title: Dist. 46

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XLVI — De mitigatione poenae damnatorum et de misericordia et veritate in omnibus viis Dei

title_alt: The text of the Master (Lombard), Distinction XLVI — On the mitigation of the punishment of the damned, and on mercy and truth in all the ways of God

source_text:
<!-- page 953 -->

### DISTINCTIO XLVI.

> The numbered notes below are Quaracchi's page footers. Quaracchi restarts its footnote
> numbering on every printed page, and on page 953 it prints two distinct sequences — the notes
> to Bonaventure's *dubia* (notes 1 through 10, which belong to the preceding chunk) and then a
> separate sequence headed *Notae ad Libr. Sententiarum*, whose note 1 is the first note of this
> chunk. The labels used here are therefore page-qualified: note 1 of the *Notae ad Libr.
> Sententiarum* of page 953, notes 1 through 5 of page 954, and notes 1 through 3 of page 955.

### Cap. I.
#### *Si valde malis praestetur mitigatio poenae.*

Sed quaeritur hic de valde malis, utrum et ipsi in aliqua poenarum mitigatione Dei misericordiam sentiant, ut minus, quam meruerint, puniantur. — Quidam autumant, eos nullam relevationem poenae habituros; quod confirmant Iacobi[^p953-lit1] auctoritate dicentis: *Iudicium sine misericordia illi qui non fecit misericordiam.* Augustinus etiam ait: « Misericordia hic, iudicium in futuro ».

<!-- page 954 -->

Idem distinguens, quomodo omnes viae Domini sint *misericordia et veritas*, ait: « Erga Sanctos omnes viae Dei misericordia, erga iniquos omnes veritas; quia et in iudicando subvenit, et ita non deest *misericordia*, et in miserando id exhibet, quod promisit, ne desit *veritas*. Erga omnes autem, quos liberat et damnat, omnes viae sunt misericordia et veritas, quia, ubi non miseretur, vindictae veritas datur ». Dicens: *ubi non miseretur*, dat intelligi, aliquid a Deo fieri, ubi ipse non miseretur. — Sed his occurrit quod ait Cassiodorus super Psalmum quinquagesimum[^p954-1], loquens de misericordia et pietate Dei, « Hae duae, inquit, res iudicio Dei semper adiunctae sunt ». Ergo et in punitione malorum non est iustitia sine misericordia. Idem de misericordia et iudicio ait: « Haec duo mutua societate sibi iunguntur ». In his breviter omnia opera Dei includit. Augustinus[^p954-2] quoque, respondens illis qui reproborum supplicia finem habitura contendunt, ita illorum repellit opinionem, asserens reprobos perpetuo puniendos, ut eorum supplicia aliquatenus mitigari non neget. « Frustra, inquit, nonnulli aeternam damnandorum poenam et cruciatus sine intermissione perpetuos humano miserantur affectu, atque ita futurum esse non credunt, non quidem Scripturis adversando divinis, sed pro suo motu dura quaeque molliendo et in leniorem flectendo sententiam, quae putant in eis terribilius esse dicta quam verius. *Non enim*, inquiunt, *obliviscetur misereri Deus, aut continebit in ira sua misericordias suas.* Hoc quidem in Psalmo legitur, sed de his intelligitur, qui sunt *vasa misericordiae*, quia et ipsi non pro meritis suis, sed Deo miserante, de miseria liberantur. Aut si hoc ad omnes existimant pertinere, non ideo necesse est, ut damnationem opinentur finiri posse eorum, de quibus dictum est: *Ibunt hi in supplicium aeternum*; ne hoc modo putetur habitura finem felicitas eorum, de quibus e contrario dictum est: *Iusti autem in vitam aeternam.* Sed poenas damnatorum certis temporibus existiment, si hoc eis placet, aliquatenus mitigari. Et sic quippe intelligi potest *manere ira Dei* in illis, id est ipsa *damnatio*. Haec enim vocatur *ira Dei*, non divini animi perturbatio, ut in ira sua, id est manente ira sua, non contineat miserationes suas, non aeterno supplicio finem dando, sed levamen adhibendo vel interponendo cruciatibus; quia nec Psalmus ait ad *finiendam* iram suam, vel *post* iram suam, sed *in* ira sua. Quae si sola esset *alienari a regno Dei, carere magna multitudine dulcedinis Dei*; tam grandis tamen est poena, ut ei possint nulla tormenta, quae novimus, comparari, si illa sit aeterna, ista autem sit quamlibet multis saeculis longa ». « Manebit ergo sine fine mors perpetua damnatorum, et omnibus erit ipsa communis, sicut manebit communiter omnium vita aeterna Sanctorum ». — Ecce, ita asserit hic, poenas reproborum non esse finiendas, quod non improbat, si dicatur, eorum supplicio aliquod levamen adhiberi. Unde non incongrue dici potest, Deum, etsi iuste id possit, non omnino tantum punire malos in futuro, quantum meruerunt, sed aliquid eis, quantumcumque mali sint, de poena relaxare.

Quod ergo dictum est: *iudicium sine misericordia fieri illi qui non fecit misericordiam*; ita intelligi potest, quod iudicium damnationis fiet illi qui non fecit misericordiam, pro eo quod fuit sine misericordia; vel fiet iudicium ei sine misericordia liberante et salvante, qui tamen in aliqua poenae alleviatione misericordiam Dei sentiet. Ita cum dicitur: misericordia hic, iudicium in futuro; non negatur, quin in futuro sit misericordiae effectus et in electis, qui per misericordiam ab omni miseria liberabuntur, et in reprobis, qui minus, quam meruerint, cruciabuntur. Sed *hic* non sine causa dicitur *fieri Dei misericordia*, et *iudicium in futuro*; quia et hic multis modis miseretur Deus, quibus non miserebitur tunc; vocat enim nunc peccatores et iustificat, quod tunc non faciet; et tunc, reddens singulis secundum merita, *manifeste* iudicabit qui nunc *occulte* iudicat.

### Cap. II.
#### *De occulto Dei iudicio.*

Cuius « occultum iudicium, ut ait Augustinus[^p954-3], intelligitur poena, qua quisque vel exercetur ad purgationem, vel movetur ad conversionem, vel, si contemnit, excaecatur ad damnationem ». Occultum igitur iudicium Dei *poena* dicitur, quia iudicat purgando, convertendo, excaecando. *Iudicia* quoque Dei interdum appellantur dispositiones[^p954-4] eius de omnibus rebus; unde: *Quam incomprensibilia sunt iudicia eius!* et, *iudicia eius abyssus multa.* Iudicium autem, quo in futuro iudicabit, intelligitur sententia, quia *ventilabitur area*, id est, dividentur localiter boni a malis ministerio Angelorum; et isti in vitam ducentur, illi in supplicium mittentur, qui nunc simul mixti sunt.

### Cap. III.
#### *De iustitia et misericordia Dei.*

Sed quomodo iustitiam Dei et pietatem, id est misericordiam, supra Cassiodorus *duas res* dixit, quae semper adiunctae sunt Dei iudicio? Iustitia enim Dei et misericordia non *duae res*, sed *una res*, id est divina essentia, est, sicut supra[^p954-5] pluribus auctoritatibus ostensum est: quia non est Deo aliud esse misericordem quam misericordiam, nec iustum quam iustitiam, sed idem prorsus. Nec aliud est esse misericordem quam iustum, vel misericordiam quam iustitiam, sed omnino idem; quia non *denominative*, sed *essentialiter* haec de Deo dicuntur. Cur igitur dicit Scriptura de operibus Dei, quaedam esse misericordiae, quaedam iustitiae? Si enim iustitia Dei misericordia est; quaecumque sunt opera misericordiae, esse videntur iustitiae, et e converso. — His responderi potest sic: illis locutionibus, quibus huiusmodi operum fiunt distinctiones, ut alia misericordiae, alia iustitiae, alia bonitati attribuantur; non diversitas *subiacentis*, id est rei his vocabulis significatae, exprimitur, sed varietas sensuum et effectuum in *creaturis* monstratur. Cum enim dicitur Deus *iustus* vel *iustitia*, essentia divina praedicatur; et etiam, quod ipse sit distributor et iudex meritorum, intelligi datur. Ita et, cum dicitur *misericors*, essentia divina praedicatur, et insuper, quod ipse sit miserorum liberator intelligi datur. Similiter, cum dicitur *bonus*, essentia divina praedicatur, ut cum dicitur *Deus*, et insuper auctor omnium bonorum ostenditur. Ita et, cum dicitur *Deus*, essentia divina praedicatur, et ipse timendus ostenditur. Inde ergo quaedam *opera misericordiae*, quaedam *iustitiae* dicuntur, non quin essentia divina haec et illa operetur, et quin haec et illa sint opera divinae essentiae, quae dicitur misericordia et iustitia; sed quia quaedam sunt, quibus ostenditur *iudex* et *aequus distributor*, quaedam, quibus ostenditur *miserator* — *misericors* enim dicitur in natura, *miserator* in exhibitione — et in quibusdam operibus dicitur effectus *misericordiae* esse, in quibusdam effectus *iustitiae*, non quod aliud efficiat iustitia, aliud misericordia Dei, si ad essentiam referas, sed quia ex quibusdam effectibus intelligitur *iudex*, ex quibusdam *miserator*, vel ut quibusdam placet, *iustus* et *misericors*.

<!-- page 955 -->

Sed secundum hoc occurrit quaestio, quomodo ex aliis ostendatur *iustus* et ex aliis *misericors*, cum sit ei idem esse *iustum* et esse *misericordem*. Si enim secundum eandem rationem dicitur *iustus* et *misericors*, ex eo opere, quo intelligitur *iustus*, intelligitur *misericors*, et e converso. — Sed dixi supra, quia, cum dicitur Deus *iustus* et *misericors*, ita eadem divina essentia significatur, et secundum eam idem praedicatur, ut etiam quaedam diversa intelligantur. Intelligimus enim per hoc eum *miseratorem* et *iustum iudicem*. Quod evidenter Origenes[^p955-1] ostendit dicens: « Omnia quae Dei sunt, Christus est: ipse sapientia eius, ipse fortitudo, iustitia, sanctitas, ipse prudentia. Sed cum unum sit in subiacente, pro varietate sensuum diversis nuncupatur vocabulis. Aliud enim significat *sapientia*, aliud *iustitia*. Quando enim *sapientia* dicitur, disciplinis te divinarum humanarumque rerum instruere intelligitur; quando *iustitia*, distributor et iudex meritorum insinuatur. Ita et *prudentia* cum dicitur, doctor et demonstrator bonarum et malarum rerum vel neutrarum intelligitur ».

### Cap. IV.
#### *Quare quaedam opera dicuntur iustitiae, quaedam misericordiae vel bonitatis Dei.*

Quod autem quaedam opera *misericordiae*, quaedam *iustitiae*, quaedam *bonitati* attribuantur, in Scripturis facile est reperire. Et de *misericordia* quidem et *iustitia* manifestum est, de *bonitate* vero et *misericordia* amplius latet. Sed Augustinus[^p955-2] docet, illa opera proprie ad *misericordiam* pertinere, quibus aliqui a miseria liberantur; ad *bonitatem* vero non solum illa, sed facturam et gubernationem naturalium, ita dicens: « Ad *misericordiam* pertinet, quod a peccatis mundat et de miseria liberat; ad *bonitatem* vero, quod caelum et terram et omnia valde bona creavit, ut essent ». Idem: « Caeli non indigent misericordia, ubi nulla est miseria; in terra hominis abundat miseria, et superabundat Domini misericordia. Miseria igitur hominis et *misericordia* Domini *plena est terra*, non *caeli*, qui non indigent misericordia, indigent tamen regente Domino. Omnia enim indigent Domino, et misera et felicia, quia sine illo miser non sublevatur, felix non regitur ». Item alibi: « *Misericordia* est erga miseros, *bonitas* erga quoslibet ». — Interdum tamen *misericordia* large accipitur ut *bonitas*.

### Cap. V.
#### *Quomodo universae viae Domini dicuntur misericordia et veritas.*

Post haec considerari oportet, ex quo sensu *universae viae Domini* dicantur *misericordia et veritas*[^p955-3]. — Hoc multiplicem recipit expositionem. Universae enim viae Domini misericordia et veritas, quibus *ad nos venit*, ut ait Augustinus super Psalmum, intelliguntur *duo adventus: primus*, in quo manifestam et multiplicem misericordiam nobis exhibuit; et *secundus*, in quo requirendo merita iustitiam exhibebit. Universae etiam viae Domini, id est, quibus *ad Dominum ascendimus*, sunt *iustitia*, qua a malo declinamus, et *misericordia*, qua bonum facimus. In his enim duobus omne bonum meritum includitur. — Sed cum superius Cassiodorus dixerit, in his duobus omnia opera Dei includi; merito quaeri potest, an in omni opere Domini haec duo mutuo sibi iungantur. — Quibusdam placuit, non in omni opere Domini haec duo concurrere, secundum *effectum* dico; nam secundum *essentiam* non dividitur misericordia a iustitia, sed unum est; verum secundum *effectum* non in omni opere dicunt esse misericordiam et iustitiam, sed in quibusdam tantum *misericordiam*, in aliis *iustitiam*, atque in aliis *misericordiam et iustitiam*. Fatentur tamen, Deum omnia quae facit, misericorditer agere et iuste, referentes rationem dicti ad Dei *voluntatem*, quae iustitia est et misericordia, non ad *effectus* misericordiae et iustitiae, qui sunt in rebus. — Aliis autem videtur, quod sicut dicitur Deus omnia opera sua facere iuste et misericorditer; ita concedendum sit, in omni opere Dei iustitiam esse et misericordiam, id est clementiam, secundum effectum vel signum, quia nullum opus Dei est, in quo non sit effectus vel signum aequitatis vel clementiae, sive occulte, sive aperte. Aliquando enim manifesta est clementia sive benignitas, et occulta aequitas, aliquando e converso.

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XLVI.

### Chapter I.
#### *Whether a mitigation of punishment is granted to the utterly wicked.*

But it is asked here concerning the utterly wicked, whether they too experience God's mercy in some mitigation of their punishments, so as to be punished less than they have deserved. — Some suppose that they will have no relief of punishment; and they confirm this by the authority of James[^p953-lit1], who says: *Judgment without mercy to him who has not done mercy.* Augustine also says: « Mercy here, judgment in the future ».

Likewise, distinguishing how all the ways of the Lord are *mercy and truth*, he says: « Toward the Saints all the ways of God are mercy, toward the wicked all are truth; because both in judging He comes to aid, and thus *mercy* is not lacking, and in showing mercy He exhibits what He promised, lest *truth* be lacking. But toward all whom He frees and whom He damns, all the ways are mercy and truth, because, where He does not show mercy, the truth of vengeance is given ». By saying: *where He does not show mercy*, he gives it to be understood that something is done by God where He Himself does not show mercy. — But against these there stands what Cassiodorus says on the fiftieth Psalm[^p954-1], speaking of the mercy and the loving-kindness of God: « These two, he says, are always joined to the judgment of God ». Therefore even in the punishment of the wicked there is no justice without mercy. The same author says of mercy and judgment: « These two are joined to one another in mutual fellowship ». In these he briefly includes all the works of God. Augustine[^p954-2] too, answering those who contend that the torments of the reprobate will have an end, so rejects their opinion, asserting that the reprobate are to be punished perpetually, that he does not deny that their torments are to some extent mitigated. « In vain, he says, do some, out of human feeling, pity the eternal punishment of the damned and their unceasing perpetual torments, and thus do not believe that it will be so — not indeed by opposing the divine Scriptures, but by softening, according to their own impulse, whatever is harsh and bending it into a milder judgment, since they think that in those Scriptures such things are said more terribly than truly. *For God will not*, they say, *forget to show mercy, nor will He withhold His mercies in His anger.* This indeed is read in the Psalm, but it is understood of those who are *vessels of mercy*, because they too are freed from misery not according to their own merits but by God's showing mercy. Or if they think that this pertains to all, it is not on that account necessary that they should suppose that the damnation can be ended of those of whom it is said: *These shall go into everlasting punishment*; lest in this way the happiness of those be thought to have an end, of whom on the contrary it is said: *But the just into life everlasting.* But let them suppose, if it pleases them, that the punishments of the damned are at certain times to some extent mitigated. And thus indeed it can be understood that *the anger of God remains* upon them, that is, the *damnation* itself. For this is called *the anger of God*, not a disturbance of the divine mind; so that in His anger, that is, while His anger remains, He does not withhold His compassions — not by giving an end to the eternal torment, but by applying or interposing a relief to the torments; because the Psalm does not say *to end* His anger, or *after* His anger, but *in* His anger. And if this alone were *to be estranged from the kingdom of God, to lack the great multitude of the sweetness of God*; yet so great is the punishment that no torments which we know can be compared to it, if that one be eternal, while this one be long for however many ages ». « There will therefore remain without end the perpetual death of the damned, and it will be common to them all, just as there will remain in common for all the eternal life of the Saints ». — Behold, thus he asserts here that the punishments of the reprobate are not to be ended, which he does not disapprove, if it be said that some relief is applied to their torment. Whence it can not incongruously be said that God, even though He could justly do so, does not punish the wicked in the future altogether as much as they have deserved, but relaxes something of the punishment for them, however wicked they may be.

What therefore has been said — that *judgment without mercy is done to him who has not done mercy* — can be understood thus: that the judgment of damnation will be done to him who has not done mercy, for this reason, that he was without mercy; or judgment will be done to him without a mercy that frees and saves, who nevertheless will experience God's mercy in some alleviation of his punishment. So too, when it is said: mercy here, judgment in the future; it is not denied that in the future there is an effect of mercy both in the elect, who through mercy will be freed from all misery, and in the reprobate, who will be tormented less than they have deserved. But not without cause is it said that *God's mercy is done here*, and *judgment in the future*; because here too God shows mercy in many ways in which He will not show mercy then; for now He calls sinners and justifies them, which then He will not do; and then, rendering to each according to his merits, He will judge *manifestly*, who now judges *secretly*.

### Chapter II.
#### *On the hidden judgment of God.*

Of which « the hidden judgment, as Augustine says[^p954-3], is understood to be the punishment by which each one is either exercised unto purgation, or moved unto conversion, or, if he despises it, blinded unto damnation ». God's hidden judgment is therefore called a *punishment*, because He judges by purging, by converting, by blinding. God's *judgments* are also sometimes called His dispositions[^p954-4] concerning all things; whence: *How incomprehensible are His judgments!* and, *His judgments are a great deep.* But the judgment by which He will judge in the future is understood as the sentence, because *the threshing-floor will be winnowed*, that is, the good will be divided from the wicked locally by the ministry of the Angels; and these will be led into life, those sent into punishment, who now are mingled together.

### Chapter III.
#### *On the justice and mercy of God.*

But how did Cassiodorus above call God's justice and loving-kindness, that is His mercy, *two things*, which are always joined to God's judgment? For God's justice and mercy are not *two things*, but *one thing*, that is the divine essence, as has been shown above[^p954-5] by many authorities: because for God to be merciful is not other than mercy, nor to be just other than justice, but altogether the same. Nor is it other to be merciful than to be just, or mercy than justice, but wholly the same; because these things are said of God not *denominatively*, but *essentially*. Why then does Scripture say of the works of God that some are of mercy, some of justice? For if God's justice is mercy, then whatever are works of mercy seem to be works of justice, and conversely. — To these it can be answered thus: by those manners of speaking in which distinctions of works of this sort are made, so that some are attributed to mercy, some to justice, some to goodness, no diversity of the *underlying subject*, that is, of the thing signified by these words, is expressed, but a variety of senses and of effects in *creatures* is shown. For when God is called *just* or *justice*, the divine essence is predicated; and also it is given to be understood that He is the distributor and judge of merits. So too, when He is called *merciful*, the divine essence is predicated, and moreover it is given to be understood that He is the liberator of the wretched. Likewise, when He is called *good*, the divine essence is predicated, as when He is called *God*, and moreover He is shown to be the author of all good things. So too, when He is called *God*, the divine essence is predicated, and He is shown to be one to be feared. Hence therefore some are called *works of mercy*, some *of justice*, not as though the divine essence did not work both these and those, and as though both these and those were not works of the divine essence, which is called mercy and justice; but because there are some by which He is shown to be *judge* and *equitable distributor*, and some by which He is shown to be *one who takes pity* — for He is called *merciful* in nature, *one who takes pity* in the showing of it — and in some works the effect is said to be of *mercy*, in some the effect of *justice*, not that God's justice effects one thing and His mercy another, if you refer them to the essence, but because from certain effects He is understood as *judge*, from certain others as *one who takes pity*, or, as it pleases some, *just* and *merciful*.

But according to this a question arises: how is He shown *just* from some works and *merciful* from others, since for Him to be *just* and to be *merciful* is the same? For if He is called *just* and *merciful* according to the same account, then from that work by which He is understood *just*, He is understood *merciful*, and conversely. — But I said above that, when God is called *just* and *merciful*, the same divine essence is thus signified, and according to it the same thing is predicated, yet in such a way that certain diverse things are also understood. For by this we understand Him as *one who takes pity* and as *a just judge*. This Origen[^p955-1] evidently shows, saying: « All the things that are God's, Christ is: He is His wisdom, He His strength, justice, holiness, He prudence. But since it is one in the underlying subject, it is named by diverse words according to the variety of senses. For *wisdom* signifies one thing, *justice* another. For when *wisdom* is spoken of, He is understood to instruct you in the disciplines of things divine and human; when *justice*, the distributor and judge of merits is intimated. So too when *prudence* is spoken of, He is understood as the teacher and demonstrator of things good and evil and indifferent ».

### Chapter IV.
#### *Why certain works are called works of justice, and certain works of the mercy or goodness of God.*

That certain works are attributed to *mercy*, certain to *justice*, certain to *goodness*, is easy to find in the Scriptures. And concerning *mercy* indeed and *justice* it is manifest, but concerning *goodness* and *mercy* it lies more hidden. But Augustine[^p955-2] teaches that those works properly pertain to *mercy* by which some are freed from misery; but to *goodness* not only those, but also the making and the governance of natural things, saying thus: « To *mercy* it pertains that He cleanses from sins and frees from misery; but to *goodness*, that He created heaven and earth and all things very good, that they might be ». The same: « The heavens do not need mercy, where there is no misery; on earth man's misery abounds, and the Lord's mercy superabounds. Therefore with man's misery and the Lord's *mercy the earth is full*, not the *heavens*, which do not need mercy, though they do need the Lord to rule them. For all things need the Lord, both the wretched and the happy, because without Him the wretched is not raised up, and the happy is not governed ». Likewise elsewhere: « *Mercy* is toward the wretched, *goodness* toward any whatsoever ». — Sometimes, however, *mercy* is taken broadly, as *goodness*.

### Chapter V.
#### *How all the ways of the Lord are called mercy and truth.*

After these things it must be considered in what sense *all the ways of the Lord* are called *mercy and truth*[^p955-3]. — This admits of a manifold exposition. For all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth, by which *He comes to us*, as Augustine says on the Psalm; and by them are understood *two advents: the first*, in which He showed us a manifest and manifold mercy; and *the second*, in which, requiring merits, He will show justice. Also all the ways of the Lord, that is, those by which *we ascend to the Lord*, are *justice*, by which we turn away from evil, and *mercy*, by which we do good. For in these two every good merit is included. — But since Cassiodorus said above that in these two all the works of God are included, it can rightly be asked whether in every work of the Lord these two are joined to one another. — It has pleased some that these two do not concur in every work of the Lord — I mean according to *effect*; for according to *essence* mercy is not divided from justice, but is one; yet according to *effect* they say that mercy and justice are not in every work, but in some only *mercy*, in others *justice*, and in others *mercy and justice*. They confess nevertheless that God does all that He does mercifully and justly, referring the ground of this saying to God's *will*, which is justice and mercy, not to the *effects* of mercy and justice, which are in things. — To others, however, it seems that, just as God is said to do all His works justly and mercifully, so it must be conceded that in every work of God there is justice and mercy, that is clemency, according to effect or sign, because there is no work of God in which there is not the effect or sign of equity or of clemency, whether secretly or openly. For sometimes clemency or kindness is manifest, and equity hidden; sometimes conversely.

---

la: Cap. 2, 13. Seq. locus est August., *Enarrat. in Ps.* 100. n. 1, deinde *Enarrat. in Ps.* 118 (v. 151.) serm. 29. n. 8.

en: Chapter 2, 13. The following passage is from Augustine, *Expositions on Psalm* 100, n. 1, then *Expositions on Psalm* 118 (v. 151) sermon 29, n. 8.

la: Vers. 15. Seq. locus eiusdem est *Expositio in Ps.* 100, 1.

en: Verse 15. The following passage of the same author is his *Exposition on Psalm* 100, 1.

la: *Enchirid.* c. 122. n. 29. In toto loco citantur Ps. 76, 10; Rom. 9, 23; Matth. 25, 46; deinde respicitur Ioan. 3, 36. — Seq. locus est ibid. c. 113. n. 29.

en: *Enchiridion* c. 122, n. 29. Throughout the passage there are cited Ps. 76, 10; Rom. 9, 23; Matt. 25, 46; then reference is made to John 3, 36. — The following passage is in the same work, c. 113, n. 29.

la: *Enarrat. in Ps.* 9. n. 1.

en: *Expositions on Psalm* 9, n. 1.

la: Ita codd. et ed. 1, in aliis *dispensationes*. Deinde citantur Rom. 11, 33; Ps. 35, 7; Matth. 3, 12. et 25, 46.

en: So the codices and the first edition; in the others, *dispensationes*. Then there are cited Rom. 11, 33; Ps. 35, 7; Matt. 3, 12 and 25, 46.

la: Libr. I. d. VIII. XIX. XXII.

en: Book I, dd. VIII, XIX, XXII.

la: *Homil.* VIII. *in Ieremiam*, n. 2.

en: *Homily* VIII *on Jeremiah*, n. 2.

la: *Enarrat. in Ps.* 135. n. 4. Seq. locus est *Enarrat.* 2. *in Ps.* 32. serm. 2. n. 4, ubi respicitur cit. Psalmi v. 5. Tertius est eiusdem *Enarrat. in Ps.* 24. n. 10, secundum sententiam verbotenus in Glossa apud Lyranum ibid.

en: *Expositions on Psalm* 135, n. 4. The following passage is *Expositions* 2 *on Psalm* 32, sermon 2, n. 4, where reference is made to v. 5 of the Psalm cited. The third is by the same author, *Expositions on Psalm* 24, n. 10, according to the sense given word for word in the Gloss as found in Lyra on the same place.

la: Psalm. 24, 10; verba Augustini sunt loc. cit.

en: Psalm 24, 10; the words of Augustine are at the passage cited. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L101428–L101659, reflowed column-by-column and verified throughout against 450 dpi column bands. The IA djvu OCR interleaves the two columns of every page in this range, so the raw line order is not the reading order; the bands are the authority for sequence and for every footer.

**Bands regenerated, then re-verified against corrected bands.** The default `split_x` of 1880 clips this page-range badly. The drift is **page-parity**, not per-page noise: odd pages sit at ≈1480–1580, even pages at ≈2135–2200, so 1880 falls between the two clusters and is never right (see `manual-review/vol4-column-gutter-parity.md`). With the default split, an even page's left column loses its last ~8 characters per line and an odd page's right column loses its first character — a silent word-level dropout if transcribed from the default bands.

This chunk was first written against ad-hoc regenerations (`953 1730`, `955 1560`, `954 2160`, `956 2160`) made before the parity pattern was diagnosed; the p.953 value in particular was ~250px too far right. All bands were subsequently regenerated at the **true measured gutters — p.953 = 1481, p.954 = 2197, p.955 = 1549, p.956 = 2135** — and this chunk's Latin body and all 9 apparatus entries were re-verified line-by-line against them on 2026-07-18. **No corrections were required**; every right-column line opening on p.953 is intact. The right-hand marginal glosses (*Opinio 1.*, *Dubium 1.*, *Expositio 3.*, *Iudicium Magistri.*, etc.) remain clipped in the wide-L crops; they are editorial page furniture and are deliberately not transcribed.

**Printed page span corrected: 953–955, not 953–956.** The skeleton frontmatter listed p.956. Band `vol4-p956-L-0.png` shows p.956 opening directly with `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XLVI.` / *De statu et conditione animarum damnatarum* / `DIVISIO TEXTUS` — no littera text at all. The littera ends with *e converso.* at the foot of p.955's right column (raw L101647). `printed_pages`, `pdf_pages` and `source` were corrected accordingly; `line_start`/`line_end` were left untouched.

**Distinction header.** The real header is at L101428 (`DISTINCTIO XLYI.`, Y for V), sitting low on p.953 immediately above `Cap. I.` (OCR `Gap. I.`). L101372 (`DISTINGTIO XLVI. 983`) and L101572 (`DISTINCTIO XLVl. 955`) are running-head bleeds from pp. 953 and 955 respectively and were read through, not treated as headers.

**Capitula — five, all rendered.** Cap. I (L101431, OCR `Gap. I.`), Cap. II (p.954 R), Cap. III (p.954 R), Cap. IV (L101637), Cap. V (p.955 R). Only Cap. I and Cap. IV are greppable in the raw OCR; Cap. II, III and V survive only as bare `Cap. II.` / `Cap. III.` / `Cap. V.` fragments inside the right-column cascade and were recovered from the bands.

**Apparatus split map — 9 entries.**
- **p.953** carries *two* footer sequences. The first, notes 1–10, belongs to Bonaventure's *Dubia* and is already transcribed in `bon-sent-IV-d45-dubia.md` (verified by reading that file before writing this one); **none of it is claimed here.** Below it the page prints a second block headed `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.` whose note 1 is the first note of Lombard's littera; that single note is claimed here as `[^p953-lit1]` and anchors *Iacobi*. The `-lit` infix is deliberate, to keep it distinguishable from d.45's unrelated `[^p953-1]`.
- **p.954** — all 5 notes claimed here.
- **p.955** — all 3 notes claimed here. Note 2 runs across the foot of both columns (it begins under the left column and finishes under the right); both halves are joined in the single entry above.

**Hand-offs.** Picked up: none (d.45-dubia closes cleanly at *omnia nosse* and forwards nothing). Forwarded: none — p.955's three footers all anchor in this chunk, and the divisio chunk begins on a fresh printed page (956) with its own footer sequence.

**Seam checks.** Opening sentence (*Sed quaeritur hic de valde malis…*) follows the Cap. I title and is grammatically complete; it is also the lemma the divisio quotes back at L101663 (*Sed quaeritur hic de valde malis etc.*), confirming the boundary. Closing sentence (*Aliquando enim manifesta est clementia sive benignitas, et occulta aequitas, aliquando e converso.*) parses fully — no cascade-merge signature.

**OCR-vs-band disagreements resolved at band time** (not parked as flags): `p.954 n.4` — OCR `Ps. 33, 7`, band reads **Ps. 35, 7**, which is also the correct Vulgate reference for *iudicia eius abyssus multa*; `p.954 n.4` — OCR `dispositiones` in the note body vs `dispensationes` for the variant, band confirms both as printed; `p.954 n.2` — OCR `Mallh. 2S, 46` → **Matth. 25, 46**; `p.954 n.5` — OCR `Libr. 1.` → **Libr. I.**; `p.955 n.2` — OCR `Ps. \ 3b.` → **Ps. 135**, and OCR `Psalmi v. 0.` → **v. 5**; `p.955 n.2` — OCR `Lyianum` → **Lyranum**; `p.954` body — OCR `incomprensibiiia` → *incomprensibilia* (Quaracchi's own spelling, retained without the second *h*), `Angastinus`/`Auguslinus` → *Augustinus* throughout, `nuilam` → *nullam*, `alleviatione` confirmed against OCR `alleuiatione`.

**Page-break placement.** `<!-- page 954 -->` and `<!-- page 955 -->` are set at paragraph boundaries per the house rule. The true printed breaks fall mid-sentence: p.954 begins at *Idem distinguens…* (a genuine paragraph start, so exact), and p.955 begins mid-paragraph at *et e converso. — His responderi potest sic:* inside Cap. III; the marker is therefore placed at the next paragraph boundary (*Sed secundum hoc occurrit quaestio…*), and the offset is recorded here.

**Observation for the coordinator (not a change to another chunk).** Three of `bon-sent-IV-d45-dubia.md`'s p.953 apparatus entries appear to disagree with the p.953 bands: `[^p953-6]` reads *tom. II. pag. 177, nota 3* where the band reads **nota 5**; `[^p953-7]` reads *III. Sent. d. 33. q. 1. ad 2* where the band reads **d. 35. q. 4. ad 2**. Flagged for the decade-polish pass; that file was not touched.

**`[?]` flags.** None.

**No scholion.** The littera carries none; `has_scholion: false` is correct.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 46, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 956 -->

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page, so the labels here are page-qualified: notes 1–3 of page 956.

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XLVI.
#### *De statu et conditione animarum damnatarum.*

*Sed quaeritur hic de valde malis* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de statu et conditione animarum bonarum. In hac parte agit de statu et conditione animarum damnatarum[^p956-1]. Unde in hac parte Magister quaerit, utrum animae damnatae recipiant unquam mitigationem in poena per benignitatem misericordiae, an solummodo puniantur per severitatem iustitiae. Et haec pars dividitur in duas. In prima quaerit et determinat. In secunda ostendit, qualiter misericordia Dei in omni[^p956-2] opere currit cum iustitia, ibi: *Sed quomodo iustitiam Dei et pietatem* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima investigat et opponit. In secunda determinat et solvit, ibi: *Unde non incongrue dici potest* etc.

Similiter secunda pars habet duas. In prima comparat misericordiam et iustitiam ad invicem. In secunda vero comparat ad operationem, ibi: *Quod autem quaedam opera misericordiae* etc. Et illa secunda pars habet duas. In prima ostendit, quod quaedam opera aptantur misericordiae, quaedam iustitiae. In secunda vero determinat, quomodo illud intelligitur: *Universae viae Domini misericordia et veritas*[^p956-3], ibi: *Post haec considerari oportet.* — Et sic duo determinat hic principaliter, scilicet utrum poenae malorum recipiant mitigationem. Secundo vero, quomodo misericordia et veritas eandem respiciant operationem.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis secundum duo, quae determinat Magister in littera, duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum poena malorum recipiat mitigationem.

Secundo quaeritur, quomodo misericordia et veritas eandem respiciant operationem.

Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor.

Primo quaeritur, utrum aliqua mitigatio poenae fiat damnatis propter suffragia Ecclesiae.

Secundo, utrum fiat mitigatio propter pietatem misericordiae.

Tertio, utrum Deus agat misericordius cum uno quam cum altero.

Quarto, utrum agat iustius cum uno quam cum altero.

---

english:
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XLVI.
#### *On the state and condition of the souls of the damned.*

*But it is asked here concerning the utterly wicked* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the state and condition of the souls of the good. In this part he treats of the state and condition of the souls of the damned[^p956-1]. Hence in this part the Master asks whether the damned souls ever receive any mitigation in their punishment through the kindness of mercy, or whether they are punished solely through the severity of justice. And this part is divided into two. In the first he inquires and determines. In the second he shows in what manner the mercy of God runs together with justice in every[^p956-2] work, there: *But how the justice of God and his loving-kindness* etc.

The first part has two. In the first he investigates and raises objections. In the second he determines and resolves, there: *Hence it can not unfittingly be said* etc.

Likewise the second part has two. In the first he compares mercy and justice to one another. In the second he compares them to [God's] operation, there: *But that certain works [are attributed] to mercy* etc. And that second part has two. In the first he shows that certain works are fitted to mercy, certain to justice. In the second he determines how that saying is to be understood: *All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth*[^p956-3], there: *After these things it must be considered.* — And thus he determines two things here principally, namely whether the punishments of the wicked receive mitigation. Secondly, how mercy and truth regard the same operation.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of the present distinction, according to the two things which the Master determines in the text, two questions are principally asked.

First it is asked whether the punishment of the wicked receives mitigation.

Secondly it is asked how mercy and truth regard the same operation.

Concerning the first, four questions are asked.

First it is asked whether any mitigation of punishment is granted to the damned on account of the suffrages of the Church.

Secondly, whether a mitigation is granted on account of the loving-kindness of mercy.

Thirdly, whether God acts more mercifully with one than with another.

Fourthly, whether he acts more justly with one than with another.

---

la: Codd. A F G I K V *damnatorum*.

en: Codices A F G I K V read *damnatorum*.

la: Fide codd. B C G Q aa (bb a secunda manu) supplevimus *omni*.

en: On the faith of codices B C G Q aa (bb by a second hand) we have supplied *omni*.

la: Psalm. 24, 10. — Superius post *iustitiae* edd. addunt *quaedam pietati*.

en: Psalm 24:10 [Vulgate]. — Above, after *iustitiae*, the editions add *quaedam pietati*. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L101660–L101702 (COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XLVI. at L101660; DIVISIO TEXTUS at L101666; TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM at L101688), reflowed column-by-column and verified against the 450 dpi bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p956-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. Printed p. 956 = PDF p. 976 (offset +20).

**Bands regenerated.** The default L bands for p. 956 were clipped at the right edge of the left column (the split fell inside the text block). Regenerated wider with `python3.11 tools/colcrop.py vol4 956 2120 3 1.15`; all six p.956 bands now reflect that split.

**Page → apparatus split map (p. 956).** The printed page carries **five** footer notes, split across two chunks by body anchor:

| Note | Content | Anchor | Chunk |
|---|---|---|---|
| p.956 n.1 | `Codd. A F G I K V damnatorum.` | *animarum damnatarum* (DIVISIO TEXTUS) | **this chunk** |
| p.956 n.2 | `Fide codd. B C G Q aa … supplevimus omni.` | *in omni opere* (DIVISIO TEXTUS) | **this chunk** |
| p.956 n.3 | `Psalm. 24, 10. — Superius post iustitiae …` | *misericordia et veritas* (DIVISIO TEXTUS) | **this chunk** |
| p.956 n.4 | `Cap. 110, n. 29. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XLV. c. 2. — Inferius pro ergo si damnatio edd. ergo si punitio.` | *Augustinum in Enchiridio* (a.1 q.1, arg. 1) | → `d46-a1-q1` |
| p.956 n.5 | `Hanc sententiam, quae etiam Hieron. tribuitur, Guliel. Antissiod. …` | *Augustinus dicit, quod poena Arii* (a.1 q.1, arg. 2) | → `d46-a1-q1` |

Notes 1–3 sit in the left footer column, 4–5 in the right; the raw OCR interleaves them at L101724–L101737.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* none. The p.955 footer block (raw L101652–L101654, three notes on Homil. VIII in Ieremiam / Enarrat. in Ps. / Psalm. 24, 10) belongs wholly to the preceding `d46-littera`; no p.955 note anchors in this body.
- *Forwarded:* p.956 notes 4 and 5 → `bon-sent-IV-d46-a1-q1` (raw L101724–L101737).

**Seam checks.** Opening (`COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XLVI.`) is a clean section head immediately after the p.956 running head at L101655, so no continuity splice with `d46-littera`. Closing sentence (*Quarto, utrum agat iustius cum uno quam cum altero.*) parses and completes the Art. I four-question listing; `d46-a1-q1` opens at `ARTICULUS I.` (L101703, OCR `ARTIGULUS`). Art. II's own question listing is not printed here — it belongs to `d46-a2-q1`, as briefed.

**Stray Lombard material.** None. Verified off the bands: the raw range L101655–L101710 contains no interleaved `Cap.` / littera text; the only left-margin gloss on p. 956 is `Ad oppositum.` at the foot of the left column, which belongs to `d46-a1-q1`, not to this chunk.

**OCR vs. band disagreements resolved at band time** (band authoritative, no `[?]` parked): `anioiarum` → *animarum*; `Simililer` → *Similiter*; `delerminat`/`determinal` → *determinat*; `invesligat` → *investigat*; `qnaedam` → *quaedam*; `inteliigitur` → *intelligitur*; `verilas` → *veritas*; `curril` → *currit*; `dno` → *duo*; `principaiiter`/`sciiicet` → *principaliter* / *scilicet*; `recipianl`/`punianlur` → *recipiant* / *puniantur*; `Magisler` → *Magister*; `Terlio` → *Tertio*; `qualuor` → *quatuor*; `Circaprimum` → *Circa primum* (word-space lost in OCR); `iustiliam` → *iustitiam*; `quaerilur` → *quaeritur*. The band also confirms `Psalm. 24, 10` in note 3 (OCR digits intact) and `Codd. A F G I K V` in note 1 (OCR `damnaioruin` → *damnatorum*).

**`[?]` flags.** None.

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. 46, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 956 -->

### Articulus I. *De mitigatione poenae malorum.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum per suffragia Ecclesiae aliqua mitigatio fiat damnatis.*

> The numbered footnotes below are page-qualified because Quaracchi restarts its footer numbering on every printed page: notes 4 and 5 of page 956, notes 1 through 11 of page 957, and notes 1 through 4 of page 958. Notes 1 through 3 of page 956 anchor in the preceding *divisio* chunk and are rendered there.

Quantum ergo ad primum sic proceditur, et ostenditur, quod per suffragia Ecclesiae aliqua mitigatio fiat damnatis:

1. Primo per Augustinum in *Enchiridio*[^p956-4], qui dicit, quod «quibus prosunt vel ad hoc prosunt, ut plena fiat remissio, vel ut tolerabilior sit eis damnatio»: ergo si damnatio est in damnatis, videtur, quod illa possit mitigari.

2. Item, Augustinus[^p956-5] dicit, quod poena Arii non est determinata, quia augetur, secundum quod peccantes suo errore multiplicantur; sed Deus pronior est ad miserandum quam ad condemnandum: ergo si in statu, in quo sunt, potest eorum poena augeri, potest et minui.

<!-- page 957 -->

3. Item, impossibile est, multorum preces non exaudiri; sed Ecclesia orat pro omnibus baptizatis[^p957-1] et fidelibus, qui moriuntur, de quibus non constat, quod vadant in infernum; sed multi talium damnantur: ergo si Ecclesia non frustra orat, patet etc.

4. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia plus placet Deo improportionaliter poena, quam quis sustinet voluntarius, quam illa quam quis sustinet invitus[^p957-2]; sed damnatus poenam sustinet invitus, aliquis vir iustus, qui ei suffragatur, pro eo sustinet voluntarius: ergo iste plus solvit Deo pro illo patiendo, quam ille pro se: ergo si Dominus dimittit quod minus placet pro eo quod magis; patet etc.

5. Item, iste punit se ex caritate et pro eo qui est in inferno: ergo Deus acceptat hanc poenam pro illo; sed *non punit bis in id ipsum*[^p957-3]: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. Augustinus *de Cura pro mortuis agenda*[^p957-4] dicit, quod «Ecclesiae suffragia pro valde bonis sunt gratiarum actiones, pro valde malis sunt qualescumque vivorum consolationes»: ergo non prosunt valde malis; sed valde mali sunt qui sunt in inferno: ergo etc.

2. Item, auctoritas dicit[^p957-5], quod «in inferno nulla est redemptio», et Ecclesia istud cantat: ergo si nulla redemptio est ibi, videtur, quod nulla sit mitigatio.

3. Item, Ecclesia non facit suffragia pro damnatis; quod patet, quia in Corpore Christi, in quo est specialiter suffragium defunctorum, ut dicit Magister supra distinctione duodecima[^p957-6], non fit memoria nisi pro vivis, et illis qui sunt in purgatorio, et qui sunt in paradiso; sed faceret, si damnatis prodesset: ergo etc.

4. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia damnati non sunt ex caritate diligendi; quod patet, quia non sunt ordinati ad vitam: ergo cum caritas faciat suffragium acceptabile, nullum suffragium pro eis factum Deo est acceptum: ergo nec debet pro eis fieri[^p957-7].

5. Item, suffragia facta pro Beatis, quia sunt in termino, non augent gloriam: ergo cum damnati similiter sint in termino, non minuunt eis *poenam*.

6. Item, quod non minuit de *culpa* nec de *poena*, quia tantae culpae debetur[^p957-8] tanta poena; sed damnatorum culpa non potest minui: ergo etc.

7. Item, si minuat, aut *extensive*, aut *intensive*. Si *intensive*: ergo cum non sit intensione infinita, tota poterit auferri per suffragia. Si ergo *extensive*; sed infinita est extensione, et ab infinito nihil adimitur. *Si dicas*, quod est finita ex parte *ante*, et ex illa est diminutio, quia est poenae dilatio: ergo *tunc* «dedecus peccati est sine decore iustitiae[^p957-9]».

### Conclusio

> *Suffragia damnatis non prosunt, nec Ecclesia intendit pro eis rogare.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliquorum fuit positio, ut magistri Praepositivi[^p957-10], quod suffragia damnatis prosunt, non tamen omnibus, quia non valde malis, sed mediocriter, ut puta illis qui habuerunt opera bona, per quae merentur ab aliis adiuvari. Sed in modo positionis diversificati sunt.

Nam quidam dicunt, quod prosunt ad dimissionem[^p957-11] poenae quantum ad *interpolationem*; et ideo non totaliter aufertur, sed solum ad modicum temporis. — Sed ista positio non videtur conveniens. Cum enim deordinatio culpae non recipiat intermissionem, quomodo reordinatio poenae recipiet?

<!-- page 958 -->

Ideo dicunt alii, quod fit remissio *simpliciter*, non ad tempus; sed tamen nunquam tota poena aufertur, quia fit ablatio secundum proportionem *geometricam*, non secundum proportionem *arithmeticam*[^p958-1], id est, quando fit, remittitur primo aliquota pars poenae, in secunda vice adimitur tantum, non secundum *quantitatem*, sed secundum *proportionem*, ut si primo aufertur centesima pars, similiter et secundo et tertio centesima pars eius quod remanet; et ideo semper remanet. — Sed certe istud non solvit, quia suffragia sequentia non minus valent quam praecedentia: ergo tantundem de poena faciunt remitti secundum quantitatem poenae remissae.

Ideo dicunt tertii, quod prosunt non in ablationem[^p958-2] totalis poenae nec ad ablationem de parte poenae diminuendo puniens, sed *fortificando subiectum*, ut melius et tolerabilius portet. — Sed ista opinio non videtur posse stare: quia, si fortificatur, aut fortitudine *gratiae*, aut *naturae*; non *gratiae*, hoc constat; non *naturae*, quia haec fortitudo non est a natura: ergo nullo modo.

Ideo est aliorum opinio communior et verior, quod suffragia damnatis non prosunt, nec Ecclesia intendit orare pro eis.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod prosunt ad tolerabiliorem damnationem; dicendum, quod non intelligit de damnatione facta in *inferno*, ubi nulla est redemptio, sed in *purgatorio*. Et vult dicere, quod illis dupliciter prosunt: vel *liberando*, ut illos qui parum habent de cremabili; vel *mitigando* quantum ad illos qui multum[^p958-3].

2. Ad aliud dicendum, quod non est simile: quia remissio debet fundari super fundamentum caritatis; et quoniam Arius habet malam voluntatem, ideo potest augeri poena eius et non remitti.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod multorum preces exaudiuntur; dicendum, quod ubi constaret Ecclesiae, quod esset damnatus, non oraret; sed non constat, ergo orat, quia aut valet, si non est damnatus; aut si est damnatus, revertitur *in sinu suo*[^p958-4].

4. 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod plus placet Deo poena voluntaria quam involuntaria; dicendum, quod est verum, unde Deus remunerat virum iustum pro illa poena; sed ista poena voluntaria non potest assumi nec acceptari pro eo qui non habet caritatem. Et ideo patet sequens.

english:
### Article I. *On the mitigation of the punishment of the wicked.*
### Question I. *Whether through the suffrages of the Church any mitigation is granted to the damned.*

As regards the first, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that through the suffrages of the Church some mitigation is granted to the damned:

1. First, through Augustine in the *Enchiridion*[^p956-4], who says that "those to whom they are of profit, are profited either to this end, that full remission be made, or that their damnation be more tolerable": therefore, if damnation is in the damned, it seems that it can be mitigated.

2. Likewise, Augustine[^p956-5] says that the punishment of Arius is not fixed, because it is increased in proportion as those who sin by his error are multiplied; but God is more inclined to have mercy than to condemn: therefore, if in the state in which they are their punishment can be increased, it can also be diminished.

<!-- page 957 -->

3. Likewise, it is impossible that the prayers of many should not be heard; but the Church prays for all the baptized[^p957-1] and the faithful who die, concerning whom it is not established that they go to hell; yet many such are damned: therefore, if the Church does not pray in vain, the point is plain, etc.

4. Likewise, it seems so *by reason*: because a punishment which someone bears willingly pleases God disproportionately more than that which someone bears unwillingly[^p957-2]; but the damned man bears his punishment unwillingly, while some just man who offers suffrage for him bears it willingly on his behalf: therefore this man pays God more by suffering for that one than that one pays for himself: therefore, if the Lord remits what pleases less on account of what pleases more, the point is plain, etc.

5. Likewise, this man punishes himself out of charity and on behalf of him who is in hell: therefore God accepts this punishment for him; but *He does not punish twice for the same thing*[^p957-3]: therefore, etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. Augustine, *On the Care to Be Had for the Dead*[^p957-4], says that "the suffrages of the Church are, for the very good, acts of thanksgiving; for the very wicked they are consolations of some kind for the living": therefore they do not profit the very wicked; but the very wicked are those who are in hell: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, the authority says[^p957-5] that "in hell there is no redemption", and the Church sings this: therefore, if there is no redemption there, it seems that there is no mitigation.

3. Likewise, the Church does not make suffrages for the damned; which is plain, because in the Body of Christ, in which there is especially the suffrage of the dead, as the Master says above in the twelfth distinction[^p957-6], no memorial is made except for the living, and for those who are in purgatory, and for those who are in paradise; but it would do so if it profited the damned: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, it seems so *by reason*: because the damned are not to be loved out of charity; which is plain, because they are not ordered to life: therefore, since charity makes a suffrage acceptable, no suffrage made for them is acceptable to God: therefore neither ought it to be made for them[^p957-7].

5. Likewise, suffrages made for the Blessed do not increase their glory, because they are at their term: therefore, since the damned are likewise at their term, they do not diminish their *punishment*.

6. Likewise, what does not diminish anything of *guilt* does not diminish anything of *punishment* either, because to so great a guilt so great a punishment is owed[^p957-8]; but the guilt of the damned cannot be diminished: therefore, etc.

7. Likewise, if it diminishes, it does so either *extensively* or *intensively*. If *intensively*: therefore, since it is not infinite in intensity, the whole could be taken away by suffrages. If therefore *extensively*: but it is infinite in extension, and from the infinite nothing is taken away. *If you say* that it is finite on the side of the *prior*, and that the diminution comes from that, because it is a deferral of punishment: therefore *then* "the disgrace of sin is without the comeliness of justice[^p957-9]".

### Conclusion

> *Suffrages do not profit the damned, nor does the Church intend to pray for them.*

**I respond:** It must be said that it was the position of some, such as master Praepositivus[^p957-10], that suffrages profit the damned, yet not all of them, because not the very wicked, but the moderately wicked — such, for instance, as had good works, by which they merit to be helped by others. But they differed in the manner of the position.

For some say that they profit toward a remission[^p957-11] of punishment as regards *interpolation*; and therefore it is not taken away wholly, but only for a short space of time. — But this position does not seem fitting. For since the disorder of guilt does not admit of intermission, how shall the reordering of punishment admit of it?

<!-- page 958 -->

Therefore others say that remission is made *simply*, not for a time; yet nevertheless the whole punishment is never taken away, because the removal is made according to *geometrical* proportion, not according to *arithmetical* proportion[^p958-1] — that is, when it happens, an aliquot part of the punishment is first remitted; on the second occasion just as much is taken away, not according to *quantity*, but according to *proportion*, so that if at first a hundredth part is taken away, likewise on the second and third occasion a hundredth part of what remains; and therefore something always remains. — But surely this does not solve the difficulty, because subsequent suffrages are not worth less than preceding ones: therefore they cause just as much of the punishment to be remitted according to the quantity of the punishment remitted.

Therefore a third group say that they profit not toward the removal[^p958-2] of the whole punishment, nor toward a removal of part of the punishment by diminishing what punishes, but by *strengthening the subject*, so that it may bear it better and more tolerably. — But this opinion does not seem able to stand: because, if it is strengthened, it is either by the strength of *grace* or of *nature*; not of *grace*, this is agreed; not of *nature*, because this strength is not from nature: therefore in no way.

Therefore the opinion of others is more common and more true, namely that suffrages do not profit the damned, nor does the Church intend to pray for them.

**To the arguments for the affirmative part:**

1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that they profit toward a more tolerable damnation; it must be said that he does not understand it of the damnation inflicted in *hell*, where there is no redemption, but in *purgatory*. And he means to say that they profit those in two ways: either by *freeing*, as those who have little that is combustible; or by *mitigating*, as regards those who have much[^p958-3].

2. To the other it must be said that the case is not alike: because remission ought to be founded upon the foundation of charity; and since Arius has an evil will, therefore his punishment can be increased and not remitted.

3. To that which is objected, that the prayers of many are heard; it must be said that where it were established to the Church that a man was damned, it would not pray; but it is not established, therefore it prays, because either it avails, if he is not damned; or, if he is damned, it *returns into her own bosom*[^p958-4].

4. 5. To that which is objected, that a voluntary punishment pleases God more than an involuntary one; it must be said that this is true, whence God rewards the just man for that punishment; but that voluntary punishment cannot be taken up nor accepted on behalf of him who does not have charity. And thus what follows is plain.

la: Cap. 110, n. 29. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XLV. c. 2. — Inferius pro *ergo si damnatio* edd. *ergo si punitio*.

en: Ch. 110, n. 29. See above in the text of the Master, d. XLV, c. 2. — Below, for *ergo si damnatio* the editions read *ergo si punitio*.

la: Hanc sententiam, quae etiam Hieron. tribuitur, Guliel. Antissiod., S. p. IV. tr. 14. q. 1, sic exhibet: «Item dicit Augustinus, quod incerta est poena Arii, quia incertum est, quot per eius doctrinam fuerint subvertendi». Illum locum inveniendum relinquimus aliis. — De *minori*, in qua plures codd. *miserendum* pro *miserandum*, vide supra pag. 333, nota 3. — Subinde pro *ergo si* multi codd. *sed si*, inter quos cod. K post *augeri* addit *ergo*.

en: This opinion, which is also attributed to Jerome, William of Auxerre (*Summa* p. IV, tr. 14, q. 1) presents thus: "Likewise Augustine says that the punishment of Arius is uncertain, because it is uncertain how many will have been subverted by his teaching." We leave the finding of that passage to others. — On the *minor* premiss, in which several codices read *miserendum* for *miserandum*, see above, p. 333, note 3. — Thereafter, for *ergo si* many codices read *sed si*, among which cod. K after *augeri* adds *ergo*.

la: Ex cod. aa substituimus *baptizatis* pro *damnatis*, cod. P omittit *baptizatis et*.

en: From cod. aa we have substituted *baptizatis* for *damnatis*; cod. P omits *baptizatis et*.

la: Rationem vide supra d. 20. p. I. q. 2. circa finem corp.

en: For the reason see above, d. 20, p. I, q. 2, near the end of the body.

la: Nahum 1, 9. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XV. c. 1. — Superius ante *pro eo* codd. M U omittunt *et*.

en: Nahum 1:9. Compare above, the text of the Master, d. XV, c. 1. — Above, before *pro eo*, codices M and U omit *et*.

la: Potius *Enchirid.* c. 110. n. 29, supra in lit. Magistri, d. XLV. c. 2, allegatum. Loco a S. Bonav. citato c. 1. n. 2. et c. 18. n. 22. invenitur *conclusio*: Sunt enim quos nihil omnino adiuvant ista, sive pro eis fiant, quorum *tam mala* sunt merita, ut neque talibus digni sint adiuvari etc.

en: Rather the *Enchiridion*, c. 110, n. 29, cited above in the text of the Master, d. XLV, c. 2. In the place cited by St. Bonaventure, c. 1, n. 2, and c. 18, n. 22, this *conclusion* is found: For there are those whom these things help not at all, even if they are done for them, whose merits are *so evil* that they are not worthy to be helped by such things, etc.

la: Cod. aa subiungit: *secundum Septuaginta, ubi dicitur septimo Iob* (v. 9.): Sicut consumitur nubes et pertransit, sic qui descenderit ad inferos, non ascendet (translatio Septuaginta interpretum: Tanquam nubes expurgata de caelo; si enim homo descenderit ad infernum, ultra non ascendet). Cfr. supra pag. 939, nota 7.

en: Cod. aa adds: *according to the Septuagint, where it is said in the seventh chapter of Job* (v. 9): As a cloud is consumed and passes away, so he who has descended to the lower regions shall not come up (the translation of the Seventy interpreters: Like a cloud swept clean from the sky; for if a man has descended to hell, he shall not come up again). Compare above, p. 939, note 7.

la: Cap. 4. Cfr. ibid. Comment. p. I. a. 3. q. 3, ubi agitur de significatione trium partium hostiae fractae in Missa, ad quam respiciens cod. aa inferius post *paradiso* addit: *et ob haec tres partes fiunt*.

en: Ch. 4. Compare there the Commentary, p. I, a. 3, q. 3, where the signification of the three parts of the broken host in the Mass is treated; with reference to which cod. aa below, after *paradiso*, adds: *and on this account three parts are made*.

la: Vide August., XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 24. n. 1. seq.

en: See Augustine, *City of God* XXI, c. 24, n. 1 f.

la: Plures codd. *defertur*.

en: Several codices read *defertur*.

la: August., III. de Lib. Arb. c. 15. n. 44: Nullo autem temporis intervallo ista dividuntur... ut sit in ea peccati dedecus sine decore vindictae. — De *infinito* cfr. Aristot., VI. Phys. text. 61. seqq. (c. 7.). — Superius ex codd. G L aa bb supplevimus *tota*. Pro *Si ergo* cod. L *Si vero*, cod. G *Si*, et pro *quia est* cod. V *quae est*.

en: Augustine, *On Free Choice* III, c. 15, n. 44: But these are divided by no interval of time... so that in it there should be the disgrace of sin without the comeliness of vengeance. — On the *infinite*, compare Aristotle, *Physics* VI, text 61 ff. (c. 7). — Above, from codices G, L, aa, bb we have supplied *tota*. For *Si ergo* cod. L reads *Si vero*, cod. G *Si*; and for *quia est* cod. V reads *quae est*.

la: Vide scholion ad hanc quaest. — De *valde* et *mediocriter malis* vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XLV. c. 2. — Inferius pro *per quae* cod. L *propter quae*.

en: See the scholion on this question. — On the *very* and the *moderately* wicked see above, the text of the Master, d. XLV, c. 2. — Below, for *per quae* cod. L reads *propter quae*.

la: Codd. O R T aa *diminutionem*. Inferius pro *sed solum* codd. G L (E a secunda manu) *quia aufertur solum*, cod. aa *sed aufertur solum*, cod. K (I a secunda manu) vero post *temporis* addit *mitigatur*. Subinde pro *reordinatio* codd. I K M *ordinatio*, alii et ed. 1 perperam *deordinatio*.

en: Codices O, R, T, aa read *diminutionem*. Below, for *sed solum* codices G, L (E by a second hand) read *quia aufertur solum*, cod. aa *sed aufertur solum*, while cod. K (I by a second hand) after *temporis* adds *mitigatur*. Thereafter, for *reordinatio* codices I, K, M read *ordinatio*; the others and ed. 1 wrongly *deordinatio*.

la: De duplici hac proportione cfr. Boeth., II. de Arithmet. c. 40. seqq. — Secuti sumus cod. bb, dum alii codd. et ed. 1 legunt: *secundum proportionem arithmeticam, non secundum proportionem geometricam*, quam falsam lectionem (cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 2, et S. Thom., d. 45. q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1.) Vat. correxit sic: *non secundum proportionem arithmeticam, sed secundum* etc. Inferius pro *eius quod remanet*, quod praebent codd. E G L aa, alii codd. *eius remanet*, vel *eius, pro remanet*, edd. *eiusdem partis remanet*.

en: On this twofold proportion compare Boethius, *On Arithmetic* II, c. 40 ff. — We have followed cod. bb, while the other codices and ed. 1 read: *according to arithmetical proportion, not according to geometrical proportion* — a false reading (compare Bl. Albert, here a. 2, and St. Thomas, d. 45, q. 2, a. 2, quaestiuncula 1) which the Vatican edition corrected thus: *not according to arithmetical proportion, but according to* etc. Below, for *eius quod remanet*, which codices E, G, L, aa provide, other codices read *eius remanet*, or *eius, pro remanet*; the editions *eiusdem partis remanet*.

la: Plures codd. *ad ablationem* (cod. H *absolutionem*).

en: Several codices read *ad ablationem* (cod. H *absolutionem*).

la: Cfr. supra d. 15. p. I. q. 6. in corp.

en: Compare above, d. 15, p. I, q. 6, in the body.

la: Respicitur Ps. 34, 13: Et oratio mea in sinu meo convertetur. Cfr. August., XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 24. n. 1. — Edd. *in sinum suum*. Superius pro *quod ubi* cod. R *quodsi*.

en: Reference is made to Ps. 34:13: And my prayer shall be turned into my bosom. Compare Augustine, *City of God* XXI, c. 24, n. 1. — The editions read *in sinum suum*. Above, for *quod ubi* cod. R reads *quodsi*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Praepositivus in corp. citatus, postquam circa finem suae Summae in quaest. de igne purgatorii retulit opinionem *nunc communem*, prosequitur: «Aliis videtur, quorum sententia *communior* est, quod et illis qui sunt in inferno mediocriter mali, prosunt orationes et alia ad mitiorem poenam» (quod multiplici distinctione termini *mereri* explanare et defendere studet); deinde addit, quod «una et eadem [Ecclesiae] oratio valet uni ad *remissionem*, alii ad *mitigationem*». Ad obiectionem, quod hoc modo tota poena possit tolli; dicit, eam minui posse, sed non tolli; «et si concederetur, quod meritis Ecclesiae usque ad diem iudicii poena tolli [supple: possit], ultra tamen non posset. Sed nec vermis malae conscientiae posset ei ab Ecclesia mitigari. Haec sententia mansuetior, sed prima facilior». — Secundam opinionem hic relatam de modo talis mitigationis poenarum, quae scil. fiat non secundum eandem quantitatem, sed secundum eandem proportionem, teste S. Thoma (supra d. 45. q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 71. a. 5.), tenuerunt sequaces Gilberti Porretani, cuius errores quidam in Concilio Rhemensi sub Eugenio III. reprobati sunt. — Tertius vero modus a S. Thoma tribuitur *Antissiodorensi*, qui re vera (Sum. p. IV. tr. 14. q. 1.) prolixe pro utraque opinione argumenta affert et solvit; attamen in fine concludit: «Dicimus sine praeiudicio melioris sententiae, quod illa quae dicit, quod suffragia [damnatis] *non prosunt, probabilior est* et magis consonat divinis eloquiis»; nec in editione citatae Summae mentio fit illius modi, quem S. Thom. auctori tribuit.

De 1. et 2. quaestione praeter S. Thomam: Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 39. m. 3. a. 3. 4. — Scot., supra d. 21. n. 13. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 4. — Durand., supra d. 45. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de toto art. hic q. 1. 2.

**II.** De 3. quaestione S. Thom. cum plerisque aliis commentatoribus Lombardi non agit specialiter, tamen in sequente quaestione in solut. ad 2. cum S. Bonav. docet, respectu *effectus* Deum misericordius agere cum uno quam cum alio. — In solutione 4. quaestionis cum eodem negat, Deum iustius agere cum uno quam cum alio, licet maiorem *poenam* vel minorem inferat uni quam alii, sive, ut auctor noster ait, licet magis vel minus *severe* agat. — De 3. et 4. q. Alex. Hal., loc. cit. et a. 5.

De 4. praecipue quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 4. — Petr. a Tar. rem tangit hic q. 3. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 4.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Praepositivus, cited in the body, after he had, toward the end of his *Summa* in the question on the fire of purgatory, reported the opinion *now common*, goes on: "It seems to others, whose opinion is *more common*, that prayers and other things profit even those who are in hell as moderately wicked, toward a milder punishment" (which he strives to explain and defend by a manifold distinction of the term *to merit*); then he adds that "one and the same prayer [of the Church] avails for one man toward *remission*, for another toward *mitigation*". To the objection that in this way the whole punishment could be taken away, he says that it can be diminished, but not taken away; "and if it were granted that by the merits of the Church the punishment could be taken away up to the day of judgment, beyond that it nevertheless could not. But neither could the worm of an evil conscience be mitigated for him by the Church. This opinion is gentler, but the first is easier." — The second opinion reported here concerning the manner of such mitigation of punishments — namely, that it takes place not according to the same quantity, but according to the same proportion — was held, on the testimony of St. Thomas (above, d. 45, q. 2, a. 2, quaestiuncula 1; *Suppl.* q. 71, a. 5), by the followers of Gilbert de la Porrée, certain of whose errors were reprobated in the Council of Rheims under Eugene III. — The third manner, however, is attributed by St. Thomas to *the Auxerrean*, who in fact (*Summa* p. IV, tr. 14, q. 1) at length brings forward and solves arguments for both opinions; yet at the end he concludes: "We say, without prejudice to a better opinion, that the view which says that suffrages *do not profit* [the damned] *is more probable* and accords better with the divine utterances"; nor in the edition of the cited *Summa* is any mention made of that manner which St. Thomas attributes to its author.

On questions 1 and 2, besides St. Thomas: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. I, q. 39, m. 3, a. 3, 4. — Scotus, above, d. 21, n. 13. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1, 2. — Peter of Tarantaise, here q. 4, a. 1, 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2, q. 1, 4. — Durandus, above, d. 45, q. 2. — Denis the Carthusian, on the whole article, here q. 1, 2.

**II.** On question 3, St. Thomas, with most of the other commentators on Lombard, does not treat of it specially; nevertheless in the following question, in the solution to the second, he teaches with St. Bonaventure that with respect to the *effect* God acts more mercifully with one than with another. — In the solution of the fourth question he denies with the same, that God acts more justly with one than with another, although He inflicts a greater or a lesser *punishment* on one than on another — or, as our author says, although He acts more or less *severely*. — On questions 3 and 4, Alexander of Hales, in the place cited, and a. 5.

On the fourth question especially: St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, quaestiuncula 4. — Peter of Tarantaise touches on the matter here, q. 3, a. 1, 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 4.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L101703–L101934, verified throughout against 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p95{6,7,8}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (offset pdf = printed + 20). Two-column reflow done left column top→bottom, then right column, per page. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Printed-page correction.** The skeleton frontmatter declared `printed_pages: [956, 957, 958, 959]`. Verified against the bands: this quaestio's body, scholion and footer apparatus all close on **p. 958**. Raw L101930 is the running head `DIST. XLVI. ART. I. QUAEST. II. 959` — page furniture opening the *next* chunk. Frontmatter corrected to pp. 956–958 / PDF 976–978. **Coordinator: a1-q2 owns all of p. 959.**

**Page → apparatus split map.**
- **p. 956** — 5 footer notes. Notes 1 (`damnatorum`), 2 (`omni`), 3 (Psalm. 24, 10) anchor in the **divisio** chunk (`Supra egit Magister…` / DIVISIO TEXTUS). Notes **4 and 5** anchor in this chunk (*Enchiridio*⁴, *Augustinus*⁵) and are rendered here. Note 5's text runs over into the top of the p. 957 left-hand footer block (`per eius doctrinam fuerint subvertendi »…`); that runover is transcribed here as part of `p956-5`, not as a p. 957 note.
- **p. 957** — 11 footer notes, **all 11 mine** (notes 1–5 in the left footer block, 6–11 in the right).
- **p. 958** — 4 footer notes, **all 4 mine**. (The `1.` and `II.` blocks under the SCHOLION rule on p. 958 are the two scholion paragraphs, not footnotes; they are rendered as `### Scholion`.)
- **Total: 17 apparatus entries.**

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up (backward, from `divisio`):* p. 956 is shared. The divisio chunk holds the COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM and p. 956 footer notes 1–3. This chunk opens at `ARTICULUS I.` and is grammatically continuous — the divisio closes on `Quarto, utrum agat iustius cum uno quam cum altero.`, a complete sentence; nothing is spliced.
- *Forwarded (to `a1-q2`):* nothing on p. 958 remains unclaimed. **a1-q2 begins at p. 959 and owns that page's footers entire.** This chunk's closing sentence, `Et ideo patet sequens.`, parses and is the printed close of q1's solutio; the scholion then follows below the rule.

**Article opener.** The `ARTICULUS I. De mitigatione poenae malorum.` header at raw L101703 is folded into this chunk per the locked chunking convention (a short article opener goes into that article's q1). There is **no praenotata text between the article header and `QUAESTIO I.`** — the bands show the two headers set consecutively with only the article's subtitle between them. Nothing was dropped at that seam.

**Scholion.** The `SCHOLIOK` at raw L101867 is OCR garble for `SCHOLION`; the band read confirms the printed header. It covers **all four questions of Article I** (paragraph I on qq. 1–2, paragraph II on qq. 3–4), so **q2, q3 and q4 legitimately render no scholion of their own** — coordinator, do not flag those as missing. Placed last in both the `## Latin` and `## English` blocks per the parser rule.

**Band regeneration.** The Quaracchi gutter in this volume **alternates by page parity**, so vol4's nominal split of 1880 is wrong for every page of d.46. True gutters, measured per page: **p. 956 ≈ 2135–2160, p. 957 = 1490, p. 958 = 2201.**

**Re-verification (2026-07-18, second pass).** The whole chunk was re-checked word-for-word against bands regenerated at those true gutters — priority on p. 957's right-column line openings (the 1880 read began that band ~390 px inside the right column) and p. 958's left-column line endings. **The body Latin, the scholion, and 15 of the 17 apparatus entries survived unchanged**; the earlier reading was sound. Two apparatus corrections were made:
- `p957-10`: *mediociter malis* → **`mediocriter malis`** (band reads `mediocri-ter malis` across the line break).
- `p958-1`: `*quod praebent*` de-italicised to `quod praebent` — the print sets it roman, i.e. editorial prose ("which codd. E G L aa provide"), not a variant reading. The English was mistranslating it as a variant and has been corrected to match.

**Resolved at band time (not parked as flags).**
- Contra argument **4** is printed `3.` in Quaracchi (a duplicate of the preceding Contra 3), and the OCR reproduces the misprint. The series continues `5. 6. 7.`, and the solutio answers five objections, so the numeral is a printer's slip. Rendered here as `4.`
- The solutio's fourth reply is printed `4. 5.` — a single reply answering objections 4 and 5 together. Rendered verbatim. (The OCR garbles this as `4. 3.`)
- Scholion I: OCR reads `Durand., supra d. 43. q. 2.`; the band legibly reads **d. 45**. Band adopted.
- Scholion I: OCR reads `Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 39. m. 3. n. 3. i.`; the band reads **`m. 3. a. 3. 4.`** Band adopted.
- Marginal keyword glosses (`Ad oppositum.`, `Positio 1.`, `De modo opinio 1.`, `Item opinio 2.`, `Item opinio 3.`, `Improbatur.`, `Solutio positionis`, `Nota`) are editorial marginalia and have been trimmed out of the body per the OCR-cleanup rule.

**Page-break placement.** Quaracchi's page turns fall mid-word here, so the `<!-- page N -->` markers sit at the nearest paragraph boundary: p. 957 actually opens inside pro-argument 2 at `…secundum quod pec-|cantes suo errore multiplicantur`, and p. 958 opens inside the Respondeo at `…sed solum ad modicum |temporis. — Sed ista positio…`.

**`[?]` flags:** none.


title: Dist. 46, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 959 -->

### Articulus I. *De mitigatione poenae damnatorum.*
### Quaestio II. *Utrum fiat mitigatio damnatis propter misericordiae pietatem.*

> **Nota de numeratione notarum.** Quaracchi restarts its footer numbering on every printed page. The apparatus below is therefore labelled by page: notes 1–10 belong to the footer of page 959, notes 1–2 to the footer of page 960.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum fiat mitigatio propter misericordiae pietatem de poenis damnatorum. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia dicitur Apocalypsis decimo octavo[^p959-1]: *Quantum se glorificavit et in deliciis fuit, tantum date illi tormentum.*

2. Item, Isaiae quadragesimo[^p959-2]: *Suscepit de manu Domini duplicia;* dicitur de anima peccatrice.

3. Item, super illud Psalmi[^p959-3]: *Ex usuris et iniquitate;* Glossa: « Usurae dicuntur peccata, quia plus mali invenitur in suppliciis, quam commissum est in culpis »: igitur ibi non est aliqua mitigatio.

4. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia delectatio est momentanea et modica, sed[^p959-4] punitur poena aeterna et acerbissima; sed hoc in infinitum excedit istud: ergo punitur supra condignum: ergo non est ibi mitigatio.

**Contra:** 1. In Psalmo[^p959-5]: *Nunquid obliviscetur misereri Deus? aut continebit in ira sua misericordias suas?* quasi diceret, non: ergo tunc aliquid relaxat.

2. Item, peccator, cum peccat mortaliter, offendit Deum, a quo est omne bonum: ergo meretur amittere omne bonum, ergo et *esse*[^p959-6]: ergo cum Deus neminem reducat ad *non-esse*, omnes punit citra condignum.

3. Item, peccator offendit Deum, a quo est omnis ordo, ergo se deordinat: ergo si peccantes merentur in suppliciis ordinari[^p959-7], statim ergo merentur puniri: ergo cum non puniantur statim, patet, quod citra condignum.

4. Item, peccator offendit Deum, qui est bonum infinitum omni infinitate, ergo infinita poenae[^p959-8] acerbitate debet puniri; sed non punitur: ergo citra condignum punitur.

> **Conclusio.** Divina pietate interveniente, est aliqua mitigatio poenae quoad ipsam taxationem et inflictionem eiusdem, sed non post eandem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod mitigatio poenae damnatorum dupliciter potest intelligi: aut quantum ad *taxationem* et *inflictionem* poenae; et sic absque dubio est ibi mitigatio, quia divina iustitia non totum exigit, pro eo quod, eius pietate interveniente, aliquam partem poenae infligendo remittit. Alio modo potest intelligi mitigatio *post poenae taxationem et inflictionem;* et hoc modo nulla cadit mitigatio a divina misericordia, quia ex tunc claudit eis Dominus viscera pietatis[^p959-9].

Rationes igitur ostendentes, quod est ibi mitigatio, omnes procedunt secundum istam viam, scilicet quantum ad *inflictionem;* unde ostendunt ibi mitigationem quantum ad ea, *in quibus* homo punitur, quantum ad *tempus* et quantum ad *mensuram*: quia non tantum *infert* Deus, quantum homo meruit, Threnorum tertio[^p959-10]: *Misericordiae Domini est, quod non sumus consumti;* et iterum, *poenam differt;* et postremo, *acerbitatem minuit*: et ideo illae rationes concedendae sunt.

Ad oppositum responderi potest per unicam distinctionem.

*Ad 1. 2. 3.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Scriptura, quae dicit, quod tantum, et quod duplum, et quod amplius; ad illa omnia respondendum, quod est comparare delectationem ad poenam secundum duplicem comparationem: aut secundum *intensionem huius* in genere *poenae,* et *illius* in genere *delectationis;* et sic multo maior est *poena* quam *delectatio*, nec est ibi proportio, sed excessus. Est iterum comparare hoc ad illud secundum rationem *meriti* vel *demeriti;* et sic dico, quod *meritum* delectationis inordinatae excedit *poenam*, quia dignus esset amplius puniri. Servatur ergo in punitione *proportionalitas*, quia magnae culpae magna infligitur poena; sed non *proportio*, quia quantum ad *intensionem* et *durationem* poena excedit culpam, sed quantum ad *meritum* culpa poenam[^p960-1].

<!-- page 960 -->

*Ad 4.* Et per hoc patet prima ratio: quia, etsi delectatio sit momentanea, quia tamen offenditur ea bonum infinitum, meretur poenam aeternam[^p960-2].

---

english:
### Article I. *On the mitigation of the punishment of the damned.*
### Question II. *Whether mitigation is granted to the damned on account of the tenderness of mercy.*

Secondly it is asked whether mitigation is granted, on account of the tenderness of mercy, in the punishments of the damned. And that it is not, seems [to be the case]:

1. Because it is said in Apocalypse, chapter eighteen[^p959-1]: *As much as she glorified herself and lived in delights, so much torment give to her.*

2. Likewise, Isaiah, chapter forty[^p959-2]: *She has received of the hand of the Lord double;* which is said of the sinful soul.

3. Likewise, upon that text of the Psalm[^p959-3]: *From usuries and iniquity;* the Gloss: « Sins are called usuries, because more evil is found in the punishments than was committed in the faults »: therefore there is no mitigation there.

4. Likewise, it seems so *by reason*: because the delight is momentary and slight, but[^p959-4] one is punished with an eternal and most bitter punishment; but this latter exceeds the former infinitely: therefore one is punished beyond what is deserved: therefore there is no mitigation there.

**On the contrary:** 1. In the Psalm[^p959-5]: *Will God forget to show mercy? or will he in his anger shut up his mercies?* as if he were saying, No: therefore then he relaxes something.

2. Likewise, the sinner, when he sins mortally, offends God, from whom is every good: therefore he deserves to lose every good, and therefore also *being*[^p959-6]: therefore, since God reduces no one to *non-being*, he punishes all short of what is deserved.

3. Likewise, the sinner offends God, from whom is all order, therefore he puts himself out of order: therefore if those who sin deserve to be set in order in punishments[^p959-7], they therefore deserve to be punished at once: therefore, since they are not punished at once, it is clear that they are punished short of what is deserved.

4. Likewise, the sinner offends God, who is a good infinite with every infinity, therefore he ought to be punished with an infinite bitterness of punishment[^p959-8]; but he is not so punished: therefore he is punished short of what is deserved.

> **Conclusion.** With the divine tenderness intervening, there is some mitigation of the punishment as regards the very assessing and inflicting of it, but not after the same.

**I respond:** It must be said that the mitigation of the punishment of the damned can be understood in two ways: either as regards the *assessing* and the *inflicting* of the punishment; and in this way there is without doubt mitigation there, because the divine justice does not exact the whole, inasmuch as, with his tenderness intervening, it remits some part of the punishment in inflicting it. In another way mitigation can be understood *after the assessing and inflicting of the punishment;* and in this way no mitigation falls from the divine mercy, because from that time on the Lord closes to them the bowels of tenderness[^p959-9].

The reasons, therefore, which show that there is mitigation there all proceed along this way, namely as regards the *infliction;* whence they show a mitigation there as regards the things *in which* a man is punished, as regards the *time* and as regards the *measure*: because God does not *inflict* as much as the man has deserved, Lamentations, chapter three[^p959-10]: *It is the mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed;* and again, he *defers the punishment;* and lastly, he *lessens the bitterness*: and therefore those reasons are to be conceded.

To the opposite it can be answered by a single distinction.

*To 1, 2, 3.* To that, therefore, which is objected from Scripture, which says "so much," and "double," and "more"; to all those it must be answered that delight may be compared to punishment according to a twofold comparison: either according to the *intensity of the one* in the genus of *punishment,* and *of the other* in the genus of *delight;* and thus the *punishment* is much greater than the *delight*, nor is there proportion there, but excess. There is, again, a comparing of the one to the other according to the account of *merit* or *demerit;* and thus I say that the *merit* of an inordinate delight exceeds the *punishment*, because he would be worthy to be punished more. Therefore in the punishing *proportionality* is preserved, because upon a great fault a great punishment is inflicted; but not *proportion*, because as regards *intensity* and *duration* the punishment exceeds the fault, but as regards *merit* the fault exceeds the punishment[^p960-1].

*To 4.* And by this the first reason is clear: because, although the delight be momentary, yet because by it an infinite good is offended, it deserves an eternal punishment[^p960-2].

---

la: Vers. 7.

en: Verse 7.

la: Vers. 2.

en: Verse 2.

la: Psalm. 71, 14. — Glossa apud Strabum *ordinaria* sumta est ex August., in hunc loc. n. 16.

en: Psalm 71:14. — The Gloss in Strabo, the *ordinaria*, is taken from Augustine, on this passage, n. 16.

la: Multi codd. omittunt *sed*, minus congrue, nisi cum codd. P S post *delectatio* addatur *quae*. Cod. N *et tamen*.

en: Many codices omit *sed*, less fittingly, unless with codices P and S *quae* be added after *delectatio*. Codex N reads *et tamen*.

la: Psalm. 76, 10: Aut obliviscetur etc.

en: Psalm 76:10: "Or will he forget" etc.

la: Cod. K (I a secunda manu) pro *ergo et esse* completius *sed esse est bonum, ergo meretur perdere esse*. — Haec doctrina sumta est ex August., II. de Moribus Manichaeor. c. 7. n. 9: Dictum est enim: Nihil per divinam providentiam ad id, ut non sit, pervenire permittitur.

en: Codex K (I by a second hand), in place of *ergo et esse*, more fully: *sed esse est bonum, ergo meretur perdere esse*. — This doctrine is taken from Augustine, *On the Morals of the Manichees* II, c. 7, n. 9: "For it has been said: Nothing is permitted by divine providence to arrive at this, that it should not be."

la: August., Epist. 140. (alias 120.) c. 2. n. 4: Qui enim iniuste se ordinat in peccatis iuste ordinatur in poenis.

en: Augustine, *Letter* 140 (elsewhere 120), c. 2, n. 4: "For he who unjustly sets himself in order in sins is justly set in order in punishments."

la: Multi codd. *poena*, cod. G *poena et*.

en: Many codices read *poena*; codex G, *poena et*.

la: Respicitur I. Ioan. 3, 17: Qui habuerit... et clauserit viscera sua ab eo etc.

en: The reference is to 1 John 3:17: "He that shall have... and shall shut up his bowels from him" etc.

la: Vers. 22: Misericordiae Domini, quia non [ita et cod. L] etc. — Pro *infert* non pauci codd. *aufert*, codd. G L aa legunt *non totum aufert, quod homo* etc.

en: Verse 22: "The mercies of the Lord, that we are not" [so also codex L] etc. — In place of *infert* not a few codices read *aufert*; codices G, L and aa read *non totum aufert, quod homo* etc.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 922, nota 7. in fine. — In marg. cod. P notatur: *Proportio*, ut hic sumitur, est, quando unum alteri comparatur cum quadam commensuratione et praecisione, ut quantum capit hoc, tantum illud; sed *proportionalitas* est, quando in generali et non cum praecisione, ut quantum meruit, tantum recipiet, id est, si multum, multum, si parvum, parvum. — Paulo post pro *ratio* (scil. 4. ad oppos.) codd. et ed. 1 substituunt *responsio*.

en: Compare above, p. 922, note 7, at the end. — In the margin of codex P it is noted: *Proportion*, as it is taken here, is when one thing is compared to another with a certain commensuration and precision, so that as much as this one takes, so much does that one; but *proportionality* is when [the comparison is made] in general and not with precision, so that as much as he has deserved, so much will he receive — that is, if much, much; if little, little. — A little later, in place of *ratio* (namely at the 4th reply to the opposing arguments) the codices and edition 1 substitute *responsio*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L101935–L102023, verified throughout against the 450 dpi column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{959,960}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. Read left column top→bottom, then right column, body bands then footer bands. English translated literally, paragraph-for-paragraph.

**Page span.** Printed pp. 959–960 (PDF 979–980, offset `pdf = printed + 20`). The running head at raw L101930, OCR'd `DIST. XLVI. ART. I. QUAEST. U. 9b9`, is page furniture for p. 959; the band read resolves it to `DIST. XLVI. ART. I. QUAEST. II.` / `959`. `QUAESTIO II.` begins immediately below that running head, at the very top of p. 959.

**Page → apparatus split map.**
- **p. 959** — footer notes 1–10, *all ten* anchored in this chunk's body (args 1–4, contra 1–4, Respondeo, Ad fundamenta). Notes 1–6 sit under the left column, 7–10 under the right; note 6 begins in the left column and finishes in the right (`… c. 7.` | `n. 9: Dictum est enim …`).
- **p. 960** — footer notes 1–2 only are anchored here (end of *Ad 1. 2. 3.*, and *Ad 4.*). Notes 3–5 of p. 960 (and the right-column notes 6–11) anchor in `a1-q3` and are **not** claimed here.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Backward (to `a1-q1`, L101703–101934):* **`a1-q1` has no body text on p. 959.** Its text closes with the p. 958 footer block (raw L101920–101925); p. 959 opens with the running head and then the `QUAESTIO II.` header. Therefore no p. 959 footer notes migrate to `a1-q1`, and `a1-q1`'s `printed_pages` should not include 959.
- *Forward (to `a1-q3`, L102024–102144):* `a1-q3` begins with the `QUAESTIO III.` header, which stands in the right column of p. 960 immediately after `… meretur poenam aeternam ²`. **p. 960 footer notes 3 onward belong to `a1-q3`.** For its convenience: p. 960 note 3 = `Vers. 18: Ergo cuius vult etc. — Inferius pro uno codd. G aa (bb a secunda manu) eo.`; note 4 = `Aristot., I. Metaph. c. 2 … Cfr. tom. I. pag. 685, nota 1.` (the OCR's `pag. 683, nota J.` is wrong — the band reads **685** and **1**).

**Seam checks.** Opening sentence (`Secundo quaeritur, utrum fiat mitigatio …`) is grammatically continuous with the `QUAESTIO II.` header and matches the *Secundo quaeritur* ordinal for q2. Closing sentence (`… meretur poenam aeternam.`) parses complete and is immediately followed on the page by the `QUAESTIO III.` header — no cascade-merge signature at either seam.

**Page break placement.** p. 960 actually begins mid-paragraph, at `demeriti; et sic dico, quod meritum delectationis inordinatae …` inside the *Ad 1. 2. 3.* reply. The `<!-- page 960 -->` comment is placed at the next clean paragraph boundary (before *Ad 4.*) per the paragraph-boundary convention.

**Bands regenerated, then re-verified against corrected bands.** `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p960-L-*.png` were first regenerated wider with `colcrop.py vol4 960 2120 3 1.15` — the default L band clipped the right edge of the p. 960 footer, cutting off notes 1–2 mid-line.

That was done before the underlying pattern was diagnosed. The scan's gutter drifts by **page parity** (odd pages ≈1480–1580, even ≈2135–2200), so the default 1880 is wrong for every page in d.46 — see `manual-review/vol4-column-gutter-parity.md`. p.959 had been read at the default 1880 when its true gutter is **1558** (~320px too far right, the case that silently shaves right-column line openings), and p.960's true gutter is **2193**, not 2120. All bands were regenerated at the true measured values and this chunk's Latin body and all 12 apparatus entries were re-verified line-by-line against them on 2026-07-18. **No corrections were required** — every p.959 right-column line opening matches, including note 6's split across columns and note 10's variant string.

**Scholion.** None in this chunk (`has_scholion: false`). Article I's scholion is printed once at raw L101867 and lives in `a1-q1`; it covers q1–q4. p. 960 footer note 2 (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) is the editors' own cross-reference to it and is rendered here as apparatus only, not duplicated as a scholion section.

**OCR-vs-band disagreements resolved at band time (no `[?]` parked).**
- Body arg. 3: OCR `commissura` → band `commissum`.
- Body Respondeo: OCR `inftictionem` / `miligatio` / `inlelligi` → band `inflictionem` / `mitigatio` / `intelligi`.
- Body *Ad fundamenta*: OCR `secunduin` / `quantura` → band `secundum` / `quantum`.
- Apparatus p. 959 n. 3: OCR `Psalm. 71, 14` confirmed by band.
- Apparatus p. 960 n. 1: the OCR scrambles the clause order at L102107–102110; the band gives the correct sequence `… in generali et non cum praecisione, ut quantum meruit, tantum recipiet, id est, si multum, multum, si parvum, parvum.`
- Marginal editorial glosses (`Conclusio 1.`, `Conclusio 2.`, `Distinctio.`, `Ad fundam.`, `Mitigatio triplex.`, `Solutio oppositorum.`, `Notandum.`, `Fundamenta.`) are trimmed as marginalia per CLAUDE.md.

**`[?]` flags.** None.