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

title_alt: Utrum Sacramentum poenitentiae fuerit institutum

title_alt: Whether the Sacrament of penance was instituted

source_text:
<!-- page 578 -->

### Articulus II. *De poenitentia in ratione Sacramenti.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundam partem distinctionis quaeritur de poenitentia in ratione Sacramenti. Et cum ad rationem Sacramenti duo concurrant, scilicet institutio et significatio, de quibus duobus in littera[^1] agitur; ideo circa hoc duo quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de poenitentia quantum ad institutionem.

Secundo, quantum ad significationem.

### Quaestio I. *De Sacramento poenitentiae quoad institutionem.*

Quantum ad primum quaeritur, utrum Sacramentum poenitentiae fuerit institutum. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Ita definit Hugo[^2] Sacramentum: « Sacramentum est ex similitudine repraesentans, ex institutione significans » etc.: si ergo poenitentia est Sacramentum, patet etc.

2. Item, sicut Dominus praecepit baptizari, ita praecepit poenitentiam agere, sicut patet Matthaei quarto[^3]; et sicut dicitur Ioannis tertio: *Nisi quis renatus fuerit* etc., ita dicitur Lucae decimo tertio: *Si poenitentiam non egeritis, omnes similiter peribitis*: ergo sicut praecipiendo baptizari instituit baptismatis Sacramentum, ita praecipiendo poenitere instituit Sacramentum poenitentiae.

3. Item, modus agendi poenitentiam in veteri lege fuit praefixus, sicut patet Levitici quarto et quinto[^4]; similiter in nova secundum sacerdotis arbitrium; sed talis modus non est ex naturae dictamine: ergo est ex institutione.

**Contra:** 1. Hugo de sancto Victore[^5] dicit, quod in lege naturae nullum Sacramentum institutum est « sub praecepto, sed solum sub consilio »; sed poenitentia in lege naturae fuit sub praecepto, quia nemo sine ea unquam salvari potuit: ergo non fuit instituta.

2. Item, nullum Sacramentum indiget institutione, quod est ex naturali dictamine; sed poenitentia est ex naturali dictamine, quia naturaliter[^6] dictat ratio, quod peccans et offendens debet per poenitentiae humilitatem reconciliari: ergo etc.

3. Item, omne Sacramentum, quod institutum est, variatum est; sed poenitentia semper fuit ab initio usque nunc, quantum ad contritionem et satisfactionem saltem: ergo non videtur per legem institutum.

Item, si institutum est Sacramentum, quaeritur, ubi et a quo. Si ibi, ubi dicitur, Matthaei quarto[^7]: *Agite poenitentiam*; similiter institutum potest dici a Ioanne, qui praedicavit: *Poenitentiam agite*, Matthaei tertio. Si ibi, Matthaei octavo: *Vade, et ostende te sacerdotibus*; sed constat, quod intelligebatur de sacerdotibus legalibus. Si ibi: *Quorum remiseritis peccata*, Ioannis vigesimo; sed contra: ibi est institutum quod est ordinis sacerdotalis.

> **Conclusio.** Poenitentiae Sacramentum, quatenus est reconciliativum Deo, iam ante Legem aliquatenus insinuatum fuit; sed quatenus proprie est Sacramentum, a Domino est institutum et quoad materiale per Apostolos promulgatum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod de poenitentia est loqui dupliciter: aut prout est reconciliativa Deo, aut prout est non solum reconciliativa Deo, sed etiam Ecclesiae. Si loquamur de ipsa, prout Deo reconciliat, sic est de dictamine legis naturalis, quae dictat conteri de peccato et humiliari debere, cum aliqua illustratione fidei[^8]; et sic tale sacramentale potius habuit insinuationem quam institutionem; eo enim quod natura dictabat, insinuari sufficiebat.

<!-- page 579 -->

Et aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod insinuatum fuit ante lapsum in illo verbo, Genesis secundo[^9]: *In quacumque die comederitis* etc. Sed illud verbum videtur potius minari supplicium quam instituere remedium. Et iterum, cum poenitentia sit in remedium de sua institutione primaria, non videtur competens eius institutio, nisi ex quo coepit peccatum.

Et ideo est alia positio et melior, quod Dominus tunc insinuavit et instituit, quando post peccatum Adam vocavit, Genesis tertio[^1b]: *Ubi es?* ubi dicit Glossa, quod monebat eum redire ad cor, iuxta illud propheticum: *Redite, praevaricatores, ad cor*: et multae Glossae, quae ibi ponuntur, hoc innuunt. Et sic patet, quod poenitentia, prout fuit Sacramentum reconcilians Deo, ibi fuit insinuatum, quantum pro illo tempore sufficiebat; et illa insinuatio cum naturali dictamine sufficiebat loco institutionis.

Est et alio modo loqui de poenitentia, secundum quod est Sacramentum Ecclesiae; et sic habuit institutionem in lege scripta, sive Moysaica, sive evangelica. In lege Moysaica, quia nondum erat unitas perfecta nec perfecta reconciliatio, institutionem habuit secundum imperfectionem, scilicet quantum ad quandam generalitatem in determinatione oblationum, quae erant loco confessionis et satisfactionis. In lege autem nova, ubi unitas ecclesiastica est perfecta et reconciliatio plena, instituta fuit secundum statum perfectionis, et quantum ad formale, quod est absolutio sacerdotalis et ligatio, et quantum ad materiale, quod est quidem lucida et aperta confessio non solum in generali, verum etiam in speciali. Et primum Dominus instituit per se et promulgavit, scilicet clavium potestatem, Ioannis vigesimo[^2b], post resurrectionem. Secundum vero institutum fuit per Apostolos, vel, ut melius dicam, promulgatum, quia Dominus Apostolos docuit, et ipsi a Domino docti et auctoritate ab ipso accepta, immo eius auctoritate promulgaverunt. Non enim nobis tradiderunt nisi quod a Domino, vel a Domini Spiritu acceperunt. — Et sic patet, quando et quomodo et ubi et a quo institutum est hoc Sacramentum. — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes hoc probantes.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non fuit institutum in lege naturae; dicendum, quod proprie institutum non fuit praecepto disciplinae, vel praecepto sacramentali, sed magis ex praecepto naturali, ad quod illuminabat excitatio et visitatio Dei, qua homines increpavit in signo audibili et increpat spiritualiter per dolorem in lectulo et omnia ossa hominis marcescere facit[^3b].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est ex naturali dictamine; dicendum, quod verum concludit secundum illam acceptionem; attamen, quia natura per se non sufficit, patet etc.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est variatum; dicendum, quod in quantum est Sacramentum Ecclesiae, variatum est; et lex scripta aliquid addidit[^4b] supra illud quod erat naturalis dictaminis, et lex evangelica illud additum non evacuavit, immo magis implevit in addendo additione perfecta. — Quod quaeritur, ubi et a quo sit institutum, iam patet ex praedictis.

english:
### Article II. *On penance in its character as a Sacrament.*

Consequently, as to the second part of the distinction, inquiry is made concerning penance in its character as a Sacrament. And since two things concur toward the character of a Sacrament, namely institution and signification, of which two the text treats[^1], therefore concerning this two things are asked.

First it is asked concerning penance as to its institution.

Second, as to its signification.

### Question I. *On the Sacrament of penance as to its institution.*

As to the first it is asked whether the Sacrament of penance was instituted. And that it was, is shown.

1. Thus does Hugh[^2] define a Sacrament: « A Sacrament is that which by likeness represents, [and] by institution signifies » etc.: if therefore penance is a Sacrament, it is clear etc.

2. Likewise, just as the Lord commanded [men] to be baptized, so He commanded [them] to do penance, as is clear from Matthew, chapter four[^3]; and as it is said in John, chapter three: *Unless one be reborn* etc., so it is said in Luke, chapter thirteen: *If you do not do penance, you shall all likewise perish*: therefore just as by commanding to be baptized He instituted the Sacrament of baptism, so by commanding to repent He instituted the Sacrament of penance.

3. Likewise, the manner of doing penance in the Old Law was prescribed, as is clear from Leviticus, chapter four and five[^4]; likewise in the New [Law] according to the priest's judgment; but such a manner is not from the dictate of nature: therefore it is from institution.

**On the contrary:** 1. Hugh of Saint Victor[^5] says that in the law of nature no Sacrament was instituted « under a precept, but only under a counsel »; but penance in the law of nature was under a precept, since no one was ever able to be saved without it: therefore it was not instituted.

2. Likewise, no Sacrament that is from the natural dictate needs institution; but penance is from the natural dictate, since reason naturally[^6] dictates that one who sins and offends ought to be reconciled through the humility of penance: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, every Sacrament that was instituted has been varied; but penance has always existed from the beginning until now, at least as to contrition and satisfaction: therefore it does not seem to have been instituted through the law.

Likewise, if the Sacrament was instituted, it is asked where and by whom. If there, where it is said, in Matthew four[^7]: *Do penance*; likewise it can be said to have been instituted by John, who preached: *Do penance*, Matthew three. If there, in Matthew eight: *Go, and show yourself to the priests*; but it is agreed that this was understood of the legal priests. If there: *Whose sins you shall remit*, John twenty; but on the contrary: there is instituted that which belongs to the priestly order.

> **Conclusion.** The Sacrament of penance, inasmuch as it is reconciliative to God, was already before the Law in some measure intimated; but inasmuch as it is properly a Sacrament, it was instituted by the Lord and, as to its material element, promulgated through the Apostles.

**I respond:** It must be said that penance may be spoken of in two ways: either as it is reconciliative to God, or as it is not only reconciliative to God, but also to the Church. If we speak of it as it reconciles to God, thus it is from the dictate of the natural law, which dictates that one ought to be contrite over sin and to be humbled, with some illumination of faith[^8]; and thus such a sacramental had rather an intimation than an institution; for by the very fact that nature dictated [it], to be intimated sufficed.

<!-- page 579 -->

And some have wished to say that it was intimated before the fall in that word, Genesis two[^9]: *In whatever day you shall eat* etc. But that word seems rather to threaten punishment than to institute a remedy. And again, since penance is [given] as a remedy by its primary institution, its institution does not seem fitting except from the point when sin began.

And therefore there is another and better position, [namely] that the Lord then intimated and instituted [it], when after [his] sin He called Adam, Genesis three[^1b]: *Where are you?* where the Gloss says that He was admonishing him to return to [his] heart, according to that prophetic word: *Return, transgressors, to the heart*: and many Glosses which are placed there suggest this. And thus it is clear that penance, as it was a Sacrament reconciling to God, was there intimated, as much as sufficed for that time; and that intimation together with the natural dictate sufficed in place of institution.

There is also another way of speaking of penance, according as it is a Sacrament of the Church; and thus it had its institution in the written law, whether Mosaic or evangelical. In the Mosaic law, since there was not yet perfect unity nor perfect reconciliation, it had its institution according to [that] imperfection, namely as to a certain generality in the determination of the oblations, which were in place of confession and satisfaction. But in the new law, where ecclesiastical unity is perfect and reconciliation full, it was instituted according to the state of perfection, both as to the formal [element], which is priestly absolution and binding, and as to the material [element], which is indeed a clear and open confession not only in general, but also in particular. And the first the Lord instituted through Himself and promulgated, namely the power of the keys, John twenty[^2b], after the resurrection. But the second was instituted through the Apostles, or, that I may say it better, promulgated, since the Lord taught the Apostles, and they, taught by the Lord and by the authority received from Him, indeed by His authority promulgated [it]. For they handed down to us nothing except what they received from the Lord, or from the Spirit of the Lord. — And thus it is clear when and how and where and by whom this Sacrament was instituted. — The reasons proving this are therefore to be granted.

1. To that which is objected, that it was not instituted in the law of nature; it must be said that properly it was not instituted by a precept of discipline, or by a sacramental precept, but rather from a natural precept, upon which the excitation and visitation of God shed light, whereby He rebuked men by an audible sign and rebukes [them] spiritually through the pain in the bed, and makes all the bones of a man to waste away[^3b].

2. To that which is objected, that it is from the natural dictate; it must be said that this concludes truly according to that acceptation; nevertheless, since nature by itself does not suffice, it is clear etc.

3. To that which is objected, that it has not been varied; it must be said that inasmuch as it is a Sacrament of the Church, it has been varied; and the written law added something[^4b] over that which was of the natural dictate, and the evangelical law did not void that addition, but rather fulfilled it more fully in adding by a perfect addition. — As to what is asked, where and by whom it was instituted, this is now clear from what has been said.

la: Hic c. 2.

en: Here c. 2.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 2. Cfr. supra pag. 13, nota 2. — Cod. aa *Sacramentum est materiale elementum, ex sanctificatione gratiam invisibilem conferens, ex similitudine* etc.

en: [Hugh of St. Victor,] Book I *On the Sacraments*, p. IX, c. 2. Cf. above p. 13, note 2. — Codex aa [reads] *A Sacrament is a material element, conferring the invisible grace from sanctification, by likeness* etc.

la: Vers. 17: *Exinde coepit Iesus praedicare et dicere: Poenitentiam agite* etc. Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. in fine locc. de baptismo. — Seq. locus est Ioan. 3, 5; tertius Luc. 13, 5.

en: Verse 17: *From then Jesus began to preach and to say: Do penance* etc. Cf. above d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. at the end of the passages on baptism. — The following passage is John 3, 5; the third is Luke 13, 5.

la: In c. 4. agitur de modo offerendi hostias pro peccato sacerdotis, principis et multitudinis per ignorantiam commisso; in c. 5. pro peccato ex silentio veritatis etc.

en: In c. 4 there is treated the manner of offering victims for the sin of a priest, a prince, and the multitude committed through ignorance; in c. 5, for sin arising from the silencing of the truth etc.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 3. et 4. Cfr. supra d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. — De minori vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, et supra d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Book I *On the Sacraments*, p. XI, c. 3 and 4. Cf. above d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. — On the minor [premise] see here the Master's text, c. 2, and above d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.

la: Cod. G *naturalis*. Mox pro *peccans* cod. A *excedens*.

en: Codex G [reads] *naturalis* [natural]. Presently, for *peccans* [one who sins], codex A [reads] *excedens* [one who transgresses].

la: Vers. 17. — Seq. locus est ibid. 3, 2; tertius ibid. 8, 4: *Vade, ostende te sacerdoti*; quartus Ioan. 20, 23.

en: Verse 17. — The following passage is ibid. 3, 2; the third ibid. 8, 4: *Go, show yourself to the priest*; the fourth John 20, 23.

la: Vide supra d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. — Pro *cum* Vat. *tamen*. Mox pro *sacramentale* codd. E L M T U *Sacramentum*.

en: See above d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. in the body. — For *cum* the Vatican [edition reads] *tamen*. Presently, for *sacramentale* codices E L M T U [read] *Sacramentum*.

la: Vers. 17: *In quocumque enim die comederis* etc. [Attingitur peccatum, respectu cuius est poenitentia].

en: Verse 17: *For in whatever day you shall eat* etc. [The sin is touched upon, in respect of which penance exists].

la: Vers. 9. — De Glossa cfr. supra pag. 435, nota 1. Vide etiam Glossam apud Strabum et Lyranum in v. 10. seq., sumtam ex Gregor., II. *Moral.* c. 8. n. 6, et Isidor., *Quaestiones in Gen.* c. 5. n. 3, ubi dicitur, Deum his verbis vocasse Adamum ad poenitentiam. — Seq. locus est Isai. 46, 8.

en: Verse 9. — On the Gloss cf. above p. 435, note 1. See also the Gloss in Strabo and Lyra at v. 10 and following, taken from Gregory, II *Morals*, c. 8, n. 6, and Isidore, *Questions on Genesis*, c. 5, n. 3, where it is said that God by these words called Adam to penance. — The following passage is Isaiah 46, 8.

la: Vers. 22. seq. — De praecedentibus et seqq. cfr. supra d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. et 3. — Superius pro *quidem* edd. cum pluribus codd. *quaedam*.

en: Verse 22 and following. — On the preceding [words] and those following cf. above d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 2 and 3. — Above, for *quidem* the editions with several codices [read] *quaedam*.

la: Iob 33, 19, ubi Vulgata *eius* pro *hominis*.

en: Job 33, 19, where the Vulgate [reads] *eius* [his] for *hominis* [of a man].

la: Ita codd. I K; in aliis et edd. *addit*.

en: So codices I K; in the others and the editions, *addit* [it adds].

latin_scholion:
**I.** « Dominus autem Sacramentum poenitentiae tunc praecipue instituit, cum, a mortuis excitatus, insufflavit in discipulos suos, dicens: *Accipite Spiritum S.* etc. » (Concil. Trident. Sess. XIV. c. 1.). Consulto dixerunt patres Concilii *praecipue*, cum plures partes huius Sacramenti etiam aliis temporibus vel praeceptae, vel saltem insinuatae sint. Hinc secundum Alex. Hal. (S. p. IV. q. li. m. 1. a. 2. § 4.) Salvator utilitatem poenitentiae insinuavit in principio suae praedicationis (Matth. 4, 17.); necessitatem vero eiusdem Luc. 13, 5; similiter potestas clavium Petro fuit saltem promissa Matth. 16, 19; denique post resurrectionem institutio fuit consummata. Idem ita concludit: « Et sic poenitentia secundum suam integritatem habuit diversis institui temporibus, opportunitatibus et locis, secundum quod Ecclesiae progressui congruebat ». Similia docent S. Thom. aliique communiter. — In hac quaestione vera mens S. Bonav. quoad usum vocabuli *instituere* manifestatur, ut supra d. 18. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. in scholio observatum est. De eadem quaestione praeter Alexandrum: Scot., IV. Sent. d. 2. q. 1. n. 4, d. 17. q. unica n. 29. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3; S. III. q. 84. a. 7. — B. Albert., hic a. 10. 14. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 5. — Durand., supra d. 14. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2.

**II.** Quoad 2. quaestionem notanda est doctrina Concilii Florent. (Decret. pro Armenis) et Trident. (Sess. XIV. c. 3.), quae plura determinat: 1. « Sunt autem *quasi materia* huius Sacramenti ipsius poenitentis actus, nempe contritio, confessio et satisfactio; qui, quatenus in poenitente ad *integritatem* Sacramenti ad plenamque et perfectam peccatorum remissionem ex Dei institutione requiruntur, poenitentiae *partes* dicuntur » (Trident. loc. cit.). In aliis enim Sacramentis, exceptis poenitentia et matrimonio, actus Sacramentum *suscipientis* manifeste non sunt *partes* ipsius, sed tantum *dispositio*. — 2. Poenitentiae *forma*, « in qua praecipue ipsius Sacramenti *vis sita est*, in illis verbis posita est: *Ego te absolvo* » (ibid.). Non pauci, etiam inter eos qui non sequuntur sententiam Scoti mox referendam, virtuti clavium et absolutioni, quippe quae sit *forma*, totam vim Sacramenti tribuunt. Huic opinioni favent etiam verba S. Thomae in uno loco (S. III. q. 89. a. 1. ad 3.) et verba S. Bonav. (hic in corp.): « *Ratio causalitatis* residet penes id quod *formale* est »; qui similia habet supra d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. Tamen utriusque verba facile explicari possunt in sensu non ita exclusivo.

<!-- page 580 -->

— 3. « *Res* et effectus huius Sacramenti, quantum ad eius vim et efficaciam pertinet, reconciliatio est cum Deo » (ibid.).

**III.** Haec ab omnibus Catholicis recepta sunt; sed in explicando modo, quo *actus poenitentis* concurrant ad Sacramentum, ut est signum efficax, et quo sint *quasi materia* et *partes* eiusdem, Scot. a Magistro aliisque antiquis disertis verbis recedit (supra d. 14. q. 4. n. 3, d. 16. q. 1. n. 7.) nec concedit, hos actus proprie *partes* essentiales huius Sacramenti dici posse, cum *essentia* eiusdem consistat in *sola absolutione*; tamen confessionem et contritionem *omnino* requiri asserit, et hoc sensu vocari [a Conciliis] *materiam* aut *quasi materiam* proximam poenitentiae. — Hanc opinionem sequuntur praeter nonnullos extra hanc scholam theologos plurimi Scotistae, sed non omnes; quorum quidam (ut Mastrius) Scotum sic explicare nituntur, ut inter utramque opinionem ipsa re non sit nisi lis de nomine; ita tamen ut modus loquendi antiquus sit tutior. — Quidquid autem sit de probabilitate huius opinionis, manifestum est et a commentatore Scoti (ed. Waddingi) conceditur, Alexandrum et S. Bonav. sequi doctrinam Magistri (cfr. etiam supra d. 16. p. I. dub. 1.); nihilominus cum Hauzeur (Collatio etc. II. col. 747 seq.) alii pauci utrumque ad partes Scoti trahere frustra voluerunt. Nec obstat, quod auctor noster passim istos actus nominet partes Sacramenti *integrales*; eodem enim vocabulo utitur respectu materiae et formae *omnium* Sacramentorum (Breviloq. p. VI. c. 7. 8. 11. et alibi). De tribus, quae sunt in Sacramentis (*res tantum, signum tantum, res et signum*) cfr. d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. 2. et infra d. 26. a. 2. q. 1. — Etiam S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2.) docet, quod « interior poenitentia est *res* exterioris poenitentiae, sed ut *significata tantum* per actus poenitentis, ut *significata* autem *et causata* per actus eosdem, *adiuncta absolutione* ministri, per quam aliquo modo ad gratiam disponitur ». Hanc autem causalitatem actuum humanorum S. Bonav. extendit tantum ad *poenam*, non ad ipsam *culpam* delendam, secundum suum modum loquendi supra d. 18. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. in scholio explicatum. Hinc *signum tantum* est exterior poenitentia (confessio iuncta contritioni), *res et signum* interior poenitentia; quia, ut aliquid sit *signum* simul et *res*, non est necesse, quod res semper *efficienter fiat* a signo, sed sufficit, ut ab eo *significetur*.

**IV.** De eadem quaestione praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 2. a. 1. 2. — S. Thom., loc. cit.; S. III. q. 84. a. 1. ad 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** « But the Lord instituted the Sacrament of penance chiefly then, when, raised from the dead, He breathed upon His disciples, saying: *Receive the Holy Spirit* etc. » (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 1). The Fathers of the Council said "*chiefly*" deliberately, since several parts of this Sacrament were at other times also either commanded, or at least intimated. Hence, according to Alexander of Hales (Summa, p. IV, q. li, m. 1, a. 2, § 4), the Savior intimated the utility of penance at the beginning of His preaching (Matt. 4, 17); its necessity, however, [in] Luke 13, 5; likewise the power of the keys was at least promised to Peter, Matt. 16, 19; finally after the resurrection the institution was consummated. The same [author] concludes thus: « And thus penance according to its integrity came to be instituted at diverse times, occasions, and places, according as it suited the progress of the Church ». S. Thomas and the others commonly teach similar things. — In this question the true mind of S. Bonaventure as to the use of the word *to institute* is made manifest, as was observed above at d. 18, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, in the scholion. On the same question, besides Alexander: Scotus, IV Sent. d. 2, q. 1, n. 4, d. 17, q. unica, n. 29. — S. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 3; Summa III, q. 84, a. 7. — B. Albert, here a. 10, 14. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1, 5. — Durandus, above d. 14, q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 2.

**II.** As to the 2nd question, the doctrine of the Council of Florence (Decree for the Armenians) and of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 3) is to be noted, which determines many things: 1. « Now the acts of the penitent himself, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction, are as it were the *matter* of this Sacrament; which, inasmuch as by God's institution they are required in the penitent for the *integrity* of the Sacrament and for the full and perfect remission of sins, are called *parts* of penance » (Trent, loc. cit.). For in the other Sacraments, penance and matrimony excepted, the acts of the one *receiving* the Sacrament are manifestly not *parts* of it, but only a *disposition*. — 2. The *form* of penance, « in which chiefly the *power* of the Sacrament itself *is situated*, is placed in those words: *I absolve you* » (ibid.). Not a few, even among those who do not follow the opinion of Scotus soon to be reported, attribute the whole power of the Sacrament to the power of the keys and to absolution, inasmuch as it is the *form*. To this opinion favor also the words of S. Thomas in one place (Summa III, q. 89, a. 1, ad 3) and the words of S. Bonaventure (here in the body): « The *ground of causality* resides in that which is *formal* »; who has similar things above d. 17, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. Yet the words of both can easily be explained in a sense not so exclusive.

<!-- page 580 -->

— 3. « The *thing* and effect of this Sacrament, as far as pertains to its power and efficacy, is reconciliation with God » (ibid.).

**III.** These things have been received by all Catholics; but in explaining the manner in which the *acts of the penitent* concur toward the Sacrament, as it is an efficacious sign, and in which they are as it were the *matter* and *parts* of the same, Scotus recedes from the Master and the other ancients in express words (above d. 14, q. 4, n. 3, d. 16, q. 1, n. 7), and does not concede that these acts can properly be called essential *parts* of this Sacrament, since the *essence* of it consists in *absolution alone*; yet he asserts that confession and contrition are *altogether* required, and that in this sense they are called [by the Councils] the *matter* or as it were the proximate *matter* of penance. — This opinion is followed, besides some theologians outside this school, by very many Scotists, but not all; some of whom (like Mastrius) strive to explain Scotus in such a way that between the two opinions there is in reality nothing but a dispute about a name; yet in such wise that the ancient manner of speaking is the safer. — But whatever be [the case] concerning the probability of this opinion, it is manifest, and is conceded by the commentator on Scotus (Wadding's edition), that Alexander and S. Bonaventure follow the doctrine of the Master (cf. also above d. 16, p. I, dub. 1); nevertheless, with Hauzeur (Collatio etc. II, col. 747 seq.) a few others have vainly wished to draw both to the side of Scotus. Nor does it stand in the way that our author here and there names these acts *integral* parts of the Sacrament; for he uses the same word with respect to the matter and form of *all* the Sacraments (Breviloquium p. VI, c. 7, 8, 11, and elsewhere). On the three things which are in the Sacraments (*thing only, sign only, thing and sign*) cf. d. 8, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, 2, and below d. 26, a. 2, q. 1. — S. Thomas also (here q. 2, a. 1, little-question 2) teaches that « interior penance is the *thing* [res] of exterior penance, but as *signified only* through the acts of the penitent, [and] as *signified* moreover *and caused* through the same acts, *with the absolution* of the minister adjoined, through which one is in some manner disposed toward grace ». But this causality of human acts S. Bonaventure extends only to the *punishment*, not to the destroying of the *fault* itself, according to his manner of speaking explained above d. 18, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, in the scholion. Hence the *sign only* is the exterior penance (confession joined to contrition), the *thing and sign* the interior penance; because, for something to be at once *sign* and *thing*, it is not necessary that the thing always be *efficiently produced* by the sign, but it suffices that it be *signified* by it.

**IV.** On the same question, besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., m. 2, a. 1, 2. — S. Thomas, loc. cit.; Summa III, q. 84, a. 1, ad 3. — B. Albert, here a. 5, 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1, 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2, 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{578,579,580}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 63312–63523) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF column bands are authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/scholion/footer regions. Offset pdf = printed + 20. Running heads confirmed: p. 578 top "578 ... SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (verso; the ARTICULUS II opener + QUAESTIO I header fill the upper page); p. 579 "DIST. XXII. ART. II. QUAEST. I. 579" (recto — confirms this page); p. 580 "580 ... SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (verso). The band L-column crops truncate a few characters at the right margin of the left column; those spots were completed from the IA OCR, which is intact there.

**Chunk boundaries.** This chunk owns the ARTICULUS II opener (raw L63312, "Consequenter quantum ad secundam partem…") folded into QUAESTIO I (raw L63321), through QUAESTIO I's Respondeo/Solutio and the full ARTICULUS II Scholion (§§I–IV). Per the locked Vol II/IV convention (verified in the sibling a1-q1), the short article opener is folded into the article's q1 — no standalone `d22-a2-divisio` chunk. **The chunk ends where QUAESTIO II ("De Sacramento poenitentiae quoad significationem", OCR `QMESTIO II.` at raw L63524, on printed p. 580) begins** — the q1/q2 boundary. Everything from the QUAEST II header onward (the QUAESTIO II title, its fundamenta, CONCLUSIO, Respondeo, replies, and p. 580's/p. 581's footers) belongs to the a2-q2 chunk.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 578 (verso, "578 ... SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."): ARTICULUS II header + opener; QUAESTIO I header + "Quantum ad primum quaeritur… videtur" opener; affirmative args 1–3 (marginal rubric *Fundamenta.*); *Contra* 1–3 + the unnumbered "Item, si institutum est Sacramentum, quaeritur, ubi et a quo…" inquiry (marginal *Ad oppositum.*); CONCLUSIO; the first Respondeo paragraph. The p. 578/579 break falls inside the second Respondeo paragraph, mid-word ("Genesis secundo: In qua-|cumque die comederitis"); the `<!-- page 579 -->` marker is placed at the head of that paragraph.
- p. 579 (recto, "DIST. XXII. ART. II. QUAEST. I. 579"): Respondeo continuation (the Genesis 3 / *Ubi es?* passage; the Mosaic-vs-evangelical institution; clavium potestas) and the three replies (*Solutio oppositorum*, marginal *Notandum.* / *Ad quaestiones.*); then the SCHOLION begins (§I "Dominus autem…" + doctor-list, §II "Quoad 2. quaestionem…" council determinations 1–2). The p. 579/580 break falls inside §II, mid-word ("in sensu non ita exclu-|sivo. — 3. Res et effectus…"); the `<!-- page 580 -->` marker is placed before council-determination 3.
- p. 580 (verso, "580 ... SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."): scholion §II tail (determination 3, "Res et effectus… reconciliatio est cum Deo"), §III ("Haec ab omnibus Catholicis recepta sunt… Scotus/Mastrius/Hauzeur/Waddingi/Breviloquium/*De tribus*/S. Thomas *interior poenitentia*"), §IV (q2 doctor-list ending "Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2."); then QUAESTIO II opens (a2-q2). No footnote markers occur in the scholion; p. 580's footer block belongs entirely to QUAESTIO II (a2-q2).

**Apparatus footer-ownership (13 entries, all anchored in this q1's body).**
- p. 578 (9 footers, `^1`–`^9`): `^1` *littera* Magistri c. 2 (article opener); `^2` Hugh, *de Sacram.* p. IX (arg 1); `^3` Matt. 4, 17 chain (arg 2); `^4` Levit. 4–5 (arg 3); `^5` Hugh of St. Victor, *de Sacram.* p. XI (Contra 1); `^6` cod. var. *naturalis* (Contra 2); `^7` Matt./John scriptural chain (the "ubi et a quo" inquiry); `^8` d. 17 cross-ref + *cum/tamen* + *sacramentale* var. (Respondeo, *illustratione fidei*); `^9` Gen. 2/3, 17 *In quocumque die* (Respondeo). All nine anchor on p. 578 within this q1.
- p. 579 (4 footers, `^1b`–`^4b`): `^1b` Gen. 3, 9 *Ubi es?* + Gloss/Gregory/Isidore (Respondeo); `^2b` John 20, 22 seq. clavium (Respondeo); `^3b` Job 33, 19 *marcescere facit* var. (reply 1); `^4b` codd. I K / *addit* var. (reply 3). All four anchor on p. 579 within this q1.

**Scholion disposition (TASK DEVIATION — flagged).** The task brief instructed `has_scholion: false` ("d.22's only scholion is in a1-q1"). **On the source this is incorrect, and I have overridden it to `has_scholion: true`.** There are TWO scholia in d.22: one for Articulus I (raw L63136, rendered in the a1-q1 chunk — see its `has_scholion: true`) and a distinct one for **Articulus II** (OCR `SCHOLIOK` at raw L63437), which prints full-width on pp. 579–580 immediately after this Quaestio I's replies and **before** the QUAESTIO II header. Because (a) it lies inside this chunk's raw range, (b) a2-q2 is scoped to begin only "from the QUAEST II header onward" (so it would otherwise capture none of it), and (c) the locked convention — confirmed in the sibling a1-q1 — is that an article's scholion is rendered IN FULL in that article's q1 chunk (body first, scholion last) while the article's q2 renders none, this Articulus II scholion belongs here. Dropping it would silently lose ~85 lines of Latin/English apparatus-grade text with no other chunk to hold it. It covers **both** questions of the article: §I pertains to q1 (institution), §§II–IV to q2 (signification/matter/form/Scotus), matching the "Quoad 2. quaestionem…" opener of §II. Rendered here in full; **a2-q2 should render no scholion and point here.**

**[?] flags.**
- Scholion §I, `S. p. IV. q. li. m. 1. a. 2. § 4.` (Alexander of Hales citation): the quaestio numeral prints as `q. li.` in both the OCR and the 450 dpi band; retained verbatim (Latin and English) rather than normalized to a value (it is not obviously "14"/"51"). `[?]` — the exact numeral is uncertain but preserved as printed; confirm against a 600 dpi pass at the d.20 decade-polish gate.
- No other ambiguous readings: the Respondeo, Solutio, and scholion all resolved cleanly against the bands; the L-column right-margin truncations were all recovered from the intact IA OCR.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 580 -->

### Articulus II. *De poenitentia in ratione Sacramenti.*
### Quaestio II. *De Sacramento poenitentiae quoad significationem.*

Secundo quaeritur de poenitentia quantum ad significationem; et quaeritur, quid sit hic *signum*, et quid *signatum*. Et videtur, quod poenitentia exterior significat interiorem, sic.

1. Sacramentum illud *significat ex institutione*, quod *repraesentat naturaliter*; sed poenitentia exterior naturaliter repraesentat interiorem: ergo illud significat ex institutione.

2. Item, sicut se habet baptismus corporalis ad spiritualem, sic poenitentia exterior ad interiorem; sed baptismus fluminis significat baptismum flaminis[^1]: ergo et poenitentia exterior interiorem.

3. Item, poenitentia-Sacramentum liberat a naufragio[^2]; sed impossibile est, peccantem actualiter a naufragio liberari nisi per poenitentiam interiorem: ergo poenitentia-Sacramentum in se continet eam, sed non in ratione signi: ergo in ratione signati.

4. Item, «poenitentia perfecta ad baptismi puritatem conatur reducere[^3]»; sed peccator nunquam reducitur ad puritatem illam nisi per poenitudinem cordis: ergo poenitentia exterior interiorem significat.

**Contra:**
1. Hugo[^4]: «Sacramentum est materiale elementum foris sensibiliter propositum, ex similitudine repraesentans»; sed exterior poenitentia non est talis, quia non est elementum: ergo non est Sacramentum nec signum.

2. Item, interior poenitentia est virtus, vel actus virtutis[^5]; sed gratiae virtutum et Sacramentorum differentes sunt: ergo interior poenitentia non est res alicuius Sacramenti.

3. Item, quandocumque recte ordinantur signum et signatum in Sacramento, signum est causa signati, per definitionem Sacramenti superius[^6] habitam; sed poenitentia exterior non est causa interioris, nec illa effectus, immo e converso: ergo etc.

4. Item, cum in perfectione poenitentiae tria sint, scilicet contritio, confessio et satisfactio[^7]; quaeritur: ratione cuius dicitur exterior, et ratione cuius dicitur interior? Si dicitur interior ratione contritionis, et exterior ratione confessionis et satisfactionis; *contra*: ista non significant contritionem, sed potius voluntatem confitendi et satisfaciendi. Si dicitur exterior ratione trium; tunc ergo, cum sint tria diversa, erunt tria Sacramenta. *Si dicas*, quod uniuntur; quaero: quo genere unitatis uniuntur?

### Conclusio

> *Poenitentiae Sacramenti* res *est peccati remissio perfecta;* signum *vero est humiliatio exterior secundum ecclesiasticam formam; res vero et signum est interior poenitudo.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut in iudicando de institutione oportet iudicium variari de poenitentia, <!-- page 581 --> secundum quod est Sacramentum reconcilians *Deo*, et secundum quod reconciliat non solum *Deo*, sed etiam *Ecclesiae*[^8]; sic et in proposito. Secundum namque quod est Sacramentum reconcilians *Deo*, pro *re* habet peccati remissionem; pro *signo* habet exteriorem humiliationem sive in habitu, sive in verbo; pro *re et signo* interiorem poenitudinem. Nec oportet, quod primum[^9] sit causa medii, sed potius e converso, et hoc, quia est ex naturali dictamine; et ideo *procedit* exterius ab interiori, non exterius *facit* id quod interius est. — Sed in quantum est Sacramentum *Ecclesiae*, institutionem habens, sic habet rationem causae et signi, sicut alia Sacramenta[^10]; et ratio *causalitatis* residet penes id quod *formale* est, ratio vero *signi* penes id quod *materiale* est. *Materiale* autem in hoc Sacramento est humiliatio poenitentis sive quantum ad *actum contritionis*, sive quantum ad *verbum accusationis*, sive quantum ad *poenam satisfactionis*; *formale* vero est *absolutio sacerdotis*. Haec duo simul iuncta significant *poenitentiam interiorem*, secundum quod per ipsam est remissio culpae perfecta quantum ad *poenam* et quantum ad *culpam*; et quantum ad remissionem peccati quantum ad *culpam* habet rationem *signi* exterius Sacramentum, quantum ad remissionem *poenae* habet quodam modo rationem *causae*[^11].

Et sic patet, quid in hoc Sacramento sit *res*, scilicet peccati remissio perfecta; et quid *signum*, scilicet exterior poenitentia secundum ecclesiasticam formam, in qua est humiliatio et absolutio; *res et signum* est interior poenitudo[^12]. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad primam partem.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod non est elementum; dicendum, quod Hugo valde large sumit *elementum* ad omne illud quod exterius apparet sensibus. — Vel si approprietur ad *corporalia* Sacramenta, tunc non intelligitur nisi de Sacramentis propriis novae legis.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod gratiae virtutum differunt a gratia Sacramentorum; dicendum, quod verum est aliquo modo; sed non oportet quantum ad *essentiam*, sed sufficit quantum ad *effectum*, ut supra determinatum est in principio[^13]; et sic est in proposito. Nam poenitentia interior est *res* exterioris, secundum quod ultra rectitudinem virtutis addit ulteriorem effectum, scilicet remissionis perfectae quantum ad *culpam et poenam*, quando exterior est perfecta; et est simile in baptismo, ut visum est supra[^14].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod interior est causa exterioris; dicendum, quod quia hoc Sacramentum partim est *naturalis dictaminis*, partim *institutionis*; ideo signum exterius quodam modo *causatur*, et quodam modo *causat*. Nam detestatio interior, in quantum detestatio est, bene facit exterius hominem humiliari; sed secundum quod absolvit in integrum a culpa et poena, hoc habet ab exteriori absolutione et poenitentia. Et sic patet, quod convenientissime est ordinatio in *significando* et *causando*, secundum quod ei competit.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, ratione cuius illorum trium est *signum*; dico, quod ratione *omnium*; sumitur enim *contritio* pro exteriori gemitu. Nec tamen tria sunt Sacramenta, sed illa tria ut unum perfectum signum significant poenitentiam perfectam. Et hoc patet: quia, si vere poenitet corde, ergo dolet, et hoc significatur per *gemitum contritionis*; ergo detestatur culpam et se redarguit, et hoc significatur per *verbum confessionis*; ergo habet voluntatem emendandi, et hoc significatur per *poenam satisfactionis*. Haec tria continet poenitentia interior, quae est una et vera virtus[^15]; et ideo omnia signa exteriora in unum perfectum signum concurrunt et sunt unum Sacramentum et habent *unitatem Sacramenti*. — Et est modus specialis unitatis, cum multi modi assignentur a diversis[^16]. Et *si tu obiicias*, quod non sunt simul; dicendum, quod saltem quantum ad *propositum* sive voluntatis votum unum manet in alio, ut qui conteritur vere proponit confiteri et satisfacere; aliter non est contritio vera. Sic intelligendum est de aliis[^17].

---

english:
### Article II. *On penance in its character as a Sacrament.*
### Question II. *On the Sacrament of penance with respect to its signification.*

Secondly it is asked concerning penance with respect to its signification; and it is asked what here is the *sign*, and what the *thing signified*. And it seems that exterior penance signifies the interior, thus.

1. That Sacrament *signifies by institution* which *represents naturally*; but exterior penance naturally represents the interior: therefore it signifies by institution.

2. Likewise, as bodily baptism stands to the spiritual, so exterior penance to the interior; but the baptism of water signifies the baptism of the Spirit[^1]: therefore exterior penance too [signifies] the interior.

3. Likewise, penance-the-Sacrament frees from shipwreck[^2]; but it is impossible for one actually sinning to be freed from shipwreck except through interior penance: therefore penance-the-Sacrament contains it in itself, yet not in the character of a sign: therefore in the character of a thing signified.

4. Likewise, «perfect penance strives to bring [the sinner] back to the purity of baptism[^3]»; but a sinner is never brought back to that purity except through sorrow of heart: therefore exterior penance signifies the interior.

**Contra:**
1. Hugh[^4]: «A Sacrament is a material element set forth outwardly to the senses, representing by likeness»; but exterior penance is not such, because it is not an element: therefore it is neither a Sacrament nor a sign.

2. Likewise, interior penance is a virtue, or an act of a virtue[^5]; but the grace of the virtues and [the grace] of the Sacraments are different: therefore interior penance is not the *thing* (res) of any Sacrament.

3. Likewise, whenever a sign and a thing signified are rightly ordered in a Sacrament, the sign is the *cause* of the thing signified, by the definition of a Sacrament set forth above[^6]; but exterior penance is not the cause of the interior, nor is the latter its effect, but rather the reverse: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, since in the perfection of penance there are three, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction[^7], it is asked: by reason of which is it called exterior, and by reason of which interior? If it is called interior by reason of contrition, and exterior by reason of confession and satisfaction; *on the contrary*: these do not signify contrition, but rather the will to confess and to make satisfaction. If it is called exterior by reason of the three; then, since they are three diverse things, there will be three Sacraments. *If you say* that they are united; I ask: by what kind of unity are they united?

### Conclusion

> *The* thing *(res) of the Sacrament of penance is the perfect remission of sin; the* sign, *however, is exterior humiliation according to the ecclesiastical form; while the* thing-and-sign *is interior penitence.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, just as in judging concerning institution the judgment about penance must be varied, <!-- page 581 --> according as it is a Sacrament reconciling to *God*, and according as it reconciles not only to *God* but also to the *Church*[^8]; so also in the matter at hand. For according as it is a Sacrament reconciling to *God*, for its *thing* (res) it has the remission of sin; for its *sign* it has exterior humiliation, whether in bearing or in word; for its *thing-and-sign*, interior penitence. Nor is it necessary that the first[^9] be the cause of the middle, but rather the reverse, and this because it is from a natural dictate; and therefore the exterior *proceeds* from the interior; the exterior does not *make* that which is interior. — But insofar as it is a Sacrament of the *Church*, having institution, it thus has the character of cause and of sign, like the other Sacraments[^10]; and the character of *causality* resides in that which is *formal*, whereas the character of *sign* [resides] in that which is *material*. Now the *material* in this Sacrament is the humiliation of the penitent, whether with respect to the *act of contrition*, or with respect to the *word of accusation*, or with respect to the *penalty of satisfaction*; the *formal*, however, is the *absolution of the priest*. These two joined together signify *interior penance*, according as through it there is perfect remission of guilt with respect to *penalty* and with respect to *guilt*; and with respect to the remission of sin as to *guilt* the exterior Sacrament has the character of a *sign*, [while] with respect to the remission of *penalty* it has in a certain way the character of a *cause*[^11].

And thus it is clear what in this Sacrament is the *thing* (res), namely the perfect remission of sin; and what the *sign*, namely exterior penance according to the ecclesiastical form, in which there is humiliation and absolution; the *thing-and-sign* is interior penitence[^12]. — Hence the arguments for the first part must be conceded.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that it is not an element; it must be said that Hugh takes *element* very broadly for everything that appears outwardly to the senses. — Or if it be appropriated to the *bodily* Sacraments, then it is understood only of the Sacraments proper to the new law.

2. To that which is objected, that the grace of the virtues differs from the grace of the Sacraments; it must be said that this is true in a certain way; but it is not required with respect to *essence*, but it suffices with respect to *effect*, as was determined above at the beginning[^13]; and so it is in the matter at hand. For interior penance is the *thing* (res) of the exterior, according as beyond the rectitude of a virtue it adds a further effect, namely of perfect remission with respect to *guilt and penalty*, when the exterior is perfect; and it is similar in baptism, as was seen above[^14].

3. To that which is objected, that the interior is the cause of the exterior; it must be said that, because this Sacrament is partly of *natural dictate* and partly of *institution*, therefore the exterior sign is in a certain way *caused* and in a certain way *causes*. For interior detestation, insofar as it is detestation, does indeed cause a man to be outwardly humbled; but according as it absolves entirely from guilt and penalty, this it has from the exterior absolution and penance. And thus it is clear that most fittingly there is an ordering in *signifying* and in *causing*, according as befits it.

4. To that which is objected, by reason of which of those three it is a *sign*; I say, by reason of *all*; for *contrition* is taken for the exterior groaning. Nor yet are they three Sacraments, but those three as one perfect sign signify perfect penance. And this is clear: because, if one truly repents in heart, then he grieves, and this is signified through the *groaning of contrition*; therefore he detests the guilt and reproaches himself, and this is signified through the *word of confession*; therefore he has the will of amending, and this is signified through the *penalty of satisfaction*. These three interior penance contains, which is one and a true virtue[^15]; and therefore all the exterior signs converge into one perfect sign and are one Sacrament and have the *unity of a Sacrament*. — And it is a special mode of unity, since many modes are assigned by various [authors][^16]. And *if you object* that they are not simultaneous; it must be said that at least with respect to the *purpose*, or the vow of the will, one remains in the other, as he who is contrite truly purposes to confess and to make satisfaction; otherwise there is no true contrition. So it is to be understood of the others[^17].

---

la: Cfr. supra d. 4. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. et 3. — Edd. hic addunt *et hoc ex institutione*.

en: Cf. above, d. 4, p. II, a. 1, q. 1 and 3. — Here the editions add *et hoc ex institutione* ("and this by institution").

la: Codd. N aa subiungunt *quia est secunda tabula post naufragium* (secundum Hieron.; cfr. infra a. 3. q. 2.).

en: Codices N aa append *quia est secunda tabula post naufragium* ("because it is the second plank after shipwreck") (according to Jerome; cf. below, a. 3, q. 2).

la: Ut dicit auctor libri *de Vera et falsa Poenitentia* (inter opera August.), c. 9. n. 24, supra lit. Magistri, d. XV. c. 7. allegatus.

en: As the author of the book *On True and False Penance* says (among the works of Augustine), c. 9, n. 24, cited above in the Master's text, d. XV, c. 7.

la: Libr. I. *de Sacram.* p. IX. c. 2; cfr. supra pag. 13, nota 2.

en: Book I, *On the Sacraments*, p. IX, c. 2 [Hugh of St. Victor]; cf. above, p. 13, note 2.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 14. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. — In fine arg. pro *alicuius* cod. Z *huius*.

en: As was shown above, d. 14, p. I, a. 1, q. 1. — At the end of the argument, for *alicuius* ("of any") codex Z reads *huius* ("of this").

la: Lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 4, et Comment. p. I. q. 2. et 4. — Pro *Sacramento* Vat. *Sacramentum*.

en: The Master's text, d. I, c. 4, and the Commentary, p. I, q. 2 and 4. — For *Sacramento* the Vatican [edition reads] *Sacramentum*.

la: Secundum lit. Magistri, d. XVI. c. 1. — Circa finem arg. post *cum sint tria* cod. E addit *signa*.

en: According to the Master's text, d. XVI, c. 1. — Near the end of the argument, after *cum sint tria* ("since there are three") codex E adds *signa* ("signs").

la: Ex quaest. praeced., ad quam revocat cod. W, superius post *de institutione* addens *dictum est*.

en: From the preceding question, to which codex W refers back, adding above, after *de institutione*, *dictum est* ("it has been said").

la: Scil. *signum sive exterior humiliatio*.

en: Namely *the sign, or exterior humiliation*.

la: Vide supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.

en: See above, d. 8, p. II, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Cfr. supra d. 18. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. et 2. — Cod. aa, superius pro *Sacramentum*, ponit: *scilicet contritio, quae ostenditur in signo, ut in gemitu et satisfactione et confessione*, et hic addit: *quantum ad absolutionem adiunctam ab ipso sacerdote habet rationem causae, quia virtute clavium poena diminuitur*.

en: Cf. above, d. 18, p. I, a. 2, q. 1 and 2. — Codex aa, above, in place of *Sacramentum*, puts: *scilicet contritio, quae ostenditur in signo, ut in gemitu et satisfactione et confessione* ("namely contrition, which is shown in a sign, as in groaning and satisfaction and confession"), and here adds: *quantum ad absolutionem adiunctam ab ipso sacerdote habet rationem causae, quia virtute clavium poena diminuitur* ("with respect to the absolution adjoined by the priest himself it has the character of a cause, because by the power of the keys the penalty is diminished").

la: Scil. *contritio*, in quantum est dolor voluntarius de peccato cum *voto* confitendi et satisfaciendi (vide infra in fine quaest.). Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Namely *contrition*, insofar as it is voluntary sorrow for sin with the *vow* of confessing and of making satisfaction (see below at the end of the question). Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2.

en: Distinction 1, p. I, q. 6. Cf. d. 14, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, and dub. 2.

la: Dist. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. in fine; lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 1. seqq., et Comment. ibid. p. I. (praecipue a. 2. q. 2. seq.) et p. II. nec non d. 6. p. I. q. 2.

en: Distinction 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, at the end; the Master's text, d. IV, c. 1 ff., and the Commentary there, p. I (especially a. 2, q. 2 ff.) and p. II, as also d. 6, p. I, q. 2.

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

en: See above, d. 16, p. I, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Praeter auctores, qui III. Sent. d. 6. a. 2. q. 2. allegantur, cfr. Dionys., *de Div. Nom.* c. 13. § 2; Boeth., in lib. *de Unitate et uno*, qui assignat unitatem specialem sive Sacramenti (cfr. tom. III. pag. 896, nota 2.), quam tangit etiam August., II. *contra Maximinum Arianum*, c. 22. n. 3. Vide etiam supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. et explicationem eius infra d. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. ad 3.

en: Besides the authors cited on III *Sent.*, d. 6, a. 2, q. 2, cf. Dionysius, *On the Divine Names*, c. 13, § 2; Boethius, in the book *On Unity and the One*, who assigns a special unity, namely that of a Sacrament (cf. vol. III, p. 896, note 2), which Augustine also touches on, II *Against Maximinus the Arian*, c. 22, n. 3. See also above, d. 8, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, and its explanation below, d. 24, p. II, a. 1, q. 3, ad 3.

la: Idem dicitur supra d. 16. p. I. dub. I. in fine. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: The same is said above, d. 16, p. I, dub. 1, at the end. — See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the Quaracchi Vol. IV 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p58{0,1}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), the authority for this two-column volume's cascade-shattered regions (Respondeo, all four replies, every page footer), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, raw lines 63524–63682). Read Left column top→bottom, then Right column, per page. Offset pdf = printed + 20. Running heads verified: p.580 "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p.581 "DIST. XXII. ART. II. QUAEST. II." (the raw running head at ~L63595 is p.581's, sitting mid-quaestio — it is NOT the quaestio title).
- **q1/q2 boundary.** The semantic Quaestio II opener (`QUAESTIO II.` / *De Sacramento poenitentiae quoad significationem* / "Secundo quaeritur de poenitentia quantum ad significationem…") begins at raw line 63524, on p.580 immediately below the double-column small-print scholion of a2-q1. That scholion (points III–IV, incl. the *De eadem quaestione* doctor-list ending "…Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.") belongs to a2-q1 and is **not** claimed here; a2-q1 ends at raw line 63523. (Note: both the a2-q1 auto-chunk (line_start 63321, over-long) and the old a2-q2 auto-chunk (line_start 65271, wrongly d.23 material) were mis-cut; this chunk supersedes the latter.)
- **Scholion.** `has_scholion: false`. This quaestio prints no scholion; footnote [^17] confirms it ("Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest."). The article-level scholion sits with a2-q1. (The task brief said d.22's only scholion is in a1-q1; in fact a2-q1 also carries one — but this chunk carries none either way.)
- **Page-footer split (p.580 shared with a2-q1).** Page 580's top holds a2-q1's scholion, which carries **only inline parenthetical citations, no numbered footer markers**. All **seven** numbered footers on p.580 (1–7, here [^1]–[^7]) are anchored in this quaestio's own body (args 2–4 and Contra 1–4). Page 581's **ten** footers (1–10, here [^8]–[^17]) all fall wholly within this quaestio (Respondeo + the four replies). Total apparatus: 17 (7 + 10).
- **[?] flags.** None. Two OCR cascade-garbles were resolved directly against the p.581 footnote band (`vol4-p581-L-2.png`): [^11] reads *quae* (OCR "gnae"/"magnae"); [^12] reads *voto* (OCR "volo"); [^13] reads *d. 14* (OCR "d. li"). No unresolved ambiguities remain.
- **Marginalia excluded.** The Quaracchi marginal glosses *Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Solutio quaestionum.*, *Ratio.*, and *Notandum.* (bleeding inline in the OCR) are editorial marginalia, not Bonaventure's text, and are omitted from the body.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 22, Art. 3, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 582 -->

### Articulus III. *De poenitentia, prout habet rationem fundamenti.*

Consequenter ad intelligentiam omnium eorum, quae dicta sunt in hoc tractatu de poenitentia, quaeritur de poenitentia, secundum quod habet rationem fundamenti. Et circa hoc duo quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur de ratione fundamenti in se. Secundo vero, in relatione ad rationem tabulae.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum poenitentia habeat in se rationem fundamenti.*

Quantum ad primum ostenditur, quod poenitentia teneat rationem fundamenti.

1. Ad Hebraeos sexto[^1]: *Non rursus iacientes fundamentum poenitentiae ab operibus mortuis.*

2. Item, Glossa[^2]: «Quod prius dixit *inchoationis sermonem* nunc vocat *fundamentum*»; sed in sermone, quo eruditur veniens ad Christum, poenitentia est *fundamentum*; quod patet per illum excellentem doctorem Ioannem, qui praedicavit poenitentiam; patet etiam per Doctorem doctorum qui incepit praedicationem suam ab hoc verbo, Matthaei quarto: *Agite poenitentiam*; Glossa: «Poenitentia est prima virtus», quia ibi dicitur: «Prima virtus est per poenitentiam perimere veterem hominem».

3. Item, impossibile est domum Dei aedificare in corde, nisi destruatur aedificium satanae, et ipse expellatur; sed hoc primo fit per introductionem poenitentiae[^3]: ergo videtur, quod poenitentia primo sternitur: ergo ipsa est fundamentum.

**Contra:** 1. Primae ad Corinthios tertio[^4]: *Fundamentum aliud nemo ponere potest praeter id quod positum est, quod est Christus*: ergo si Christus solus est fundamentum; et poenitentia non est Christus: patet etc.

2. Item, ad Hebraeos undecimo[^5]: *Fides est substantia sperandarum rerum*; Glossa: «Est fundamentum omnium bonorum»; sed non sunt duo fundamenta: ergo etc.

3. Item, poenitentia et impoenitentia sunt opposita; sed impoenitentia est *consummatio* aedificii diabolici: ergo non *fundamentum*: ergo per oppositum videtur, quod poenitentia sit *consummatio* aedificii Iesu Christi, non *fundamentum*.

Item, quaeritur de numero et ordine eorum quae ponuntur in fundamento ab Apostolo. Ponit enim duas *virtutes*, cum dicit[^6]: *Non rursus iacientes fundamentum poenitentiae ab operibus mortuis et fidei ad Deum*; tangit enim duo *Sacramenta*, cum dicit: *Baptismatum doctrinae, impositionis quoque manuum*; duos *articulos fidei*, cum dicit: *Resurrectionis mortuorum et iudicii aeterni*. Cum multo plures sint *virtutes*, et multo plura sint *Sacramenta*, et etiam *articuli*; quaeritur: quare haec tantum enumerat?

Item, quaeritur iuxta hoc, cum *fundamentum* dicatur Christus, primae ad Corinthios tertio[^7]: *Fundamentum nemo aliud* etc.; dicatur etiam poenitentia in auctoritate praedicta; dicatur etiam fides, ad Hebraeos undecimo, in textu et Glossa; dicatur caritas, ad Ephesios tertio: *In caritate radicati et fundati*; dicatur humilitas, secundum Gregorium, qui dicit in Moralibus: «Totum ruinae crescit quod aedificas, si ante molem fabricae humilitatis fundamenta non curas»[^8]; dicatur patientia, secundum Prudentium dicentem:

*Nam minor est virtus, quam non patientia firmat;*

secundum quam communem naturam in his repertam dicitur potius *fundamentum* de his quam de aliis?

> **Conclusio.** Poenitentia habet rationem fundamenti, secundum quod peccatori accedenti ad Christum removet prohibens.

**Respondeo:** Ad illud ultimum quaesitum intelligendum notandum, quod *fundamentum* dicitur

<!-- page 583 -->

dupliciter: uno modo *locus*, in quo aedificium stabilitur, et hoc modo dicitur Christus fundamentum; et hoc bene notatur in Glossa, primae ad Corinthios tertio[^9], ubi dicitur, quod sicut totum aedificium *materiale* tendit *deorsum*, quia locus fundans est deorsum; sic *spirituale* aedificium tendit *sursum*, quia Christus Dominus, qui fundamentum est spiritualis aedificii, est sursum. — Alio modo dicitur *fundamentum* illud, secundum quod res locatur et stabilitur in suo *sustentaculo*; et hoc potest esse tripliciter: aut illud, per quod *prohibens removetur*; aut illud, per quod ibi *locatur*; aut illud, per quod *confirmatur et stabilitur*. Si est illud, per quod *removetur prohibens*; sic est *poenitentia*, quae removet peccati immunditiam, super quam erat constructa machina diabolica. Si autem sit ut *collocans*; sed duo sunt in nobis, per quae nati sumus locari et tendere ad locum nostrum, scilicet *intellectus* et *affectus*: *intellectus* locatur in Christo per *fidem*, et *affectus* locatur et conglutinatur per *caritatem*; et ideo non tantum dicit Apostolus: *In caritate fundati*, verum etiam *radicati*. Si autem sit ut *defendens et roborans*; aut contra ventum *prosperitatis*, aut contra ventum *adversitatis*: si contra ventum *prosperitatis*, est *humilitas*; si contra ventum *adversitatis*, est *patientia* sive *fortitudo*. Et sic per hoc fundatur supra firmam petram[^10] ipsa anima. Et sic patet, quod ratio *fundamenti* de omnibus dicitur secundum quandam *analogiam*, quae ortum et radicem habet in Christo.

Ad illud ergo quod quaeritur, utrum poenitentia sit fundamentum; dicendum, quod sic, accedenti ad Christum de regione dissimilitudinis sive peccati[^11].

1. 2. Et patet responsio etiam ad illud quod obiicitur de fide et de Christo.

3. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de impoenitentia, dicendum, quod quia *privative* opponitur, et in privative oppositis tenet *consequentia e contrario*, non *in ipso*[^12], sicut patet in compositione rei et resolutione, quia quod est primum in componendo ultimum est in resolvendo; ideo haec ratio potius facit ad oppositum quam ad propositum.

Ad illud quod quaeritur de numero et ordine eorum quae ponuntur in fundamento; dicendum, quod Apostolus, sicut dicit Glossa[^13], vocat *fundamentum* sermonem inchoationis, id est sermonem qui debet fieri his qui ad Christum sunt vocandi primo. In hoc autem sermone sex comprehendit, quae habet necessario cognoscere, si quis vult ad legem Christianorum introire et per hanc ad vitam venire. Oportet enim volenti ad Deum pertingere, quod sciat *quo* debet tendere et *adiutorium*, per quod potest pervenire; et *viam*, per quam debet incedere. *Terminus* est praemium, *adiutorium* est Sacramentum, *via* est virtus sive virtutis opus, quod est praeceptum; et haec tria scire oportet volenti ad Deum pervenire, secundum illud Hugonis[^14], quod tria sunt maxime attendenda: «praecepta, Sacramenta, promissa». — *Via* igitur est in virtutibus; et quoniam ad hoc, quod recta via procedat, necesse habet declinare a malo et tendere in bonum[^15]; ideo dupliciter ponit virtutem: unam, per quam declinatur a malo, et haec est poenitentia; aliam, per quam tenditur in bonum, et haec est fides tendens in Deum per dilectionem, quae sequitur poenitentiam quantum ad tendentiam, licet antecedat quantum ad cognitionem. — *Adiutorium* similiter oportet duplex saltem esse: unum, quod liberat a malo, et hoc est Sacramentum baptismi, in quo delentur peccata; alterum, quod confirmat in bono, et hoc est confirmatio sive manuum impositio. — Similiter *retributionem* duplicem oportet cognoscere, scilicet bonorum et malorum: bonorum, per resurrectionem mortuorum immutandorum[^16] per gloriam; malorum, per iudicium aeternum.

Haec oportuit primo praedicari, et inter prima haec primo poenitentiam. Et sic patet *numerus* et *ordo*; et nostra etiam est instructio, qualiter docere debemus eos qui de novo veniunt ad legem Christi.

<!-- page 584 -->

english:
### Article III. *On penance, insofar as it has the character of a foundation.*

Next, for the understanding of all the things that have been said in this treatise on penance, penance is inquired into insofar as it has the character of a foundation. And concerning this two things are inquired into. First it is asked about the character of a foundation in itself. Second, however, about it in relation to the character of a plank.

### Question I. *Whether penance has in itself the character of a foundation.*

As to the first, it is shown that penance holds the character of a foundation.

1. To the Hebrews, chapter six[^1]: *Not laying again the foundation of penance from dead works.*

2. Likewise, the Gloss[^2]: «What earlier it called *the discourse of the beginning* it now calls *the foundation*»; but in the discourse by which one coming to Christ is instructed, penance is *the foundation*; which is clear through that excellent teacher John, who preached penance; it is clear also through the Teacher of teachers, who began his preaching from this word, Matthew four: *Do penance*; the Gloss: «Penance is the first virtue», because there it is said: «The first virtue is to destroy the old man through penance».

3. Likewise, it is impossible to build the house of God in the heart unless the building of Satan be destroyed and he himself be expelled; but this is first done through the introduction of penance[^3]: therefore it seems that penance is first laid down: therefore it is itself the foundation.

**On the contrary:** 1. First to the Corinthians, chapter three[^4]: *No one can lay another foundation besides that which has been laid, which is Christ*: therefore if Christ alone is the foundation; and penance is not Christ: it is evident, etc.

2. Likewise, to the Hebrews, chapter eleven[^5]: *Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for*; the Gloss: «It is the foundation of all good things»; but there are not two foundations: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, penance and impenitence are opposites; but impenitence is the *consummation* of the diabolical building: therefore it is not a *foundation*: therefore, by the opposite, it seems that penance is the *consummation* of the building of Jesus Christ, not a *foundation*.

Likewise, it is asked about the number and the order of the things that are placed in the foundation by the Apostle. For he places two *virtues*, when he says[^6]: *Not laying again the foundation of penance from dead works and of faith toward God*; for he touches on two *Sacraments*, when he says: *Of the doctrine of baptisms, of the imposition also of hands*; two *articles of faith*, when he says: *Of the resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment*. Since the *virtues* are far more numerous, and the *Sacraments* far more, and also the *articles*; it is asked: why does he enumerate only these?

Likewise, it is asked in connection with this, since the *foundation* is said to be Christ, first to the Corinthians, chapter three[^7]: *No other foundation* etc.; and penance too is said [to be a foundation] in the aforesaid authority; faith too is said [to be one], to the Hebrews, chapter eleven, in the text and the Gloss; charity too is said [to be one], to the Ephesians, chapter three: *Rooted and founded in charity*; humility is said [to be one], according to Gregory, who says in the *Morals*: «The whole of what you build grows toward ruin if you do not first attend to the foundations of humility before the mass of the structure»[^8]; patience is said [to be one], according to Prudentius, who says:

*For that is a lesser virtue which patience does not strengthen;*

according to what common nature found in these is it rather called the *foundation* of these than of others?

> **Conclusion.** Penance has the character of a foundation, insofar as for the sinner coming to Christ it removes what stands in the way.

**I respond:** For the understanding of that last question, it must be noted that a *foundation* is spoken of

<!-- page 583 -->

in two ways: in one way as a *place* in which the building is stabilized, and in this way Christ is called the foundation; and this is well noted in the Gloss, first to the Corinthians, chapter three[^9], where it is said that just as the whole *material* building tends *downward*, because the founding place is downward; so the *spiritual* building tends *upward*, because Christ the Lord, who is the foundation of the spiritual building, is above. — In another way that is called a *foundation* according to which a thing is set and stabilized in its *support*; and this can be in a threefold manner: either that by which *the impediment is removed*; or that by which it is *set* there; or that by which it is *confirmed and stabilized*. If it is that by which *the impediment is removed*, then it is *penance*, which removes the filth of sin, upon which the diabolical engine had been constructed. If, however, it be as *setting in place*; but there are two things in us by which we are born to be set and to tend toward our place, namely *intellect* and *affection*: *intellect* is set in Christ through *faith*, and *affection* is set and glued fast through *charity*; and therefore the Apostle says not only *founded in charity*, but also *rooted*. If, however, it be as *defending and strengthening*; either against the wind of *prosperity*, or against the wind of *adversity*: if against the wind of *prosperity*, it is *humility*; if against the wind of *adversity*, it is *patience* or *fortitude*. And thus by this the soul itself is founded upon the firm rock[^10]. And thus it is clear that the character of a *foundation* is spoken of all these things according to a certain *analogy*, which has its origin and root in Christ.

Therefore, to that which is asked, whether penance is a foundation; it must be said that it is so, for one coming to Christ from the region of unlikeness or of sin[^11].

1. 2. And the response is clear also to that which is objected concerning faith and concerning Christ.

3. Therefore, to that which is objected concerning impenitence, it must be said that, because it is opposed *privatively*, and in privative opposites the *inference from the contrary* holds, but not in the thing itself[^12], as is clear in the composition of a thing and its resolution, because what is first in composing is last in resolving; therefore this argument makes rather for the opposite than for the proposition.

To that which is asked about the number and order of the things that are placed in the foundation; it must be said that the Apostle, as the Gloss says[^13], calls *the foundation* the discourse of the beginning, that is, the discourse that must be made to those who are to be called to Christ first. In this discourse, however, he comprehends six things, which one must necessarily know if one wishes to enter the law of Christians and through this to come to life. For it is necessary for one who wishes to reach God that he know *whither* he ought to tend, and the *aid* by which he can arrive; and the *way* by which he ought to proceed. The *terminus* is the reward, the *aid* is the Sacrament, the *way* is virtue or the work of virtue, which is the precept; and these three it behooves one to know who wishes to come to God, according to that saying of Hugh[^14], that three things are chiefly to be attended to: «precepts, Sacraments, promises». — The *way*, therefore, is in the virtues; and since, in order that the way may proceed rightly, it must needs turn away from evil and tend toward good[^15]; therefore he places virtue in a twofold manner: one by which one turns away from evil, and this is penance; another by which one tends toward good, and this is faith tending toward God through love, which follows penance as to the tending, although it precedes as to the knowing. — The *aid* likewise must be at least twofold: one which frees from evil, and this is the Sacrament of baptism, in which sins are blotted out; the other which confirms in good, and this is confirmation, or the imposition of hands. — Likewise, one must know a twofold *recompense*, namely of the good and of the wicked: of the good, through the resurrection of the dead who are to be changed[^16] through glory; of the wicked, through the eternal judgment.

These things it behooved to be preached first, and among the first things penance first of all. And thus the *number* and the *order* are clear; and it is also for our instruction, as to how we ought to teach those who newly come to the law of Christ.

<!-- page 584 -->

la: Glossa est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum. Damasc. in hunc loc. ait: *Inchoationem* dicit *fundamentum*... *perfectionem* vero *exstructionem*. — Seq. textus est Matth. 3, 2; tertius ibid. 4, 17. De Glossa vide supra pag. 318, nota 1.

en: The Gloss is the *ordinary* one in Strabus and Lyranus. Damascene on this passage says: he calls *the beginning* the *foundation*... but *the perfecting* the *building up*. — The following text is Matthew 3:2; the third the same, 4:17. On the Gloss see above, p. 318, note 1.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 405, nota 8.

en: Cf. above, p. 405, note 8.

la: Vers. 1. — Glossa est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum.

en: Verse 1. [Heb. 11:1.] — The Gloss is the *ordinary* one in Strabus and Lyranus.

la: Hebr. 6, 1. — Inferius pro *tangit enim* Vat. *tangit etiam.*

en: Heb. 6:1. — Below, for *tangit enim* ("for he touches on") the Vatican [edition reads] *tangit etiam* ("he also touches on").

la: Vers. 11. — Seq. locus est Hebr. 11, 1; tertius Eph. 3. [?]

en: Verse 11. [1 Cor. 3:11.] — The following locus is Heb. 11:1; the third, Eph. 3. [?]

la: Verba Gregor., XXXIV. Moral. c. 23. n. 51, sunt: *Soli ergo ruinae crescit quod aedificant, quia ante molem fabricae humilitatis fundamina non procurant* (Vat. *proiicias*). — Versus Prudentii habetur in eius *Psychomachia*, v. 174 seqq.: *Omnibus una comes virtutibus associatur / Auxiliumque suum fortis patientia miscet. / Nulla anceps luctamen init virtute sine ista / Virtus; nam vidua est, quam non patientia firmat.* (Alii distinguunt sic: *ista. Virtus nam vidua* etc.).

en: The words of Gregory, *Morals* XXXIV, c. 23, n. 51, are: *For it grows only toward ruin, what they build, because they do not procure the foundations of humility before the mass of the structure* (the Vatican [edition reads] *proiicias*). — The verse of Prudentius is found in his *Psychomachia*, v. 174 ff.: *One companion is joined as ally to all the virtues, / and brave patience mingles in its help. / No virtue enters the doubtful struggle without her; / for that is widowed which patience does not strengthen.* (Others punctuate thus: *without her. For that virtue is widowed* etc.).

la: Glossam exhibet Petr. Lombard. in explicatione v. 13-15: *Sciendum quoque, quod sicut fundamentum corporalis fabricae est in imo, ita fundamentum spiritualis fabricae est in summo; ideoque, sicut parietum pondus tendit ad ima, ubi est suum fundamentum, ita spiritualis aedificatio tendit ad summa, ubi suum est fundamentum. Nam et ponderum gemina sunt genera, quorum alia ima petunt, ut lapis super aquam positus et aqua super oleum; alia vero summa petunt, ut ignis et oleum... Sic Ecclesia nunc in imo posita tendit ad caelum, ubi fundamentum eius est Christus, sedens ad dexteram Patris.*

en: Peter Lombard supplies the Gloss in his explanation of vv. 13-15: *It should also be known that just as the foundation of a bodily structure is at the bottom, so the foundation of a spiritual structure is at the top; and therefore, just as the weight of walls tends toward the depths, where its foundation is, so spiritual building tends toward the heights, where its foundation is. For there are also two kinds of weights: some seek the depths, as a stone placed upon water and water upon oil; but others seek the heights, as fire and oil... So the Church, now placed at the bottom, tends toward heaven, where its foundation is Christ, seated at the right hand of the Father.*

la: Respicitur Matth. 7, 24. seq. et Luc. 6, 48.

en: Reference is made to Matthew 7:24 f. and Luke 6:48.

la: Vide supra d. 14. p. I. a. 2. q. 3.

en: See above, d. 14, p. I, a. 2, q. 3.

la: Explicationem vide tom. I. pag. 822, nota 1, et tom. II. pag. 920, nota 5. — Aristot., III. Ethic. c. 3: *Quod extremum est in resolutione in generatione esse primum videtur.* — Cum edd. retinuimus *in compositione rei*, pro quo codd. vel *in destructione*, vel *in definitione*, vel *in distinctione*.

en: For the explanation see tom. I, p. 822, note 1, and tom. II, p. 920, note 5. — Aristotle, *Ethics* III, c. 3: *What is last in resolution seems to be first in generation.* — With the editions we have retained *in compositione rei* ("in the composition of a thing"), for which the codices [read] either *in destructione*, or *in definitione*, or *in distinctione*.

la: Hebr. 6, 1. (Cfr. fundam. 2.), quae hanc rationem adiungit: *eo quod ad christianam religionem venientibus prius proponitur, ut super hoc quod perfectionis est, aedificetur. Hoc fundamentum dividitur in sex, quae sunt: inchoatio seu poenitentia, fides, baptismatum doctrina, impositio manuum, resurrectio atque iudicium. Quicumque aliquos ad fidem convertit, prius facit poenitere, in Deum credere, baptizari in remissionem, confirmari per impositionem, resurrectionem et diem iudicii praestolari.* — Inferius pro *sex* edd. *tria.*

en: Heb. 6:1 (cf. foundation-argument 2), which adds this reason: *because to those coming to the Christian religion it is first set forth, so that upon this which pertains to the beginning what pertains to perfection may be built. This foundation is divided into six things, which are: the beginning or penance, faith, the doctrine of baptisms, the imposition of hands, resurrection, and judgment. Whoever converts any to the faith first makes them repent, believe in God, be baptized unto remission, be confirmed through the imposition [of hands], and await the resurrection and the day of judgment.* — Below, for *sex* ("six") the editions [read] *tria* ("three").

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XII. c. 4, ubi docet, legem scriptam tria continere, scil. «*praecepta, Sacramenta, promissa. In praeceptis est meritum, in promissis est praemium, in Sacramentis est adiutorium. Per praecepta eundum fuerat ad promissa*». Cfr. eiusd. *Sum.* tr. 4. c. 2. — Cod. aa *Augustini*. Superius pro *virtus* multi codd. et ed. 1 *veritas*, plures codd. *caritas*, et pro *volenti* codd. F G *volentem*.

en: [Hugh of St. Victor,] Book I *On the Sacraments*, p. XII, c. 4, where he teaches that the written law contains three things, namely «*precepts, Sacraments, promises. In the precepts is merit, in the promises is reward, in the Sacraments is aid. Through the precepts one had to go to the promises*». Cf. the same author's *Summa*, tr. 4, c. 2. — Codex aa [reads] *Augustini*. Above, for *virtus* ("virtue") many codices and ed. 1 [read] *veritas* ("truth"), several codices *caritas* ("charity"), and for *volenti* codices F G [read] *volentem*.

la: Respicitur Ps. 36, 27: *Declina a malo, et fac bonum.* Cfr. Ps. 33, 15.

en: Reference is made to Ps. 36:27: *Turn away from evil, and do good.* Cf. Ps. 33:15.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 15, 51: *Omnes quidem resurgemus, sed non omnes immutabimur.* — Edd. *remunerandorum.*

en: First Epistle to the Corinthians 15:51: *We shall all indeed rise again, but we shall not all be changed.* — The editions [read] *remunerandorum* ("of those to be rewarded").

latin_scholion:
**I.** Duas huius articuli quaestiones pauci explicite tractant. De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 14. m. 4. a. 1. 2. — S. Thom., supra d. 14. q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3; S. III. q. 84. a. 6. ad 2. — Richard. a Med., supra d. 14. a. 10. q. 1. ad 1.

**II.** De 2. quaestione cfr. supra d. 14. p. I. dub. 1. — De eadem: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 3. — S. Thom., supra d. 14. loc. cit. quaestiunc. 4; S. art. cit. — B. Albert., supra d. 14. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., supra d. 14. circa lit. — Dionys. Carth., supra d. 14. q. 2. circa med.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Few treat the two questions of this article explicitly. On the first question: Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, part IV, q. 14, m. 4, a. 1, 2. — St. Thomas, above, d. 14, q. 1, a. 2, subquestion 3; *Summa* III, q. 84, a. 6, ad 2. — Richard of Middleton, above, d. 14, a. 10, q. 1, ad 1.

**II.** On the second question cf. above, d. 14, p. I, dub. 1. — On the same: Alexander of Hales, in the place cited, a. 3. — St. Thomas, above, d. 14, in the place cited, subquestion 4; [*Summa*,] the article cited. — Bl. Albert, above, d. 14, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, above, d. 14, near the text [of the Master]. — Dionysius the Carthusian, above, d. 14, q. 2, near the middle.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Internet Archive djvu OCR (`bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, raw lines 63687–63878), corrected throughout against the 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p58{2,3}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, read left column top-to-bottom then right column (per the VOL II OVERRIDE). The Articulus III opener (`Consequenter ad intelligentiam…Secundo vero, in relatione ad rationem tabulae`) is folded into this q1 per the locked chunking convention. Marginal keyword glosses printed in the outer margins were trimmed as editorial marginalia: *Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.* (p. 582); *Ad 1. quaest. incid.*, *Sex necessario cognoscenda.*, *Tria principalia.*, *Duplex est via.*, *Item adiutorium.*, *Item terminus.* (p. 583).

**Page split.** The body occupies printed pp. 582–583; the Respondeo concludes at the foot of p. 583 right column (`…docere debemus eos qui de novo veniunt ad legem Christi.`). Printed p. 584 (pdf 604) opens with the article scholion (`Duas huius articuli quaestiones pauci explicite tractant…`, printed two-column above the QUAESTIO II heading — OCR header garbled `SOHOLIOK`), rendered here as the last subsection. Quaestio II (`Secundo quaeritur circa hoc de poenitentia… in relatione ad rationem tabulae`) then begins on p. 584 and belongs to the a3-q2 chunk.

**Scholion.** `has_scholion: true`. This is the Articulus III *article* scholion, covering **both** questions of the article: **I.** treats q. 1 (this chunk), **II.** treats q. 2. It is placed after q1's Respondeo and immediately before Quaestio II, and is rendered in full here. The a3-q2 chunk therefore carries **no** scholion of its own.

**Apparatus split.** 16 footnotes total, all anchored in this chunk's body: p. 582 → [^1]–[^8] (Quaracchi nn. 1–7 plus the Gregorius/Prudentius note printed in the right footer column); p. 583 → [^9]–[^16] (Quaracchi nn. 1–8). The scholion carries no numbered footer notes.

**`[?]` flags.**
- [^7]: the OCR/band reading of the cross-references after `Vers. 11` is garbled (raw renders `Seq. locus Hebr. est Eph. 11, 1; tertius 3`). Reconstructed as `Seq. locus est Hebr. 11, 1; tertius Eph. 3` from the body sequence (1 Cor 3:11 → ad Hebraeos undecimo → ad Ephesios tertio); the exact verse of the third (Ephesians) citation is not fully legible.
- [^8] anchor position: no superscript marker is legible in the body at the Gregorius/Prudentius citations, and the printed footer number reads "17" (anomalous for a per-page restart). The note (which covers both the Gregorius *Moralia* quotation and the following Prudentius verse) is anchored at the close of the Gregorius quotation (`…humilitatis fundamenta non curas»[^8]`); exact marker placement is uncertain.
- [^2]: `Damasc.` (attribution of the interlinear gloss reading) is legible but unusual for a gloss on Hebrews; transcribed as printed.
- Scholion, part I: the tail of the Richard-of-Middleton reference (`supra d. 14. a. 10. q. 1. ad 1`) and the abbreviation `S. III.` (taken as *Summa* III, i.e. Aquinas ST III q. 84) sit at the two-column seam where left-column line-ends and right-column part II interleave in the OCR; cross-references reconstructed from the 450 dpi p. 584 bands (L-0 left column + R-0 right column) but some sub-locators are only partially legible.