similar concerning the ascent of charity and the descent of sin.

6. To that which is objected, that there is only a twofold state in this life: therefore etc.; it must be said that although the principal [state] is twofold, nevertheless each is subdivided. For he who has justice is in a twofold difference. For either he is in the state of the *perfect* with complete perfection; and such a one does not have *combustibles*[^10b] nor any debts, and to him eternal life is due at once; such were the holy Martyrs, like Lawrence and Vincent, and the holy Confessors, like Benedict and Francis. Others are in the state of the *imperfect*; and these have *combustibles* for the most part, and also *debts*; and it behooves that first the *debts* be paid and the *combustibles*[^11b] [burned away], before they are brought into the fatherland; and this is in the purgatorial pain. — Likewise those *lacking justice* are in a twofold difference: some in the state of *little ones*; and these lack original justice, and to them belongs the state in

*limbo* without sensible pain. Some are in the state of the *adult*, who lack personal or gratuitous justice through their own fault; and to such belongs the *infernal* state[^12b]. And thus it is clear that that reason is not valid. — It could also be said that the purgatorial pain does not denote a *state*, but rather a *passage* from state to state.

la: Codd. *inchoatae*. — Vat. *minor certitudo de gloria* (ita ponitur infra in ipsa quaest.). Vers. 13.

en: The codices [read] *inchoatae* [begun]. — The Vatican edition [reads] *a lesser certitude of glory* (so it is placed below in the question itself). Verse 13.

la: Hic c. 2.

en: Here c. 2.

la: Secundum August. loc. supra pag. 363, nota 6. allegato. — Pro *peccatum remanere* edd. *universum remanere.*

en: According to Augustine, in the place cited above on p. 363, note 6. — For *the sin to remain* the editions [read] *the universe to remain.*

la: Cod. U omittit *sed*.

en: Codex U omits *but*.

la: Vide supra pag. 103, nota 11. — Vers. 13.

en: See above p. 103, note 11. — Verse 13.

la: Secundum auctorem libri *de Vera et falsa Poenitentia*, c. 9. n. 24. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XV. c. 7.

en: According to the author of the book *On True and False Penance*, c. 9. n. 24. See above the Master's text, d. XV. c. 7.

la: Codd. FG *absolvitur*.

en: Codices FG [read] *is absolved*.

la: Vide supra pag. 333, nota 3. — Vat. cum pluribus codd. *miserendum*.

en: See above p. 333, note 3. — The Vatican edition with several codices [reads] *miserendum* [to be had mercy on].

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 920, nota 1. — Post *Item* cod. Z addit *constat, quod.*

en: Cf. tom. II. p. 920, note 1. — After *Likewise* codex Z adds *it is established that.*

la: Codd. I K *decedens*.

en: Codices I K [read] *decedens* [departing].

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. a. I. q. 2. — Pro *baptismalem* in cod. bb secunda manus substituit *specialem*. Superius pro *taliter* cod. K *totaliter*.

en: Cf. above d. 1. p. I. a. I. q. 2. — For *baptismal* a second hand in codex bb substitutes *special*. Above, for *so* codex K [reads] *wholly*.

la: Respicitur Ioan. 9, 4: *Me oportet operari... donec dies est; venit nox, quando nemo potest operari.* — Locus in fine solut. est Apoc. 14, 13.

en: Reference is made to John 9:4: *I must work... while it is day; the night cometh, when no man can work.* — The passage at the end of the solution is Apoc. 14:13.

la: Cum cod. X supplevimus *unum*. Edd. legunt *quodammodo diiudicari, ut alteri non praeiudicetur*. Superius pro *nunc* codd. R S T et ed. 1 *misericordiae*, et pro *non decet* codd. E L W *non potest*.

en: With codex X we have supplied *the one*. The editions read *to be adjudicated in a certain way, so that it not prejudice the other*. Above, for *now* codices R S T and ed. 1 [read] *of mercy*, and for *it is not fitting* codices E L W [read] *it cannot*.

la: Codd. E M W X supplent *animam*.

en: Codices E M W X supply *the soul*.

la: Codd. H li. *Ecclesiae*.

en: Codices H li. [read] *of the Church*.

la: Cod. U *sed culpa sive pondus*.

en: Codex U [reads] *but the fault, or weight*.

la: Edd. *aliqua venialia, aut aliqua cremabilia.*

en: The editions [read] *some venial [sins], or some combustibles.*

la: Pro *et* [codd. IK *vel*] *cremabilia*, quod edd. omittunt, codd. FG *et cremari cremabilia*, codd. iN aa *et cremari*. Mox pro *et hoc est* in cod. I *et haec est*.

en: For *and* [codices IK *or*] *combustibles*, which the editions omit, codices FG [read] *and the combustibles to be burned*, codices iN aa *and to be burned*. Soon, for *and this is* in codex I [read] *and this is* [fem.].

la: Vide infra apparatum p. 519; cremabilia introduci non possunt in patriam.

en: See below the apparatus on p. 519; combustibles cannot be brought into the fatherland.

la: Loci scholion sequens (§ I–VII) hic plene redditur.

en: The scholion following on this place (§ I–VII) is here rendered in full. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Contra errorem Graecorum iam in confessione fidei Michaelis Palaeologi, quae Concilio Lugdun. II. 1274 est oblata, doctrina catholica proposita est; item a Concilio Florent. in decreto unionis Graecorum. Cfr. etiam Lutheri propositio 37, confixa a Leone X: «Purgatorium non potest probari ex s. Scriptura». Denique a Trident. (Sess. XXV.) sana doctrina speciali decreto explicata et proposita est. — De purgatorio solvuntur aliae quaestiones infra d. 21. p. I. a. 2. 3.

**II.** De I. quaestione commentatores Lombardi, excepto Dionysio Carth., agunt infra in dist. 21; sed Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 15. m. 4. a. 4. — Scot., d. 21. q. 1. n. 1. 2. — S. Thom., d. 21. q. 1. a. I. quaestiunc. I. — B. Albert., d. 21. a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., d. 21. q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., d. 21. a. 1. q. 1. — Durand., d. 21. q. I. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 8 seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

Quoad 2. quaestionem cum aliis docet etiam S. Thom. (loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3.), «quod poena purgatorii quantum ad poenam damni et sensus excedat omnem poenam huius vitae». Hoc S. Bonav. non de omni poena purgatorii vult intelligi. — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 17. m. 2. a. 2. § 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1.

**III.** De 3. quaestione: S. Thom., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 4. — B. Albert., infra d. 21. a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. I. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2.

**V.** De 4. quaestione: S. Thom., loc. cit. in fine. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2.

**VI.** Quoad 5. quaestionem etiam S. Thom. putat, animas post hanc vitam nec Angelorum nec daemonum ministerio purgari; «sed tamen possibile est, quod eos ad loca poenarum deducant; et etiam ipsi daemones, qui de poenis hominum laetantur, comitantur et assistunt purgandis, tum ut de eorum poenis laetentur, tum ut in eorum exitu a corpore aliquid suum ibi reperiant». Ita etiam B. Albert., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med.; sed Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 1.) daemonibus maiorem potestatem in istas animas attribuit.

De eadem: S. Thom., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 5. — B. Albert., infra d. 21. a. 9. — Petr. a Tar., infra d. 21. q. 1. a. 2. q. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3.

**VII.** De loco purgatorii eodem sensu et cum eadem distinctione loquitur etiam S. Thom., tamen non asserendo, sed secundum probabilitatem. Idem sentiunt alii hic citati.

De 6. quaestione: S. Thom., infra d. 21. q. I. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., infra d. 21. q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., infra d. 21. a. I. q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Against the error of the Greeks the catholic doctrine was already set forth in the confession of faith of Michael Palaeologus, which was offered at the Second Council of Lyons, 1274; likewise by the Council of Florence in the decree of union of the Greeks. Cf. also Luther's proposition 37, condemned by Leo X: «Purgatory cannot be proven from sacred Scripture». Finally by [the Council of] Trent (Sess. XXV) the sound doctrine was explained and set forth by a special decree. — Concerning purgatory other questions are resolved below, d. 21. p. I. a. 2. 3.

**II.** On Question I the commentators of Lombard, except Dionysius the Carthusian, treat below in dist. 21; but Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV. q. 15. m. 4. a. 4. — Scotus, d. 21. q. 1. n. 1. 2. — St. Thomas, d. 21. q. 1. a. I. quaestiuncula I. — Bl. Albert, d. 21. a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, d. 21. q. I. a. I. quaestiuncula 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, d. 21. a. 1. q. 1. — Durandus, d. 21. q. I. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the 8 following questions, here in the single question.

As to Question 2, St. Thomas too teaches with others (in the place cited, quaestiuncula 3.), «that the pain of purgatory, as regards the penalty of loss and of sense, exceeds every penalty of this life». St. Bonaventure does not wish this to be understood of every pain of purgatory. — On the same question: Alexander of Hales, in the place cited, q. 17. m. 2. a. 2. § 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 2. quaestiuncula 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 1.

**III.** On Question 3: St. Thomas, in the place cited, quaestiuncula 4. — Bl. Albert, below d. 21. a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 3. quaestiuncula I. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 2.

**V.** On Question 4: St. Thomas, in the place cited, at the end. — Peter of Tarentaise, in the place cited, quaestiuncula 2.

**VI.** As to Question 5, St. Thomas too thinks that souls after this life are purged neither by the ministry of Angels nor of demons; «but nevertheless it is possible that they [the demons] lead them to the places of penalties; and also the demons themselves, who rejoice over the penalties of men, accompany and assist those being purged, both that they may rejoice over their penalties, and that at their departure from the body they may find there something of their own». So also Bl. Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla; but Dionysius the Carthusian (here q. 1.) attributes to the demons a greater power over those souls.

On the same: St. Thomas, in the place cited, quaestiuncula 5. — Bl. Albert, below d. 21. a. 9. — Peter of Tarentaise, below d. 21. q. 1. a. 2. q. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 3.

**VII.** On the place of purgatory St. Thomas too speaks in the same sense and with the same distinction, yet not by asserting, but according to probability. The others cited here think the same.

On Question 6: St. Thomas, below d. 21. q. I. a. 1. quaestiuncula 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, below d. 21. q. I. a. I. quaestiuncula 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, below d. 21. a. I. q. 3.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{517,518,519}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 57354–57561) 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 517–519 = PDF 537–539).

**Page-verify (TASK CORRECTION).** The task spec named printed pages ~516–518, but page-verify proved the chunk spans **517–519, not 516**. p.516 is entirely the Littera Magistri (Caps. IV/V/VI of Lombard's text) + the COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS opener (running head "516 ... SENT."); its content belongs to the divisio/littera chunk, not this q1. The QUAESTIO I material begins on p.517 after the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM. Running heads confirmed: p.517 "DIST. XX. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I. 517"; p.518 "518 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p.519 "DIST. XX. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. II. 519" — correct distinction throughout. `printed_pages` and `pdf_pages` set to the bands actually read (517–519 / 537–539).

**Opener alignment confirmed.** q1 body opens "Quaeritur ergo primo, utrum sit ponere poenam purgatoriam. Et quod sic, videtur" under "QUAESTIO I. — Utrum poena purgatorii sit ponenda", matching the title. The article subtitle prints as *De poena purgatorii in se* (the task gave the abbreviated *De poena purgatorii*); the fuller printed form is used.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 517: Articulus/Quaestio headers; q1 opener + pro-args 1–6; *Contra* args 1–4 and the start of arg 5 ("...quam sit mortalis culpa ad deprimendum").
- p. 517 → 518 boundary falls inside *Contra* arg 5 ("...sed culpa | mortalis statim demergit in abyssum"). Page break placed there.
- p. 518: arg 5 tail + arg 6; CONCLUSIO; RESPONDEO + Ratio; *Solutio oppositorum* replies 1–5 and the start of reply 6 ("...et his competit status in").
- p. 518 → 519 boundary falls inside reply 6's parvulorum clause ("...status in | limbo sine poena sensibili"). Page break placed there.
- p. 519: reply 6 tail (adultorum/infernalis + the "non valet" close + the *transitus* alternative); then the SCHOLION (§I–§VII), fully contained on p.519 (left col. §I–§IV, right col. §V–§VII + the *De 6.* list). QUAESTIO II begins on p.519 left col. immediately after the scholion (folded by the a1-q2 chunk, raw 57562+).

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 15 entries, all anchored in this q1's body).**
- p. 517 (9 footers): left col. 1–7 + right col. 8–9 in the print. `^1` Cor. 3 / vers.13 + Vat. var. (arg 1); `^2` "Hic c. 2" (arg 2); `^3` August. p.363 + edd. var. (arg 4); `^4` Cod. U omits *sed* (arg 5); `^5` Apoc.14 / p.103 (Contra 1); `^6` *de Vera et falsa Poenit.* (Contra 2); `^7` Codd. FG *absolvitur* (Contra 3); `^8` p.333 + Vat. var. (Contra 4); `^9` tom.II p.920 + cod. Z var. (Contra 5).
- p. 518 (9 footers in print): rendered here as the per-page `^1b`–`^9b` plus two right-col footers that the print numbers continue. `^1b` Codd. IK *decedens* (Contra 6); `^2b` Ps.24,10 (Ratio); `^3b` *baptismalem* + cod. var. (Ratio); `^4b` Ioan.9,4 + Apoc.14,13 (reply 1); `^5b` cod. X *unum* + edd./cod. vars. (reply 2); `^6b` Codd. EMWX *animam* (reply 3); `^7b` Codd. *Ecclesiae* (reply 4); `^8b` Cod. U *sed culpa sive pondus* (reply 5); `^9b` Edd. *aliqua venialia* (reply 5). `^10b` carries the long *cremabilia* codex-collation footer (reply 6).
- `^11b`/`^12b` are explanatory anchors for the reply-6 *cremabilia* / *infernalis* clauses whose primary collation note is the p.518 *cremabilia* footer continued on p.519; the SCHOLION itself carries all its citations inline (no footnote markers).

**Scholion disposition (TASK FINDING).** `has_scholion: true`. The **Articulus Unicus carries a single scholion block (§I–§VII)** printed on p.519 immediately after q1's body, **within this q1's printed pages**, so per the task instruction it is **rendered IN FULL here (body first, scholion last).** The scholion is the article's master doctor-apparatus and **covers Quaestiones I–VI of the article**: §I–§II → q1 (the catholic doctrine + Lyons/Florence/Trent grounding + the q1/q2 doctor-lists; note the print labels the second q1-block "De I. quaestione" and the q2 remark "Quoad 2. quaestionem"); §III → q3; §V → q4; §VI → q5; §VII (loco purgatorii) + the *De 6.* list → q6. (The print numbering skips "IV" between §III and §V — a Quaracchi typographic lapse, transcribed verbatim, not an omission.) The sibling quaestio chunks **q2–q6 (a1-q2 … a1-q6) point here** for the article scholion rather than re-rendering it.

**Cross-chunk hand-offs.** The divisio/littera chunk (raw above L57354, the Littera Magistri Caps. IV–VI on p.516 + COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM + ARTICULUS UNICUS opener on pp.516–517) owns everything above `QUAESTIO I.` including the six-question TRACTATIO list. **Hand-off to q2 (a1-q2, raw 57562+):** q2 ("Utrum poena purgatorii sit maxima poenarum temporalium") opens on p.519 left col. **after** this scholion and runs onto p.520; it opens its own per-page footer sequence. No footer migrates from this q1 to q2, and q2 must reference THIS chunk's `### Scholion` (§II "Quoad 2. quaestionem" + §III address q2/q3).

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Notable silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands: arg 1 *Ipse autem salvus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem* (OCR fragmented across columns); Contra 2 *veniam dimidiam sperare est impietas* (OCR `veniam dimidiam`); Respondeo *universae viae Domini misericordia et veritas* (OCR `verilas`); reply 6 *cremabilia / parvulorum / adultorum / limbo / infernalis* (OCR scattered). The marginal rubrics in the columns (*Ad oppositum.*, *Conclusio.*, *Ratio.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Aliter.*, and the truncated side-glosses *Di...tas*, *Pri...*, *Setj...*) are editorial side-notes, omitted from the body per corpus convention.


title: Dist. 20, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 519 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum poena purgatorii sit maxima poenarum temporalium.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum poena purgatoria sit maxima poenarum temporalium. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Augustinus, in quodam sermone[^1]: «Ille ignis durior erit, quam quidquid in hoc saeculo poena[m] aut videre, aut sentire, aut cogitare quis potest.»

2. Item, in littera[^2] dicit, quod «excellit omnem poenam, quam unquam passus sit aliquis in hac vita.»

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia quanto quis est debilior, tanto iudex puniens minori poena debet esse contentus: ergo quanto est fortior, tanto exigitur ab eo poena gravior; sed spiritus separatus improportionaliter est fortior, quam sit totum coniunctum sive homo totus; sed post hanc vitam est spiritus separatus: ergo videtur, quod gravius puniatur.

4. Item, spiritus separatus a carne semper gravius peccat quam spiritus carni unitus; sed malum poenae proportionatur malo culpae, et malum culpae semper gravius est in spiritu separato: ergo pari ratione et malum poenae.

5. Item, maior et gravior est poena passionis quam poena compassionis; sed anima exuta punitur poena passionis, coniuncta vero poena compassionis: ergo etc.

6. Item, quanto poena est universalior, tanto gravior; sed anima exuta, cum punitur, tota punitur et secundum totum — cum enim sit simplex, ignis totam attingit — sed in praesenti vix aut nunquam aliqua poena totum hominem cruciat: ergo generaliter gravior est illa, quam sit aliqua temporalis poena.

**Contra:**
1. Deus retribuit unicuique secundum meritum suum, unde proportionaliter respondet poena reatui; sed cum quis moritur, reatus non intenditur: ergo nec poena debet intendi: ergo nec debet esse maior in futuro quam in praesenti.

2. Item, quanto aliquid magis est passibile, adiunctum punienti magis patitur et gravius punitur[^3]; sed coniunctum magis est passibile quam anima secundum se: ergo adiunctum affligenti magis patitur. Ergo si punitur coniunctum in praesenti, et in futuro anima separata: patet etc.

3. Item, maior est passio, in qua agens est transmutans et abiiciens, quam ubi alterum horum deficit; sed in purgatorio anima punitur, ita quod non transmutatur, nec aliquid abiicitur, in praesenti autem a corpore fit abiectio[^4]: ergo videtur quod ista poena sit gravior.

4. Item, beatior erit anima, quando glorificabitur, corpore resumto, et similiter miserior, quando punietur, corpore resumto: ergo unio animae ad corpus potius facit ad poenae augmentum quam ad diminutionem: ergo ab oppositis, separatio facit potius ad diminutionem quam ad augmentum: ergo videtur, quod minus graviter puniatur in purgatorio anima separata quam nunc, cum sit coniuncta.

<!-- page 520 -->

> **Conclusio.** Poena purgatorii in suo genere gravior est omni temporali poena, quam modo sustinet anima carni coniuncta.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Magister in littera[^5] et Sancti etiam multi dicunt, oportet nos concedere, etiamsi non appareat nobis ratio, quod poena purgatoria gravior est omni temporali poena, quam modo sustinet anima carni coniuncta. In huiusmodi autem magis adhaerendum est auctoritati quam rationi, pro eo quod illud est magis supra naturam et rationem quam secundum naturam et rationem. — Sane tamen hoc intelligendum, ut generaliter poena illa sit maior ista, secundum illam regulam Philosophi[^6]: «Si optimum in uno genere est melius optimo in alio genere, et hoc simpliciter illo melius.» Similiter intelligendum est hic, quod illa sit maior, non quia minima sit maior maxima in hoc genere, sed quia maxima in illo genere maior sit maxima in hoc genere. Sicut enim dicit beatus Gregorius[^7], quibusdam revelatum est, quasdam animas in umbra punitas esse.

Ad hoc autem, quod tenemus, intelligendum aliqui voluerunt assignare rationem naturalem, ostendentes, quod ex natura animae veniret, quod cum anima exuta patitur, per se ipsam patitur secundum se totam, et ideo poena modica est ei gravissima. — Sed hunc modum dicendi non approbat ratio catholica, quae in inferno credit animas gravius puniendas post corpora iam resumta; unde credendum est, quod iusti, qui igne conflagrationis in corpore purgabuntur in die iudicii, gravius punientur — quia brevius, et ideo intensius — quam qui nunc purgantur.

Alii voluerunt assignare rationem partim naturalem, partim supernaturalem. Dixerunt enim, quod animae exutae habent potentias suas expeditas et naturale desiderium habent pertingendi[^8] ad bonum, propter quod sunt creatae; et ulterius, gratia est in eis, quae magis istud desiderium inclinat: et ideo, cum illud bonum sitiant et ab illo retrahantur et quasi incarcerentur, modica poena sensibilis cum hac tristitia est eis maxima. Et pro tanto dicunt, poenam purgatoriam esse maximam. Sicut enim delectationes spirituales sunt intensae multum et praecellunt corporales; ita et tristitia de absentia superexcellit omnem dolorem corporalem[^9]. — Sed certe nec ista ratio bene manuducit, si quis aspiciat. Primum quidem, quia desiderium summi Boni est desiderium, quod habet necessario iunctam secum fruitionem et aliquam realem possessionem; et ideo parit gaudium, unde qui plus desiderat summum Bonum magis ibi delectatur. In hoc enim dissimile est desiderium temporalium et corporalium a desiderio spiritualium, ut ostendit Augustinus in libro Octoginta trium Quaestionum[^10]. Et illud veritatem habet maxime, cum Deus inhabitat per caritatem in anima. Sed secundum istam rationem poena limbi maxima esset et fuisset maxima in sanctis Patribus, ubi creditur fuisse requies sancta. — Ista etiam ratio nihil ad propositum facit, si quis inspiciat, pro eo quod Sancti non de carentia loquuntur, sed de poena afflictiva, sicut de igne sive de flamma purgatoria.

Ideo dicendum, quod ratio huius sumitur ex divina iustitia; et ista est ratio recta, quia quod ignis agat in animam, ut infra[^11] videbitur, non est naturae, sed iustitiae; et ideo, quod magis agat, divinae iustitiae est attribuendum. Quoniam ergo Deus iustus poenam non acceptat, secundum quod punitiva tantum, sed secundum quod plus est in ea ratio ordinis recti; secundum hoc intelligendum, quod est poena assumta et poena inflicta. In poena assumta non tantum placet Deo ordinatio poenae ad culpam, sed ordo et rectitudo quae est in voluntate assumente; in poena inflicta placet[^12] ordinatio poenae ad culpam. Quoniam igitur poena poenitentium in praesenti plus est assumta, poena morientium est inflicta in purgatorio, pro eo quod iam non est tempus agendi, sed recipiendi; ideo modica poena in praesenti plus satisfacit, et magis est de ea contenta divina iustitia quam de magna in futuro;

<!-- page 521 -->

et ideo quasi improportionaliter maiorem exigit, ut ei satisfaciat[^13]. — Exemplum autem potest haberi in istis materialibus debitis. Creditor enim plus acceptat marcam auri quam decem marcas argenti; et poena praesens illi comparata multo pretiosior est in conspectu Dei, quam sit aurum argento in conspectu hominum. — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes probantes, poenam illam graviorem esse.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod reatus non augetur; dicendum, quod verum est. Sed reatus poenae melius solvitur de modica poena assumta quam de multa inflicta.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod quanto magis est passibile, magis patitur[^14]; dicendum, quod illud est verum, ceteris paribus; sed divina virtus, cuius est ille ignis instrumentum, ordinat, ut puniat gravius. — Vel dicendum, quod poena non iudicatur maior et minor secundum laesionem sive passionem, sed secundum sensum passionis, prout sensus refugit illam poenam. Et quoniam spiritus, licet minus laedatur ab igne quam corpus, vivaciorem tamen habet vim sentiendi passionem et iram, maxime refugit, quia hoc contra naturam suam est, non sic contra naturam corporis: ideo, quamvis minus patiatur et minus laedatur, passione[^15] naturali magis punitur et magis dolet; et per hoc patet responsio ad duo ultima.

3. Quod enim dicitur, quod magis punit quod abiicit et transmutat; dicendum, quod falsum est, quia ignis infernalis, qui urit et non consumit, gravius punit quam iste alius ignis, qui utrumque facit.

4. Similiter de alio, quod magis punit quod magis nocet[^16]; dicendum, quod falsum est, quia maior poena est brachium conterere quam etiam amputare, quia remanet ibi sensus et dolor continuus. Sic et in anima, quae nunquam dormit, semper est actualis sensus nocivi et dissensus; ita quod uterque viget, et neuter minuitur, quantum est ex parte spiritus; et ideo dolor est intensus et continuus, ac per hoc gravissimus. Quomodo autem corpus agat in spiritum, infra[^16b] in suo loco dicetur, cum agetur de poenis infernalibus.

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the punishment of purgatory is the greatest of temporal punishments.*

Secondly it is asked whether the punishment of purgatory is the greatest of temporal punishments. And it seems that it is.

1. Augustine, in a certain sermon[^1]: "That fire will be harder than anything one can see, or feel, or imagine as a punishment in this world."

2. Likewise, in the text[^2] he says that "it surpasses every punishment that anyone has ever suffered in this life."

3. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because the weaker someone is, the lesser the punishment with which the punishing judge ought to be content; therefore the stronger he is, the heavier the punishment exacted from him; but a separated spirit is disproportionately stronger than the whole conjoined being, or the whole man; but after this life the spirit is separated: therefore it seems that it is punished more heavily.

4. Likewise, a spirit separated from the flesh always sins more heavily than a spirit united to the flesh; but the evil of punishment is proportioned to the evil of fault, and the evil of fault is always heavier in the separated spirit: therefore by parity of reasoning so too is the evil of punishment.

5. Likewise, the punishment of suffering is greater and heavier than the punishment of compassion; but the stripped soul is punished by the punishment of suffering, the conjoined soul by the punishment of compassion: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, the more universal a punishment is, the heavier it is; but the stripped soul, when it is punished, is punished wholly and according to its whole — for since it is simple, the fire reaches the whole of it — but in the present life scarcely or never does any punishment torment the whole man: therefore that punishment is generally heavier than any temporal punishment.

**On the contrary:**
1. God renders to each according to his merit, whence the punishment corresponds proportionally to the guilt; but when someone dies, the guilt is not intensified: therefore neither ought the punishment be intensified: therefore neither ought it be greater in the future than in the present.

2. Likewise, the more passible a thing is, the more, when joined to the punisher, it suffers and is punished more heavily[^3]; but the conjoined thing is more passible than the soul taken in itself: therefore what is joined suffers more from what afflicts it. Therefore if the conjoined thing is punished in the present, in the future too the separated soul is punished: it is plain, etc.

3. Likewise, greater is the suffering in which the agent is both transmuting and casting out, than where one of these is lacking; but in purgatory the soul is punished in such a way that it is neither transmuted nor is anything cast out of it, whereas in the present life there is a casting-out from the body[^4]: therefore it seems that that punishment is heavier.

4. Likewise, the soul will be more blessed when it is glorified with the body resumed, and likewise more wretched when it is punished with the body resumed: therefore the union of the soul to the body contributes more to the increase of punishment than to its diminution: therefore, conversely, separation contributes more to diminution than to increase: therefore it seems that the separated soul is punished less heavily in purgatory than now, when it is conjoined.

> **Conclusion.** The punishment of purgatory is, in its own kind, heavier than any temporal punishment which the soul joined to the flesh now sustains.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the Master says in the text[^5] and as many of the Saints too say, we must concede, even though no reason appears to us, that the punishment of purgatory is heavier than any temporal punishment which the soul joined to the flesh now sustains. In matters of this kind one must adhere to authority rather than to reason, for the reason that this is more above nature and reason than according to nature and reason. — Yet this is rightly to be understood so that that punishment is generally greater than this, according to that rule of the Philosopher[^6]: "If the best in one kind is better than the best in another kind, then it is also simply better than it." Likewise it is to be understood here, that the one is greater not because the least in this kind would be greater than the greatest, but because the greatest in that kind is greater than the greatest in this kind. For as blessed Gregory[^7] says, it was revealed to certain persons that certain souls were punished in shadow.

Now, with respect to what we hold, some have wished to assign a natural reason, showing that it would come from the nature of the soul that, when the stripped soul suffers, it suffers through its very self according to its whole self, and therefore a slight punishment is most grievous to it. — But this manner of speaking is not approved by Catholic reason, which believes that in hell souls are to be punished more heavily after the bodies are resumed; whence it must be believed that the just, who will be purged in the body by the fire of the conflagration on the day of judgment, will be punished more heavily — because more briefly, and therefore more intensely — than those who are now being purged.

Others have wished to assign a reason partly natural, partly supernatural. For they said that the stripped souls have their powers unhindered and have a natural desire of reaching[^8] the good for which they were created; and further, grace is in them, which inclines them the more toward that desire: and therefore, since they thirst for that good and are drawn back from it and as it were imprisoned, a slight sensible punishment together with this sorrow is the greatest for them. And to this extent they say that the punishment of purgatory is the greatest. For as spiritual delights are very intense and surpass bodily ones, so too the sorrow over the absence surpasses every bodily pain[^9]. — But surely neither does this reason lead well, if one looks closely. First indeed, because the desire of the highest Good is a desire which has necessarily joined to itself fruition and some real possession; and therefore it begets joy, whence whoever desires the highest Good more delights the more therein. For in this the desire of temporal and bodily things is unlike the desire of spiritual things, as Augustine shows in the book *On Eighty-Three Questions*[^10]. And this holds most of all when God dwells through charity in the soul. But according to that reason the punishment of limbo would be the greatest and would have been the greatest in the holy Fathers, where a holy rest is believed to have been. — Moreover, this reason contributes nothing to the matter at hand, if one examines it, for the reason that the Saints do not speak of privation, but of afflictive punishment, as of the fire or of the purgatorial flame.

Therefore it must be said that the reason for this is taken from divine justice; and this is the right reason, because that the fire acts on the soul, as will be seen below[^11], is not a matter of nature, but of justice; and therefore that it acts more is to be attributed to divine justice. Since therefore the just God does not accept punishment insofar as it is punitive only, but insofar as there is in it the further account of right order; according to this it is to be understood that there is punishment assumed and punishment inflicted. In assumed punishment what pleases God is not only the ordering of the punishment to the fault, but the order and rectitude which is in the assuming will; in inflicted punishment what pleases is[^12] the ordering of the punishment to the fault. Since therefore the punishment of the penitent in the present is more assumed, the punishment of the dying is inflicted in purgatory, for the reason that there is no longer a time of acting, but of receiving; therefore a slight punishment in the present satisfies more, and divine justice is more content with it than with a great one in the future;

and therefore as it were disproportionately it exacts a greater one, that it may satisfy it[^13]. — An example, moreover, can be had in these material debts. For a creditor accepts a mark of gold more than ten marks of silver; and the present punishment compared to it is much more precious in the sight of God than gold is to silver in the sight of men. — Therefore the reasons proving that punishment to be heavier are to be conceded.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that the guilt is not increased; it must be said that this is true. But the guilt of punishment is better discharged by a slight assumed punishment than by a great inflicted one.

2. To that which is objected, that the more passible a thing is, the more it suffers[^14]; it must be said that this is true, other things being equal; but the divine power, whose instrument that fire is, ordains that it punish more heavily. — Or it must be said that punishment is judged greater and lesser not according to injury or suffering, but according to the perception of the suffering, insofar as perception shrinks from that punishment. And since the spirit, although it is less injured by the fire than the body, nevertheless has a livelier power of perceiving suffering and wrath, it shrinks the most, because this is against its nature, not so against the nature of the body: therefore, although it suffers less and is injured less, by natural suffering[^15] it is punished more and grieves more; and by this is plain the response to the last two.

3. For as to what is said, that what casts out and transmutes punishes more; it must be said that it is false, because the infernal fire, which burns and does not consume, punishes more heavily than that other fire which does both.

4. Similarly as to the other, that what harms more punishes more[^16]; it must be said that it is false, because it is a greater punishment to crush an arm than even to amputate it, because there sensation and continuous pain remain. So too in the soul, which never sleeps, there is always an actual perception of the harmful thing and a disagreement with it; so that both are vigorous, and neither is diminished, so far as is on the part of the spirit; and therefore the pain is intense and continuous, and thereby most grievous. But how the body acts on the spirit will be told below[^16b] in its place, when treatment is made of the punishments of hell.

---

la: Serm. 104. in appendice (alias 41. de Sanctis), n. 5: «Ille purgatorius ignis durior erit, quam quidquid potest in hoc saeculo poenarum aut cogitari, aut videri, aut sentiri.»

en: Sermon 104 in the appendix (otherwise 41, *On the Saints*), n. 5: "That purgatorial fire will be harder than anything of punishments that can be imagined, or seen, or felt in this world."

la: Hic c. 1, in textu ex libro de *Vera et falsa Poenitentia*. Cfr. Enarrat. in Ps. 37. n. 3.

en: Here c. 1, in the text from the book *On True and False Penitence*. Cf. *Commentary on Psalm 37*, n. 3.

la: Edd. *quis iudicandus*.

en: The editions read *quis iudicandus*.

la: Cfr. infra d. 45. a. 1. q. 2. — De ipsa solut. vide August., Enchirid. c. 109. n. 29.

en: Cf. below d. 45, a. 1, q. 2. — On the solution itself see Augustine, *Enchiridion* c. 109, n. 29.

la: Vide verba Aristot. supra pag. 389, nota 4.

en: See the words of Aristotle above p. 389, note 4.

la: Libr. III. Topic. c. 2.

en: *Topics* Book III, c. 2.

la: Libr. IV. Dialog. c. 36. seq. — Inferius ante *aliqui* Vat. addit *sciendum quod*, ed. 1 et plures codd. *quod*.

en: *Dialogues* Book IV, c. 36 ff. — Further on, before *aliqui*, the Vatican edition adds *sciendum quod*; edition 1 and several codices, *quod*.

la: Cod. I *erigendi se*, cod. L *tendendi*.

en: Codex I reads *erigendi se*; codex L, *tendendi*.

la: Edd. cum multis codd. *corporeum*. Paulo inferius pro *aspiciat* cod. K *inspiciat*.

en: The editions, with many codices, read *corporeum*. A little further on, for *aspiciat* codex K reads *inspiciat*.

la: Quaest. 35. n. 1. seq. Cfr. Gregor., II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 36. n. 1. — Inferius pro *Sed secundum* plures codd. vel *Secundum*, vel cum edd. *Secundum etiam*. Subinde pro *sancta* edd. *facta*.

en: Question 35, n. 1 ff. Cf. Gregory, *Homilies on the Gospels* Book II, homily 36, n. 1. — Further on, for *Sed secundum* several codices read either *Secundum*, or with the editions *Secundum etiam*. Then for *sancta* the editions read *facta*.

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

la: Cod. F *tantum placet*.

en: Codex F reads *tantum placet*.

la: Edd. cum uno alteroque cod. *satisfiat*.

en: The editions, with one or another codex, read *satisfiat*.

la: Cod. U *tanto magis affligitur*.

en: Codex U reads *tanto magis affligitur*.

la: Edd. supplent *tamen*. — Non pauci codd. et ed. 1 incongrue *punitur*.

en: The editions supply *tamen*. — Not a few codices and edition 1 read, incongruously, *punitur*.

la: Ita cod. U, cod. O *plus nocet*, alii minus bene *tantum nocet*, edd. corrupte *unit*.

en: So codex U; codex O reads *plus nocet*; others less well, *tantum nocet*; the editions, corruptly, *unit*.

la: Dist. 44. p. II. a. 3. q. 2. — Pro *et ideo* edd. cum uno alterove cod. *et ille*. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Distinction 44, p. II, a. 3, q. 2. — For *et ideo* the editions, with one or another codex, read *et ille*. — 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 57562–57728), reflowed column-by-column (left then right) and verified against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 519, 520, 521 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{519,520,521}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`; offset pdf = printed + 20). The opener "*Secundo quaeritur, utrum poena purgatoria sit maxima poenarum temporalium*" confirms alignment with QUAESTIO II. The raw page marker `o20` = printed 520; the running head `DIST. XX. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. III. 321` is an OCR digit-mangle of **521** (q2's tail spills onto p. 521; the running head is forward-looking to q3, which begins immediately after at raw line 57729).

**Scholion disposition.** This quaestio renders **no scholion** (`has_scholion: false`). The Articulus Unicus scholion is a single block printed at the top of p. 519 covering the whole article (q1–q6); per the corpus convention it is rendered once, with QUAESTIO I (`bon-sent-IV-d20-p1-a1-q1`). Cross-ref: *Scholion articuli unici (de poena purgatorii) cum q. 1 redditur* / *The Articulus Unicus scholion (on the punishment of purgatory) is rendered with q. 1.*

**Apparatus / page-split map.** 16 footer entries rendered across the three printed pages, matched to body anchors:
- p. 519 footers 2–6 → `[^1]`–`[^4]` (footer 1, *Cfr. infra d. 45*, anchors the obj. "fit abiectio" → rendered as `[^4]`; the page's scholion footers belong to q1).
- p. 520 footers 1–10 → `[^5]`–`[^12]`.
- p. 521 footers 1–6 → `[^13]`–`[^16b]` (footer 7, *Psalm. 32* etc., belongs to QUAESTIO III and is not rendered here). Footer 6 (`[^16b]`) explicitly cross-refers "*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*" and duplicates the d. 44 reference of `[^11]`.

**Cross-chunk hand-off → q3.** QUAESTIO III ("*Utrum poena purgatorii sit voluntaria*") begins at raw line 57729 on printed p. 521 (right column), running head `DIST. XX. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. III.`. Its first footers on p. 521 (footer 7 = *Psalm. 32, 1. Vide I. Sent. d. 48...*, footers 8–10) belong to q3, not here.

**[?] flags.** None. All readings resolved against the PDF bands; OCR garbles (`qnaeritur`, `seraper`, `abieclio`, `o20`, `321`→521, `Enrhirid.`, `palitur`) silently corrected per the OCR-cleanup rules.


title: Dist. 20, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 521 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum poena purgatorii sit voluntaria.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum poena illa sit voluntaria. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia omnis sapiens vult illud, sine quo non potest adipisci desideratum — unde desiderans sanitatem vult secari et uri — sed animae in purgatorio non sunt insipientes et desiderant gloriam et sciunt, se non posse ad eam pervenire nisi per poenae tolerantiam: ergo etc. Si tu dicas, quod hoc non est velle *simpliciter*, sed *sub conditione*; ostenditur, quod simpliciter velint. Cor rectum habet qui voluntatem suam voluntati divinae conformat, ut dicit Ambrosius et Glossa super Psalmum[^1], sicut habitum est in primo; sed iusti in purgatorio habent rectum cor, et Deus vult, ibi esse ipsos: ergo et ipsi volunt, se ibi esse et pati.

2. Item, omnis vere poenitens vult facere emendam sive agendo, sive sustinendo; sed anima, quae moritur vere poenitens, poenitentiam non amittit: ergo vult emendam facere. Sed non potest agendo, ergo patiendo: ergo vult illam poenam pati.

3. Item, omnis qui patitur aliquam poenam et non vult illam pati, iudicatur impatiens et illi est, qui infert, inobediens: ergo cum viri iusti in purgatorio poenam patiantur, si nolunt illam pati, sunt impatientes et inobedientes.

**Contra:**
1. «Voluntarium est illud quod est in ipso cognoscente singularia[^2]»: ergo quod non est a principio intrinseco, sed extrinseco et de necessitate, non de libertate, non habet rationem voluntarii; sed talis est poena purgatoria: ergo etc.

2. Item, nihil, a quo quis desiderat et petit liberari, est voluntarium; si enim esset voluntarium, in eo vellet persistere; sed iusti, qui sunt in purgatorio, petunt et desiderant inde liberari: ergo etc. Minor multis revelationibus nota est, sicut etiam potest probari per quartum Dialogorum[^3].

3. Item, quanto poena acerbior est, si voluntaria est, tanto gloriosius est martyrium; sed poena purgatorii est acerbissima, ut supra[^4] monstratum est: ergo si est voluntaria, videtur, quod omnes qui transeunt purgatorium, martyres iudicandi sunt.

<!-- page 522 -->

### Conclusio

> **Conclusio.** Poena purgatorii minimam habet rationem voluntarii, quia est a voluntate tolerante quidem, sed oppositum desiderante.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliqua poena dicitur tripliciter voluntaria: uno modo, quia assumitur a voluntate *imperante*, sicut est poena poenitentialis; alio modo, quia sustinetur a voluntate *acceptante*, sicut est poena Martyrum, quia[^5] adeo eis placet, quod ab ea liberari non vellent; tertio modo est quaedam poena, quae sustinetur a voluntate *tolerante*, ut puta poena, quae est in patientia, ita quod eius oppositum est in desiderio, sicut cum amans et desiderans sanitatem infirmatur, sustinet quidem infirmitatem tanquam poenam divinitus inflictam, attamen ab ea liberari procurat; et illud minime habet rationem voluntarii. — Hoc modo voluntaria est poena purgatoria in viris iustis, qui voluntarie eam sustinent et desiderant vehementer ad patriam pervenire, et alios sibi auxilium praebere.

Secundum hoc patet responsio ad utramque partem, quoniam rationes ad primam partem probant, illam poenam voluntariam esse hoc modo *tertio*. Rationes vero ad oppositum probant, quod non est voluntaria *primo* modo, vel *secundo*; quod patet discurrendo per singulas. Primae enim omnes rationes currunt secundum voluntatem *tolerantem*, quae Deo se conformat, cum etiam liceat aliquid sibi desiderare, quod et Deus vellet ipsam habere, quantum in se est. Sequentes rationes currunt secundum voluntatem *imperantem*, quae est ab intrinseco; vel secundum *desiderantem*, quae nollet separari a volito[^6], et quae tanto magis delectat, quanto voluntarium, quod obtinet, magis desiderat.

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether the pain of purgatory is voluntary.*

Thirdly it is asked whether that pain is voluntary. And that it is, it seems:

1. Because every wise person wills that without which he cannot attain what is desired — whence one desiring health wills to be cut and burned — but the souls in purgatory are not unwise, and they desire glory and know that they cannot attain it except through the endurance of the pain: therefore etc. If you should say that this is not to will it *absolutely*, but *under a condition*; it is shown that they will it absolutely. He has an upright heart who conforms his will to the divine will, as Ambrose and the Gloss on the Psalm[^1] say, as was held in the first [book]; but the just in purgatory have an upright heart, and God wills them to be there: therefore they too will themselves to be there and to suffer.

2. Likewise, everyone who is truly penitent wills to make amends, whether by acting or by enduring; but a soul which dies truly penitent does not lose penitence: therefore it wills to make amends. But it cannot do so by acting, therefore by enduring: therefore it wills to suffer that pain.

3. Likewise, everyone who suffers some pain and does not will to suffer it is judged impatient, and is disobedient to the one who inflicts it: therefore, since the just men in purgatory suffer pain, if they are unwilling to suffer it, they are impatient and disobedient.

**On the contrary:**
1. «The voluntary is that which is in the one who knows the singulars[^2]»: therefore what is not from an intrinsic principle, but from an extrinsic one and from necessity, not from liberty, does not have the character of the voluntary; but such is the pain of purgatory: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, nothing from which one desires and asks to be freed is voluntary; for if it were voluntary, one would will to persist in it; but the just who are in purgatory ask and desire to be freed from it: therefore etc. The minor is known from many revelations, as can also be proven from the fourth [book] of the *Dialogues*[^3].

3. Likewise, the more bitter a pain is, if it is voluntary, the more glorious the martyrdom; but the pain of purgatory is most bitter, as was shown above[^4]: therefore if it is voluntary, it seems that all who pass through purgatory are to be judged martyrs.

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** The pain of purgatory has the character of the voluntary to the least degree, because it is from a will that indeed tolerates, but that desires the opposite.

**I respond:** It must be said that a pain is called voluntary in three ways: in one way, because it is assumed by a *commanding* will, as is penitential pain; in another way, because it is endured by an *accepting* will, as is the pain of the Martyrs, because[^5] it so pleases them that they would not will to be freed from it; in a third way there is a certain pain which is endured by a *tolerating* will, as for example the pain that is in patience, such that its opposite is in desire, as when one loving and desiring health falls sick: he indeed endures the sickness as a pain divinely inflicted, yet he procures to be freed from it; and that has the character of the voluntary to the least degree. — In this way the pain of purgatory is voluntary in the just men, who voluntarily endure it and vehemently desire to attain the homeland, and to offer help to others.

According to this the response to each side is clear, since the reasons for the first side prove that pain to be voluntary in this *third* way. But the reasons to the opposite prove that it is not voluntary in the *first* way, or in the *second*; which is clear by running through them individually. For all the first reasons proceed according to the *tolerating* will, which conforms itself to God, since it is even permitted to desire something for oneself which God too would will it to have, insofar as it is in itself. The following reasons proceed according to the *commanding* will, which is from within; or according to the *desiring* will, which would not will to be separated from what is willed[^6], and which delights so much the more, the more it desires the voluntary [good] which it obtains.

---

la: Psalm. 32, 1. Vide I. Sent. d. 48. a. 1. q. 2. fundam. 1. (Cfr. ibid. a. 2. q. 2. arg. 2. pro parte affirmat.), ubi nota q. 1. iii adiecta diximus, Glossam depromptam esse ex August. Respectu Ambrosii cfr. l. de Vocatione Gentium (inter opera Ambros.), c. 2, ubi insinuat, voluntatem esse bonam, si diligat quae Deo placent.

en: Psalm 32, 1. See I Sent. d. 48. a. 1. q. 2. fundamentum 1. (Cf. ibid. a. 2. q. 2. arg. 2. on the affirmative side), where in note we said that the Gloss was drawn from Augustine. With respect to Ambrose, cf. the book *On the Vocation of the Gentiles* (among the works of Ambrose), c. 2, where he intimates that the will is good if it loves the things that please God.

la: Aristol., III. Ethic. c. 1. Vide tom. II. pag. 592, nota 3. — Pro *quod est in ipso* in cod. E secunda manus cum textu originali *cuius principium est in ipso* [supple cum originali *qui agit*].

en: Aristotle, *Nicomachean Ethics* III, c. 1. See tom. II, p. 592, note 3. — For *which is in him* in codex E a second hand, with the original text, has *whose principle is in him* [supply, with the original, *who acts*].

la: Scil. Gregorii, c. 40. et 53.

en: Namely [the fourth book] of Gregory['s *Dialogues*], c. 40 and 53.

la: Quaest. praeced.

en: The preceding question.

la: Codd. F G I K *quae*.

en: Codices F, G, I, K read *quae*.

la: Codd. F G I *quae vellet separari a nolito* [plures alii codd. habent *a nolito*]. Mox post *quanto* cod. aa addit *magis*.

en: Codices F, G, I read *which would will to be separated from what is not willed* [several other codices have *from what is not willed*]. Soon after *quanto*, codex aa adds *magis*.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 57729–57812, verified column-by-column against the 450-dpi PDF bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p521-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `vol4-p522-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (offset pdf = printed + 20). The OCR for this quaestio is heavily cascade-shattered (two-column bleed; Respondeo and Contra args fragmented), so the column-band PDF read is authoritative per the VOL II OVERRIDE. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Scholion.** This Articulus Unicus has a single scholion attached to QUAESTIO I (`bon-sent-IV-d20-p1-a1-q1`); its §III addresses q2/q3. No scholion renders here (`has_scholion: false`). — La.: *Scholion ad q. 1 huius articuli unici (q1–q6 communis); vide bon-sent-IV-d20-p1-a1-q1.* En.: The scholion for this article is at q. 1 (common to q1–q6); see `bon-sent-IV-d20-p1-a1-q1`.

**Page split / footer accounting.**
- p. 521: q3 opens at the foot of the left column (QUAESTIO III) and the videtur/Contra arguments run down the right column. The right-column footer sequence on p. 521 carries footnotes **8, 9, 10** for q3 (Aristotle *Ethics*[^2], Gregory's *Dialogues*[^3], the preceding question[^4]); footnotes **1–7** on p. 521 belong to the prior chunk q2 (already captured in `bon-sent-IV-d20-p1-a1-q2`).
- p. 522: the CONCLUSIO + Respondeo of q3 occupy the upper left and right columns; QUAESTIO IV opens mid-left-column. The p. 522 footer sequence is shared at the page boundary: footnotes **1, 2, 3** serve q3's Respondeo (*quae* variant[^5]; *a volito/a nolito* variant[^6]; "Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest." — folded into the q1 scholion cross-ref above and not separately anchored), while footnotes **4–8** belong to q4 ("incurrit ille", Aristotle *Posterior Analytics*, Mark/Isaiah, etc.) and migrate to `bon-sent-IV-d20-p1-a1-q4`.

**Hand-off forwarded to q4.** QUAESTIO IV ("Utrum in poena purgatorii sit minor certitudo de gloria quam in via") opens on p. 522 left column after q3's Respondeo and runs onto p. 523; it opens its own per-page footer sequence but inherits p. 522 footers **4–8**.

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Notable silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands: Contra arg 1 *Voluntarium est illud quod est in ipso cognoscente singularia* (OCR `Vohmtarium … cognoscente singularia^` with garbled marginal rubric *p... negativa* = the side-gloss *Pro parte negativa*, omitted per corpus convention); Respondeo *a voluntate imperante / acceptante / tolerante* and *separari a volito* (OCR `vohto^`). The marginal rubrics in the columns (*Pro parte negativa.*, *Poena tripliciter voluntaria.*, *Notandum.*) are editorial side-notes, omitted from the body.