title: Dist. 14, Part 1

title_alt:
De poenitentia
On penance

source_text:
<!-- page 314 -->

### Pars I.

### Cap. I. *De poenitentia, et unde dicitur poenitentia.*

Post haec de poenitentia agendum est. Poenitentia longe positis a Deo necessaria est, ut appropinquent. Est enim, ut ait Hieronymus[^1], « secunda tabula post naufragium »; quia, si quis vestem innocentiae in baptismo perceptam peccando corruperit, poenitentiae remedio reparare potest. Prima tabula est *baptismus,* ubi *deponitur vetus homo, et induitur novus;* secunda, *poenitentia,* qua post lapsum resurgimus, dum vetustas reversa repellitur, et novitas perdita resumitur. *Post* baptismum prolapsi per poenitentiam renovari valent, sed non *per* baptismum. Licet homini saepius poenitere, sed non baptizari. Baptismus tantum est Sacramentum, sed poenitentia dicitur et *Sacramentum* et *virtus mentis.* Est enim poenitentia *interior* et poenitentia *exterior: exterior* Sacramentum est, *interior* virtus mentis est; et utraque causa salutis est et iustificationis. — Utrum vero omnis *exterior* poenitentia sit *Sacramentum,* vel si non omnis, quae hoc nomine censenda sit, consequenter investigabimus[^2]. — A poenitentia coepit Ioannis praedicatio dicentis: *Poenitentiam agite, appropinquabit enim regnum caelorum.* « Quod autem praeco docuit, illud post Veritas praedicavit, exordium sermonis sumens a poenitentia ».

### Cap. II. *Quid sit poenitentia et poenitere.*

« Poenitentia dicitur a *puniendo,* qua quis punit illicita, quae commisit. Poenitentiae virtus timore concipitur ». Unde Isaias[^3]: *A timore tuo, Domine, concepimus et peperimus spiritum salutis.* « Est autem poenitentia, ut ait Ambrosius[^4], mala praeterita plangere et plangenda iterum non committere ». Item Gregorius: « Poenitere est ante acta peccata deflere et flenda non committere. Nam qui sic alia deplorat, ut tamen alia committat, adhuc poenitentiam agere aut ignorat, aut dissimulat. Quid enim prodest, si peccata luxuriae quis defleat et adhuc avaritiae aestibus anhelat? »

<!-- page 315 -->

### Pars II.

His verbis quidam vehementius inhaerentes, contendunt, vere poenitentem ultra non posse[^5] peccare damnabiliter; et si graviter peccaverit, veram non praecessisse poenitentiam; quod etiam aliis muniunt testimoniis. Ait enim Isidorus[^6]: « Irrisor est, et non poenitens, qui adhuc agit quod poenitet. Nec videtur Deum poscere subditus, sed subsannare superbus: canis reversus ad vomitum, et poenitens ad peccatum. Multi lacrymas indesinenter fundunt, et peccare non desinunt. Quosdam accipere lacrymas ad poenitentiam cerno, et affectum poenitentiae non habere, quia inconstantia mentis nunc recordatione peccati lacrymas fundunt; nunc, reviviscente usu, ea quae fleverunt iterando committunt. Isaias de peccatoribus dicit: *Lavamini, mundi estote.* Lavatur et mundus est qui praeterita plangit et flenda iterum non committit. Lavatur, et non est mundus, qui plangit quae gessit, nec deserit et post lacrymas ea quae fleverat, repetit ». Item Augustinus[^7]: « Inanis est poenitentia, quam sequens culpa coinquinat. Nihil prosunt lamenta, si replicantur peccata. Nihil valet veniam a malis poscere et mala denuo iterare ». Item Gregorius: « Qui admissa plangit, nec tamen deserit, poenae graviori se subiicit ». Item Ambrosius[^8]: « Reperiuntur qui saepius agendam poenitentiam putant, qui luxuriantur in Christo. Nam si vere in Christo poenitentiam agerent, iterandam postea non putarent; quia, sicut unum baptisma, ita est una poenitentia ». His aliisque pluribus utuntur in assertionem suae opinionis. — Sed Ambrosius dicit: « Haec vera poenitentia est cessare a peccato ». Et iterum: « Magni profectus est renuntiasse errori ». « Imbutos enim vitiis animos exuere atque emendare virtutis est perfectae et caelestis gratiae ».

Et ideo sane ita definiri potest: poenitentia est virtus vel gratia, qua commissa mala cum emendationis proposito plangimus et odimus et plangenda ulterius committere nolumus; quia poenitentia vera est in animo dolere et odire vitia. — Unde illa verba praemissa: poenitere est ante acta deflere et flenda non committere, recte sic accipi possunt, ut non ad diversa tempora, sed ad idem referantur, ut scilicet tempore, quo deflet commissa mala, non committat voluntate vel opere flenda. Quod innuitur ex verbis consequentibus: « Nam qui sic alia deplorat » etc. Hinc Augustinus[^9] ait: « Cavendum est, ne quis existimet, infanda illa crimina, qualia qui agunt regnum Dei non possidebunt, quotidie perpetranda et eleemosynis quotidie redimenda. In melius est enim vita mutanda, et per eleemosynas de peccatis praeteritis propitiandus est Deus, non ad hoc emendus quodam modo, ut ea semper liceat impune committere. Nemini enim dedit laxamentum peccandi, etsi miserando deleat commissa peccata, si non satisfactio congrua negligatur ». Item Pius Papa[^10]: « Nihil prodest homini ieiunare et orare et alia religionis opera agere, nisi mens ab iniquitate revocetur ». — Qui ergo a malis sic mentem revocat, ut commissa plangat et plangenda committere non velit nec satisfacere negligat, vere poenitet. Nec ideo non vera est poenitentia, quia forte post non de proposito, sed casu vel infirmitate peccabit. Ille autem irrisor est, et non poenitens, qui sic commissa plangit, ut plangenda voluntate vel opere committere non desinat. Ille etiam, qui post lacrymas repetit quae flevit, lavatur ad tempus, sed non est mundus, id est, illa munditia non est ei sufficiens ad salutem, quia est momentanea, non perseverans. Item illud: *Inanis est poenitentia, quam sequens culpa coinquinat,* sic intelligendum est: Inanis est, scilicet carens fructu illius poenitentiae, quam sequens culpa non coinquinat. Illius enim fructus est vitatio gehennae et adeptio gloriae. Mortificatur enim illa poenitentia, et alia ante acta bona, per sequens peccatum, ut non sortiantur mercedem, quam meruerunt, cum fierent, et quam haberent, si peccatum non succederet. Sed et, si de peccato succedenti poenitentia agatur, et poenitentia, quae praecessit, et alia ante acta bona reviviscunt; sed illa tantum, quae ex caritate prodierunt. Illa enim sola viva sunt, quae in caritate fiunt; ideoque, si per sequentia peccata mortificantur, per subsequentem poenitentiam reviviscere possunt. Quae vero sine caritate fiunt, mortua et inania generantur; et ideo per poenitentiam reviviscere non valent. Similiter intelligendum est illud: *Nihil prosunt lamenta* etc., et illud: *Nihil valet* etc. Si enim replicentur peccata, nihil valet ad salutem vel ad veniam in fine praecedens lamentum, quia nihil relinquitur de vitae munditia; quia aut peccata dimissa redeunt, ut quibusdam placet, cum replicantur; vel si non redeunt, eis tamen deletis propter ingratitudinem ita reus et immundus constituitur, cum adhuc in expiandis implicatur, ut si iam deleta redirent. De hoc tamen, scilicet an peccata redeant, post plenius agemus[^11]. Similiter nihil valet ad salutem obtinendam vel ad munditiam vitae habendam veniam de malefactis poscere et mala denuo iterare.

<!-- page 316 -->

— Ita etiam intelligendum est illud quod idem Augustinus[^12] alibi ait: « Poenitentia est quaedam dolentis vindicta, puniens in se quod dolet commisisse ». Et infra: « Continue dolendum est de peccato, quod declarat ipsa dictionis virtus. Poenitere enim est poenam tenere, ut semper puniat in se ulciscendo quod commisit peccando. Ille poenam tenet, qui semper vindicat quod commisisse se dolet. Poenitentia igitur est vindicta semper puniens in se quod commisisse dolet ». « Quid restat nobis, nisi dolere in vita? ubi enim dolor finitur, deficit et poenitentia. Si vero poenitentia finitur, quid relinquitur de venia? Tamdiu gaudeat et speret de gratia, quamdiu sustentatur a poenitentia. Dicit enim Dominus[^13]: *Vade, et amplius noli peccare.* Non dixit: ne pecces, sed nec voluntas peccandi in te oriatur. Quod quomodo servabitur, nisi dolor in poenitentia continue custodiatur? Hinc semper doleat et de dolore gaudeat; et non sit satis, quod doleat, sed ex fide doleat et non semper doluisse doleat ».

De poenitentia perfectorum vel ad salutem sufficienti intelligendum est quod supra dixit, scilicet: *Poenitentia est vindicta semper puniens quod commisit;* et alia huiusmodi. Illud vero: *Si poenitentia finitur, nihil de venia relinquitur,* dupliciter accipi potest. Si enim iuxta quorundam intelligentiam peccata dimissa redeunt, facile est intelligere, nihil de venia relinqui; quia peccata dimissa iterum replicantur. Sicut enim ille qui ex servitute in libertatem manumittitur, interim[^14] vere liber est, et tamen propter offensam in servitutem postea revocatur; sic et poenitenti peccata vere dimittuntur, et tamen propter offensam, quae replicatur, iterum redeunt. — Si vero non redire dicantur, sane potest dici, etiam sic nihil de venia relinqui; non quod dimissa peccata iterum imputentur, sed quia propter ingratitudinem ita reus et immundus constituitur, ac si illa redirent.

### Cap. III. *De solemni et unica poenitentia.*

Illud autem, quod Ambrosius ait: *Reperiuntur* etc. et: *Sicut unum baptisma, ita et una poenitentia,* non secundum generalem, sed secundum specialem morem Ecclesiae de solemni poenitentia dictum intelligitur, quae apud quosdam semel celebrata non iteratur. Item illud aliud Ambrosii[^15]: « Poenitentia semel usurpata nec vere celebrata et fructum prioris aufert et usum sequentis amittit »; de solemni intelligitur. Solemnis vero poenitentia, ut Ambrosius in eodem ait, est quae fit extra Ecclesiam in manifesto, in cinere et cilicio, quae pro gravioribus horrendisque ac manifestis delictis tantum imponitur. Et illa non est iteranda pro reverentia Sacramenti, et ne vilescat et contemptibilis fiat hominibus. Unde Augustinus[^16]: « Quamvis caute et salubriter provisum sit, ut locus illius humillimae poenitentiae semel in Ecclesia concedatur, ne medicina vilis vel minus utilis esset aegrotis, quae tanto magis salubris est, quanto minus contemptibilis fuerit; quis tamen audeat Deo dicere: Quare huic homini, qui post poenitentiam primam rursus se laqueis iniquitatis obstringit, adhuc iterum parcis »? Origenes[^17] quoque de hac solemni poenitentia, quae pro gravioribus criminibus iniungitur, ait: « Si nos aliqua culpa mortalis invenerit, quae non in crimine mortali, vel in blasphemia fidei, sed in sermonis vel in morum vitio consistat; haec culpa semper reparari potest, nec interdicitur aliquando de huiusmodi poenitentiam agere; sed non ita de gravioribus criminibus. In gravioribus enim criminibus semel tantum poenitentiae conceditur locus. *Communia,* quae frequenter incurrimus, semper poenitentiam recipiunt et semper redimuntur ». — *Communia* dicit peccata venialia et forte mortalia quaedam aliis minus gravia, quae, sicut saepe committuntur, ita frequenter per poenitentiam redimuntur. Sed de gravioribus criminibus semel tantum agitur poenitentia, scilicet solemnis. Nam et de illis, si iterentur, iteratur poenitentia, sed non solemnis. Quod tamen in quibusdam Ecclesiis non servatur.

### Cap. IV. *Quod peccata saepe dimittuntur per poenitentiam.*

Quod vero poenitentia non semel tantum agatur, sed frequenter iteretur, et per eam frequenter iterum venia praestetur; pluribus Sanctorum testimoniis probatur. Ait enim Augustinus[^18], scribens contra quosdam haereticos, qui peccantibus post baptismum semel tantum dicebant utilem esse poenitentiam, ita: « Adhuc instant perfidi, qui sapiunt plus quam oportet, non sobrii, sed excedentes mensuram; dicunt enim: Etsi semel peccantibus post baptismum valeat poenitentia, non tamen saepe peccantibus proderit iterata; alioquin remissio ad peccatum esset incitatio. Dicunt enim: Quis non semper peccaret, si semper redire posset? Dicunt enim Dominum incitatorem mali, si semper poenitentibus subvenit; et ei peccata placere, quibus semper praesto est gratia. Errant autem. Constat enim, ei multum peccata displicere, qui semper praesto est ea destruere; si ea amaret, non ita semper ea destrueret ». Idem ad Macedonium[^19]: « In tantum hominum iniquitas aliquando progreditur, ut etiam post peractam poenitentiam, post altaris reconciliationem vel similia vel graviora committant. Et tamen Deus facit, etiam super tales *oriri solem suum,* nec minus tribuit, quam ante tribuerat, largissima munera vitae et salutis. Et quamvis eis in Ecclesia locus ille poenitentiae non concedatur; Deus tamen super eos suae patientiae non obliviscitur. Ex quorum numero si quis nobis dicat: Dicite mihi, utrum mihi aliquid prosit ad vitam futuram, si

<!-- page 317 -->

in ista vita illecebrosissimae voluptatis blandimenta contempsero, si me poenitendo vehementius quam prius excruciavero, si uberius flevero, si melius vixero, si pauperes largius sustentavero, si caritate ardentius flagravero; quis nostrum ita desipit, ut huic homini dicat: Nihil tibi ista in posterum proderunt? Vade, saltem vitae huius suavitate fruere. Avertat Deus tam immanem sacrilegamque dementiam ». Item, Ioannes Chrysostomus[^20] de reparatione lapsi: « Talis, mihi crede, talis est erga homines pietas Dei: nunquam spernit poenitentiam, si ei sincere et simpliciter offeratur; etiam si ad summum quis perveniat malorum, et inde tamen velit reverti ad virtutis viam; suscipit libenter, amplectitur, facit omnia, quatenus ad priorem revocet statum. Quodque est adhuc praestantius et eminentius, etiam si non potuerit quis explere omnem satisfaciendi ordinem, quantulamcumque tamen et quamlibet brevi tempore gestam non respuit poenitentiam; suscipit etiam ipsam nec patitur, quamvis exiguae, conversionis perdere mercedem ». Exemplis etiam hoc idem astrui potest. David[^21] enim per poenitentiam adulterii simul et homicidii veniam impetravit; et tamen graviter postea deliquit in populi enumeratione, quod populi multitudo prostrata ostendit. « Illud autem mirabile est, quod Angelo ferienti plebem se obtulit dicens: *Grex iste quid fecit? Fiat manus tua in me et in domum patris mei.* Quo facto statim dignus sacrificio iudicatus est qui absolutione aestimabatur indignus. Nec mirum, si tali sua oblatione pro populo peccati sui adeptus est veniam; cum Moyses, offerendo se pro plebis errore, peccata diluerit[^22] ».

His aliisque pluribus testimoniis evidenter ostenditur, per poenitentiam non semel tantum, sed saepius nos a peccatis surgere, et veram poenitentiam saepius agi. Voluntarie enim peccantibus nobis, ut ait Apostolus[^23], non relinquitur hostia pro peccatis, secunda scilicet, quia semel tantum Christum oportuit pati; nec relinquitur secundus baptismus; relinquitur vero secunda poenitentia et tertia et deinceps, ut Ioannes Chrysostomus super hunc locum ait: « Sciendum, inquit, quod hic quidam exsurgunt, horum verborum occasione poenitentiam auferentes, quasi per poenitentiam non valeat peccator post lapsum resurgere secundo et tertio et deinceps. Verum etiam in hoc poenitentiam non excludit nec propitiationem, quae saepe fit per poenitentiam, sed secundum baptismum et hostiam ».

---

english:
<!-- page 314 -->

### Part I.

### Chap. I. *On penance, and whence penance is named.*

After these things penance must be treated of. Penance is necessary for those set far from God, that they may draw near. For it is, as Jerome says[^1], « the second plank after shipwreck »; because, if anyone has corrupted by sinning the garment of innocence received in baptism, he can repair it by the remedy of penance. The first plank is *baptism,* where *the old man is put off, and the new is put on;* the second, *penance,* by which after a fall we rise again, while the old state, having returned, is repelled, and the lost newness is resumed. Those who have lapsed *after* baptism can be renewed by penance, but not *by* baptism. It is permitted to a man to do penance more often, but not to be baptized. Baptism alone is a Sacrament, but penance is called both a *Sacrament* and a *virtue of the mind.* For there is an *interior* penance and an *exterior* penance: the *exterior* is a Sacrament, the *interior* is a virtue of the mind; and each is a cause of salvation and of justification. — But whether every *exterior* penance is a *Sacrament,* or if not every one, which is to be reckoned by this name, we shall consequently investigate[^2]. — From penance began the preaching of John, saying: *Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.* « But what the herald taught, the Truth afterward preached, taking the beginning of his discourse from penance ».

### Chap. II. *What penance and to repent are.*

« Penance is named from *punishing,* by which one punishes the unlawful things which he has committed. The virtue of penance is conceived through fear ». Whence Isaiah[^3]: *From thy fear, O Lord, we have conceived and brought forth the spirit of salvation.* « But penance is, as Ambrose says[^4], to bewail past evils and not to commit again things to be bewailed ». Likewise Gregory: « To repent is to weep for sins formerly done and not to commit things to be wept for. For he who so deplores some things, that yet he commits others, either knows not or dissembles how to do penance still. For what does it profit, if one weeps for the sins of lust and still pants with the heats of avarice? »

<!-- page 315 -->

### Part II.

Some, clinging too vehemently to these words, contend that one who is truly penitent cannot[^5] thereafter sin damnably; and that, if he has sinned grievously, a true penance did not precede; which they fortify also with other testimonies. For Isidore says[^6]: « He is a mocker, and not penitent, who still does that of which he repents. Nor does he seem as a subject to entreat God, but as one proud to deride: a dog returned to its vomit, and a penitent to his sin. Many shed tears unceasingly, and do not cease to sin. Some I perceive to take up tears for penance, and not to have the affection of penance, because by inconstancy of mind they now shed tears at the remembrance of sin; now, the habit reviving, they commit again by repeating the things they had bewailed. Isaiah says of sinners: *Be washed, be clean.* He is washed and is clean who bewails past things and does not commit again things to be bewailed. He is washed, and is not clean, who bewails the things he has done, yet does not forsake them and after his tears repeats the things he had wept for ». Likewise Augustine[^7]: « Empty is the penance which a following fault defiles. Laments profit nothing, if sins are repeated. It avails nothing to beg pardon for evils and to do the evils anew ». Likewise Gregory: « He who bewails things admitted, yet does not forsake them, subjects himself to a graver punishment ». Likewise Ambrose[^8]: « There are found those who think penance is to be done more often, who luxuriate in Christ. For if they truly did penance in Christ, they would not afterward think it to be repeated; because, as there is one baptism, so there is one penance ». These and many other things they use to assert their opinion. — But Ambrose says: « This is true penance, to cease from sin ». And again: « It is of great profit to have renounced error ». « For to put off and amend minds steeped in vices belongs to perfect virtue and heavenly grace ».

And therefore it can soundly be thus defined: penance is a virtue or grace by which we bewail and hate the evils committed, with the purpose of amendment, and are unwilling to commit further the things to be bewailed; because true penance is in the mind to grieve and to hate vices. — Whence those words set down above: to repent is to weep for things formerly done and not to commit things to be bewailed, can rightly be so taken, that they refer not to different times, but to the same, namely that at the time when one bewails the evils committed, he should not commit by will or by deed the things to be bewailed. Which is intimated from the words following: « For he who so deplores some things » etc. Hence Augustine[^9] says: « Care must be taken lest anyone suppose that those abominable crimes, such as those who do them shall not possess the kingdom of God, are daily to be perpetrated and daily to be redeemed by alms. For life must be changed for the better, and God must be propitiated for past sins by alms, not in a manner bought off for this, that it may always be permitted to commit them with impunity. For to no one has he given license to sin, even though by his mercy he blots out the sins committed, if a fitting satisfaction be not neglected ». Likewise Pope Pius[^10]: « It profits a man nothing to fast and to pray and to do the other works of religion, unless the mind be recalled from iniquity ». — He, therefore, who so recalls his mind from evils that he bewails the things committed and is unwilling to commit the things to be bewailed, nor neglects to make satisfaction, truly repents. Nor is the penance not true on this account, that perhaps afterward he will sin, not of set purpose, but by chance or infirmity. But he is a mocker, and not penitent, who so bewails the things committed that he does not cease to commit by will or by deed the things to be bewailed. He too, who after his tears repeats the things he wept for, is washed for a time, but is not clean, that is, that cleanness is not sufficient for him unto salvation, because it is momentary, not lasting. Likewise that saying: *Empty is the penance which a following fault defiles,* is to be understood thus: It is empty, namely lacking the fruit of that penance which a following fault does *not* defile. For the fruit of that penance is the avoidance of hell and the attainment of glory. For that penance is mortified, and the other good works done before, by the following sin, so that they obtain not the reward which they merited when they were done, and which they would have if the sin did not follow. But also, if penance be done for the succeeding sin, both the penance which preceded and the other good works done before revive; yet only those which proceeded from charity. For those alone are living which are done in charity; and therefore, if they are mortified by following sins, they can revive through subsequent penance. But those which are done without charity are begotten dead and empty; and therefore they cannot revive through penance. Likewise is to be understood that saying: *Laments profit nothing* etc., and that: *It avails nothing* etc. For if sins are repeated, the preceding lament avails nothing at the end unto salvation or unto pardon, because nothing is left of cleanness of life; for either the dismissed sins return, as it pleases some, when they are repeated; or if they do not return, yet, they being blotted out, on account of ingratitude one is so made guilty and unclean, while he is still entangled in the things to be expiated, as if those blotted-out sins returned. Of this, however, namely whether sins return, we shall treat more fully afterward[^11]. Likewise it avails nothing for obtaining salvation or for having cleanness of life to beg pardon for misdeeds and to do the evils anew.

<!-- page 316 -->

— Thus also is to be understood that which the same Augustine[^12] says elsewhere: « Penance is a certain vengeance of one grieving, punishing in himself what he grieves to have committed ». And below: « One must grieve continually for sin, which the very force of the word declares. For to repent is to hold punishment, so that one always punishes in himself by avenging what he committed in sinning. He holds punishment who always avenges what he grieves to have committed. Penance therefore is a vengeance always punishing in oneself what one grieves to have committed ». « What remains to us but to grieve in life? for where grief ends, penance too fails. But if penance ends, what is left of pardon? Let him rejoice and hope in grace so long as he is sustained by penance. For the Lord says[^13]: *Go, and sin no more.* He did not say: do not sin, but: let not even the will of sinning arise in thee. And how shall this be kept, unless grief be continually guarded in penance? Hence let him always grieve and rejoice over his grief; and let it not be enough that he grieve, but let him grieve from faith and grieve that he has not always grieved ».

Of the penance of the perfect, or that which is sufficient unto salvation, is to be understood what he said above, namely: *Penance is a vengeance always punishing what one has committed;* and other things of this kind. But that saying: *If penance ends, nothing of pardon is left,* can be taken in two ways. For if, according to the understanding of some, the dismissed sins return, it is easy to understand that nothing of pardon is left; because the dismissed sins are repeated again. For just as he who is set free from servitude into liberty is meanwhile[^14] truly free, and yet on account of an offense is afterward recalled into servitude; so too to the penitent his sins are truly dismissed, and yet on account of an offense, which is repeated, they return again. — But if they be said not to return, it can soundly be said that even so nothing of pardon is left; not that the dismissed sins are imputed again, but because on account of ingratitude one is so made guilty and unclean, as if those sins returned.

### Chap. III. *On solemn and single penance.*

But that which Ambrose says: *There are found* etc. and: *As there is one baptism, so there is one penance,* is understood to be said not according to the general, but according to the special custom of the Church, concerning solemn penance, which among certain persons, once celebrated, is not repeated. Likewise that other saying of Ambrose[^15]: « Penance once usurped and not truly celebrated both takes away the fruit of the prior and loses the use of the following »; is understood of solemn penance. But solemn penance, as Ambrose says in the same place, is that which is done outside the Church in public, in ashes and sackcloth, which is imposed only for graver, horrendous, and manifest offenses. And that penance is not to be repeated, out of reverence for the Sacrament, and lest it become cheap and contemptible to men. Whence Augustine[^16]: « Although it has been cautiously and wholesomely provided that the place of that most humble penance be granted once in the Church, lest the medicine become cheap or less useful to the sick — which is the more wholesome the less contemptible it is — yet who would dare to say to God: Why dost thou still again spare this man, who after his first penance again binds himself in the snares of iniquity »? Origen[^17] too, concerning this solemn penance which is enjoined for graver crimes, says: « If some mortal fault overtake us which consists not in a deadly crime, or in blasphemy of faith, but in a fault of speech or of conduct; this fault can always be repaired, nor is it ever forbidden to do penance of this kind; but not so for graver crimes. For in graver crimes the place of penance is granted but once. The *common* faults, which we frequently incur, always admit penance and are always redeemed ». — By *common* he means venial sins and perhaps certain mortal ones less grave than others, which, just as they are often committed, so are frequently redeemed through penance. But for graver crimes penance is done but once, namely solemn penance. For even of those, if they be repeated, penance is repeated, but not solemn. Which, however, in certain Churches is not observed.

### Chap. IV. *That sins are often dismissed through penance.*

But that penance is not done once only, but is frequently repeated, and that through it pardon is frequently granted again, is proved by many testimonies of the Saints. For Augustine[^18] says, writing against certain heretics who said that for those sinning after baptism penance was useful but once, thus: « The faithless still press on, who are wise more than they ought, not soberly, but exceeding measure; for they say: Even if for those sinning once after baptism penance avails, yet it will not profit those sinning often, repeated; otherwise remission would be an incitement to sin. For they say: Who would not always sin, if he could always return? For they say that the Lord is an inciter of evil, if he always succors the penitent; and that the sins please him, to which grace is always at hand. But they err. For it is established that sins much displease him who is always at hand to destroy them; if he loved them, he would not so always destroy them ». The same, to Macedonius[^19]: « To such a degree does the iniquity of men sometimes advance, that even after penance has been performed, after reconciliation at the altar, they commit the like or graver things. And yet God makes *his sun to rise* even upon such, nor does he grant less than he had granted before, the most ample gifts of life and salvation. And although that place of penance be not granted them in the Church; yet God does not forget his patience over them. And if one of their number should say to us: Tell me whether anything will profit me unto the future life, if

<!-- page 317 -->

in this life I have despised the allurements of most enticing pleasure, if by repenting I have tormented myself more vehemently than before, if I have wept more abundantly, if I have lived better, if I have more liberally sustained the poor, if I have burned more ardently with charity; who among us is so foolish as to say to this man: These things shall profit thee nothing for the future? Go, enjoy at least the sweetness of this life. May God avert so monstrous and sacrilegious a madness ». Likewise, John Chrysostom[^20] on the restoration of the lapsed: « Such, believe me, such is God's love toward men: he never spurns penance, if it be offered to him sincerely and simply; even if one reach the summit of evils, and yet thence wish to return to the way of virtue; he receives him willingly, embraces him, does all things, to recall him to his former state. And what is yet more excellent and eminent, even if one cannot fulfill the whole order of satisfaction, yet he does not reject the penance, however small and performed in however brief a time; he receives even it, nor suffers, though slight, the reward of conversion to be lost ». By examples too this same thing can be established. For David[^21] by penance obtained pardon at once of adultery and of homicide; and yet afterward he grievously transgressed in the numbering of the people, which the prostrate multitude of the people showed. « But that is wonderful, that he offered himself to the Angel striking the people, saying: *What has this flock done? Let thy hand be against me and against the house of my father.* Which done, he was at once judged worthy of sacrifice who was reckoned unworthy of absolution. Nor is it a wonder, if by such an offering of himself for the people he obtained pardon of his own sin; since Moses, offering himself for the people's error, washed away their sins[^22] ».

By these and many other testimonies it is evidently shown that through penance we rise from sins not once only, but more often, and that true penance is more often done. For us sinning willingly, as the Apostle says[^23], there is left no sacrifice for sins — a second one, namely — because it behooved Christ to suffer but once; nor is there left a second baptism; but there is left a second penance and a third and so on, as John Chrysostom on this place says: « It is to be known, he says, that here certain men arise who, on the occasion of these words, take away penance, as if through penance a sinner could not rise again after a lapse a second and a third time and so on. But in this too he excludes not penance nor the propitiation which is often made through penance, but a second baptism and sacrifice ».

---

la: Epist. 130, ad Demetriadem (alias 8.) n. 9; cfr. quoad haec et alia, quae sequuntur, Hugo a S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 6. c. 10. Inferius respicitur Eph. 4, 22. 24.

en: *Letter* 130, to Demetrias (otherwise 8), n. 9; cf., concerning these and the other things that follow, Hugh of St. Victor, *Summa Sententiarum,* tr. 6, c. 10. Just below, Eph. 4:22, 24 is referred to.

la: Dist. XXII. c. 2. — Seq. locus Scripturae est Matth. 3, 2. Verba *exordium sermonis* respiciunt ibid. 4, 17. — Quod sequitur usque ad locum Ambrosii est ex Glossa ordinaria ibid. — Pro *illud post* codd. et ed. 1 *idem post.*

en: Dist. XXII, c. 2. — The following Scripture passage is Matt. 3:2. The words *exordium sermonis* refer to ibid., 4:17. — What follows up to the passage of Ambrose is from the ordinary Gloss, ibid. — For *illud post* the codices and ed. 1 have *idem post.*

la: (Inter opera) Serm. 25. (de s. Quadrag. 9.) n. 1; C. *Poenitentia est* (1.), de Poenitentia dist. 3. — Locus Gregorii est II. Homil. in Evang., hom. 34. n. 15; C. *Poenitentiam agere* (6.), ibid., ubi ed. 1 pro *tamen alia* habet *alia iterum.*

en: (Among the works) Sermon 25 (on the holy Quadragesima, 9), n. 1; the canon *Poenitentia est* (1), de Poenitentia, dist. 3. — The passage of Gregory is bk. II *Homilies on the Gospels,* hom. 34, n. 15; the canon *Poenitentiam agere* (6), ibid., where ed. 1, for *tamen alia,* has *alia iterum.*

la: Codd. omittunt *posse,* similiter Hugo de S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 6. c. 12.

en: The codices omit *posse,* likewise Hugh of St. Victor, *Summa Sententiarum,* tr. 6, c. 12.

la: Libr. II. Sent. c. 16. n. 1; C. *Irrisor* (11.), ibid.; in textu infra respiciuntur II. Petr. 2, 22, et Prov. 26, 11, deinde Isai. 1, 16. — Pro *non committit* codd. B C D E et ed. 1 *non admittit,* refragante etiam Hugone et canone.

en: Bk. II *Sentences,* c. 16, n. 1; the canon *Irrisor* (11), ibid.; in the text below 2 Pet. 2:22 and Prov. 26:11 are referred to, then Isa. 1:16. — For *non committit* codd. B C D E and ed. 1 have *non admittit,* against Hugh and the canon too.

la: Potius Isidor., I. Synonym. n. 77; C. *Inanis* (12.), ibid. — Locus Gregorii est in Regula pastor. p. III. c. 30; C. *Qui admissa* (14.), ibid. — Pro *Qui admissa* edd., excepta 1, *Qui commissa.*

en: Rather Isidore, bk. I *Synonyms,* n. 77; the canon *Inanis* (12), ibid. — The passage of Gregory is in the *Pastoral Rule,* pt. III, c. 30; the canon *Qui admissa* (14), ibid. — For *Qui admissa* the editions, except 1, have *Qui commissa.*

la: Libr. II. de Poenitentia, c. 10. n. 95; C. *Reperiuntur* (2.), ibid. — Seq. locus est inter opera eiusdem, super II. Epist. ad Cor. 2, 7; tertius Ambros., Exposit. in Ps. 118, serm. 22. n. 2; quartus ibid. n. 3.

en: Bk. II *On Penance,* c. 10, n. 95; the canon *Reperiuntur* (2), ibid. — The following passage is among the works of the same, on the 2nd Letter to the Corinthians 2:7; the third is Ambrose, *Exposition on Ps. 118,* sermon 22, n. 2; the fourth ibid., n. 3.

la: Enchirid. c. 70. n. 19; C. *Sane cavendum est* (18.), ibid. — Pro *infanda* solae edd. *nefanda,* refragante etiam originali. Ibi respicitur I. Cor. 6, 9. 10.

en: *Enchiridion,* c. 70, n. 19; the canon *Sane cavendum est* (18), ibid. — For *infanda* the editions alone have *nefanda,* against the original too. There 1 Cor. 6:9–10 is referred to.

la: Epist. 1, et C. *Nihil prodest* (21.), ibid. — Sequentia sumta sunt ex Hugone a S. Vict., loc. cit.

en: *Letter* 1, and the canon *Nihil prodest* (21), ibid. — What follows is taken from Hugh of St. Victor, loc. cit.

la: Dist. XXII. c. 1.

en: Dist. XXII, c. 1.

la: De Vera et falsa Poenitentia (inter eius opera), c. 8. n. 22; seq. loc. ibid. c. 19. n. 35; uterque locus C. *Poenitentia est* (4.), ibid. Tertius ibid. c. 13. n. 28; C. *Si Apostolus* (5.), ibid. — In I. loco cod. B et edd., excepta 1, post *vindicta* addunt *semper,* refragante originali, et pro *commisisse* codd. et ed. 1 *admisisse.*

en: *On True and False Penance* (among his works), c. 8, n. 22; the following passage ibid., c. 19, n. 35; both passages the canon *Poenitentia est* (4), ibid. The third ibid., c. 13, n. 28; the canon *Si Apostolus* (5), ibid. — In the first place cod. B and the editions, except 1, after *vindicta* add *semper,* against the original, and for *commisisse* the codices and ed. 1 have *admisisse.*

la: Edd. 4, 8 *iterum,* et etiam Gratianus in C. *Quamvis caute* (22.), ibid., ex quo tota haec explicatio excerpta est.

en: Edd. 4, 8 *iterum,* and Gratian too in the canon *Quamvis caute* (22), ibid., from which this whole explanation is excerpted.

la: Libr. II. de Poenitentia, c. 11. n. 104; C. *In salicibus* (37.), ibid.; cfr. Hugo de S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 6. c. 12.

en: Bk. II *On Penance,* c. 11, n. 104; the canon *In salicibus* (37), ibid.; cf. Hugh of St. Victor, *Summa Sententiarum,* tr. 6, c. 12.

la: Epist. 153. (alias 54.) ad Macedonium, c. 3. n. 7; C. *Quamvis caute,* supra cit.

en: *Letter* 153 (otherwise 54) to Macedonius, c. 3, n. 7; the canon *Quamvis caute,* cited above.

la: Homil. 15. in Levit. (25, 29.) n. 2; Magister, pluribus aliis omissis, adiecit verba: *sed non ita de gravioribus criminibus.*

en: Homily 15 on Leviticus (25:29), n. 2; the Master, many other things being omitted, added the words: *but not so for graver crimes.*

la: Libr. de Vera et falsa Poenitentia, c. 5. n. 11; C. *Adhuc instant* (32.), ibid. Respicitur Rom. 12, 3. In hoc textu Vat. cum pluribus edd. ante *redire* praefigit *per poenitentiam,* et pro *poenitentibus* ponit *peccantibus;* denique in fine eaedem omittunt *ita,* refragante etiam originali.

en: The book *On True and False Penance,* c. 5, n. 11; the canon *Adhuc instant* (32), ibid. Rom. 12:3 is referred to. In this text the Vatican edition, with many editions, before *redire* prefixes *per poenitentiam,* and for *poenitentibus* puts *peccantibus;* finally at the end the same omit *ita,* against the original too.

la: Loc. cit. supra in nota 6, et C. *In tantum* (33), ibid. Respicitur Matth. 5, 45. — Pro *ille poenitentiae* ed. Maurina Augustini, Can. cit. et Vat. *humillimae poenitentiae.* Pro *nobis dicat* et infra pro *nostrum ita,* quod habent plures edd. cum originali, Vat. cum aliis *vobis dicat...vestrum ita.*

en: The place cited above in note 6, and the canon *In tantum* (33), ibid. Matt. 5:45 is referred to. — For *ille poenitentiae* the Maurist edition of Augustine, the cited canon, and the Vatican have *humillimae poenitentiae.* For *nobis dicat,* and below for *nostrum ita,* which several editions have with the original, the Vatican with others has *vobis dicat...vestrum ita.*

la: Libr. I. Ad Theodorum lapsum adhortatio n. 6; C. *Talis mihi* (28.), ibid.

en: Bk. I, *Exhortation to Theodore the Lapsed,* n. 6; the canon *Talis mihi* (28), ibid.

la: Libr. II. Reg. 12, 13.

en: 2 Kings (2 Samuel) 12:13.

la: Ambros., de Apologia David, c. 7. n. 38; C. *Illud vero* (26.), ibid., qui cum originali post *plebis errore* bene addit *etiam plebis.* Scripturae sunt II. Reg. 24, 17; I. Paralip. 21, 17.

en: Ambrose, *On the Apology of David,* c. 7, n. 38; the canon *Illud vero* (26), ibid., which together with the original after *plebis errore* rightly adds *etiam plebis.* The Scriptures are 2 Kings (2 Samuel) 24:17; 1 Chron. 21:17.

la: Hebr. 10, 10. — Locus Chrysost. est Homil. 20. n. 1.

en: Heb. 10:10. — The passage of Chrysostom is Homily 20, n. 1.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 36249–36552), with PDF column-band reads (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{314,315,316,317}-{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 314–317 = pdf 334–337).
- **This is the FULL LITTERA MAGISTRI of Distinction XIV** — Peter Lombard's text on penance (*De poenitentia*). **The distinction is divided by the MASTER himself into his own two textual partes**, both of which are rendered here as one littera chunk:
  - **Pars I** (printed p.314): Cap. I (*De poenitentia, et unde dicitur poenitentia*) + Cap. II (*Quid sit poenitentia et poenitere*).
  - **Pars II** (printed pp.315–317): the `### Pars II.` divider (« His verbis quidam vehementius inhaerentes… ») + Cap. III (*De solemni et unica poenitentia*) + Cap. IV (*Quod peccata saepe dimittuntur per poenitentiam*).
  The chunk id carries `p1`; Bonaventure's own commentary-pars split is handled by the separate `d14-p1-*` / `d14-p2-*` commentary chunks.
- **★ Correction of the prior partial.** The earlier version of this file rendered ONLY p.314 (Caps I–II) and stopped, on the mistaken reading that p.315's `Pars II.` was the COMMENTARIUS. It is NOT: the `Pars II.` at raw line 36329 (under the p.315 `DISTINCTIO XIV.` running head) is **Lombard's own textual Pars II** — more littera chapters (III, IV), not Bonaventure's commentary. The littera runs continuously through Cap. IV on p.317 and ends at « …sed secundum *baptismum* et *hostiam* ». Immediately below begins `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIV. / Pars I. / De poenitentia in generali / DIVISIO TEXTUS` (raw ≥ 36553) — that is the NEXT chunk (`d14-p1-divisio`) and is EXCLUDED here.
- **Running-head note.** The `DIST. XIV. P. I. DIVISIO TEXTUS. 317` line at raw 36511 is a **page-top running head**, not a section break — the littera body continues beneath it (Cap. IV's David/Chrysostom material) until the COMMENTARIUS proper. The « DIVISIO TEXTUS » heading that genuinely belongs to the commentarius sits LOWER on p.317 (mid-page, after the COMMENTARIUS title), in the right column.
- **Chapter list:** Cap. I (*De poenitentia, et unde dicitur poenitentia*); Cap. II (*Quid sit poenitentia et poenitere*); [Pars II divider]; Cap. III (*De solemni et unica poenitentia*); Cap. IV (*Quod peccata saepe dimittuntur per poenitentiam*).
- **Page-verify.** p.314 R-column top head `DISTINCTIO XIV. / Pars I.`; p.315 head `DISTINCTIO XIV. / Pars II.` + page number `315` (R-0 band, top-right); p.316 verso head `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` + page number `316` (L-0); p.317 running head `DIST. XIV. P. I. DIVISIO TEXTUS. 317` (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.314** notes 1–4 → `[^1]–[^4]` (the p.314 LEFT-column footer block, notes ¹²³⁴ on the heresy/superstitio etymologies, belongs to the PRIOR d.XIII commentary chunk and is excluded).
  - **p.315** notes 1–7 → `[^5]–[^11]` (Codd. omittunt posse / Libr. II Sent. Irrisor / Potius Isidor. Inanis + Greg. Qui admissa / Libr. II de Poenit. Reperiuntur / Enchirid. Sane cavendum / Epist. 1 Nihil prodest / Dist. XXII c. 1).
  - **p.316** notes 1–9 → `[^12]–[^19]` (De Vera et falsa Poenit. / Ioan. 8,11 / Edd. iterum Quamvis caute / Codd. subiungunt est / Libr. II de Poenit. In salicibus / Epist. 153 ad Macedonium / Homil. 15 in Levit. / Adhuc instant / Loc. cit. nota 6 In tantum). Note ⁹ physically WRAPS from the p.316 R-2 band onto the p.317 L-2 band (« …ed. Maurina Augu- / -stini, Can. cit. et Vat. humillimae poenitentiae… ») — its full text is reassembled in `[^19]`.
  - **p.317** notes 1–4 → `[^20]–[^23]` (Libr. I Ad Theodorum / Libr. II Reg. 12,13 / Ambros. de Apologia David / Hebr. 10,10 + Chrysost. Homil. 20). These are the footers above the rule on p.317; the footers belonging to the COMMENTARIUS DIVISIO TEXTUS (the *humillimae poenitentiae* / *Libr. I Ad Theodorum lapsum* running into the divisio body) belong to the next chunk and are NOT double-claimed beyond the four numbered littera entries.
- **Opening seam (p.314 L).** The littera opens on p.314 below the tail of d.XIII's commentary on heresy/schism/superstition; that prior material and its LEFT-column footers (¹²³⁴) belong to the d.XIII chunk and are excluded. No littera body text dropped at the d.XIII→d.XIV seam.
- **Cutoff / hand-off to divisio.** The littera ends at Cap. IV on p.317 (« …sed secundum *baptismum* et *hostiam* »). Hand-off to the **`d14-p1-divisio`** agent: re-derive the raw range from the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIV.` line (raw ≥ 36553, mid-p.317), NOT from any earlier skeleton start; claim the p.317 commentarius-portion footers (the *humillimae poenitentiae* note continuation + the divisio's own NOTAE) and the p.318+ footers — these are NOT the littera's.
- **No scholion** — littera chunk.
- **No `[?]` flags.** All 24 NOTAE footers resolve cleanly off the column bands; every body lemma keys to a numbered footer. Unambiguous OCR garbles silently corrected (e.g. `inhaerentes`/`damnabiliter`/`subsannare`/`indesinenter`/`reviviscente`/`coinquinat`/`renuntiasse`/`emendare`/`ulterius`/`sustentatur`/`manumittitur`/`ingratitudinem`/`reconciliationem`/`illecebrosissimae`/`sacrilegamque`/`quantulamcumque`/`enumeratione`/`propitiationem`; e.g. raw `poscere subditus`, `vehementius`, `Macedonium`, `astrui`, `oblatione`).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 14, Part 1, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum (Pars I)

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions (Part I)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 317 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIV.

#### Pars I.

*De poenitentia in generali.*

> Post haec de poenitentia agendum est.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Terminatis tribus partibus principalibus, in quibus Magister egit de tribus Sacramentis, hic incipit quarta pars, in qua agit de Sacramento poenitentiae. Dividitur autem haec pars in duas. In prima parte agit de poenitentia in generali. In secunda agit specialiter de eius partibus, infra distinctione decima sexta: *In perfectione autem poenitentiae tria observanda sunt.*

Prima pars habet duas. In prima Magister determinat veritatem. In secunda elidit duos errores circa poenitentiam, infra eadem distinctione, ibi: *His verbis quidam vehementius* etc.

Prima pars habet tres partes. In prima determinat ordinem ipsius ad baptismum. In secunda parte determinat eius multiplicitatem, ibi: *Baptismus tantum est Sacramentum, sed poenitentia* etc. In tertia post distinctionem multiplicitatis ponit notificationes poenitentiae-virtutis, ibi: *Poenitentia dicitur a puniendo, qua quis punit illicita* etc., ubi ponit rationem a parte nominis et a parte rei.

<!-- page 318 -->

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis quaeritur de poenitentia-virtute, et circa hoc duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de ipsa absolute.

Secundo, in comparatione.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum poenitentia sit virtus.

Secundo, dato quod sic, quaeritur, utrum sit virtus generalis, an specialis.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum sit virtus theologica, vel cardinalis.

### ARTICULUS I.

#### *De virtute poenitentiae absolute.*

### QUAESTIO I.

#### *Utrum poenitentia sit virtus.*

---

english:
<!-- page 317 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XIV.

#### Part I.

*On penance in general.*

> After these things penance must be treated.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Having concluded the three principal parts in which the Master treated of the three Sacraments, here begins the fourth part, in which he treats of the Sacrament of penance. Now this part is divided into two. In the first part he treats of penance in general. In the second he treats specially of its parts, below in the sixteenth distinction: *But in the perfection of penance three things are to be observed.*

The first part has two [parts]. In the first the Master determines the truth. In the second he refutes two errors concerning penance, below in the same distinction, there: *By these words certain men more vehemently* etc.

The first part has three parts. In the first he determines its order to baptism. In the second part he determines its multiplicity, there: *Baptism is only a Sacrament, but penance* etc. In the third, after the distinction of the multiplicity, he sets down the notifications of penance-the-virtue, there: *Penance is so called from punishing, by which one punishes things unlawful* etc., where he sets down the account from the side of the name and from the side of the thing.

<!-- page 318 -->

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part inquiry is made concerning penance-the-virtue, and concerning this two [things] are principally asked.

First, inquiry is made concerning it absolutely.

Second, in comparison.

Concerning the first, three [things] are asked.

First it is asked, whether penance is a virtue.

Second, granted that it is, it is asked, whether it is a general virtue, or a special one.

Third it is asked, whether it is a theological virtue, or a cardinal one.

### ARTICLE I.

#### *On the virtue of penance absolutely.*

### QUESTION I.

#### *Whether penance is a virtue.*

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 36553–36615 (COMMENTARIUS/Pars-I header through the QUAESTIO I title) with the PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p317-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p318-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative in the two-column cascade-fragmented regions (the OCR splices left- and right-column lines together throughout the DIVISIO TEXTUS and footers). Offset pdf = printed + 20. Running head on p.317 R confirmed: **DIST. XIV. P. I. DIVISIO TEXTUS**; p.318 L running head **SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV**. The QUAESTIO I body (*Circa primum proceditur sic: 1. Matthaei tertio: Poenitentiam agite…* / Fundamenta, p.318 right col foot) is excluded; it opens the next chunk `d14-p1-a1-q1`.
- **Structure confirmed — TWO articles:** The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM partitions Pars I "duo principaliter": **Art I** *De virtute poenitentiae absolute* (p.318, "Primo quaeritur de ipsa absolute"); **Art II** *De poenitentia in comparatione* ("Secundo, in comparatione"). Each article holds **three questions**. Art I's three are listed verbatim under "Circa primum quaeruntur tria" (p.318 right col): q1 *utrum poenitentia sit virtus*; q2 *utrum sit virtus generalis, an specialis*; q3 *utrum sit virtus theologica, vel cardinalis*. Per the divisio-chunk convention the ARTICULUS I opener (heading + sub-title *De virtute poenitentiae absolute*) folds in here, along with the QUAESTIO I heading + title; the q1 body is left to `d14-p1-a1-q1`.
- **Page-split map:** the chunk straddles printed pages 317–318 (page break `<!-- page 318 -->` placed before TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM). p.317 carries the COMMENTARIUS title (printed mid-page, below Lombard's littera which is NOT part of this chunk), the *Pars I* subtitle/argumentum (*Post haec de poenitentia agendum est*), and the full DIVISIO TEXTUS (left-column body + right-column continuation). p.318 carries the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (overall duo-principaliter partition + Art-I "Circa primum quaeruntur tria" three-question listing), the ARTICULUS I opener, and the QUAESTIO I title.
- **Footer ownership:** the **5 footers on printed page 317** (a lead unnumbered note [^0] + notes 1–4) belong to printed page **317** and are claimed here — they are the editors' source notes on Lombard's littera printed above the COMMENTARIUS on p.317 (Augustine/Vatican variant readings, *Ad Theodorum lapsum,* 2 Kings, Ambrose *de Apologia David,* Hebrews/Chrysostom); none anchor to a numbered marker in the divisio body, so they are rendered as page-foot apparatus for completeness. Note [^0] is an unnumbered lead note (its keying marker sits on the prior printed page, p.316), reproduced with a leading ellipsis. Printed page **318** carries footer notes **1–4** (`Vers. 2 — Glossa est ordinaria…`, `Libr. II. Ethic. c. 6`, `Aristot. I Ethic. c. 12`, `Vide hic in litt. Magistri…`) which anchor in the QUAESTIO I *Fundamenta* and are **left to `d14-p1-a1-q1`**.
- **No `[?]` flags** — the divisio body, the duo-principaliter partition, and the five owned footers read cleanly once reflowed from the column bands (OCR raw is column-spliced but the PDF bands disambiguate every line). The OCR mis-numbered the 2 Kings footer as "5" (digit-mangled "²"); corrected to [^2] per band order. The lead note [^0] is reproduced with a leading ellipsis to mark that its head (the catchword and marker) sits on p.316.
- No scholion in this divisio chunk.

**J3 apparatus reassignment (2026-07-13).** REMOVED all 5 apparatus entries from this chunk. Its 5 apparatus entries were duplicates of notes that already live — correctly anchored — in `bon-sent-IV-d14-p1-littera.md`: [^1]–[^4] duplicate littera [^20]–[^23] verbatim, and the stray [^0] was a TRUNCATED TAIL-FRAGMENT of littera [^19] (it began mid-word, '…stini,' = *Augustini*). The superscripts they answer to are printed in Lombard's littera on p.317, ABOVE the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIV.` heading, i.e. outside this chunk's range (verified on the 450dpi bands for pp.317–318). They were unanchored here in BOTH bodies (rendering as dangling footnotes attached to nothing). Nothing is lost: the owning littera chunk is complete and fully anchored. `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. 14, Part 2, Divisio Textus

title_alt:
Divisio textus
Division of the text

source_text:
<!-- page 330 -->

## Commentarius in Distinctionem XIV
### Pars II.

*Contra errorem, quod poenitentia non iteratur.*

**His verbis quidam vehementius inhaerentes etc.**

> TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 315.

### Divisio textus.

Supra egit Magister de poenitentia in generali, determinans veritatem, scilicet quid sit et quomodo dividatur et ad Sacramenta alia ordinetur. In hac parte ostendit duos errores ex praedictis ortum habentes. Quorum unus est, quod poenitentia non iteratur; alius est, quod poenitentia potest fieri de uno peccato sine alio. Ideo dividitur haec pars in duas. In prima elidit primum errorem. In secunda secundum, infra distinctione decima quinta: *Et sicut praedictis auctoritatibus illorum errorum etc.*

Prima pars habet tres partes. In prima ponit errorem cum confirmatione. In secunda respondet ipsorum rationibus, ibi: *His aliisque pluribus utuntur etc.* In tertia adducit multiplices auctoritates ad elidendum istum errorem, ibi: *Quod vero poenitentia non tantum semel agatur etc.*

Prima pars duas habet secundum duo membra erroris. In prima adducit auctoritates, quae ostendunt, quod vera poenitentia non est, a qua quis recidivat. In secunda probat, quod post recidivum non est iteranda, ibi: *Item Ambrosius: Reperiuntur qui saepius etc.*

Similiter secunda pars duas habet. In prima respondet auctoritatibus, quae videntur ostendere primam partem erroris. In secunda respondet auctoritatibus, quae ostendunt secundam, ibi: *Illud autem, quod Ambrosius ait etc.*

Similiter tertia pars dividitur in duas. In prima adducit auctoritates ad improbationem illius erroris. In secunda exempla Patrum. Primum facit ibi: *Quod vero poenitentia non semel tantum agatur etc.* Secundum, ibi: *Exemplis etiam astrui potest.*

<!-- page 331 -->

### Tractatio quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de iteratione poenitentiae.

Secundo, de effectu poenitentiae iteratae.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum contingat cadere a vera poenitentia.

Secundo, utrum contingat per poenitentiam resurgere.

Tertio, utrum omnis agens poenitentiam super culpam inveniat veniam a Deo.

### Articulus I.
*De iteratione poenitentiae.*

---

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

*Against the error that penance is not repeated.*

**Certain men, clinging too vehemently to these words, etc.**

> FOR THE TEXT OF THE MASTER SEE ABOVE, PAGE 315.

### Division of the text.

Above the Master treated of penance in general, determining its truth — namely, what it is and how it is divided and how it is ordered to the other Sacraments. In this part he sets forth two errors arising from the things aforesaid. Of these, the one is that penance is not repeated; the other is that penance can be done for one sin without another. Therefore this part is divided into two. In the first he refutes the first error. In the second the second, below in the fifteenth distinction: *And just as by the aforesaid authorities of those errors, etc.*

The first part has three parts. In the first he sets out the error with its confirmation. In the second he answers their arguments, there: *To these and many other things they make use, etc.* In the third he brings forward manifold authorities to refute that error, there: *But that penance is not to be done only once, etc.*

The first part has two according to the two members of the error. In the first he brings forward authorities which show that there is no true penance from which one falls back again. In the second he proves that after a relapse it is not to be repeated, there: *Likewise Ambrose: There are found those who oftentimes, etc.*

Likewise the second part has two. In the first he answers the authorities which seem to show the first part of the error. In the second he answers the authorities which show the second, there: *But that which Ambrose says, etc.*

Likewise the third part is divided into two. In the first he brings forward authorities to disprove that error. In the second the examples of the Fathers. The first he makes there: *But that penance is not to be done only once, etc.* The second, there: *It can also be established by examples.*

### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of this part two things are principally inquired.

First it is asked about the repetition of penance.

Second, about the effect of repeated penance.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked whether it happens that one falls away from true penance.

Second, whether it happens that one rises again through penance.

Third, whether everyone doing penance over a fault finds pardon from God.

### Article I.
*On the repetition of penance.*

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 37880–37970; two-column PDF bands for printed pp. 330–331 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p330-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p331-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative where the OCR cascade-fragmented the COMMENTARIUS opener, DIVISIO TEXTUS, and TRACTATIO into diagonal one-token-per-line bleed. Running heads confirmed **330** / **SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.** (p. 330) and **DIST. XIV. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I.** / **331** (p. 331); offset pdf = printed + 20.
- **The divisio spans a column-and-page break.** On p. 330 the top of both columns is the preceding **Pars I definitiones** material (the *triplex notificatio* of penance — *per actum principalem / per actum… / per effectum*, with definitions 1–9 from Glossa, Ambrose, Augustine, Damascene, the Master, Isidore, etc.). The COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIV header + **Pars II** rubric + the rubric-title *Contra errorem, quod poenitentia non iteratur* + the Master's lemma (*His verbis quidam vehementius inhaerentes etc.*) + the *VIDE SUPRA PAG. 315* cross-reference sit at the foot of p. 330, with DIVISIO TEXTUS beginning there and reflowing column-by-column. The `<!-- page 331 -->` break falls just before TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM; the *Similiter secunda pars… / Similiter tertia pars…* tail of DIVISIO TEXTUS, the full TRACTATIO, and the ARTICULUS I header + subtitle occupy the top of p. 331.
- **Pars II structure confirmed (TRACTATIO):** "duo principaliter quaeruntur" → **TWO articles.** (1) *De iteratione poenitentiae* = **ARTICULUS I**, with **three** questions ("Circa primum quaeruntur tria"): q1 *utrum contingat cadere a vera poenitentia*; q2 *utrum contingat per poenitentiam resurgere*; q3 *utrum omnis agens poenitentiam super culpam inveniat veniam a Deo*. (2) *De effectu poenitentiae iteratae* = **ARTICULUS II**, which (per the divisio's "Secundo, de effectu poenitentiae iteratae") likewise carries **three** questions. ✓ Both articles = 3 q each, matching the briefed Pars II map.
- **Footer ownership (p. 330):** the eight footer notes on printed p. 330 are all anchored in the preceding **Pars I definitiones** body (note 1 *Vers. 2. Verba Glossae vide supra a. 1. q. 1. fundam. 1.*; note 2 *Serm. 23 (inter eius opera) n. 1…*; note 3 *Cap. 8 n. 22. Textus originalis omittit semper…*; note 4 *Serm. 25 n. 1. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri c. 2…*; note 5 *Libr. II de Fide orthod. c. 30…*; note 6 *Vers. 17. — Glossa est interlinearis apud Lyranum…*; note 7 *Libr. III (Hypognost. inter opera August.) c. 9…*; note 8 *Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV q. 12…*) — i.e. the definition-apparatus of the *triplex notificatio*. **This Pars II divisio owns no footer:** the rubric-title and Master lemma carry no superscript marker, and DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO have no footnote anchors. `has_apparatus: false`.
- **Footers left to `d14-p2-a1-q1`:** the p. 331 footer block (notes 1 *Regum ultimo* = 2 Reg., 2 *Ioannis quinto* = John 5:14, 3–7 etc.) is anchored in the QUAESTIO I body (*Exemplo David… auctoritate Domini Ioannis quinto…*) and belongs to `d14-p2-a1-q1`.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. All readings resolved against the PDF bands. *VIDE SUPRA PAG. 315* digits confirmed against the p. 330 band (OCR rendered "31o"); OCR "Magisler" / "iteratur" / "delerminans" / "auclorilates" / "elc." garbles silently corrected from the bands.


title: Dist. 14, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1

title_alt:
Utrum poenitentia sit virtus
Whether penance is a virtue

source_text:
<!-- page 318 -->

### Tractatio Quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis quaeritur de poenitentia-virtute, et circa hoc duo principaliter quaeruntur.

*Primo* quaeritur de ipsa absolute.

*Secundo*, in comparatione.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

*Primo* quaeritur, utrum poenitentia sit virtus.

*Secundo*, dato quod sic, quaeritur, utrum sit virtus generalis, an specialis.

*Tertio* quaeritur, utrum sit virtus theologica, vel cardinalis.

### Articulus I. *De virtute poenitentiae absolute.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum poenitentia sit virtus.*

Circa primum proceditur sic:

1. Matthaei tertio[^1]: *Poenitentiam agite*; Glossa: «*Prima virtus est per poenitentiam perimere veterem hominem*»; hoc ipsum dicit Magister in littera.

2. Item, sicut dicit Philosophus[^2], «*virtus est quae habentem perficit et opus eius bonum reddit*»; sed talis est poenitentia: ergo est virtus.

3. Item, nullus actus est laudabilis nec meritorius nisi actus virtutis[^3]; sed poenitere est laudabile et meritorium: ergo est actus virtutis. Sed est actus poenitentiae: ergo poenitentia est virtus.

4. Item, nihil expellit vitium et peccatum nisi gratia vel virtus[^4]; sed poenitentia expellit haec: ergo poenitentia est gratia, vel virtus. Sed non est gratia, quia gratia dicit pure quod a Deo est, poenitentia autem actum nostrum: ergo etc.

5. Item, *poenitere* non ideo bonum est, quia praeceptum, sed magis e converso: ergo per se bonum. Et iterum, arduum et difficile est modo debito poenitere, et circa ipsum contingit errare: ergo necessario indigemus virtute ordinante ad hoc[^5]; sed haec non est nisi poenitentia: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Sacramentum et virtus ex opposito dividuntur[^6]; sed poenitentia est Sacramentum: ergo non est virtus. *Si dicas*, quod poenitentia dupliciter accipitur et secundum duas acceptiones est virtus et Sacramentum; quaeritur: quare magis poenitentia quam baptismus, vel aliud Sacramentum?

2. Item, poenitentia est passio; sed «*omnis virtus, ut dicit Philosophus[^7], est habitus*»: ergo poenitentia non est virtus.

3. Item, «*omnis virtus habet obiectum bonum, sicut scientia verum*[^8]»; sed poenitentiae obiectum est peccatum — poenitens enim non poenitet recte nisi de culpa — ergo etc.

4. Item, omnes virtutes sunt connexae et manent aliquo modo in patria[^9] et fuerunt in Christo et in primo homine; sed poenitentia non fuit in Christo nec in primo homine nec etiam erit in patria: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.** Poenitentia recte dici potest gratia, virtus, Sacramentum, actus et passio, et hoc sensu analogo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod circa hoc multiplex fuit opinio. — Quidam enim dicere voluerunt, quod poenitentia non est virtus, sed actus virtutis, non unius, sed omnium, et concurrunt omnes ad hunc actum; sicut chordae citharae ad unum sonum secundum regulam tangentis, sic omnes virtutes secundum dictamen prudentiae[^10]. — Sed ista positio non est conveniens. Si enim iste actus est bonus et difficilis, et circa quem contingit errare;

<!-- page 319 -->

sicut ira per zelum est habitus, quo homo irascitur vitiis alienis[^1b]; sic poenitentia est habitus, quo homo irascitur vitiis *propriis*. Si enim non esset habitus, tunc non diceretur habere poenitentiam nisi actu poenitens.

Secunda opinio fuit, quod est *habitus*, non[^2b] virtutis, sed *gratiae*; nec tantum nominat gratiam secundum *substantiam*, sed etiam secundum *actum*, ut sicut *gratia baptismalis* dicitur innocentia, sic *gratia iustificationis* poenitentia. — Sed haec positio non debet stare: quia gratia non dirigit liberum arbitrium ad aliquem motum specialem per se, nisi mediante *virtute*[^3b]; quod facit poenitentia.

Tertia positio est, quod poenitentia est *virtus*, sed non est virtus nisi *extenso nomine* virtutis. Nam virtus *proprie* est in dirigendo ad bonum — virtus enim est qualitas mentis, qua recte vivitur[^4b] — sed poenitentia revocat a malo. — Sed haec positio non videtur adhuc sufficiens, quia poenitentia non facit tantum *dolere* de culpa perpetrata, sed etiam facit *emendare*; unde eius est subiectum punire et Deo reconciliare[^5b]; et hoc patet ex definitione[^6b], et ita est virtus proprie.

*Ultima positio* est, quod poenitentia est *habitus virtutis* et virtutis secundum propriam acceptionem, non tantum secundum communem. — Et haec probabilior est, ut credo, sicut patebit melius in sequentibus[^7b].

Ad intelligentiam autem obiectorum notandum, quod poenitentia est expulsiva peccati actualis, quod est macula animam *deformans* et iterum ad malum inclinans, sive a bono *dehabilitans* et iterum naturam *vulnerans*; quam etiam perpetravit quis *per actum voluntatis cum delectatione et libidine*[^8b]. Quia igitur delere culpam ut *deformantem* est *gratiae* reformantis; ut *dehabilitantem*, *virtutis* habilitantis; ut *vulnerantem*, *Sacramenti* curantis; ut *actu perpetratam*, per *actum* similiter *voluntatis*; ut cum *delectatione* perpetratam, cum *passione* contraria: ideo poenitentia recte dicitur gratia, virtus, Sacramentum, actus et passio. Et iste modus est secundum diversas naturas in ea repertas, tamen per ordinationem ad unum; unde non dicitur poenitentia his modis omnino aequivoce, sed analogice. — Et propter hoc concedendae sunt rationes ad primam partem.

1. 2. Ad illud autem quod obiicitur in contrarium, quia est Sacramentum et passio; patet responsio et ratio illius analogiae; non sic enim est in aliis Sacramentis. Quia enim poenitentia respicit culpam *actualem*, in cuius deletione concurrit motus liberi arbitrii concordans gratiae ad culpae expulsionem[^9b], qui quidem motus rectus et virtuosus est; et propter displicentiam peccati, quod necesse est esse perpetratum, non potest esse sine *passione* doloris: patet, quare poenitentia magis est *virtus* quam alia Sacramenta; patet etiam, quare magis habet *passionem* coniunctam quam alia.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnis virtus habet *obiectum bonum*; dicendum, quod falsum est — instantia enim est in temperantia, in pietate et etiam in fortitudine[^10b] — sed sufficit, quod actus sit bonus. Nihilominus tamen poenitentia duplicem habet actum, scilicet *refugere* vel detestari malum et *emendare*; isti sunt actus ordinati, et ratione secundi habet *obiectum bonum*.

4. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de connexione virtutum et huiusmodi; dicendum, quod virtutes habent connexionem et durationem secundum id quod *perfectionis* est in ipsis; poenitentia autem habet aliquid perfectionis, et hoc est *velle emendare*, si in aliquo contingat offendere. Et haec quidem voluntas est in omnibus iustis; impossibile enim est, quod sit voluntas recta sine hoc. Habet etiam aliquid *imperfectionis*, sicut est luctus pro peccato perpetrato; et ratione huius non attenditur connexio nec duratio, immo potius fit evacuatio, tanquam eius quod est *ex parte*[^11b].

english:
### Treatment of the Questions.

For the understanding of this part, inquiry is made concerning penance-as-a-virtue, and concerning this two things are principally asked.

*First*, [it is] asked concerning it absolutely.

*Second*, in comparison.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

*First*, it is asked whether penance is a virtue.

*Second*, granting that it is, it is asked whether it is a general or a special virtue.

*Third*, it is asked whether it is a theological or a cardinal virtue.

### Article I. *On the virtue of penance absolutely.*
### Question I. *Whether penance is a virtue.*

Concerning the first [point], one proceeds thus:

1. Matthew, chapter three[^1]: *Do penance*; the Gloss: «*The first virtue is, through penance, to slay the old man*»; the Master says this same thing in the text.

2. Likewise, as the Philosopher says[^2], «*virtue is that which perfects the one having it and renders his work good*»; but such is penance: therefore it is a virtue.

3. Likewise, no act is praiseworthy or meritorious except an act of virtue[^3]; but to do penance is praiseworthy and meritorious: therefore it is an act of virtue. But it is the act of penance: therefore penance is a virtue.

4. Likewise, nothing expels vice and sin except grace or virtue[^4]; but penance expels these: therefore penance is grace, or virtue. But it is not grace, because grace expresses purely what is from God, whereas penance [expresses] our act: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, *to do penance* is not good because it is commanded, but rather the converse: therefore it is good in itself. And again, it is arduous and difficult to do penance in the due manner, and in this matter one happens to err: therefore we necessarily need a virtue ordering [us] to this[^5]; but this is nothing but penance: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Sacrament and virtue are divided by opposition[^6]; but penance is a Sacrament: therefore it is not a virtue. *If you say* that penance is taken in two ways and according to the two acceptations is a virtue and a Sacrament; it is asked: why penance rather than baptism, or another Sacrament?

2. Likewise, penance is a passion; but «*every virtue, as the Philosopher says[^7], is a habit*»: therefore penance is not a virtue.

3. Likewise, «*every virtue has a good object, as knowledge [has] the true*[^8]»; but the object of penance is sin — for the penitent does not rightly repent except of fault — therefore etc.

4. Likewise, all the virtues are connected and remain in some manner in the fatherland[^9] and were in Christ and in the first man; but penance was not in Christ nor in the first man nor will it even be in the fatherland: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** Penance can rightly be called grace, virtue, Sacrament, act, and passion, and this in an analogous sense.

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning this there was a manifold opinion. — For certain men wished to say that penance is not a virtue, but an act of virtue — not of one [virtue], but of all, and all concur toward this act; just as the strings of a harp [concur] toward one sound according to the rule of the one playing, so all the virtues [concur] according to the dictate of prudence[^10]. — But this position is not fitting. For if this act is good and difficult, and one in which one happens to err;

<!-- page 319 -->

just as anger through zeal is a habit by which a man is angry at the vices of others[^1b], so penance is a habit by which a man is angry at his *own* vices. For if it were not a habit, then one would not be said to have penance except while actually repenting.

The second opinion was that it is a *habit*, not[^2b] of virtue, but of *grace*; nor does it name grace only according to *substance*, but also according to *act*, so that just as *baptismal grace* is called innocence, so *the grace of justification* [is called] penance. — But this position cannot stand: because grace does not direct free choice toward any special motion of itself, except by the mediation of *virtue*[^3b]; which penance does.

The third position is that penance is a *virtue*, but is not a virtue except by an *extended name* of virtue. For virtue *properly* consists in directing toward the good — for virtue is a quality of mind by which one lives rightly[^4b] — but penance calls back from evil. — But this position does not yet seem sufficient, because penance does not only make [one] *grieve* over the fault committed, but also makes [one] *amend*; whence its [office] is to punish the subject and reconcile [it] to God[^5b]; and this is clear from the definition[^6b], and so it is properly a virtue.

*The last position* is that penance is a *habit of virtue* and of virtue according to its proper acceptation, not only according to the common [acceptation]. — And this is more probable, as I believe, as will appear better in what follows[^7b].

But for the understanding of the objections it must be noted that penance is expulsive of actual sin, which is a stain *deforming* the soul and again inclining [it] to evil, or *disabling* [it] from the good and again *wounding* nature; which one has also committed *through an act of the will with delight and lust*[^8b]. Since, therefore, to blot out fault as *deforming* belongs to *grace* reforming; as *disabling*, to *virtue* enabling; as *wounding*, to the *Sacrament* healing; as *actually committed*, through an *act* likewise *of the will*; as committed with *delight*, through a contrary *passion*: therefore penance is rightly called grace, virtue, Sacrament, act, and passion. And this manner [of speaking] is according to the diverse natures found in it, yet by an ordering toward one [thing]; whence penance is not called [by] these modes altogether equivocally, but analogically. — And on account of this the arguments for the first part are to be conceded.

1. 2. To that which is objected to the contrary, [namely] that it is a Sacrament and a passion; the response and the ground of that analogy is clear; for it is not so in the other Sacraments. For because penance regards *actual* fault, in whose deletion there concurs a motion of free choice agreeing with grace for the expulsion of fault[^9b], which motion indeed is right and virtuous; and on account of the displeasure at the sin, which it is necessary to have been committed, it cannot be without a *passion* of grief: it is clear why penance is more a *virtue* than the other Sacraments; it is clear also why it has a *passion* more conjoined [to it] than the others.

3. To that which is objected, [namely] that every virtue has a *good object*; it must be said that this is false — for there is a counterinstance in temperance, in piety, and also in fortitude[^10b] — but it suffices that the act be good. Nevertheless penance has a twofold act, namely *to flee* or detest evil and *to amend*; these are ordered acts, and by reason of the second it has a *good object*.

4. To that, then, which is objected concerning the connection of the virtues and the like; it must be said that the virtues have connection and duration according to that which is of *perfection* in them; but penance has something of perfection, and this is *to will to amend*, if one happen to offend in anything. And this will indeed is in all the just; for it is impossible that there be a right will without this. It has also something of *imperfection*, such as is grief for the sin committed; and by reason of this neither connection nor duration is attended to, nay rather there comes about an evacuation, as of that which is *partial*[^11b].

la: Vers. 2. — Glossa est *ordinaria* apud Strabum, Paschas. Radbertum et Lyranum; in ipsa respicitur Eph. 4, 22. et Col. 3, 9. — Cfr. de ipsa August. in Ps. 4, 6. n. 7. — Magistri sententia habetur hic in lit. c. 1.

en: Verse 2. — The Gloss is the *Ordinary* [Gloss] in Strabo, Paschasius Radbertus, and Lyranus; in it reference is made to Eph. 4, 22 and Col. 3, 9. — Cf. concerning it Augustine on Ps. 4, 6, n. 7. — The Master's opinion is found here in the text, c. 1.

la: Libr. II. Ethic. c. 6.

en: *Ethics*, bk. II, c. 6.

la: Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 12: *Laus enim virtutis est.* Cfr. ibid. II. c. 5.

en: Aristotle, *Ethics* I, c. 12: *For praise belongs to virtue.* Cf. ibid. II, c. 5.

la: Vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2. verba Ambrosii ex Expos. in Ps. 118. serm. 22. n. 3. — De minori cfr. Ezech. 18, 21. seq. et 33, 14. seqq. — In hoc arg. post *nostrum* codd. N aa addunt *scilicet motum liberi arbitrii*.

en: See here in the Master's text, c. 2, the words of Ambrose from *Exposition on Ps. 118*, serm. 22, n. 3. — On the minor [premise] cf. Ezek. 18, 21 ff. and 33, 14 ff. — In this argument, after *our*, codices N aa add *namely, the motion of free choice*.

la: Nam, ut ait Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 3, «*circa id quod difficilius est, semper et ars et virtus versatur*». Cfr. ibid. c. 6.

en: For, as Aristotle says, *Ethics* II, c. 3, «*art and virtue are always engaged about that which is more difficult*». Cf. ibid. c. 6.

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 6. argg. ad oppos.

en: Cf. above d. 1, p. I, q. 6, the arguments to the contrary.

la: Libr. II. Ethic. c. 3, ubi ostendit, virtutem non esse passionem, neque potentiam, sed habitum. — Maior constat ex eo, quod poenitentia est *dolor de peccatis* (cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.), qui est una passionum (vide tom. III. pag. 555, nota 7. et pag. 556, nota 5.).

en: *Ethics*, bk. II, c. 3, where he shows that virtue is neither a passion nor a power, but a habit. — The major [premise] is established from this, that penance is *grief over sins* (cf. here the Master's text, c. 2), which is one of the passions (see tom. III, p. 555, note 7, and p. 556, note 5).

la: Secundum Aristot., de quo vide tom. III. pag. 470, nota 8.

en: According to Aristotle, on whom see tom. III, p. 470, note 8.

en: Cf. III Sent. d. 33, q. 6, and d. 36, q. 1 and 3.

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 6. quaest. seq. et a. 2. q. 1.

en: Cf. above d. 1, p. I, q. 6, the following question, and a. 2, q. 1.

la: Vide tom. I. pag. 23, nota 9. — Pro seq. propos. valent verba Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 8: *Fieri enim potest, ut habitus, licet adsit, nullum tamen bonum [actum] efficiat; id quod in dormiente... evenit.*

en: See tom. I, p. 23, note 9. — For the following proposition the words of Aristotle hold, *Ethics* I, c. 8: *For it can come about that a habit, although present, nevertheless produces no good [act]; which happens in the case of one asleep...*

la: Plurimi codd. *sed non*. Mox pro *sed gratiae* codd. W Y *immo gratiae*. Subinde pro *nec tantum* cod. U *sed tamen non*, omisso post pauca *etiam*.

en: Very many codices [read] *sed non* [but not]. Presently, for *but of grace* codices W Y [read] *nay of grace*. Then, for *nor only* codex U [reads] *but yet not*, with *also* omitted a little after.

la: Secundum August. Cfr. II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXVII. c. 5, et Comment. dub. 3.

en: According to Augustine. Cf. II Sent., the Master's text, d. XXVII, c. 5, and the Commentary, dub. 3.

la: Vide infra q. 3. et dub. 1. — Pro *subiectum* Vat. *obiectum*, et ideo pro *Deo*.

en: See below q. 3 and dub. 1. — For *the subject* the Vatican [edition reads] *the object*, and accordingly for *to God*.

la: Quaest. 2. et 3. nec non a. 2. q. 1.

en: Questions 2 and 3, as well as a. 2, q. 1.

la: Cfr. infra q. 3. et a. 2. q. 1.

en: Cf. below q. 3 and a. 2, q. 1.

la: Vat. legit: *per actum voluntatis cum delectatione et libidine, similiter est actus voluntatis, et cum passione* etc.

en: The Vatican [edition] reads: *through an act of the will with delight and lust, likewise it is an act of the will, and with a passion* etc.

la: Cfr. infra d. 17. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. et a. 2. q. 2. seq. — Inferius verba *quod necesse est esse perpetratum* aequivalent his: *quod [pro poenitentia] necessario supponitur esse perpetratum.* Post *perpetratum* cod. bb addit *quae*.

en: Cf. below d. 17, p. I, a. 1, q. 3, and a. 2, q. 2 ff. — Below, the words *which it is necessary to have been committed* are equivalent to these: *which [for penance] is necessarily presupposed to have been committed.* After *committed* codex bb adds *which*.

la: Vide tom. III. pag. 561, nota 7. Cfr. ibid. d. 33. q. 4. et dub. 3. seq. nec non d. 35. q. 5.

en: See tom. III, p. 561, note 7. Cf. ibid. d. 33, q. 4, and dub. 3 ff., as well as d. 35, q. 5.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Vocabulum *poenitentiae* communiter sumitur quadrupliciter, scilicet ut *passio* sensibilis doloris pro peccatis, ut *habitus* virtutis habilitans ad debito modo poenitendum, ut *actus* eiusdem virtutis, denique ut *Sacramentum*; quibus S. Bonav. (hic in fine corp.) quintum addit, quod est *gratia* reformans. De essentia huius virtutis vide infra dub. 1. et p. II. dubia 2-6; quibus locis contra Lutherum, qui veram poenitentiam in sola emendatione vitae futurae posuit, iam stabilitur doctrina Concilii Trident. (Sess. 14. c. 4.) docentis, «contritionem non solum cessationem a peccato et vitae novae propositum et inchoationem, sed veteris etiam odium continere». S. Bonav. docet etiam (infra p. I. et II. dub. 4.), detestationem mali praeteriti esse actum poenitentiae principalem, alterum vero ex consequenti huic annexum. Quod detestatio et displicentia de peccato praeterito sit actus principalis poenitentiae approbat S. Thom. (S. III. q. 85. a. 2); Scot. autem vult (hic q. 2. n. 5.), principalem actum eius esse velle vindicare peccatum (cfr. Bonav., hic p. II. dub. 6.).

**II.** Quoad 1. quaestionem notamus, B. Albertum tenere 3. opinionem hic relatam, refragante sententia communi. — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 12. m. 1. a. 1. § 1. — Scot. de hac et 2 seqq. qq. in utroque Scripto hic q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2; S. III. q. 85. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica a. 2. — Richard. a Med. hic, a. 1. q. 1. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 1.

**III.** In seq. (2.) quaestione solvenda communiter docetur, quod licet obiectum *materiale* poenitentiae se extendat ad omnia peccata, etiam venialia (infra q. 16. a. 3. q. 2.), obiectum tamen *formale* esse quid speciale et constituere virtutem *specialem*, ut explicatur hic ad 3. De *obiecto formali* cfr. infra q. 3. et dub. 4; circa quod plures opiniones circumferuntur, quae magis in modo dicendi quam in re notabili inter se differre videntur. — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 2. — S. Thom., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3; S. loc. cit. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. 5. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. et a. 2. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2.

**IV.** Quoad 3. quaestionem conveniunt doctores in hoc, quod poenitentia non sit virtus theologica, et quod aliquatenus reducenda sit ad cardinalem virtutem *iustitiae*. Hoc in scholis fit dupliciter: vel reducitur ad iustitiam *commutativam* — non quidem ut pars eius subiectiva, sed *potentialis* tantum (quia scilicet ad eam reducitur sicut imperfectum ad perfectum, cum ordinata sit tantum ad aliquos actus secundarios iustitiae commutativae) — vel ad iustitiam *vindicativam*, licet imperfectam. Illud docet S. Thom. (S. loc. cit. a. 3), hoc vero Scot. (hic q. 2. n. 8.). — Porro constat, quod vera poenitentia sit habitus supernaturalis; sed controvertitur, utrum sit habitus *per se infusus*, ut dicit schola S. Thomae, an frequenter tantum *auxilio gratiae acquisitus*, vel etiam *infusus per accidens*, ut affirmant cum Scoto (loc. cit. n. 20.) Durandus aliique Scotistae. Utramque opinionem ut probabilem ponit Richard. a Med. (hic a. 4. q. 2.). Redit hic controversia in scholio ad III. Sent. d. 33. a. 1. q. 3. exposita. — Quoad quaestionem ibi tractatam cfr. Bonav., infra d. 17. p. I. a. 2. q. 3. ad 4, et Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 1. — De ipsa 3. quaestione praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 3. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 4. 5; B. Albert., hic a. 6. 7. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The word *penance* is commonly taken in four ways, namely as the *passion* of sensible grief for sins, as the *habit* of virtue enabling [one] to do penance in the due manner, as the *act* of the same virtue, and finally as a *Sacrament*; to which S. Bonaventure (here at the end of the body) adds a fifth, which is *reforming grace*. On the essence of this virtue see below dub. 1 and p. II, dubia 2–6; in which places, against Luther — who placed true penance in the mere amendment of future life — the doctrine of the Council of Trent (Sess. 14, c. 4) is now established, teaching that «contrition embraces not only cessation from sin and the purpose and beginning of a new life, but also a hatred of the old». S. Bonaventure also teaches (below p. I and II, dub. 4) that the detestation of past evil is the principal act of penance, the other [being] annexed to this consequentially. That the detestation of and displeasure at past sin is the principal act of penance S. Thomas approves (S. III, q. 85, a. 2); but Scotus holds (here q. 2, n. 5) that its principal act is to will to punish sin (cf. Bonav., here p. II, dub. 6).

**II.** As to the 1st question we note that Bl. Albert holds the 3rd opinion here reported, the common opinion gainsaying [it]. — On the same question: Alex. of Hales, S. p. IV, q. 12, m. 1, a. 1, § 1. — Scotus on this and the 2 following questions here in both Writings, q. 2. — S. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1, little-question 2; S. III, q. 85, a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. unica, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla here, a. 1, q. 1. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Denis the Carthusian, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. 1.

**III.** In the following (2nd) question, to be solved, it is commonly taught that although the *material* object of penance extends to all sins, even venial ones (below q. 16, a. 3, q. 2), the *formal* object is nevertheless something special and constitutes a *special* virtue, as is explained here in the [reply] to [obj.] 3. On the *formal object* cf. below q. 3 and dub. 4; concerning which several opinions are current, which seem to differ rather in manner of speaking than in any notable matter among themselves. — On the same question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. § 2. — S. Thomas, loc. cit. little-question 3; S. loc. cit. a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 4, 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. little-question. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2, and a. 2, q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 2.

**IV.** As to the 3rd question the doctors agree in this, that penance is not a theological virtue, and that it is in some measure to be reduced to the cardinal virtue of *justice*. This is done in the schools in two ways: either it is reduced to *commutative* justice — not indeed as a subjective part of it, but only as a *potential* [part] (because, namely, it is reduced to it as the imperfect to the perfect, since it is ordered only to certain secondary acts of commutative justice) — or to *vindictive* justice, although imperfect. The former S. Thomas teaches (S. loc. cit. a. 3), the latter Scotus (here q. 2, n. 8). — Further, it is established that true penance is a supernatural habit; but it is controverted whether it is a habit *infused through itself*, as the school of S. Thomas says, or frequently only *acquired with the help of grace*, or even *infused per accidens*, as Durandus and the other Scotists affirm with Scotus (loc. cit. n. 20). Richard of Mediavilla posits both opinions as probable (here a. 4, q. 2). The controversy returns here in the scholion expounded on III Sent. d. 33, a. 1, q. 3. — As to the question there treated cf. Bonav., below d. 17, p. I, a. 2, q. 3, ad 4, and Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 6, q. 1. — On the 3rd question itself, besides the passages cited: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. § 3, 4. — S. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1, little-questions 4, 5; Bl. Albert, here a. 6, 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from PDF column bands (`raw/vision/vol4/p-{318,319,320}.png`; the default colcrop split at x≈1880 truncated the right edge of the LEFT column, so left columns were re-cropped at split_x=2080 — bands `vol4-p3{18,19,20}-L-{0,1,2}.png` — and the right columns re-cropped from x=1750 — bands `vol4-p3{19,20}-RW-{0,1,2}.png` — to capture each column's full width), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 36616–36846) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/scholion/footer regions. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 318–320 = PDF 338–340). **Page-verify confirmed:** running head on p. 319 reads "DIST. XIV. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. I." (raw line 36694).

**Opener alignment confirmed.** The q1 body opens "Circa primum proceditur sic: 1. Matthaei tertio: *Poenitentiam agite*…" — matching the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM's first question ("Primo quaeritur, utrum poenitentia sit virtus"). This is the *whether-it-is-a-virtue* question. The chunk ends just before QUAESTIO II ("Utrum poenitentia sit virtus generalis, an specialis"; "Secundo quaeritur, utrum poenitentia sit virtus generalis, an specialis", raw line 36847), whose opener was visually confirmed on p. 320 right col. The pars-level TRACTATIO ("Ad intelligentiam huius partis… Primo… de ipsa absolute; Secundo, in comparatione") and the article-level TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM + ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I openers were folded into this q1 (no standalone divisio chunk exists for d.14 p.1 a.1 in the skeleton set), per the d.12 / Vol II convention.

**Scholion finding — PRESENT, rendered IN FULL here.** A single article-level "SCHOLION." block sits in this q1's raw range, beginning on p. 319 (after the q1 solutio, right col.) and continuing onto p. 320 (left col. §I-tail/§II/§III, right col. §IV + q3 doctor-list). It has **four** numbered parts and **explicitly covers all three questions of Articulus I (q1, q2, q3)**: §I the quadruple/quintuple sense of *poenitentia* + Luther/Trent on contrition (Sess. 14 c. 4) + the principal-act dispute (Thomas vs. Scotus); §II the q1 opinion-survey ("Quoad 1. quaestionem… B. Albertum tenere 3. opinionem…") + q1 doctor-list; §III the q2 material/formal-object solution + q2 doctor-list; §IV the q3 reduction-to-justice controversy (commutative/vindictive; per-se-infused vs. acquired) + q3 doctor-list. Per the brief, since it lives in this q1's range it is rendered here body-first, scholion-last. **Hand-off: sibling chunks `d14-p1-a1-q2` and `d14-p1-a1-q3` should carry only a cross-reference pointing back here** for the article scholion (the d.12 a1-q1-holds-the-scholion pattern repeats: q1 holds it for q2/q3).

**Page-split / footer-ownership map (21 apparatus entries, all anchored in this q1).**
- p. 318 left col.: TRACTATIO opener (pars-level) + Fundamenta args 1–5 + Contra arg 1 + footers 1–4 (`^1` Matt.3/Glossa, `^2` Ethic. II.6, `^3` Aristot. I.12, `^4` Ambrose/Ezech.).
- p. 318 right col.: TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM list + ARTICULUS I + QUAESTIO I headers + Contra args 2–4 + CONCLUSIO + RESPONDEO (begins) + footers 5–10 (`^5` Aristot. II.3, `^6` cfr d.1, `^7` Ethic. II.3/dolor, `^8` tom.III p.470, `^9` III Sent. d.33, `^10` cfr d.1 q.6).
- p. 318 → 319 boundary falls inside the Respondeo ("…et circa quem contingit errare;" | "sicut ira per zelum est habitus…"). Grammatically continuous.
- p. 319 left col.: Respondeo continuation (four opinions + notandum/rationes) + footers 1–6 (`^1b`–`^6b`).
- p. 319 right col.: Conclusio-3 + analogy + replies *Ad 1.2 / Ad 3 / Ad 4* + SCHOLION §I (begins) + footers 7–11 (`^7b`–`^11b`).
- p. 320 left col.: SCHOLION §I-tail / §II / §III + q1+q2 doctor-lists; QUAESTIO II begins lower in this column (excluded). **No footer block on p. 320** — the scholion is small-type inline text with no footnote markers, so p. 320 contributes no apparatus entry. The QUAESTIO II Fundamenta + its own footers belong to the sibling q2 chunk.
- p. 320 right col.: SCHOLION §IV + q3 doctor-list (end of this q1's scholion, immediately before the QUAESTIO II body which spills here).

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Notable silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands: header "SCHOLIOK"→*SCHOLION*; §I "Yocabulum…communUcr…cjuadrupliciter"→*Vocabulum…communiter…quadrupliciter*; "Lutlierum"→*Lutherum*; §IV "puenilciilin"→*poenitentia*, "commtdaticam"→*commutativam*, "infusus per accidens" read from PDF; doctor-list sigla (`Alex. Hal.`, `Petr. a Tar.`, `Richard. a Med.`, `Dionys. Carth.`) normalized from heavily-mangled OCR against the PDF right-column small type. The left-column marginal rubrics (*Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Conclusio*, *Opinio 1./2./3./4.*, *Improbatur*, *Explicatio*, *Notandum*, *Conclusio 3.*, *Solutio oppositorum*) are editorial side-notes, omitted from the body per corpus convention.