title: Dist. 15, Part 1

title_alt:
De satisfactione
On satisfaction

source_text:
<!-- page 345 -->

### Cap. I. *Quod pluribus irretitus peccatis non potest vere de uno poenitere, nisi de omnibus poeniteat.*

Et sicut praedictis auctoritatibus illorum error convincitur, qui poenitentiam saepius agendam non putant[^1], et per eam a lapsu peccantes frequenter surgere diffitentur; ita eisdem illorum opinio eliditur, qui pluribus irretitum peccatis asserunt de uno vere poenitere eiusdemque veniam a Domino consequi posse sine alterius poenitentia. Quod etiam auctoritatibus astruere conantur. Ait enim Propheta: *Non iudicabit Deus bis in id ipsum,* vel ut alii transtulerunt: *Non consurget duplex tribulatio.* Si ergo, inquiunt illi, aliquis sacerdoti fuerit confessus unum de duobus vel pluribus peccatis et de illo iniunctam sibi a sacerdote satisfactionem expleverit, ceteris tacitis; non pro illo peccato amplius iudicandus est, de quo satisfecit ad arbitrium sacerdotis, qui vicem Christi in Ecclesia gerit. Ideoque, si de eo iterum iudicetur, bis in id ipsum iudicat Deus, et consurget duplex tribulatio. — Sed « de his tantum oportet illud intelligi, qui praesentibus suppliciis commutantur in bonum et sic perseverant, super quos non consurget duplex tribulatio. Qui vero inter flagella duriores et deteriores fiunt, ut Pharao[^2], praesentibus aeterna connectunt, ut temporale supplicium sit eis aeternae poenae initium. Unde Augustinus: *Ignis succensus est* etc. — id est, vindicta hic incipiet — *et ardebit usque ad extremam damnationem.* Hoc contra illos notandum est, qui dicunt, illud, scilicet: *Non iudicabit Deus bis in id ipsum,* ad omnia pertinere flagella, quia quidam hic flagellis emendantur, alii hic et in aeternum puniuntur ».

### Cap. II. *Quibus de causis contingunt flagella.*

Quinque enim modis flagella contingunt: vel ut iustis merita per patientiam augeantur, ut Iob; vel ad custodiam virtutum, ne superbia tentet, ut Paulo; vel ad corrigenda peccata, ut Mariae lepra; vel ad gloriam Dei, ut de caeco nato; vel ad initium poenae, ut Herodi, quatenus hic videatur, quid in inferno sequatur, secundum illud[^3]: *Duplici contritione contere eos, Domine.* « Illa ergo auctoritas Nahum non cogit nos sentire, omnia quae temporaliter puniuntur, non ulterius a Deo punienda ».

### Cap. III. *De Aegyptiis et Sodomitis, qui temporaliter dicuntur puniri, ne in aeternum perirent.*

Nam etsi super eundem locum Hieronymus dicat, Aegyptios et Israelitas a Deo temporaliter punitos, ne in aeternum punirentur; non est tamen de omnibus generaliter intelligendum. Ait enim sic[^4]: « Quod genus humanum diluvio, Sodomitas igne, Aegyptios mari, Israelitas in eremo perdidit, scitote ideo temporaliter pro peccatis punisse, ne in aeternum puniret », quia non iudicabit Deus bis in id ipsum. Qui ergo puniti

<!-- page 346 -->

sunt postea non punientur; alioquin mentitur Scriptura, quod nefas est dicere.

Attende, lector, his verbis et cave, ne de omnibus generaliter intelligas, « sed de his tantum, qui inter ipsa flagella poenitentiam egerunt, credentes in Deum Hebraeorum; quam, etsi brevem et momentaneam, tamen non respuit Deus[^5] ». Quod autem qui per temporale flagellum non corriguntur post aeternaliter puniantur, ibidem ostendit, agens de fideli deprehenso in adulterio, qui decollatur; ubi ostendit, levia peccata brevi et temporali supplicio purgari, magna vero diuturnis aeternisque suppliciis reservari, ita inquiens[^6]: « Quaerat hic aliquis, si fidelis deprehensus in adulterio decolletur, quid de eo postea fiat? Aut enim punietur, et falsum est quod dicitur: *Non iudicabit Deus bis in id ipsum*; aut non punietur, et optandum est adulteris, ut hic brevi poena puniantur, ut frustrentur cruciatus aeternos. Ad quod respondemus, Deum, ut omnium rerum, ita suppliciorum quoque scire mensuras; et non praeveniri sententiam iudicis, nec illi in peccatorem exercendae dehinc poenae auferri potestatem; et magnum peccatum magnis diuturnisque lui cruciatibus. Si quis vero punitus sit, ut ille qui Israelitae maledixerat[^7], et qui in Sabbato ligna collegerat, tales postea non puniri, quia culpa levis praesenti supplicio compensata sit ». Levis enim culpa levi supplicio compensatur. — Hic satis innuit Hieronymus, gravia peccata et hic puniri gravi supplicio et in futuro punienda aeternaliter, de quibus poenitentia non agitur inter flagella; levia vero, quae hic puniuntur, levi poena compensationem recipere; quod in bonis fieri non ambigimus, et in malis forte etiam fit ita. — Satis iam apparet, quod illi de prophetia induxerunt non facere pro eis qui dicunt, ei qui crimen sibi reservat, de alio veniam praestari per poenitentiam.

His verbis quidam vehementius inhaerentes alias quoque auctoritates inducunt. Ait enim Gregorius[^8]: « *Pluit Dominus super unam civitatem et super alteram non pluit, et eandem civitatem ex parte compluit et ex parte aridam relinquit.* Cum ille qui proximum odit, ab aliis vitiis se corrigit, una eademque civitas ex parte compluitur et ex parte arida remanet; quia sunt quidam, qui cum quaedam vitia resecent, in aliis graviter perdurant ». Item Ambrosius[^9]: « Prima consolatio est, quia non obliviscitur misereri Deus »; « secunda, per punitionem, ubi, etsi fides desit, poena satisfacit et relevat ». — Ratione quoque utuntur dicentes: Si is qui unum peccatum confitetur, altero tacito, satisfactionem a sacerdote iniunctam expleverit, nunquid et, si peccatum tacitum conversus fuerit confessus, pro utroque ei poenitentia imponetur? Longe hoc videtur a ratione et Ecclesiae consuetudine, quae pro eodem peccato, nisi reiteretur[^10], nulli bis poenitentiam imponit. Fuit ergo illa peccati condigna satisfactio, unde et peccatum deletum videtur.

His responderi potest sic. Illud Gregorii: « *Pluit Dominus* » etc., non ad criminis veniam, sed ad operis peccati[^11] desertionem referendum est, ut ideo pars civitatis dicatur complui, quia ab actu et delectatione peccati, cui ante serviebat, modo cessat; non quod eius veniam habeat. Vocaturque pluvia illa talis continentia, qua ab opere peccati revocatur, quia ex fonte gratiae Dei id cordi instillatur, ut vel sic paulatim ad poenitentiam veniat, vel eo minus a Deo puniatur qui diuturniori delectatione et actu peccati maius sibi accumulasset tormentum. Si vero ad *indulgentiam* reatus pluvia referatur, evangelicae sententiae contraire videbitur. Si enim propter immisericordiam, qua quis proximo suo non miseretur, etiam quae dimissa sunt replicantur ad poenam; multo magis quae nondum sunt dimissa propter odium fraternum ad poenam reservari probantur. Et si ille « qui arbiter suae voluntatis constitutus est, non potest inchoare novam vitam, ut ait Augustinus[^12], nisi poeniteat eum veteris vitae; quomodo ad novitatem indulgentiae perveniet qui odii vetustatem non deposuit? » — Illud etiam quod Ambrosius ait: « Etsi fides desit, poena satisfacit » etc., non de *fide* intelligitur, qua creditur in Deum, sed de conscientia delicti. Deest enim fides, cum peccati conscientia non subest. Nam cum delicta omnia nemo intelligat, est aliquando in homine peccatum, cuius non habet conscientiam. Unde Apostolus: *Nihil mihi conscius sum, sed non in hoc iustificatus sum.* Cum igitur quis flagellatur pro peccato, cuius non est conscius, si patienter fert poenam et humiliter amplectitur cogitans, se forte peccatum habere, quod non intelligit, et pro eo puniri a Deo, poena illa satisfacit et relevat gravatum.

Ad hoc autem, quod obiicitur de satisfactione illa: Si satisfactio non fuit, iterum imponenda est; si vero iterum imponenda non est, satisfactio fuit; et si satisfactio fuit, veniam impetravit; responderi potest, satisfactionem non fuisse[^13], quia ille *dignos fructus poenitentiae* non fecit. « Est enim satisfactio poenitentiae, ut ait Augustinus[^14], peccatorum causas excidere nec suggestionibus earum aditum indulgere ». Idem: « Sane qui scelerate vivunt nec curant talem vitam moresque corrigere et inter ipsa facinora sua eleemosynas frequentare non cessant, frustra ideo sibi blandiuntur, quia Dominus ait: *Date eleemosynam, et ecce omnia munda sunt vobis.* Hoc enim quam late pateat, non intelligunt ». « Multa enim sunt genera eleemosynarum, quae cum facimus, adiuvamur. Non solum enim qui dat esurienti cibum, sitienti potum et huiusmodi; sed etiam qui dat veniam petenti eleemosynam dat; et qui emendat verbere in quem potestas datur, vel coercet aliqua disciplina vel orat, ut ei dimittatur peccatum, eleemosynam dat, quia misericordiam praestat ».

<!-- page 347 -->

### Cap. IV. *De generibus eleemosynae.*

« Multa enim bona praestantur invitis, quando eorum consulitur utilitati et non voluntati[^15] ». « Sed ea maior est, qua ex corde dimittimus quod in nobis quisque peccavit. Minus enim magnum est erga eum esse benevolum, qui tibi nihil mali fecit; illud multo grandius, ut tuum etiam inimicum diligas et ei qui tibi malum vult et, si potest, facit, semper bonum velis faciasque quod possis ». « Quod ergo Dominus ait: *Date eleemosynam, et omnia munda sunt vobis*; ita intellecturi sumus, ut non credentibus in Christum munda sint omnia, si eleemosynas istas dederint ». « Qui enim vult ordinate eleemosynam dare a se debet incipere et eam primum sibi dare ».

### Cap. V. *Quid sit eleemosyna.*

« Est enim eleemosyna opus misericordiae, verissimeque dictum est: *Miserere animae tuae, placens Deo*[^16] ». « Non ergo se fallant qui per eleemosynas largissimas fructuum suorum vel pecuniae impunitatem se emere aestimant, in peccatis permanentes, quae ita diligunt, ut in eis optent versari. Qui vero diligit iniquitatem odit animam suam, et qui odit animam suam non est ei misericors, sed crudelis. Diligendo quippe eam secundum saeculum, odit eam secundum Deum. Si ergo vult ei dare eleemosynam, per quam fit munda, odiat eam secundum saeculum et diligat eam secundum Deum ». Hac eleemosyna, quam sibi homo primitus debet, mundantur interiora. Ad quod hortans Christus ait: *Mundate quae intus sunt. Immundis enim nihil est mundum; sed polluta sunt eorum mens et conscientia,* ut ait Apostolus. Immundi vero sunt omnes, quos non mundat fides, qua creditur in Christum; de qua scriptum est: *Mundans fide corda eorum.* « Sed ne istas eleemosynas, quae fiunt de fructibus terrae, respuere Christus videretur; *haec,* inquit, *oportuit facere,* scilicet *iudicium et caritatem Dei, et illa non omittere,* id est eleemosynas fructuum terrenorum[^17] ».

### Cap. VI. *Utrum in mortali peccato permanentes et largas eleemosynas facientes debeant dici satisfacere.*

Ex his datur intelligi, quod in peccato mortali permanentes, etsi eleemosynas largas faciant, non tamen per eas satisfaciunt, quia inordinate agunt, dum a se non incipiunt. Nec proprie dicitur eleemosyna tale opus, dum sibi ipsis crudeles existunt, non placentes Deo. Non igitur dicenda est illa peccati satisfactio, quam quis agit pro uno peccato, dum perdurat in altero; quia « nihil prodest ieiunare et orare et alia bona agere, nisi mens revocetur a peccato[^18] »: et si aliquando conversus tacitum peccatum sacerdoti fuerit confessus, de utroque imponenda est ei satisfactio, quia de primo condigne non satisfecit.

Quibusdam tamen videtur fuisse satisfactio, sed infructuosa, dum in peccato altero persistit; percipietur tamen fructus eius, incipietque proficere, cum peccati alterius poenituerit. Tunc enim utrumque dimittitur peccatum, et satisfactio praecedens vivificatur, quae fuerat mortua; sicut baptismus illi qui ficte accedit, tunc primitus valet, cum fictio a mente recedit per poenitentiam. Et in huius opinionis munimentum auctoritates inducunt. Ait enim Augustinus[^19]: « Pium est credere, et nostra fides expostulat, ut, cum gratia Christi in homine destruxerit mala priora, etiam remuneret bona; et cum destruxerit quod suum non invenit, diligit bonum, quod in peccante plantavit ». Item, Hieronymus[^20]: « Si quando videris, inter multa peccata quemquam facere aliqua iusta opera; non est tam iniustus Deus, ut propter multa mala obliviscatur paucorum bonorum; sed faciet, eum metere et in horrea congregare quae in bona terra seminavit[^21] ». — Sed haec dicta intelligimus de illo qui in caritate quodam tempore bona facit et bonus est, alio vero tempore malus est et multa peccata facit. Non ergo intelligendum est, eum inter multa peccata iusta opera fecisse, quasi simul eodemque tempore peccata fecerit et iusta opera, sed diversis temporibus utraque fecisse. Nisi enim bonus foret, quando bona fecit, non seminasse in terra diceretur bona. Destructis ergo malis post opera bona commissis, priora bona, in caritate scilicet facta, quae mala sequentia mortificaverant, poenitentia de illis malis habita vivificantur et remunerantur. Unde Apostolus[^22]: *facientes fundamentum poenitentiae ab*

<!-- page 348 -->

*operibus mortuis*; opera mortua nominans, priora bona significat, quae per sequens peccatum erant mortua, quia hi peccando priora bona irrita fecerunt. Haec sicut peccando fiunt irrita, ita per poenitentiam reviviscunt et ad meritum aeternitatis prodesse incipiunt. Similiter et illud bonum amat Deus, quod plantavit in peccante, in illo scilicet, qui post illud bonum peccavit, non simul peccans et bene operans exstitit; quia talis hominis opus non diligeret Deus ad remunerationem.

### Cap. VII. *Utrum bona, quae fiunt ab aliquibus malis, valeant ad meritum vitae, cum fuerint ad bonum conversi.*

Potest etiam accipi de operibus bonis, quae ab aliquo fiunt, dum malus est et in peccato mortali persistit vel ad tempus, vel usque in finem; quae dicuntur remunerari a Deo et non dari oblivioni, non quia proficiant ad vitam aeternam obtinendam, sed ad tolerabilius extremi iudicii supplicium sentiendum; sicut de fide et ceteris, quae sine caritate habentur, Augustinus[^23] ait: « Si quis non habens caritatem, quae pertinet ad *unitatem spiritus et vinculum pacis,* quo Ecclesia connectitur, in aliquo schismate constitutus, ne Christum neget, patitur tribulationes, famem, persecutionem, vel flammas, vel bestias, vel ipsam crucem timore gehennae; nullo modo ista culpanda sunt, immo et haec laudanda est patientia. Non enim dicere poterimus, melius ei fuisse, ut Christum negando nihil horum pateretur, quae passus est confitendo; sed aestimandum est, fortasse tolerabilius ei futurum iudicium, quam si, Christum negando, nihil horum pateretur, ut illud quod ait Apostolus: *Si tradidero corpus meum, ita ut ardeam, caritatem autem non habuero, nihil mihi prodest,* nihil prodesse intelligatur ad regnum obtinendum, non ad extremi iudicii tolerabilius subeundum supplicium ». Et infra[^24]: « Haec propter caritatem dicta sunt, sine qua in nobis non potest esse vera poenitentia, quoniam in bonis caritas Dei est quae tolerat omnia ».

Ex his ostenditur, bona, quae sine caritate fiunt, prodesse quidem ad tolerabiliorem poenam sentiendam, sed non ad vitam obtinendam. Illa etiam, quae in caritate quis facit, si postea prolapsus fuerit nec exsurrexerit, non esse in memoria Dei, Ezechiel[^25] dicit: *Si averterit se iustus a iustitia et fecerit iniquitatem, nunquid vivet? Omnes iustitiae eius, quas fecerat, non recordabuntur; in peccato suo morietur, et non erunt in memoria iustitiae, quas fecit.* In cuius loci expositione Gregorius ait: « Hoc nobis maxime considerandum est, quia, cum mala committimus, sine causa ad memoriam transacta bona revocamus, quoniam in perpetratione malorum nulla debet esse fiducia bonorum praeteritorum ». — Intelligendum est hoc, ad vitam percipiendam bona praeterita non dare fiduciam, etsi ad mitiorem poenam alioquin praemissae auctoritati Augustini obviaret. Et bona igitur sine caritate facta, et bona in caritate facta, quae comitatur mortalis culpa, quam non delet sequens poenitentia, ad sensum mitioris poenae proficiunt, non ad vitae fructum.

Satis arbitror illis esse responsum, qui asserunt, de uno crimine poenitentiam agi et veniam praestari, alio in delectatione retento, vel per confessionem non exposito; qui non modo praemissis auctoritatibus confutantur, sed et subditis. Ait enim Augustinus[^26]: « Sunt plures, quos poenitet peccasse, sed tamen omnino reservantes sibi quaedam, in quibus delectentur, non animadvertentes, Dominum simul *mutum et surdum* a daemonio liberasse, per hoc docens, nos nunquam nisi de omnibus sanari. Si enim vellet peccata ex parte reservari, habenti *septem daemonia,* manente uno, proficere potuit, sex expulsis. Expulit autem septem, ut omnia crimina simul eiicienda doceret. *Legionem* vero daemonum ab alio eiiciens, nullum reliquit de omnibus, qui liberatum possideret, ostendens, quod si etiam peccata sint mille, oportet de omnibus poenitere. Nunquam aliquem sanavit Dominus, quem non omnino liberavit. Totum enim hominem sanavit in Sabbato, quia et corpus ab omni infirmitate et animam ab omni contagione; indicans, poenitentem oportere simul dolere de omni crimine. Scio enim Dominum inimicum omni criminoso. Quomodo ergo qui crimen reservat de alio reciperet veniam? Sine amore Dei consequeretur veniam, sine quo nemo unquam invenit gratiam. Hostis enim Dei est, dum offendit perseveranter. Quaedam enim impietas infidelitatis est ab illo qui iustus et iustitia est, dimidiam sperare veniam; iam enim sine vera poenitentia inveniret gratiam. Poenitentia enim vera ad baptismi puritatem conatur adducere. Recte enim poenitens, quidquid sordis post purificationem contraxit, oportet ut abluat, saltem lacrymis mentis; sed satis durus est cuius mentis dolorem oculi non declarant. Sed sciat, se culpabiliter durum, qui deflet damna temporis vel mortem amici, et dolorem peccati non ostendit in lacrymis. Quem ergo poenitet, omnino poeniteat ». Idem[^27]: « Poenitentes, si vere estis poenitentes et non estis irridentes, mutate vitam, reconciliamini Deo! Poenitentiam agis, genua figis et rides; subsannas patientiam Dei. Si poenitentiam agis, poenitet te; si non poenitet te, non es poenitens. Si ergo poenitet, cur facis quae male fecisti? Si fecisse poenitet, noli facere; si adhuc facis, certe non es poenitens ». Item Innocentius secundus[^28]: « Admonemus fratres nostros, ne falsis poenitentiis laicorum animas

<!-- page 349 -->

decipi et in infernum pertrahi patiantur. Falsam autem poenitentiam esse constat, cum, spretis pluribus, de uno solo poenitentia agitur; vel cum sic agitur de uno, ut non discedatur ab alio ».

Ex praemissis perspicua fit notitia verae poenitentiae et satisfactionis. Illa enim vera est poenitentia, quae peccatum abolet; quod illa sola facit, quae scelus corrigit; illa vero scelus corrigit, quae odium commissi criminis et committendi cum desiderio satisfaciendi affert. Iudas enim poenituisse legitur sine assecutione veniae, quia tali poenitentia non correxit crimen. Unde Hieronymus[^29]: « Nihil Iudae profuit egisse poenitentiam, per quam scelus corrigere non potuit. Si quando frater sic peccat in fratrem, ut emendare valeat quod peccavit, potest ei dimitti; sin autem permanent opera, frustra voce assumitur poenitentia; hoc est quod de eodem infelicissimo dicitur: *Et oratio eius fiat in peccatum*; ut non solum emendare nequiverit proditionis nefas, sed proprii homicidii scelus addiderit ». — Cave, qualiter intelligas illud: « Ut emendare valeat quod peccavit » etc. Non enim *emendatio* hic intelligenda est rei demptae recompensatio, sed delicti exprobratio et abominatio cum satisfactionis desiderio. Demit enim iniuste quis alicui quod restituere non valet, ut oculum vel vitam et huiusmodi; et tamen, si poenituerit peccati cum amore condignae satisfactionis, veniam habet. Nec ideo quisquam putet, qui rem alienam iniuste abstulit, quam reddere potest, de illo peccato poenitere ac veniam consequi, nisi restituat ablatum. « Quamdiu enim res, propter quam peccatum est, non redditur, si reddi potest, non agitur poenitentia, sed fingitur[^30] ».

---

english:
<!-- page 345 -->

### Chap. I. *That one entangled in many sins cannot truly repent of one, unless he repent of all.*

And just as by the aforesaid authorities the error of those is refuted who think penance is not to be done more often[^1], and who deny that those falling from a lapse rise frequently through it; so by the same is the opinion of those overthrown who assert that one entangled in many sins truly repents of one and can obtain pardon of it from the Lord without penance for another. Which also they try to establish by authorities. For the Prophet says: *God will not judge twice for the same thing,* or as others have translated it: *A double tribulation shall not arise.* If therefore, those men say, anyone has confessed to a priest one of two or more sins and has fulfilled for that one the satisfaction enjoined on him by the priest, the others being left unspoken; he is not to be judged any further for that sin of which he has made satisfaction at the judgment of the priest, who bears the place of Christ in the Church. And therefore, if he be judged again for it, God judges twice for the same thing, and a double tribulation shall arise. — But « this must be understood only of those who are converted to good by present punishments and so persevere, over whom a double tribulation shall not arise. But those who amid scourges become harder and worse, like Pharao[^2], join eternal things to present ones, so that the temporal punishment is to them the beginning of eternal punishment. Whence Augustine: *A fire is kindled* etc. — that is, vengeance shall begin here — *and shall burn unto the uttermost damnation.* This must be noted against those who say that the saying, namely: *God will not judge twice for the same thing,* pertains to all scourges, because some are corrected here by scourges, others are punished both here and in eternity ».

### Chap. II. *For what causes scourges happen.*

For in five ways do scourges happen: either that the merits of the just be increased through patience, as for Job; or for the guarding of virtues, lest pride tempt, as for Paul; or for the correction of sins, as the leprosy of Mary; or for the glory of God, as concerning the man born blind; or for the beginning of punishment, as for Herod, so that here may be seen what follows in hell, according to that saying[^3]: *Crush them with a double crushing, O Lord.* « That authority of Nahum, therefore, does not compel us to hold that all things which are punished temporally are not to be further punished by God ».

### Chap. III. *On the Egyptians and Sodomites, who are said to be punished temporally, lest they perish eternally.*

For although on the same passage Jerome says that the Egyptians and Israelites were punished temporally by God, lest they be punished eternally; yet it is not to be understood generally of all. For he says thus[^4]: « Know that He destroyed the human race by the flood, the Sodomites by fire, the Egyptians by the sea, the Israelites in the desert, and that He thus punished them temporally for their sins, lest He punish them eternally », because God will not judge twice for the same thing. Those, therefore, who have been punished

<!-- page 346 -->

shall not be punished afterward; otherwise the Scripture lies, which it is impious to say.

Attend, reader, to these words and beware, lest thou understand them generally of all, « but only of those who amid the scourges themselves did penance, believing in the God of the Hebrews; which penance, though brief and momentary, yet God did not spurn[^5] ». But that those who are not corrected by a temporal scourge are afterward punished eternally, he shows in the same place, treating of a believer caught in adultery, who is beheaded; where he shows that light sins are purged by a brief and temporal punishment, but great ones are reserved for lasting and eternal punishments, thus saying[^6]: « Let someone here ask, if a believer caught in adultery be beheaded, what becomes of him afterward? For either he will be punished, and what is said is false: *God will not judge twice for the same thing*; or he will not be punished, and it is to be wished for adulterers that they be punished here with a brief penalty, that they may escape the eternal torments. To which we answer that God knows the measures of punishments, as of all things; and that the sentence of the judge is not anticipated, nor is the power of exercising punishment henceforth upon the sinner taken from Him; and a great sin is atoned by great and lasting torments. But if anyone has been punished, like him who had cursed the Israelite[^7], and him who had gathered wood on the Sabbath, that such are not punished afterward, because the light fault has been compensated by present punishment ». For a light fault is compensated by a light punishment. — Here Jerome sufficiently intimates that grave sins, of which penance is not done amid the scourges, are both punished here with grave punishment and are to be punished eternally in the future; but that light ones, which are punished here, receive their compensation by a light penalty; which we do not doubt is done in the case of good men, and perhaps it is so done also in the case of evil ones. — It is now sufficiently apparent that what those men adduced from the prophecy makes nothing for those who say that pardon is granted through penance to one who reserves a crime to himself, for another sin.

Some, clinging too vehemently to these words, also adduce other authorities. For Gregory says[^8]: « *The Lord rained upon one city and upon another rained not, and the same city in part He rained upon and in part left dry.* When he who hates his neighbor corrects himself of other vices, one and the same city is in part rained upon and in part remains dry; because there are some who, while they cut off certain vices, grievously persist in others ». Likewise Ambrose[^9]: « The first consolation is that God forgets not to have mercy »; « the second, through punishment, where, even if faith be wanting, the penalty satisfies and relieves ». — They use a reason also, saying: If he who confesses one sin, another being left unspoken, has fulfilled the satisfaction enjoined by the priest, will not penance be imposed on him for both also, if, being converted, he has confessed the unspoken sin? This seems far from reason and the custom of the Church, which for the same sin, unless it be reiterated[^10], imposes penance on no one twice. That, therefore, was a condign satisfaction for the sin, whence the sin too seems blotted out.

To these it can be answered thus. That saying of Gregory: « *The Lord rained* » etc., is to be referred not to the pardon of the crime, but to the abandonment of the act of sin[^11], so that part of the city is said to be rained upon because it now ceases from the act and delight of the sin which it before served; not that it has pardon of it. And that rain is called such continence by which one is recalled from the work of sin, because from the font of God's grace this is instilled into the heart, that thus by degrees he may either come to penance, or be the less punished by God who by longer delight and act of sin would have heaped up a greater torment for himself. But if the rain be referred to the *indulgence* of the guilt, it will seem to contradict the gospel sentence. For if, on account of the mercilessness by which one has no mercy on his neighbor, even those things which were dismissed are repeated for punishment; much more are those which are not yet dismissed shown to be reserved for punishment on account of brotherly hatred. And if he « who is constituted the arbiter of his own will cannot begin a new life, as Augustine says[^12], unless he repent of the old life; how shall he come to the newness of indulgence who has not laid aside the oldness of hatred? » — That also which Ambrose says: « Even if faith be wanting, the penalty satisfies » etc., is to be understood not of the *faith* by which one believes in God, but of the conscience of the fault. For faith is wanting when the consciousness of the sin is not present. For since no one understands all his faults, there is sometimes in a man a sin of which he has no consciousness. Whence the Apostle: *I am conscious of nothing to myself, but I am not thereby justified.* When therefore one is scourged for a sin of which he is not conscious, if he bears the penalty patiently and embraces it humbly, thinking that he perhaps has a sin which he does not understand, and is punished for it by God, that penalty satisfies and relieves the burdened man.

But to that which is objected concerning that satisfaction: If satisfaction was not made, it is to be imposed again; but if it is not to be imposed again, satisfaction was made; and if satisfaction was made, he has obtained pardon; it can be answered that there was no satisfaction[^13], because that man did not produce *worthy fruits of penance.* « For the satisfaction of penance is, as Augustine says[^14], to cut off the causes of sins and not to grant their suggestions entrance ». The same: « Truly those who live wickedly and care not to correct such a life and conduct, and cease not amid their very crimes to give alms frequently, flatter themselves thereby in vain, because the Lord says: *Give alms, and behold all things are clean unto you.* For how widely this extends they understand not ». « For there are many kinds of alms which, when we do them, we are helped. For not only he who gives food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, and the like; but also he who gives pardon to one asking gives alms; and he who corrects by a blow one over whom power is given, or restrains by some discipline, or prays that his sin be forgiven him, gives alms, because he shows mercy ».

<!-- page 347 -->

### Chap. IV. *On the kinds of alms.*

« For many good things are bestowed on the unwilling, when their utility and not their will is consulted[^15] ». « But that is greater by which we dismiss from the heart what each one has sinned against us. For it is a less great thing to be benevolent toward him who has done thee no evil; that is much greater, that thou love even thine enemy, and to him who wishes thee evil and, if he can, does it, that thou always wish good and do what thou canst ». « Therefore that which the Lord says: *Give alms, and all things are clean unto you*; we are so to understand it, that to those not believing in Christ all things are clean, if they give those alms ». « For he who wishes to give alms in an ordered way ought to begin with himself and first give them to himself ».

### Chap. V. *What alms is.*

« For alms is a work of mercy, and it has been most truly said: *Have mercy on thy soul, pleasing God*[^16] ». « Let them not therefore deceive themselves who think to buy impunity by most lavish alms of their fruits or money, while remaining in sins which they so love that they desire to dwell in them. But he who loves iniquity hates his own soul, and he who hates his own soul is not merciful to it, but cruel. For by loving it according to the world, he hates it according to God. If therefore he wishes to give it the alms by which it is made clean, let him hate it according to the world and love it according to God ». By this alms, which a man owes first to himself, the inward parts are made clean. Exhorting to which Christ says: *Make clean the things that are within. For to the unclean nothing is clean; but their mind and conscience are defiled,* as the Apostle says. But all are unclean whom faith makes not clean, by which one believes in Christ; of which it is written: *Purifying their hearts by faith.* « But lest Christ should seem to spurn those alms which are made from the fruits of the earth; *these things,* he said, *it behooved to do,* namely *judgment and the charity of God, and those not to omit,* that is, the alms of earthly fruits[^17] ».

### Chap. VI. *Whether those remaining in mortal sin and giving lavish alms ought to be said to make satisfaction.*

From these things it is given to understand that those remaining in mortal sin, even if they give lavish alms, yet do not make satisfaction by them, because they act in a disordered way, while they do not begin with themselves. Nor is such a work properly called alms, while they are cruel to themselves, not pleasing God. That therefore is not to be called a satisfaction for sin which one makes for one sin, while he persists in another; because « it profits nothing to fast and to pray and to do the other good things, unless the mind be recalled from sin[^18] »: and if at some time, being converted, he has confessed to the priest the unspoken sin, satisfaction is to be imposed on him for both, because for the first he did not condignly make satisfaction.

To some, however, it seems there was a satisfaction, but a fruitless one, while he persists in the other sin; yet its fruit will be received, and it will begin to profit, when he has repented of the other sin. For then both sins are dismissed, and the preceding satisfaction, which had been dead, is made alive; just as baptism to him who approaches feignedly then first avails when the feigning withdraws from the mind through penance. And for the support of this opinion they adduce authorities. For Augustine says[^19]: « It is pious to believe, and our faith demands it, that, when the grace of Christ has destroyed the prior evils in a man, it also rewards the good; and when it has destroyed what it did not find as its own, it loves the good which it planted in the sinner ». Likewise Jerome[^20]: « If thou shouldst ever see anyone, amid many sins, doing some just works; God is not so unjust as to forget, on account of many evils, a few goods; but He will cause him to reap and to gather into barns what he sowed in good ground[^21] ». — But these sayings we understand of him who in charity at one time does good and is good, but at another time is evil and does many sins. It is not therefore to be understood that he did just works amid many sins, as if at one and the same time he committed sins and just works, but that he did each at different times. For unless he were good when he did the good, he would not be said to have sown good things in the ground. Therefore, the evils being destroyed after the good works committed, the prior good works, namely those done in charity, which the following evils had mortified, by the penance had of those evils are made alive and rewarded. Whence the Apostle[^22]: *laying the foundation of penance from*

<!-- page 348 -->

*dead works*; by naming dead works, he signifies the prior good works which by the following sin had been dead, because these men by sinning made the prior good works void. As these are made void by sinning, so by penance they revive and begin to profit unto the merit of eternity. Likewise God loves that good which He planted in the sinner, in him namely who after that good sinned, and did not exist at once sinning and working well; because the work of such a man God would not love unto reward.

### Chap. VII. *Whether the good works which are done by certain evil men avail unto the merit of life, when they have been converted to good.*

It can also be taken of the good works which are done by someone while he is evil and persists in mortal sin either for a time, or unto the end; which are said to be rewarded by God and not given over to oblivion, not because they profit toward obtaining eternal life, but toward feeling a more tolerable punishment of the last judgment; just as concerning faith and the rest which are had without charity, Augustine[^23] says: « If anyone not having the charity which pertains to the *unity of the spirit and the bond of peace,* by which the Church is knit together, being placed in some schism, lest he deny Christ, suffers tribulations, hunger, persecution, or flames, or beasts, or the very cross, from fear of hell; these things are in no way to be blamed, nay rather this patience is to be praised. For we shall not be able to say that it had been better for him, by denying Christ, to suffer none of these things which he suffered by confessing; but it is to be reckoned that perhaps the judgment will be more tolerable for him than if, by denying Christ, he had suffered none of these things, so that what the Apostle says: *If I should deliver my body so that I burn, but have not charity, it profits me nothing,* is to be understood to profit nothing toward obtaining the kingdom, not toward undergoing more tolerably the punishment of the last judgment ». And below[^24]: « These things are said on account of charity, without which there cannot be in us true penance, since in good men there is the charity of God which bears all things ».

From these things it is shown that the good works which are done without charity do indeed profit toward feeling a more tolerable punishment, but not toward obtaining life. That also which one does in charity, if he afterward fall and not rise again, is not in the memory of God, Ezekiel[^25] says: *If the just man turn himself away from his justice and do iniquity, shall he live? All his justices which he had done shall not be remembered; in his sin he shall die, and the justices which he did shall not be in memory.* In the exposition of which passage Gregory says: « This is to be most considered by us, that, when we commit evils, without cause do we recall the bygone goods to memory, since in the perpetration of evils there ought to be no confidence in the past goods ». — This is to be understood, that past goods give no confidence for receiving life, although otherwise it would be opposed to the aforesaid authority of Augustine concerning a milder punishment. And therefore both goods done without charity, and goods done in charity which a mortal fault accompanies, which the following penance does not blot out, profit toward the sense of a milder punishment, not toward the fruit of life.

I think those have been sufficiently answered who assert that penance is done and pardon granted for one crime, another being retained in delight, or not disclosed by confession; who are confuted not only by the aforesaid authorities, but also by those subjoined. For Augustine says[^26]: « There are many who repent of having sinned, but yet wholly reserve to themselves certain things in which they delight, not noticing that the Lord delivered at once the *dumb and deaf* man from the demon, teaching thereby that we are never healed except of all. For if He had wished sins to be reserved in part, He could have profited the man having *seven demons,* one remaining, by casting out six. But He cast out seven, that He might teach that all crimes are to be cast out together. And casting out the *legion* of demons from another, He left none of them all that might possess the man delivered, showing that even if sins be a thousand, one must repent of all. Never did the Lord heal anyone whom He did not wholly deliver. For He healed the whole man on the Sabbath, both the body from every infirmity and the soul from every contagion; indicating that the penitent must grieve at once for every crime. For I know the Lord to be an enemy to every criminal. How then should he who reserves a crime receive pardon for another? He would obtain pardon without the love of God, without which no one ever found grace. For he is an enemy of God, while he offends perseveringly. For it is a certain impiety of unbelief from him who is just and justice itself, to hope for half a pardon; for already without true penance he would find grace. For true penance strives to bring back to the purity of baptism. For the penitent rightly must wash away whatever filth he has contracted after his purification, at least with the tears of the mind; but he is hard enough whose grief of mind the eyes do not declare. But let him know that he is culpably hard who bewails the losses of time or the death of a friend, and shows not the grief of sin in his tears. Whom therefore it repents, let him wholly repent ». The same[^27]: « Penitents, if ye are truly penitents and are not mockers, change your life, be reconciled to God! Thou doest penance, thou bendest thy knees and laughest; thou deridest the patience of God. If thou doest penance, it repents thee; if it repents thee not, thou art not penitent. If therefore it repents thee, why doest thou the things thou hast done ill? If it repents thee to have done them, do them not; if thou still doest them, surely thou art not penitent ». Likewise Innocent the Second[^28]: « We admonish our brethren, lest they suffer the souls of the laity by false penances

<!-- page 349 -->

to be deceived and dragged into hell. But it is established that penance is false when, many sins being despised, penance is done for one only; or when it is so done for one that one does not depart from another ».

From the foregoing a clear knowledge of true penance and satisfaction is made. For that is true penance which abolishes sin; which that alone does which corrects the crime; and that corrects the crime which brings the hatred of the crime committed and of committing it, with the desire of making satisfaction. For Judas is read to have repented without the attainment of pardon, because by such penance he did not correct his crime. Whence Jerome[^29]: « It profited Judas nothing to have done penance, through which he could not correct his crime. If at some time a brother so sins against a brother, that he can amend what he sinned, it can be forgiven him; but if the deeds remain, in vain is penance assumed by word; this is what is said of that same most wretched man: *And let his prayer become sin*; so that not only could he not amend the wickedness of betrayal, but he added the crime of his own homicide ». — Beware how thou understandest that saying: « That he may amend what he sinned » etc. For *amendment* here is not to be understood as the recompense of the thing taken away, but the reproach and abomination of the fault with the desire of satisfaction. For one unjustly takes away from another what he is not able to restore, as an eye or life and the like; and yet, if he has repented of the sin with the love of condign satisfaction, he has pardon. Nor let anyone therefore think that he who unjustly took away another's property, which he can restore, can repent of that sin and obtain pardon, unless he restore what was taken. « For as long as the thing for which one has sinned is not restored, if it can be restored, penance is not done, but feigned[^30] ».

---

la: *Nahum* 1, 9. — Supra post *agendam* codd. BD (AC a secunda manu) et ed. 1 omittunt *non putant,* cod. E omittit *non.* — Inferius ante *a sacerdote* edd., excepta 1, interserunt *poenitentiam,* et pro *satisfactionem* ponunt *satisfactione,* refragantibus codd., quorum tamen cod. D habuit *poenitentiam* pro *satisfactionem.*

en: *Nahum* 1:9. — Above, after *agendam* the codices BD (AC by a second hand) and ed. 1 omit *non putant,* cod. E omits *non.* — Below, before *a sacerdote* the editions, except 1, insert *poenitentiam,* and for *satisfactionem* put *satisfactione,* against the codices, of which however cod. D had *poenitentiam* for *satisfactionem.*

la: Cfr. Exod. c. 7. seq. — Totus hic locus sumtus est ex Gratiano super C. *Sunt plures* (42.), de Poenitentia dist. 3. § 1, et ex C. *Ignis succensus est* (43.), ibid. Locus Scripturae est Deut. 32, 22; cuius explicatio est secundum sensum in Glossa ibid. apud Lyranum, qui pro Augustino citat Gregorium, XVIII. Moral. c. 22. n. 3-5. — Ibi post *incipiet* ed. 1 addit *in Iacob et cecidit in Israel* (alludens ad Isai. 9, 8.).

en: Cf. Exod. c. 7 ff. — This whole passage is taken from Gratian on the canon *Sunt plures* (42), de Poenitentia, dist. 3, § 1, and from the canon *Ignis succensus est* (43), ibid. The Scripture passage is Deut. 32:22; whose explanation is according to the sense in the Gloss there in Lyra, who for Augustine cites Gregory, *Morals* bk. XVIII, c. 22, nn. 3–5. — There, after *incipiet,* ed. 1 adds *in Iacob et cecidit in Israel* (alluding to Isa. 9:8).

la: Ier. 17, 18. Superius respicitur Iob 1, 12. seqq.; II. Cor. 12, 7; Num. 12, 10; Ioan. 9, 3; Act. 12, 23. Haec de quinque modis flagellorum sumta sunt ex Beda in Matth. 9, 4.

en: Jer. 17:18. Above, Job 1:12 ff. is referred to; 2 Cor. 12:7; Num. 12:10; John 9:3; Acts 12:23. These things on the five modes of scourges are taken from Bede on Matt. 9:4.

la: Loc. cit. in Nahum; cfr. Gen. 7, 41; 19, 24; Exod. 14, 28; Num. 11, 33. Hoc fere totum capitulum et ultima propositio praecedentis sumtum est ex Gratiano, cit. C. *Sunt plures.*

en: The place cited above on Nahum; cf. Gen. 7:41; 19:24; Exod. 14:28; Num. 11:33. Almost this whole chapter and the last proposition of the preceding is taken from Gratian, the cited canon *Sunt plures.*

la: Ex C. *Sunt plures,* pag. 343 in nota 2. cit.

en: From the canon *Sunt plures,* cited on p. 343 in note 2.

la: Hieron., loc. cit. parum inferius; C. *Quaerat hic aliquis* (44.), ibid. — Ibi post *frustrentur* edd. 2, 3, 7, 8 addunt *ibi,* sed 1, 4, 5, 9 perperam *in,* refragante originali.

en: Jerome, the place cited a little below; the canon *Quaerat hic aliquis* (44), ibid. — There, after *frustrentur,* edd. 2, 3, 7, 8 add *ibi,* but 1, 4, 5, 9 wrongly *in,* against the original.

la: Cfr. Levit. 24, 14, et de violatione Sabbati Num. 15, 35. Superius post *punitus sit* edd., excepta 1, addunt *temporaliter,* refragante etiam originali.

en: Cf. Lev. 24:14, and on the violation of the Sabbath Num. 15:35. Above, after *punitus sit,* the editions, except 1, add *temporaliter,* against the original too.

la: Libr. I. in Ezech. hom. 10. n. 23; verbotenus C. *Pluit Dominus* (40.), de Poenitentia d. 3. Locus Scripturae est Amos 4, 7, ubi Vulgata *plui* pro *pluit.*

en: Bk. I *On Ezekiel,* hom. 10, n. 23; word for word the canon *Pluit Dominus* (40), de Poenitentia, d. 3. The Scripture passage is Amos 4:7, where the Vulgate has *plui* for *pluit.*

la: In Ps. 118. sermo 18. n. 3; respicitur Ps. 76, 10. Seq. locus ibid. n. 2; C. *Prima consolatio* (41.), ibid.

en: On Ps. 118, sermon 18, n. 3; Ps. 76:10 is referred to. The following passage is ibid., n. 2; the canon *Prima consolatio* (41), ibid.

la: Edd. 3, 7, 8 non bene *ne;* pro *reiteretur* edd. 1, 3 *iteretur.* — Ratio a defensoribus huius erroris adducta, scil. consuetudo Ecclesiae, non constat.

en: Edd. 3, 7, 8 not rightly *ne;* for *reiteretur* edd. 1, 3 have *iteretur.* — The reason adduced by the defenders of this error, namely the custom of the Church, is not established.

la: Vat. cum paucis edd. *pravi.* — Tota seq. interpretatio fere ad litteram excerpta est ex Gratiano super C. *Quaerat hic aliquis* (44.), ibid. Verba « evangelicae sententiae » respiciunt Matth. 18, 32.

en: The Vatican edition with a few editions has *pravi.* — The whole following interpretation is excerpted almost to the letter from Gratian on the canon *Quaerat hic aliquis* (44), ibid. The words « of the gospel sentence » refer to Matt. 18:32.

la: Sermo 351. (alias hom. 30.) c. 2. n. 2. — In sequentibus respicitur Ps. 18, 13, et Rom. 14, 23; deinde I. Cor. 4, 4.

en: Sermon 351 (otherwise hom. 30), c. 2, n. 2. — In what follows Ps. 18:13 is referred to, and Rom. 14:23; then 1 Cor. 4:4.

la: Vat. cum paucis codd. *non ideo fuisse,* aliae edd., exceptis 1, 4, *ideo non.* — Respicitur Matth. 3, 8.

en: The Vatican edition with a few codices has *non ideo fuisse,* the other editions, except 1, 4, *ideo non.* — Matt. 3:8 is referred to.

la: (Gennad.) de Ecclesiast. Dogmatibus, c. 24; C. *Satisfactio poenitentiae* (3.), ibid. Seq. locus est August., Enchirid. c. 70. n. 20, ubi citatur Luc. 11, 41; tertius ibid. c. 72. n. 19, ubi respicitur Matth. 25, 37. seqq.

en: (Gennadius) *On Ecclesiastical Dogmas,* c. 24; the canon *Satisfactio poenitentiae* (3), ibid. The following passage is Augustine, *Enchiridion,* c. 70, n. 20, where Luke 11:41 is cited; the third ibid., c. 72, n. 19, where Matt. 25:37 ff. is referred to. *(Note ¹⁰ of p.346 wraps from the p.346 R-2 band onto the p.347 L-2 band; its full text is reassembled here.)*

la: August., ibid.; seq. locus ibid. c. 73. n. 19. (cfr. III. Sent. d. XXX. lit. Magistri); tertius ibid. c. 75. n. 20; quartus ibid. c. 76. n. 20.

en: Augustine, ibid.; the following passage ibid., c. 73, n. 19 (cf. III Sent., d. XXX, the Master's text); the third ibid., c. 75, n. 20; the fourth ibid., c. 76, n. 20.

la: Ibid.; seq. locus ibid. 77. n. 20; in primo citatur Eccli. 30, 24, in secundo Ps. 10, 6. — Etiam quae sequuntur secundum sententiam ibid. c. 76. n. 20. inveniuntur, ubi citatur Matth. 23, 26, et Tit. 1, 13; deinde Act. 15, 9.

en: Ibid.; the following passage ibid., 77, n. 20; in the first Sir. 30:24 is cited, in the second Ps. 10:6. — Likewise what follows is found according to the sense ibid., c. 76, n. 20, where Matt. 23:26 is cited, and Tit. 1:13; then Acts 15:9.

la: Ibid. c. 76. n. 20, et respicitur Luc. 11, 42.

en: Ibid., c. 76, n. 20, and Luke 11:42 is referred to.

la: Can. *Nihil prodest* (21.), ibid. — Inferius interpretatio quorundam sumta est fere ad verbum ex Gratiano in C. *Quaerat hic aliquis* (44.), ibid.

en: The canon *Nihil prodest* (21), ibid. — Below, the interpretation of certain men is taken almost word for word from Gratian in the canon *Quaerat hic aliquis* (44), ibid.

la: De Vera et falsa Poenitentia (inter opera August.), c. 11. n. 29.

en: *On True and False Penance* (among the works of Augustine), c. 11, n. 29.

la: Comment. in Aggaeum 1, 6.

en: *Commentary on Haggai* 1:6.

la: Codd. BCDE et ed. 1 *egisse.*

en: Codd. BCDE and ed. 1 have *egisse.*

la: Hebr. 6, 1. Inferius pro *bene operans* cod. C et edd., excepta 1, *bonum operans.* — Tota haec explicatio excerpta est ex Gratiano super C. *Inter mittentes* (19.), de Poenitentia d. 4.

en: Heb. 6:1. Below, for *bene operans* cod. C and the editions, except 1, have *bonum operans.* — This whole explanation is excerpted from Gratian on the canon *Inter mittentes* (19), de Poenitentia, d. 4.

la: Libr. de Patientia, c. 26. n. 23; C. *Si quis autem* (49.), ibid. d. 3. Ibi respicitur Eph. 4, 3. et inferius I. Cor. 13, 3. — Pro *obtinendum, non* Vat. cum pluribus edd. *obtinendum, nisi.*

en: The book *On Patience,* c. 26, n. 23; the canon *Si quis autem* (49), ibid., d. 3. There Eph. 4:3 is referred to, and below 1 Cor. 13:3. — For *obtinendum, non* the Vatican edition with many editions has *obtinendum, nisi.*

la: Ibid. c. 23. n. 20, et can. cit. § 1, de qua intelligitur vocabulum infra. Pro *poenitentia* in originali Augustini *patientia.*

en: Ibid., c. 23, n. 20, and the cited canon, § 1, of which the word below is understood. For *poenitentia* the original of Augustine has *patientia.*

la: Cap. 3, 20, cfr. 33, 13; expositio Gregorii est I. super Ezech. homil. 11. n. 21; C. *Si averterit* (15.) et C. *Hoc nobis* (16.), ibid. d. 4. — Inferius pro *est hoc* codd. et ed. 1 *est hic.*

en: Chap. 3:20, cf. 33:13; the exposition of Gregory is bk. I *On Ezekiel,* hom. 11, n. 21; the canon *Si averterit* (15) and the canon *Hoc nobis* (16), ibid., d. 4. — Below, for *est hoc* the codices and ed. 1 have *est hic.*

la: De Vera et falsa Poenitentia (inter opera August.), c. 9. n. 24; C. *Sunt plures* (42.), de Poenitentia d. 3. § 1; in quo textu respiciuntur Marc. 7, 32; Luc. 8, 30; Marc. 16, 9; Ioan. 7, 23. — Ibi pro *habenti septem daemonia, manente uno, proficere* codd. et edd., excepta Vat. et ed. 6, *habentem septem daemonia perficere.* Inferius post *contagione* cum codd. et omnibus edd., excepta Vat. et ed. 6, omisimus *liberavit,* refragante vero originali.

en: *On True and False Penance* (among the works of Augustine), c. 9, n. 24; the canon *Sunt plures* (42), de Poenitentia, d. 3, § 1; in which text Mark 7:32; Luke 8:30; Mark 16:9; John 7:23 are referred to. — There, for *habenti septem daemonia, manente uno, proficere* the codices and editions, except the Vatican and ed. 6, have *habentem septem daemonia perficere.* Below, after *contagione,* with the codices and all editions, except the Vatican and ed. 6, we have omitted *liberavit,* against the original however.

la: Sermo 393. (alias 41. ex Homiliis 50.) n. 1; C. *Poenitentes* (10.), ibid. — Pro *subsannas* codd. BD et ed. 1 *subsannans,* originale et *subsannas.*

en: Sermon 393 (otherwise 41, from the *Fifty Homilies*), n. 1; the canon *Poenitentes* (10), ibid. — For *subsannas* codd. BD and ed. 1 have *subsannans,* the original also *subsannas.*

la: Can. *Fratres nostros* (8.), de Poenitentia d. 3.

en: The canon *Fratres nostros* (8), de Poenitentia, d. 3.

la: Libr. IV. Comment. in Matth. (27, 5.); C. *Nihil Iudae* (38.), de Poenitentia d. 3, ubi respicitur Ps. 108, 7. — In isto texto pro *egisse poenitentiam* Vat. et edd. 4, 6 *sera poenitentia,* quod antiquitus etiam in nonnullis codd. Hieronymi legebatur. In plerisque edd. Magistri hic et infra legitur *emendare non valeat* pro *emendare valeat,* refragantibus originali, codd. A E, edd. 1, 6, 8.

en: Bk. IV *Commentary on Matthew* (27:5); the canon *Nihil Iudae* (38), de Poenitentia, d. 3, where Ps. 108:7 is referred to. — In that text, for *egisse poenitentiam* the Vatican edition and edd. 4, 6 have *sera poenitentia,* which anciently was also read in some codices of Jerome. In most editions of the Master here and below is read *emendare non valeat* for *emendare valeat,* against the original, codd. A E, edd. 1, 6, 8.

la: August., Epist. 153. (alias 54.) ad Macedonium, c. 6. C. *Si res aliena* (1.), C. 14. q. 6.

en: Augustine, *Letter* 153 (otherwise 54) to Macedonius, c. 6. The canon *Si res aliena* (1), Cause 14, q. 6.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 39336–39846), with PDF column-band reads (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{345,346,347,348,349}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative on the cascade-fragmented two-column body and footers (the OCR for these pages is severely shattered — diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation + two-column bleed). English is a fresh literal parallel. Two-column Vol IV → VOL II OVERRIDE applied. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 345–349 = pdf 365–369).
- **This is the FULL LITTERA MAGISTRI of Distinction XV** — Peter Lombard's text on *satisfaction* (*De satisfactione*). The Master divides his own treatment into **seven chapters**, all rendered here as one littera chunk:
  - **Cap. I** (*Quod pluribus irretitus peccatis non potest vere de uno poenitere, nisi de omnibus poeniteat*) — p.345.
  - **Cap. II** (*Quibus de causis contingunt flagella*) — p.345; the five modes of scourges.
  - **Cap. III** (*De Aegyptiis et Sodomitis, qui temporaliter dicuntur puniri, ne in aeternum perirent*) — pp.345–346.
  - **Cap. IV** (*De generibus eleemosynae*) — p.347.
  - **Cap. V** (*Quid sit eleemosyna*) — p.347.
  - **Cap. VI** (*Utrum in mortali peccato permanentes et largas eleemosynas facientes debeant dici satisfacere*) — pp.347–348.
  - **Cap. VII** (*Utrum bona, quae fiunt ab aliquibus malis, valeant ad meritum vitae, cum fuerint ad bonum conversi*) — pp.348–349.
- **★ The « Pars » markers are NOT the COMMENTARIUS.** The page-top « PARS I. » under the p.345 `DISTINCTIO XV.` header and the « PARS II. » divider on p.346 are part of the editorial framing; the running text beneath them is **Lombard's own littera** (Caps I–VII), continuing without break. The inline margin annotations « Dubium 1–7 », « Explicatio », « Ratio eorum », « Auctoritatum vera explicatio », etc. are Quaracchi editorial pointers to the doubts the **Master himself** raises and resolves within his own text — they do NOT signal the start of Bonaventure's commentary. The littera runs continuously through Cap. VII on p.349 and ends at « …non agitur poenitentia, sed *fingitur* ». Immediately below begins `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV. / PARS I. / De poenitentia, specialiter contra erroneam opinionem… / DIVISIO TEXTUS` (raw ≥ 39847, lower p.349 L-column) — that is the NEXT chunk (`d15-p1-divisio`) and is EXCLUDED here.
- **Running-head note.** The `DIST. XV. P. I. DIVISIO TEXTUS. 349` line on p.349 (R-0 band) is a **page-top running head**, not a section break — the littera body continues beneath it (the Hieronymus/Iudas material and the Augustine restitution note) until the COMMENTARIUS proper, whose big-caps title sits lower on the page.
- **Column flow verified.** Each page reads Left column top→bottom, then Right column top→bottom. The p.345 L-column tail (« …ad omnia ») connects to the R-column head (« [perti]nere flagella »); confirmed continuous. The p.348 R-column tail (« …falsis poenitentiis laicorum animas ») connects to p.349 L-column head (« decipi et in infernum… »).
- **Page-verify.** p.345 R-0 head reads page number `345` with running head `DISTINCTIO XV.`; the big `DISTINCTIO XV.` header + `PARS I.` sit in the L column. p.346 verso head `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` + page number `346` (L-0). p.347 recto head `DISTINCTIO XV.` + page number `347` (R-0). p.348 verso head `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` + page number `348` (L-0). p.349 running head `DIST. XV. P. I. DIVISIO TEXTUS.` + page number `349` (R-0). All confirm the distinction.
- **Footer ownership / per-page split.** Each page carries a left + right footer block; the littera claims the *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* numbered series per page:
  - **p.345** notes 1–4 → `[^1]–[^4]`. The footer block ABOVE the *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* rule on p.345 L (notes ¹²³ on Achor/Comestor/Gregor., ending the d.XIV commentary) belongs to the PRIOR `d14` commentary chunk and is excluded.
  - **p.346** notes 1–10 → `[^5]–[^14]`. Note ¹⁰ (« (Gennad.) de Ecclesiast. Dogmatibus… ») physically WRAPS from the p.346 R-2 band onto the p.347 L-2 band (« …C. *Satisfactio* / poenitentiae (3.), ibid. Seq. locus est August., Enchirid. c. 70… ») — its full text is reassembled in `[^14]`.
  - **p.347** notes 1–8 → `[^15]–[^22]`.
  - **p.348** notes 1–6 → `[^23]–[^28]`.
  - **p.349** notes 1–2 → `[^29]–[^30]` (Libr. IV Comment. in Matth. *Nihil Iudae* / August. Epist. 153 ad Macedonium *Si res aliena*). These are the two littera footers above the rule on p.349; the footers belonging to the COMMENTARIUS DIVISIO TEXTUS (the *emendare valeat* variant continuation + the divisio's own NOTAE) belong to the next chunk and are NOT double-claimed.
- **Opening seam (p.345).** The littera opens on p.345 below the tail of d.XIV's commentary (the *figura/instructio* of David vs Absalom material) — that prior material and its NOTAE footers (Achor / Comestor / Gregor. dub.) belong to the d.XIV chunk and are excluded. No littera body text dropped at the d.XIV→d.XV seam.
- **Cutoff / hand-off to divisio.** The littera ends at Cap. VII on p.349 (« …non agitur poenitentia, sed *fingitur* »). Hand-off to the **`d15-p1-divisio`** agent: re-derive the raw range from the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV.` line (raw ≥ 39847, lower p.349 L-column), NOT from any earlier skeleton start. The commentarius opens `Pars I. / De poenitentia, specialiter contra erroneam opinionem de uno peccato sine poenitentia de alio / Et sicut praedictis auctoritatibus illorum error convincitur etc. / DIVISIO TEXTUS / Supra reprobavit Magister errorem… / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` (sex quaestiones: reconciliari per satisfactionem; satisfacere de uno peccato alio retento; extra caritatem abstinentem a peccatis satisfacere; opera satisfactoria extra caritatem vivificentur adveniente caritate; per talia opera aliquid mereatur; quid sit illud quod computatur). Claim the p.349 commentarius-portion footers (the *emendare valeat* note continuation + the divisio's own NOTAE) and the p.350+ footers — these are NOT the littera's.
- **No scholion** — littera chunk.
- **No `[?]` flags.** All 30 NOTAE footers resolve cleanly off the column bands; every body lemma keys to a numbered footer. Unambiguous OCR garbles silently corrected (e.g. `irretitus`/`convincitur`/`diffitentur`/`eliditur`/`astruere`/`commutantur`/`perseverant`/`deteriores`/`connectunt`/`damnationem`/`contingunt`/`patientiam`/`contritione`/`Aegyptiis`/`Sodomitis`/`diluvio`/`momentaneam`/`decollatur`/`compensata`/`immisericordiam`/`replicantur`/`indulgentiae`/`conscientia`/`suggestionibus`/`eleemosynam`/`impunitatem`/`crudelis`/`inordinate`/`vivificatur`/`munimentum`/`obliviscatur`/`mortificaverant`/`remunerantur`/`tribulationes`/`gehennae`/`Ezechiel`/`perpetratione`/`animadvertentes`/`contagione`/`perseveranter`/`infidelitatis`/`purificationem`/`subsannas`/`Innocentius`/`infelicissimo`/`recompensatio`/`abominatio`/`restituat`).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 15, Part 1, Divisio Textus

title_alt:
Divisio textus
Division of the text

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 349 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV.

#### Pars I.

*De poenitentia, specialiter contra erroneam opinionem, quod poenitentia potest fieri de uno peccato sine poenitentia de alio.*

> Et sicut praedictis auctoritatibus illorum error convincitur etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra reprobavit Magister errorem, qui attendebatur quantum ad poenitentiae iterationem. Hic reprobat errorem, qui consistit quantum ad poenitentiae divisionem; et hoc maxime ratione satisfactionis. Dicebant enim aliqui, quod poterat quis poenitere et satisfacere de aliquo crimine, ita quod de alio esset impoenitens.

Et quoniam iste error suam habebat defensionem, ideo haec pars dividitur in duas. In prima respondet et excludit defensionem, quam habebat ex auctoritate Scripturae. In secunda defensionem, quam habet ex auctoritatibus Patrum, ibi: *Alias quoque auctoritates inducunt* etc. Prima dividitur in duas. In prima respondet auctoritati. In secunda expositioni, ibi: *Nam etsi super eundem locum Hieronymus* etc. Quaelibet harum partium duas habet. In prima opponit. In secunda solvit: et hoc satis manifestum est in littera.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis sex incidunt hic quaerenda.

Primo quaeritur, utrum possibile sit Deo reconciliari per satisfactionem.

Secundo, utrum sit possibile Deo satisfacere de uno peccato, alio retento.

Tertio, utrum extra caritatem abstinentem a peccatis possibile sit satisfacere.

Quarto, utrum opera satisfactoria facta extra caritatem vivificentur adveniente caritate et debeant computari in sortem.

Quinto quaeritur, utrum per talia opera aliquid mereatur.

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, quid sit illud quod meretur.

<!-- page 350 -->

### ARTICULUS UNICUS.

#### *De satisfactione in genere.*

### QUAESTIO I.

#### *Utrum possibile sit reconciliari Deo per satisfactionem.*

---

english:
<!-- page 349 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XV.

#### Part I.

*On penance, specifically against the erroneous opinion that penance can be done for one sin without penance for another.*

> And just as by the aforesaid authorities their error is convicted, etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master refuted an error which was directed to the repetition of penance. Here he refutes an error which consists in the division of penance; and this chiefly by reason of satisfaction. For certain ones said that one could repent and make satisfaction for some crime, in such a way that he was impenitent of another.

And because this error had its defense, therefore this part is divided into two. In the first he answers and excludes the defense which it had from the authority of Scripture. In the second, the defense which it has from the authorities of the Fathers, there: *They also adduce other authorities,* etc. The first is divided into two. In the first he answers the authority. In the second, the exposition, there: *For even if upon the same passage Jerome,* etc. Each of these parts has two. In the first he raises the objection. In the second he resolves it: and this is sufficiently manifest in the text.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part six [things] arise here to be asked.

First it is asked, whether it is possible to be reconciled to God through satisfaction.

Second, whether it is possible to make satisfaction to God for one sin, another being retained.

Third, whether it is possible to make satisfaction outside the charity that abstains from sins.

Fourth, whether works of satisfaction done outside charity are vivified upon the coming of charity and ought to be reckoned to the lot [of merit].

Fifth, it is asked, whether through such works one merits anything.

Sixth and last it is asked, what that is which is merited.

<!-- page 350 -->

### SINGLE ARTICLE.

#### *On satisfaction in general.*

### QUESTION I.

#### *Whether it is possible to be reconciled to God through satisfaction.*

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 39847–39920 (COMMENTARIUS/Pars-I header through the QUAESTIO I title) with the PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p349-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p350-{L,R}-0.png`) authoritative in the two-column cascade-fragmented DIVISIO TEXTUS, TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, and footer regions. Offset pdf = printed + 20. Running heads verified: p.349 "DIST. XV. P. I. DIVISIO TEXTUS." / "349"; p.350 "350 / SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." The QUAESTIO I body (*Circa primum ostenditur, quod sit possibile Deo reconciliari… / CONCLUSIO / Fundamenta*, raw L39921+) is excluded; it opens the next chunk `d15-p1-a1-q1`.
- **Structure confirmed:** Distinction XV Pars I is an **ARTICULUS UNICUS** *De satisfactione in genere* holding **six questions**, confirmed verbatim in the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (p.349, left col q1–q3, right col q4–q6): q1 *utrum possibile sit Deo reconciliari per satisfactionem*; q2 *utrum sit possibile Deo satisfacere de uno peccato, alio retento*; q3 *utrum extra caritatem abstinentem a peccatis possibile sit satisfacere*; q4 *utrum opera satisfactoria facta extra caritatem vivificentur adveniente caritate et debeant computari in sortem*; q5 *utrum per talia opera aliquid mereatur*; q6 *quid sit illud quod meretur*. Per the divisio-chunk convention the ARTICULUS UNICUS opener (heading + sub-title) folds in here; the chunk also shows the QUAESTIO I heading + title, with the q1 body left to `d15-p1-a1-q1`.
- **Page-split map:** the COMMENTARIUS title spans both columns at the foot of p.349 (full-width); the DIVISIO TEXTUS and TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (q1–q6) occupy p.349 (DIVISIO + left-col TRACTATIO q1–q3 in the left column; right-col continuation of DIVISIO + TRACTATIO q4–q6 across the column). The page break falls before the ARTICULUS UNICUS opener, which sits at the top of p.350; QUAESTIO I heading + title also on p.350.
- **Footer ownership:** p.349 carries **2 footers**, both anchored in the DIVISIO/littera region and claimed here. Note **1** (Hieron., Comment. in Matth. + variant readings *sera poenitentia* / *emendare non valeat*) and note **2** (August., Epist. 153 ad Macedonium) document the Scripture/Patristic authorities the Master answers in this part. The markers are placed at the close of the DIVISIO TEXTUS section (the part whose littera quotes those authorities), since the divisio body itself names *Hieronymus* and the *auctoritates Patrum*. p.350's footer (Anselm, *Cur Deus homo* — *Satisfacere est honorem debitum Deo reddere*) anchors in the q1 *Fundamenta* and is **left to `d15-p1-a1-q1`**.
- **Marginalia trimmed:** the Quaracchi side-glosses *Explicatur a Magistro* and *Augustinus* (p.349 right col) and *Fundamenta* / *Modus dicendi* (p.350) are editorial marginalia, not part of Bonaventure's text — excluded per the OCR-cleanup rule.
- **No `[?]` flags** — all body text and the two owned footers read cleanly from the OCR and were confirmed against the PDF bands.
- No scholion in this divisio chunk.
- **⚠ Unanchorable apparatus (2026-07-13):** entries `[^1]` (Hieron., *Comment. in Matth.* 27,5 / *Nihil Iudae*) and `[^2]` (August., Epist. 153 ad Macedonium) have NO corresponding superscript anywhere in this chunk's Latin or English body — confirmed against the p.349 PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p349-{L,R}-0.png`). The printed superscripts ¹ and ² actually sit on **"Hieronymus"** ("Unde Hieronymus¹: «Nihil Iudae profuit egisse poenitentiam…»", p.349 L-0 band, left column) and on **"fingitur"** ("…non agitur poenitentia, sed fingitur²».", p.349 R-0 band, right column) — both inside the closing paragraph of the **littera** (Lombard's Cap. VII), which lies *above* the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV.` heading that opens this divisio chunk's Latin body. That littera text belongs to the sibling chunk `bon-sent-IV-d15-p1-littera.md`, whose own apparatus already anchors this exact content at `[^29]` (Hieronymus) and `[^30]` (fingitur) — see its `## Notes`, which explicitly documents "p.349 notes 1–2 → `[^29]`–`[^30]`" and that they are "the two littera footers above the rule on p.349." Wording differs slightly (e.g. "In isto texto" vs "In isto textu"; the littera's `[^30]` includes "n. 20" that this chunk's `[^2]` also has), but content is the same citation. **Conclusion: this chunk's `[^1]`/`[^2]` are a duplicate carry-over that do not belong to this chunk at all** — no anchor was invented, per instructions. Left as-is (not deleted, per the "don't change apparatus entries" rule); flagging for a follow-up decision on whether to delete the duplicate entries from this file (littera already owns the citation) or whether this chunk's DIVISIO TEXTUS was originally meant to re-cite them (no textual basis found for that in the printed page). The verify script below will report FAIL for this chunk because of this unresolved duplication — expected, not a mistake in this session's edits.

**J3 apparatus reassignment (2026-07-13).** REMOVED both apparatus entries. They duplicate notes that already live — correctly anchored — in `bon-sent-IV-d15-p1-littera.md` ([^29]–[^30]). The superscripts they answer to (¹ on *Hieronymus*, ² on *fingitur*) are printed in Lombard's littera (Cap. VII) on p.349, ABOVE the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV.` heading — outside this chunk's range (verified on the 450dpi p.349 bands). They were unanchored here in BOTH bodies. Nothing is lost: the littera is complete and fully anchored (30/30/30). `has_apparatus` set to false.

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. 15, Part 2, Divisio Textus

source_text:
<!-- page 361 -->

## Commentarius in Distinctionem XV
### Pars II.

*Respondetur rationibus pro praedicto errore ex auctoritatibus Sanctorum sumtis.*

**Alias quoque auctoritates inducunt etc.**

> TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 346.

### Divisio textus.

Supra respondit Magister rationi sumtae ex sacra Scriptura. In hac parte respondet rationibus sumtis ex auctoritatibus Sanctorum et consuetudine Ecclesiae. Habet autem haec pars quatuor. In prima ponit rationes, quae videntur facere ad huius erroris defensionem. In secunda vero ponit veras responsiones, ibi: *His responderi potest* etc. In tertia improbat falsam, et quamvis probabilem[^1] responsionem, ibi: *Quibusdam tamen videtur satisfactio* etc. In quarta ad veritatis confirmationem et erroris confutationem adducit auctoritates probantes, quod non possit fieri poenitentia de uno peccato, si quis permaneat in alio, ibi: *Satis illis arbitror esse responsum.*

Quaelibet autem partium posset subdividi in duas partes. Nam in prima ponit duas rationes. In secunda ponit duas responsiones ad praedictas rationes. In tertia primo ponit aliorum responsionem, deinde improbat. In quarta primo confirmat veritatem per auctoritates, secundo epilogat. Partes autem cuilibet inspicienti patent.

### Tractatio quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis, quia supra[^2] quaesitum est de potentia satisfaciendi, quaeritur hic de modo. Et circa hoc duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de modo in generali.

Secundo quaeritur de modo in speciali.

Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor.

Primo quaeritur, quid sit satisfactio.

Secundo, cui sit satisfaciendum.

Tertio, per qualia opera.

Quarto, per quae.

### Articulus I.
*De modo satisfaciendi in generali.*

---

english:
## Commentary on Distinction XV
### Part II.

*A reply is made to the reasons for the aforesaid error, drawn from the authorities of the Saints.*

**They also adduce other authorities, etc.**

> FOR THE TEXT OF THE MASTER SEE ABOVE, PAGE 346.

### Division of the text.

Above the Master replied to the reason drawn from sacred Scripture. In this part he replies to the reasons drawn from the authorities of the Saints and the custom of the Church. Now this part has four [subdivisions]. In the first he sets down the reasons which seem to make for the defense of this error. In the second he sets down the true replies, there: *To these it can be replied* etc. In the third he disproves the false, and however probable[^1] reply, there: *Yet to some it seems that satisfaction* etc. In the fourth, toward the confirmation of the truth and the refutation of the error, he adduces authorities proving that penance cannot be done for one sin if one remains in another, there: *I think this is enough of a reply for them.*

Now each of the parts could be subdivided into two parts. For in the first he sets down two reasons. In the second he sets down two replies to the aforesaid reasons. In the third he first sets down the reply of others, then disproves it. In the fourth he first confirms the truth through authorities, second he sums up. The parts are evident to anyone who inspects them.

### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of this part, since above[^2] it was inquired about the power of making satisfaction, here it is inquired about the manner. And concerning this two things are principally inquired.

First it is asked about the manner in general.

Second it is asked about the manner in particular.

Concerning the first, four things are asked.

First it is asked what satisfaction is.

Second, to whom satisfaction is to be made.

Third, by what sort of works.

Fourth, by what means.

### Article I.
*On the manner of making satisfaction in general.*

---

la: Edd. cum pluribus codd. *falsam et gravem* [edd. *gravem et*] *probabilem*.

en: The editions, with several codices, read *false and grave* [the editions: *grave and*] *probable*.

la: Partis I. q. 1. seqq.

en: Part I, q. 1 and following. ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 41319–41348; two-column PDF bands for printed p. 361 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p361-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative where the OCR cascade-fragmented the DIVISIO TEXTUS and TRACTATIO into diagonal one-token-per-line two-column bleed. Running head confirmed **DIST. XV. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I.**; printed "361" page number verified in the R-0 band top; offset pdf = printed + 20.
- **Page layout:** the entire Pars II opener — COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV header, Pars II rubric, the Master lemma (*Respondetur rationibus pro praedicto errore… / Alias quoque auctoritates inducunt etc.*), DIVISIO TEXTUS, TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, and the ARTICULUS I header + subtitle — all sit on a single printed page, **361** (a recto). Printed p. 360 (the facing verso) carries the END of Pars I, namely Dub. IV, Dub. V, and the opening of Dub. VI; it is NOT part of this chunk. **Note:** unlike d.12 Pars II, d.15 Pars II DOES repeat the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV.` header.
- **Pars II structure confirmed (TRACTATIO):** "duo principaliter quaeruntur" → **TWO articles.** (1) *De modo satisfaciendi in generali* = **ARTICULUS I**, with **four** questions ("Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor"): q1 *quid sit satisfactio*; q2 *cui sit satisfaciendum*; q3 *per qualia opera*; q4 *per quae*. (2) *De modo satisfaciendi in speciali* = **ARTICULUS II**, likewise carrying **four** questions per the brief. ✓ Art I = 4 q; Art II = 4 q.
- **Footer ownership (p. 361):** this divisio owns notes **1–2**. Note 1 is anchored at "quamvis probabilem[^1] responsionem" in DIVISIO TEXTUS (*Edd. cum pluribus codd. falsam et gravem [edd. gravem et] probabilem*); note 2 at "quia supra[^2]" in TRACTATIO (*Partis I. q. 1. seqq.*). The Master lemma carries no superscript marker.
- **Footers left to `d15-p2-a1-q1`:** notes **3–6** on p. 361 are anchored in the QUAESTIO I body (*Quid sit satisfactio*): note 3 *Hic c. 3. circa finem. Plurimi codd., contradicente textu originali, eorum pro earum…* (at "in littera³"); note 4 *Edd. satisfacere*; note 5 *Isai. 43, 25: Ego sum…* (at "ipse enim est qui delet peccata⁵"); note 6 *Secundum August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 1, n. 13…* (at "peccatum enim nihil est⁶"). They belong to `d15-p2-a1-q1`.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. All readings resolved against the PDF bands. *VIDE SUPRA PAG. 346* digits confirmed against the p. 361-R band; OCR "TEXTUM MAGISTRI YIDE" / "induigere" / garbled footer openers silently corrected from the bands.