title: Dist. 18, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 6

source_text:
<!-- page 493 -->

### Quaestio VI. *Utrum aliquis possit absolvi invitus ab excommunicatione.*

Sexto quaeritur de absolutione, et quaeritur, utrum aliquis possit absolvi invitus. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia pater carnalis multa bona praestat filio invito: ergo pari ratione, immo multo fortiori, cum magis pius debeat pater spiritualis esse, videtur, quod possit solvere subditum, ipso invito.

2. Item, pronior debet[^1] esse ad miserendum quam ad condemnandum; sed aliquis de iure potest excommunicare invitum: ergo multo magis absolvere.

3. Item, excommunicatio est poena inflicta exterius propter emendationem: ergo si peccator non emendatur, sed deterior efficitur; «cum cessante causa, cesset effectus[^2]», videtur, quod possit et debeat talis etiam nolens absolvi.

**Sed contra:**
1. Nullus potest nec debet absolvere invitum in foro poenitentiali: ergo pari ratione nec in foro iudiciali.

2. Item, dictum est Petro[^3]: *Quodcumque ligaveris super terram* etc.: ergo conformari debet ligatio, quae fit in terris, ei ligationi, quae fit in caelis, et e converso, alioquin non fit, ut debet; sed in caelis nullus absolvitur invitus: ergo nec in terris debet.

3. Item, manente causa, manere debet et effectus; sed causa, propter quam infligitur excommunicatio, est rebellio et contumacia; sed quamdiu non vult absolvi, est rebellis et contumax: ergo invitus non debet absolvi.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, quis sit modus, secundum quem debet absolvi. — Quaeritur etiam, a quo possit absolvi.

> **Conclusio.** Iuste excommunicatus non potest de iure absolvi invitus, qui tamen de facto potest absolvi secundum voluntatem praelati, praecipue autem iniuste excommunicatus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est loqui de potentia absolvendi et excommunicandi, prout potest in hos actus vel de iure, vel de facto. Differt enim facere et iuste facere. — Si loquamur de facto, si episcopus excommunicet non contumacem, praetermisso iuris ordine, in facie Ecclesiae excommunicatus est, quamvis iniuste lata sit sententia; et tenetur eam sustinere, alioquin ex hoc ipso contemptu efficitur dignus excommunicari et ligatur apud Deum[^4]. — De iure autem est excommunicatus, quando secundum iuris ordinem ab eo qui habet iurisdictionem canonicam, fertur sententia in contumacem; et haec ligat apud Deum. — Similiter intelligendum in absolutione, quod potest aliquis absolvi de iure, vel de facto. De iure nullus excommunicatus absolvi potest, nisi cesset a contumacia; de facto absolvi potest secundum voluntatem praelati, in cuius potestate fuit sententiam ferre et revocare. Unde si talis absolvatur, non peccat nec est excommunicatus qui ei communicat; et hoc dico, sive qui absolvitur sit ligatus iusta sententia, sive iniusta; et hoc maxime verum est de domino Papa.

Verumtamen, sicut rationes probant, talis absolvi non debet, si iuste excommunicatus est, nec de iure absolvi potest. Si autem excommunicatus fuisset in-
<!-- page 494 -->
iuste, posset eum praelatus absolvere etiam invitum, non propter suum meritum, sed ad revocandum errorem proprium[^5].

**Ad argumenta:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod pater corporalis beneficia praestat invito filio; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia illa sunt beneficia temporalia, quae praestantur contra voluntatem, et in quibus non consideratur aequitas ex parte suscipientis; non sic autem est hic; et praeterea[^6] talia beneficia prosunt invitis, sed beneficium absolutionis nulli invito prodest, immo obest. Unde sicut fastidiosis non est ingerendus cibus corporalis, propter hoc quod obest, et illum proiiciunt, vel si suscipiunt, magis gravantur; sic in proposito est intelligendum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod potest excommunicare invitum; dicendum, quod excommunicatio est sicut correctio de contumacia, et ideo utilis est tali contumaci et nolenti[^7]; econtra absolutio est utilis redeunti, non in contumacia existenti; et ideo talem excommunicatum absolvere potius est praestare iram quam misericordiam, sicut facit ille qui dimittit iniuriam inultam. Unde sicut melius est quod satanae tradatur corpus quam spiritus[^8]; sic melius est isti, quod permaneat in vinculo, quam quod detur beneficium cum contemptu.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est inflicta ad emendationem; dicendum, quod non tantum ad emendationem, immo etiam ad instructionem aliorum, ut alii discant non contradicere et rebellare, sicut Datan et Abiron[^9]; et ideo, ne alii sumant exemplum malum, debet in talibus excommunicatio continuari, ut aliis prosit ad vitandum casum. Verumtamen quia nescitur, utrum Deus det ei spiritum bonum, quamdiu vivit; ideo semper exspectanda est conversio eius, et ideo non est ante absolvendus, quantumcumque incorrigibilis videatur. Nemo enim est omnino incorrigibilis per privationem, quamdiu viator est; et ideo excommunicatio medicina est.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, qualiter debeat fieri[^10]; dicendum, quod excommunicatio ex triplici causa potest esse inflicta, scilicet quaedam propter contumaciam pure, quaedam propter offensam manifestam, quaedam propter offensam occultam, ut quando aliquis incidit in canonem ex peccato aliquo, quod non est publicum. — Primus debet absolvi, recepto ab eo sacramento[^11], quod stabit mandatis Ecclesiae, et illi debet mandari, quod pareat iuri, et si quid aliud in sententia excommunicationis iuste lata continetur, utpote quando condemnatur in expensis. — Si autem est excommunicatus propter offensam manifestam per sententiam, vel facti evidentiam; tunc ante absolutionem debet praestare emendam. — Si autem propter occultam; tunc sufficit ad relaxandam sententiam, si sufficiens cautio praebeatur parendi mandato.

Ad illud quod quaeritur: a quo quis potest absolvi? dicendum, quod de minori excommunicatione absolvi potest a quolibet habente potestatem absolvendi a peccato; unde duo excommunicati minori excommunicatione invicem se absolvere possunt. — Pro regula autem habendum est, quod de omni excommunicatione lata *a iure*, sive maiore sive minore, potest quis absolvi a proprio episcopo, sive a sacerdote, exceptis sex casibus, in quibus sibi reservavit iuris conditor potestatem.

Primus, si verberat clericum; in quo casu non potest absolvi nisi a domino Papa, vel eius legato, octo casibus exceptis. — Secundus casus est de illo qui incendit ecclesiam et denuntiatus est ab episcopo; talis non potest absolvi. — Tertius casus est de illo qui frangit ecclesiam et denuntiatus est. — Quartus casus est de eo qui scienter et sponte participat cum excommunicatis a Papa et recipit eos in officiis, maxime quando nominatim exprimuntur. — Quintus de illo qui falsat litteras apostolicae Sedis. — Sextus de illo qui communicat excommunicato in crimine; tunc enim debet absolvi ab eo qui excommunicavit, etiam si non sit eius subditus. Quod si difficile est ei accedere ad ipsum, praestita iuratoria cautione, quod parebit eius mandato, potest absolvi ab episcopo, vel a sacerdote proprio.

A primo autem casu excipiuntur octo casus: primus est, si sit in articulo mortis. Secundus est, si fuit ostiarius potentis et percussit non ex odio vel proposito. Tertius, si percutiens clericum sit mulier. Quartus, si regularis regularem. Quintus, si sit servus et non graviter laesit et dominus eius damnificaretur de eius absentia, et ipse dominus est sine culpa. Sextus, si sit pauper. Septimus, si sit impubes, vel senex, vel valitudinarius. Octavus, si habet inimicitias capitales.

De excommunicatione vero illata a iudice nullus potest absolvi nisi ab ipso, vel eius superiori, excepto solo articulo mortis.

english:
### Question VI. *Whether anyone can be absolved from excommunication against his will.*

Sixthly there is inquiry concerning absolution, and it is asked whether anyone can be absolved against his will. And that he can, it seems:

1. Because a carnal father bestows many goods upon an unwilling son: therefore by parity of reasoning, indeed much more strongly — since a spiritual father ought to be more loving — it seems that he can absolve a subject, even against his will.

2. Likewise, one ought to be more inclined[^1] to having mercy than to condemning; but someone can lawfully excommunicate an unwilling man: therefore much more can he absolve him.

3. Likewise, excommunication is a penalty inflicted outwardly for the sake of amendment: therefore if the sinner is not amended, but is made worse; «since, the cause ceasing, the effect ceases[^2]», it seems that such a one can and ought to be absolved even when unwilling.

**On the contrary:**
1. No one can or ought to absolve an unwilling man in the penitential forum: therefore by parity of reasoning neither in the judicial forum.

2. Likewise, it was said to Peter[^3]: *Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth* etc.: therefore the binding which takes place on earth ought to be conformed to that binding which takes place in heaven, and conversely, otherwise it does not take place as it ought; but in heaven no one is absolved against his will: therefore neither ought it to be done on earth.

3. Likewise, the cause remaining, the effect too ought to remain; but the cause for which excommunication is inflicted is rebellion and contumacy; but so long as he does not wish to be absolved, he is rebellious and contumacious: therefore the unwilling man ought not to be absolved.

In connection with this it is asked what is the manner according to which one ought to be absolved. — It is also asked by whom one may be absolved.

> **Conclusion.** One justly excommunicated cannot lawfully be absolved against his will, who nevertheless can in fact be absolved according to the will of the prelate; but most of all one unjustly excommunicated.

**I respond:** It must be said that we may speak of the power of absolving and of excommunicating, insofar as one can [proceed] to these acts either lawfully or in fact. For to do and to do justly differ. — If we speak of fact: if a bishop should excommunicate one who is not contumacious, the order of law being passed over, he is excommunicated in the face of the Church, although the sentence has been unjustly passed; and he is bound to bear it, otherwise by this very contempt he is made worthy to be excommunicated and is bound before God[^4]. — But he is lawfully excommunicated when, according to the order of law, a sentence is passed against a contumacious man by one who has canonical jurisdiction; and this binds before God. — Likewise it is to be understood concerning absolution, that someone can be absolved either lawfully or in fact. Lawfully no excommunicate can be absolved unless he cease from contumacy; in fact he can be absolved according to the will of the prelate, in whose power it lay to pass and to revoke the sentence. Hence if such a one is absolved, neither does he sin nor is he excommunicated who communicates with him; and this I say, whether the one who is absolved be bound by a just sentence or by an unjust one; and this is most true concerning the lord Pope.

Nevertheless, as the arguments prove, such a one ought not to be absolved, if he is justly excommunicated, nor can he lawfully be absolved. But if he had been unjustly excommunicated, the prelate could absolve him even against his will, not on account of his [the subject's] merit, but in order to revoke his own error[^5].

**To the arguments:**

1. To that, then, which is objected in the first place, that the bodily father bestows benefits on an unwilling son; it must be said that it is not similar: because those are temporal benefits which are bestowed against one's will, and in which equity is not considered on the part of the recipient; but it is not so here; and besides[^6] such benefits profit the unwilling, but the benefit of absolution profits no unwilling man, nay rather harms him. Hence, just as bodily food is not to be forced upon the squeamish, because it harms them, and they throw it away, or, if they take it, are more burdened; so it is to be understood in the matter proposed.

2. To that which is objected, that one can excommunicate an unwilling man; it must be said that excommunication is like a correction concerning contumacy, and therefore it is useful to such a contumacious and unwilling man[^7]; on the contrary, absolution is useful to one returning, not to one persisting in contumacy; and therefore to absolve such an excommunicate is rather to bestow wrath than mercy, just as he does who lets an injury go unavenged. Hence, just as it is better that the body be handed over to Satan than the spirit[^8]; so it is better for this man that he remain in the bond, than that the benefit be given with contempt.

3. To that which is objected, that it is inflicted for the sake of amendment; it must be said that [it is] not only for amendment, but also for the instruction of others, that others may learn not to gainsay and rebel, as Dathan and Abiron[^9]; and therefore, lest others take a bad example, in such cases the excommunication ought to be continued, that it may profit others toward avoiding the fall. Nevertheless, because it is not known whether God will give him a good spirit, so long as he lives; therefore his conversion is always to be awaited, and therefore he is not to be absolved beforehand, however incorrigible he may seem. For no one is altogether incorrigible by privation, so long as he is a wayfarer; and therefore excommunication is a medicine.

To that which is asked, in what manner it ought to be done[^10]; it must be said that excommunication can be inflicted from a threefold cause, namely some for contumacy purely, some for a manifest offense, some for a hidden offense, as when someone falls under the canon by some sin which is not public. — The first must be absolved, having received from him a guarantee[^11] that he will stand by the commands of the Church, and it must be enjoined upon him that he obey the law, and [discharge] whatever else is contained in the sentence of an excommunication justly passed, as when he is condemned to costs. — But if he is excommunicated for a manifest offense by sentence, or by the evidence of the deed; then before absolution he must make satisfaction. — But if for a hidden one; then it suffices for relaxing the sentence, if sufficient surety be furnished that he will obey the command.

To that which is asked: by whom can one be absolved? it must be said that of the lesser excommunication one can be absolved by anyone having the power of absolving from sin; hence two persons excommunicated with the lesser excommunication can absolve one another. — But as a rule it is to be held that, of every excommunication imposed *by law*, whether the greater or the lesser, one can be absolved by his own bishop, or by a priest, with six cases excepted, in which the founder of the law reserved the power to himself.

The first, if one strikes a cleric; in which case he cannot be absolved except by the lord Pope, or his legate, with eight cases excepted. — The second case is concerning him who burns a church and has been denounced by the bishop; such a one cannot be absolved. — The third case is concerning him who breaks into a church and has been denounced. — The fourth case is concerning him who knowingly and willingly participates with persons excommunicated by the Pope and receives them into offices, especially when they are named expressly. — The fifth, concerning him who falsifies the letters of the Apostolic See. — The sixth, concerning him who communicates with one excommunicated for a crime; for then he must be absolved by him who excommunicated [the other], even if he is not his subject. But if it is difficult for him to approach him, an oath-bound surety being furnished that he will obey his command, he can be absolved by his bishop, or by his own priest.

From the first case eight cases are excepted: the first is, if he be in the article of death. The second is, if he was the doorkeeper of a powerful man and struck not out of hatred or design. The third, if the one striking the cleric be a woman. The fourth, if a religious [strikes] a religious. The fifth, if he be a slave and did not gravely injure, and his master would be harmed by his absence, and the master himself is without fault. The sixth, if he be poor. The seventh, if he be under age, or aged, or sickly. The eighth, if he has capital enmities.

But of an excommunication imposed by a judge no one can be absolved except by him, or by his superior, with the article of death alone excepted.

la: Cfr. C. *Quoniam multos* (103.) et C. *Quod praedecessor* (105.), C. 11. q. 3. et C. *Si celebrat* (10.), X. de Clerico excommun. etc. (lib. V. tit. 27.).

en: Cf. C. *Quoniam multos* (103.) and C. *Quod praedecessor* (105.), C. 11. q. 3. and C. *Si celebrat* (10.), X. on the Excommunicated Cleric etc. (bk. V. tit. 27.).

la: Respicitur Tob. 2, 21: *Non licet nobis aut edere ex furto aliquid aut contingere.* — Pro *cum* ante edd. *cum potius*.

en: Reference is made to Tobit 2:21: *It is not lawful for us either to eat anything of theft or to touch it.* The earlier editions read *cum potius* for *cum*.

la: Epist. 157. (alias 89.) c. 5. n. 40; Serm. 180. (alias 28. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 4. n. 4. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 39. a. 2. q. 1.

en: [Augustine,] Letter 157 (alias 89) c. 5 n. 40; Sermon 180 (alias 28, On the Words of the Apostle) c. 4 n. 4. Cf. III Sent. d. 39 a. 2 q. 1.

la: Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. *in periculum contemptus incideret*. Vide tamen Forcellini Lexicon sub verbo *incido*, quod *incido* etiam cum solo accusativo construitur. Hinc formam passivi, quam habent fere omnes codd., retinendam esse censuimus; praecedens particula *et* idem est ac *etiam*. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: The Vatican edition with one or another codex reads *in periculum contemptus incideret* ("he would fall into the danger of contempt"). See, however, Forcellini's Lexicon under the word *incido*, [showing] that *incido* is constructed also with the accusative alone. Hence we have judged that the passive form, which nearly all the codices have, is to be retained; the preceding particle *et* is the same as *etiam*. — See the scholion to question 1 of this article.

la: In cod. V secunda manus addidit *quilibet*. Cfr. supra pag. 333, nota 3.

en: In codex V a second hand added *quilibet*. Cf. above, p. 333, note 3.

la: Ut dicitur C. *Cum cessante* (60.), X. de Appellat. (lib. II. tit. 28.). Vide supra pag. 73, nota 2.

en: As is said in C. *Cum cessante* (60.), X. on Appeals (bk. II. tit. 28.). See above, p. 73, note 2.

en: Matthew 16:19.

la: Vide infra dub. 2. — Aliquanto inferius pro *ferre* plurimi codd. *inferre*.

en: See below, doubt 2. — A little further on, for *ferre* very many codices read *inferre*.

la: Cod. II *primum*. / Vat. *propterea*. / Cod. V *de contumacia* [secunda manus substituit *resipiscere* pro *et*] *nolenti*. Pro *talis* Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. *tali*. / Respicitur I. Cor. 3, 5.

en: Codex II reads *primum*. / The Vatican edition reads *propterea*. / Codex V reads *de contumacia* [a second hand substituted *resipiscere* for *et*] *nolenti*. For *talis* the Vatican edition with one or another codex reads *tali*. / Reference is made to 1 Cor. 3:5.

la: De quibus Num. 16, 1. seqq. — Inferius respicitur Luc. 11, 13. / Cod. F supplet *absolutio*. / Intellige cum cod. F *iuramento*. Cfr. C. *Ex tenore* (10.) et *Nuper a nobis* (29.), X. de Sententia excommun. (lib. V. tit. 39.). / Ita C. *Duobus collata* (56.), X. de Sententia excommun. (lib. V. tit. 39.).

en: Concerning whom [see] Num. 16:1 ff. — Below, reference is made to Luke 11:13. / Codex F supplies *absolutio*. / Understand with codex F *iuramento* ("by an oath"). Cf. C. *Ex tenore* (10.) and *Nuper a nobis* (29.), X. on the Sentence of Excommunication (bk. V. tit. 39.). / So C. *Duobus collata* (56.), X. on the Sentence of Excommunication (bk. V. tit. 39.).

la: In cod. G secunda manus addidit C. *Si quis suadente* (29.), C. 17. q. 4; inferius pro tertio casu C. *Conquesti* (22.), X. de Sententia excommun. (lib. V. tit. 39.); pro quarto C. *Significavit* (18.), loc. cit.; pro quinto C. *Ad Falsariorum* (7.), de Crimine falsi (ibid. tit. 20.). / Ex C. *Nuper a nobis* (29.), X. de Sent. excommun. (lib. V. tit. 39.). Ibid. sub diversis capitulis (1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 13. 26. 37. 58. et 60.) seqq. exceptiones statuuntur. — Inferius pro *potentis* codd. 1 X *potestatis* (loc. cit. C. *Si vero alicuius potestatis ostiarius*). / Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: In codex G a second hand added C. *Si quis suadente* (29.), C. 17. q. 4; further down, for the third case, C. *Conquesti* (22.), X. on the Sentence of Excommunication (bk. V. tit. 39.); for the fourth, C. *Significavit* (18.), at the same place; for the fifth, C. *Ad Falsariorum* (7.), on the Crime of Forgery (ibid. tit. 20.). / From C. *Nuper a nobis* (29.), X. on the Sentence of Excommunication (bk. V. tit. 39.). At the same place, under various chapters (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 26, 37, 58, and 60) the exceptions are established. — Below, for *potentis* the codices 1 X read *potestatis* (at the cited place, C. *Si vero alicuius potestatis ostiarius*). / See the scholion to question 1 of this article.

latin_scholion:
Scholion ad hanc quaestionem nullum est: scholion articuli unici (§§ I–VII) cum quaestione prima editur. — *There is no scholion to this question: the scholion of the single article (§§ I–VII) is printed with the first question* (bon-sent-IV-d18-p2-a1-q1).

---

english_scholion:
There is no scholion to this question: the scholion of the single article (§§ I–VII) is printed with the first question (bon-sent-IV-d18-p2-a1-q1).

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 54852–55037) with the vol4 PDF column bands (printed pp. 493–494, split x=1880, offset pdf = printed + 20) authoritative wherever the two-column OCR cascade-shattered (CONCLUSIO, RESPONDEO, the per-case list of reserved cases, the eight exceptions). Running head verified: "DIST. XVIII. P. II. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. VI." with printed folio 493/494.
- **Page span.** q6 occupies pp. 493–494 only. Although the dispatch brief said ~493–496, the body of q6 ends on p.494 R ("...excepto solo articulo mortis"). Printed p.495 opens with "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI" (Dub. I) — the next chunk. The raw OCR range ends just before that boundary (raw 55038). No body or footnote crosses into p.495.
- **Scholion disposition.** This question renders no scholion. The Articulus Unicus scholion (§§ I–VII) is editorially printed with this article's QUAESTIO I (chunk bon-sent-IV-d18-p2-a1-q1); cross-referenced in-body in both languages, has_scholion: false. The editors themselves point to it in footers 4 and 11 ("Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.").
- **Apparatus.** 11 footers rendered from the p.493 (notes 1–8) and p.494 (notes 9–11) footer blocks. Per Quaracchi practice numbering restarts on each printed page; markers placed at OCR-anchored positions. Footers 9, 10, 11 each gather several short Quaracchi sub-notes that the printed page clusters under one body anchor; they are kept together under one `[^N]` for clean marker pairing, with `/` separating the sub-notes.
- **[?] flags.** None. The right column of p.493 and the right edge of p.494 L were edge-clipped in the colcrop bands; those words were recovered from the raw djvu OCR, which is complete and unambiguous for the affected prose (no garble survived).
- **Hand-off to p2 dubia (bon-sent-IV-d18-p2-dubia).** That chunk begins printed p.495 ("DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI", Dub. I, "In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram..."). No shared-page footer split with q6 — q6's footers all close on p.494; p.495's footer block belongs wholly to the dubia.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 18, Part 1, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XVIII, Pars I)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. XVIII, Part I)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 482 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit: *Anima rei maculam habet et foetorem peccati* etc. Quaeritur, quomodo ista differant ab invicem. — Quaeritur etiam: quare peccatum potius dicitur habere foetorem quam calorem, vel aliam proprietatem rei sensibilis?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quamvis peccatum unum sit in se, tamen secundum diversam comparationem ad *iudicium nostrum* tria sortitur vocabula. Iudicium enim nostrum tripliciter se habet, scilicet per modum speculativum, vel prout se extendit ad affectum, vel prout se extendit ad *effectum*[^1]. — Similiter et *divinum iudicium* in triplici ratione habet considerari respectu peccati: aut per modum speculationis, et sic est ei peccatum macula propter rationem turpitudinis, quam ibi considerat; vel per modum affectivi[^2], et sic est ei peccatum foetor, eo quod ipsum refugit affectus recte ordinatus; vel prout exit in effectum puniendi, sic peccatum aeternae mortis debitum dicitur. Sortitur ergo tria nomina secundum comparationem ad actum triplicem divini iudicii, scilicet discernendi, approbandi vel respuendi, et tertio sententiandi. — Vel aliter: peccatum comparatur ad id, in quo est, et sic, quia eum maculat, dicitur macula; vel ad alium proximum, in cuius affectu non est, et dicitur esse foetor in eo; vel ad Deum, et sic dicitur aeternae mortis vinculum[^3].

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Ambrosius: *Verbum Domini dimittit peccata, sacerdos et iudex*; quid vocatur *verbum Domini*? Si Filius Dei; sed ille idem est iudex, scilicet Dei Filius: ergo non bene dividit ex opposito[^4]. — Item, iudicis non est peccata dimittere, sed potius punire; male igitur videtur hoc assignare. Dicitur enim in Psalmo[^5]: *Cum accepero tempus, ego iustitias iudicabo.* — Item, videtur littera sequens contradicere[^6]: «Sacerdos officium suum exhibet, sed nullius potestatis iura exercet»: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Ambrosius tangit hic triplicem modum dimittendi peccata, scilicet secundum clavem *auctoritatis*, et haec est Dei iudicantis; secundum clavem *excellentiae*, et haec est Verbi incarnati; secundum clavem *ministerii*, et haec est ipsius sacerdotis[^7]. Et sic patet, quomodo illa distinguuntur; et patet, quod non est contrarietas in littera. Vult enim Ambrosius dicere, quod peccata dicuntur dimitti a sacerdote non per modum efficientis, sed ministrantis, et hoc dicit littera sequens.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod iudex punit; dicendum, quod duplex est iudicium: *in praesenti*, et hoc est iudicium in poenitentiae foro, et hoc magis est misericordiae quam iustitiae, quia modo est tempus misericordiae; et aliud iudicium *postremum*, et illud est iustitiae, quod signanter notans dicit: *Cum accepero tempus*[^8]; et de illo opponit, non autem de isto. Et sic patet illud.

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus, quod *Ecclesiae caritas peccata dimittit.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia solus Deus peccata dimittit[^9]; sed Ecclesiae caritas non est Deus, sed unitas corporis mystici: ergo etc. Si tu dicas, quod caritas Ecclesiae accipitur non *formaliter*, sed *exemplariter* pro caritate, quae est Spiritus sanctus; similiter posset dicere, quod Deus caeli et terrae peccata dimittit, et ita non magis competeret Ecclesiae quam alii.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod caritas ibi stat pro caritate creata; quod patet per determinationem adiunctam, cum dicit[^10]: «Quae per Spiritum sanctum diffunditur». Haec autem dicitur dimittere peccata quantum ad *meritum*, sicut exponit infra[^11], quia viri sancti per caritatem suam merentur gra-

<!-- page 483 -->

tiam primam. — Vel ideo dicitur dimittere, quia nulli dimittuntur nisi eis qui recipiuntur intra ecclesiasticam unitatem; unde haeretici et schismatici, quamdiu extra Ecclesiam in haeresi et schismate perseverant, nec gratiam sibi nec aliis valent aliqualiter[^12] impetrare, de adultis loquendo.

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de expositione Hieronymi super hoc verbum: *Quodcumque ligaveris super terram* etc.; quod si istud esset solum per ostensionem, nulla ergo differentia est[^13] sacerdotis novi testamenti ad vetus. — Et iterum, si sacerdos est arbiter et poenas potest secundum arbitrium suum imponere: ergo videtur, quod ad voluntatem suam possit solvere et ligare. — Item, aliquis hypocrita, qui habet signa contritionis, absolvitur a sacerdote; quaero ergo hic: aut clavis *errat*, aut *non*[^14]? Si errat: ergo non deberet eum absolvere; sed hoc falsum est, quia iudex secundum ea quae apparent debet iudicare. Si non errat: ergo videtur, quod talis sit solutus in caelis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quantum ad absolutionem *a culpa* sacerdos se habet per modum demonstrantis; quantum ad absolutionem *a poena* se habet per modum dimittentis. — Sed attendendum est, quod efficacia Sacramenti pendet ex idoneitate suscipientis; «actus enim activorum sunt in patiente disposito»[^15]. Dico igitur, quod in talem, qui videtur contritus, habet clavis effectum, quantum est de se; sed quod non habet, hoc est ex fictione illius, ita quod, quamvis clavis non erret, tamen ille errat et decipit. — Si autem ille qui solvit et ligat, secundum *voluntatem* non secundum scientiae vel iuris regulam procedat; sic clavis non habet efficaciam; et contra tales, qui volebant ad votum solvere et ligare, loquitur Hieronymus, ostendens, hoc de supercilio et superbia procedere[^16]. Unde sicut Sacramenta privantur efficacia, aut quia non recte administrantur, aut quia non recte suscipiuntur; sic de clavibus oportet intelligi.

english:
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that he says: *The soul has the stain of the thing and the stench of sin* etc. It is asked how these differ from one another. — It is also asked: why is sin said to have a stench rather than a heat, or some other property of a sensible thing?

**I respond:** It must be said that although sin is one in itself, nevertheless according to its different comparison to *our judgment* it obtains three names. For our judgment is had in three ways, namely in the speculative mode, or as it extends to affect, or as it extends to *effect*[^1]. — Likewise also the *divine judgment* is to be considered in a threefold ground with respect to sin: either in the mode of speculation, and thus sin is to it a stain, on account of the ground of foulness which it there considers; or in the affective mode[^2], and thus sin is to it a stench, in that a rightly ordered affect flees from it; or as it issues into the effect of punishing, [and] thus sin is called the debt of eternal death. Therefore it obtains three names according to its comparison to the threefold act of the divine judgment, namely of discerning, of approving or rejecting, and thirdly of sentencing. — Or otherwise: sin is compared to that in which it is, and thus, because it stains him, it is called a *stain*; or to another neighbor, in whose affect it is not, and it is said to be a *stench* in him; or to God, and thus it is called the *bond of eternal death*[^3].

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that Ambrose says: *The Word of the Lord forgives sins, [also] the priest and the judge*; what is called *the Word of the Lord*? If the Son of God; but that same one is the judge, namely the Son of God: therefore he does not well divide by opposition[^4]. — Likewise, it does not belong to a judge to forgive sins, but rather to punish; therefore it seems to be assigned ill. For it is said in the Psalm[^5]: *When I shall take the time, I will judge justices.* — Likewise, the following text seems to contradict[^6]: «The priest exhibits his office, but exercises the rights of no power»: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that Ambrose here touches a threefold mode of forgiving sins, namely according to the key of *authority*, and this is [the key] of God judging; according to the key of *excellence*, and this is [the key] of the incarnate Word; according to the key of *ministry*, and this is [the key] of the priest himself[^7]. And so it is plain how those are distinguished; and it is plain that there is no contrariety in the text. For Ambrose means to say that sins are said to be forgiven by the priest not in the mode of one effecting, but of one ministering, and this the following text says.

To that which is objected, that the judge punishes; it must be said that judgment is twofold: *in the present*, and this is the judgment in the forum of penitence, and this is more of mercy than of justice, because now is the time of mercy; and another *final* judgment, and that is of justice, which, signally marking [it], he says: *When I shall take the time*[^8]; and of that one he objects, but not of this one. And so that is plain.

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that Augustine says, that *the charity of the Church forgives sins.* For it seems to be said falsely, because God alone forgives sins[^9]; but the charity of the Church is not God, but the unity of the mystical body: therefore etc. If you say that the charity of the Church is taken not *formally*, but *exemplarily* for the charity which is the Holy Spirit; likewise one could say that God of heaven and earth forgives sins, and so it would no more befit the Church than another.

**I respond:** It must be said that charity there stands for created charity; which is plain through the adjoined determination, when he says[^10]: «Which is poured forth through the Holy Spirit». But this is said to forgive sins as to *merit*, as he expounds below[^11], because holy men through their charity merit the first grace. — Or it is said to forgive for this reason, because to none are [sins] forgiven except to those who are received within ecclesiastical unity; whence heretics and schismatics, as long as they persevere outside the Church in heresy and schism, are able in no way[^12] to obtain grace either for themselves or for others, speaking of adults.

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about the exposition of Jerome upon this word: *Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth* etc.; that if this were only through showing, then there is no difference[^13] of the priest of the new testament from [that] of the old. — And again, if the priest is an arbiter and can impose penalties according to his own arbitration: therefore it seems that according to his will he can loose and bind. — Likewise, some hypocrite who has the signs of contrition is absolved by the priest; I ask therefore here: does the key *err*, or *not*[^14]? If it errs: therefore he ought not to absolve him; but this is false, because a judge ought to judge according to the things which appear. If it does not err: therefore it seems that such a one is loosed in heaven.

**I respond:** It must be said that as to absolution *from fault* the priest is had in the mode of one demonstrating; as to absolution *from penalty* he is had in the mode of one remitting. — But it is to be attended to that the efficacy of the Sacrament depends on the fitness of the one receiving; «for the acts of active things are in the disposed patient»[^15]. I say therefore that upon such a one, who seems contrite, the key has its effect, as far as concerns itself; but that it does not have [it], this is from the feigning of that man, so that, although the key does not err, nevertheless that man errs and deceives. — But if he who looses and binds proceeds according to his *will* and not according to the rule of knowledge or of right; thus the key does not have efficacy; and against such men, who wished to loose and bind at [their own] pleasure, Jerome speaks, showing that this proceeds from haughtiness and pride[^16]. Whence just as the Sacraments are deprived of efficacy, either because they are not rightly administered, or because they are not rightly received; so it must be understood concerning the keys.

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 558, nota 2. — Superius pro *iudicium nostrum* edd. cum pluribus codd. *iudicium verum.*

en: Cf. vol. II, p. 558, note 2. — Above, for *iudicium nostrum* ("our judgment") the editions, with several codices, [read] *iudicium verum* ("true judgment").

la: Edd. cum paucis codd. *affectus.*

en: The editions, with a few codices, [read] *affectus* ("of affect").

la: Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 8.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 8.

la: Ita hic codd. et, ut videtur, ipse auctor loco est; cfr. supra pag. 466, nota 3.

en: So here the codices and, as it seems, the author himself [reads] *loco est*; cf. above, p. 466, note 3.

la: Aristot., I. de Partibus animal. c. 3: *Oppositis item dividendum est; distant enim inter se opposita omnia, ut albedo et nigredo* etc. — Psalm. 74, 3.

en: Aristotle, *On the Parts of Animals* I, c. 3: *Likewise division is to be made by opposites; for all opposites are distant from one another, as whiteness and blackness* etc. — Psalm 74:3.

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 4.

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. in corp.

en: Cf. above, a. 1, q. 1, in the body.

la: Petr. Lombard. in hunc loc. secundum August. (enarrat. n. 8.) ait: *Iudicabo, cum accepero tempus iudicandi. Modo enim tempus est docendi et misericordiae, sed postea erit tempus iudicandi. Sed nunquid accepit Christus tempus? Nunquid accepit Filius Dei? Filius Dei non accepit tempus, sed filius hominis accepit tempus [cfr. Ioan. 5, 27.], idem tamen est et Filius Dei, per quem facti sumus, et filius hominis, per quem refecti sumus. Accepit ergo tempus ut filius hominis, qui gubernat tempora ut Filius Dei. Accepit ergo Christus secundum hominem quod ipse Deus dat, ipse scilicet potestatem iudicium faciendi* etc. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 10; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Peter Lombard on this passage, following Augustine (*Enarration*, n. 8), says: *I will judge, when I shall have taken the time of judging. For now is the time of teaching and of mercy, but afterward will be the time of judging. But did Christ take the time? Did the Son of God take [it]? The Son of God did not take time, but the son of man took time [cf. John 5:27], yet the same is both the Son of God, through whom we were made, and the son of man, through whom we were remade. He took the time therefore as the son of man, who governs the times as the Son of God. Christ therefore took according to [his] manhood what He Himself as God gives, namely the power of executing judgment* etc. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 10; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4.

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 5. Verba sunt Rom. 5, 5.

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 5. The words are Romans 5:5.

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 5. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 14. a. 2. q. 2.

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 5. Cf. I *Sentences*, d. 14, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Codd. A G aa *aliquatenus.* — Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 20. m. 1. ad ult.; B. Albert., hic a. 12; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Codices A G aa [read] *aliquatenus* ("in any degree"). — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 20, m. 1, ad ult.; Blessed Albert, here a. 12; St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Solae edd. *esset.*

en: The editions alone [read] *esset* ("would be").

la: Edd. *an clavis erret, an non.* Superius voci *aliquis* cod. bb praemittit *si.* Mox pro *deberet* cod. aa *debet.*

en: The editions [read] *an clavis erret, an non* ("whether the key errs, or not"). Above, before the word *aliquis* ("some [one]") codex bb prefixes *si* ("if"). Soon, for *deberet* ("ought") codex aa [reads] *debet* ("ought").

la: Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 24. (c. 2.). — De propos[itionibus] cfr. supra a. 2. q. 1. seq. — Inferius pro *obligat* [codd.] ex codd. F G *et ligat*, ac post *voluntatem* edd. addunt *ita quod.*

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 24 (c. 2). — On the propositions cf. above, a. 2, q. 1 f. — Below, for *obligat* ("binds") from codices F G [read] *et ligat* ("and binds"), and after *voluntatem* ("will") the editions add *ita quod* ("so that").

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. — In fine solut. pro *de claves* [recte *de clavibus*] plures codd. *in clavibus.*

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 6. — At the end of the solution, for *de claves* [rightly *de clavibus*, "concerning the keys"] several codices [read] *in clavibus* ("in the keys").

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`vol4-p482-{L,R}-*` and `vol4-p483-{L,R}-*`, split x=1880) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion (the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters this dubia region with heavy two-column bleed and diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation), cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 53704–53871. English is a fresh literal translation. The dubia open on printed p.482 (PDF 502) under the centered header DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI (top of the right column, after the running head) and conclude on printed p.483 (PDF 503), left column, at the close of Dub. IV (*…sic de clavibus oportet intelligi.*), immediately before the centered COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVIII / Pars II header. Running heads: p.482 (even) = **SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. 482**; p.483 (odd) = **DIST. XVIII. P. II. DIVISIO TEXTUS. 483** (the p.483 running head already reads P. II because the Pars II commentary begins on that page after the Pars I dubia close in the left column) — confirmed DIST. XVIII, P. I for the dubia.

**Page-span note:** the dispatch brief estimated pp.482–483, confirmed. The dubia occupy p.482 (full, both columns) plus the upper portion of p.483 L; the Pars II COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS fills the rest of p.483.

**Dubia count: 4** (Dub. I–IV). Each follows the Master's-text format: a lemma from Lombard (*Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit…*) + objection(s) (*Videtur enim…* / *Item…*) + **Respondeo**.
- **Dub. I** — On *Anima rei maculam habet et foetorem peccati:* how do stain/stench/debt-of-death differ, and why "stench"? Ans.: sin is one but receives three names per the threefold comparison to (our and the divine) *iudicium* — speculative → *macula* (foulness), affective → *foetor* (right affect flees it), effective → debt of eternal death; or per its relation to self / neighbor / God.
- **Dub. II** — On Ambrose's *Verbum Domini dimittit peccata, sacerdos et iudex:* the Word IS the judge (bad division); a judge punishes, not forgives; the next text seems to contradict. Ans.: three keys — *auctoritatis* (God), *excellentiae* (incarnate Word), *ministerii* (priest); the priest forgives as minister not efficient cause; judgment is twofold (present forum of penitence = mercy; final = justice).
- **Dub. III** — On Augustine's *Ecclesiae caritas peccata dimittit:* God alone forgives; charity ≠ God. Ans.: charity = *created* charity (per *quae per Spiritum sanctum diffunditur*), forgiving as to *merit* (holy men merit first grace); also because none are forgiven save within ecclesial unity (heretics/schismatics excluded).
- **Dub. IV** — On Jerome's *Quodcumque ligaveris:* if mere showing, no difference from the old priesthood; can the priest loose/bind at will?; does the key err with a hypocrite? Ans.: the priest *demonstrates* re absolution from fault, *remits* re penalty; efficacy depends on the recipient's fitness (*actus activorum in patiente disposito*); a hypocrite's failure is from his feigning, not the key's erring; a priest binding/loosing by will (not rule) has no efficacy (Jerome vs. haughtiness/pride) — like Sacraments deprived of efficacy by faulty administration or reception.

**Footer ownership (Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; markers re-mapped to a single chunk-wide [^1]–[^17] sequence, anchored by content not OCR digit order):**
- **p.482** — 12 footers → [^1]–[^12]. Dub. I owns 1–3 ([^1] *tom. II pag. 558 / iudicium verum*; [^2] *affectus* edd.; [^3] *B. Albert. a. 8*). Dub. II owns 4–8 ([^4] *loco est / pag. 466*; [^5] *Aristot. de Part. animal. / Psalm. 74,3*; [^6] *lit. Magistri c. 4*; [^7] *supra a. 1 q. 1*; [^8] the long Petr. Lombard./Augustine note on *Iudicabo cum accepero tempus*). Dub. III owns 9–12 ([^9] *lit. Magistri c. 4*; [^10] *Rom. 5,5 / lit. Magistri c. 5*; [^11] *lit. Magistri c. 5 / I Sent. d. 14*; [^12] *aliquatenus / Alex. Hal. q. 20*).
- **p.483** — the dubia portion (left column) owns 4 footers → [^13]–[^16]. Dub. IV: [^13] *Solae edd. esset* (on *differentia est*); [^14] *an clavis erret an non* (on *aut clavis errat aut non*); [^15] *Aristot. II de Anima / et ligat* (on *actus activorum in patiente disposito*); [^16] *lit. Magistri c. 6 / in clavibus* (on the Jerome solution close). Note [^12] (p.482) glosses *aliqualiter*, whose body word falls on p.483 L (Dub. III tail, immediately after the `<!-- page 483 -->` continuation) — the [^12] marker is placed there, matching the printed footer 12 of p.482 at the p.482→p.483 seam.
- **p.483 footers 5–6** (the *de Anima* continuation already folded into [^15], and the editorial note *Edd. quae*… on the Pars II DIVISIO TEXTUS *quod*) are NOT carried here — footer 6 belongs to the Pars II divisio chunk (`bon-sent-IV-d18-p2-divisio`).

**Page-split map (mid-page seam, verified grammatically continuous against the column bands; within each page read Left column top→bottom, then Right column):**
- The centered DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI header sits at the top of p.482 **Right** column (the left column top holds the running head 482 and the page-top jump of the prior Pars I material is absent — the dubia block is self-contained on p.482 R + L). DUB. I begins at p.482 L upper; DUB. II at p.482 L lower; the Respondeo of Dub. II and all of Dub. III run down p.482 R.
- `<!-- page 483 -->` falls **inside Dub. III** (the *merentur gra-* / *tiam primam* seam, p.482 R-bottom → p.483 L-top); the receiving word *tiam primam* is grammatically continuous with *merentur gra-*. Dub. IV opens lower on p.483 L and its Respondeo closes there (*…sic de clavibus oportet intelligi.*), with the corresponding text bleeding into p.483 R as the typesetter wrapped columns; read fully off the p.483 L + R bands.

**[?] flags:** None at the body level — all 4 dubia bodies read cleanly from the column bands. The Quaracchi footnote *numbers* in the cascade-shattered OCR are unreliable, so the [^N] anchors were placed by *content* (the lemma each footer glosses) against the printed footer text read off the band L-2/R-2 crops, not by trusting OCR digit order. Per-page footer counts (12 on p.482; 4 dubia-owned on p.483 = **16**) match the printed footer blocks (p.483's final footer is Pars II material, excluded). One textual oddity (not a [?]): the p.482 R body word OCR'd as *loco est* in the *verbum Domini* division is preserved per footer [^4]'s own note (*Ita hic codd. et, ut videtur, ipse auctor loco est*), so it is intentional, not an OCR garble.

**Pars II boundary confirmed:** Dub. IV is the last dubium of Pars I; it closes on p.483 L (*…sic de clavibus oportet intelligi.*). The centered **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVIII / Pars II / De clavibus et eorum usu in foro iudiciali** header follows immediately (lemma *Est et alius modus ligandi et solvendi, qui per excommunicationem exhibetur* etc.; VIDE TEXTUM MAGISTRI PAG. 467), opening the **Pars II DIVISIO TEXTUS** (a separate chunk, `bon-sent-IV-d18-p2-divisio`). **Hand-off to Pars II:** this dubia chunk owns p.482 footers [^1]–[^12] and the 4 dubia-portion footers of p.483 ([^13]–[^16]); **p.483's Pars II footer** (*Edd. quae* on the DIVISIO TEXTUS *quod*) and all subsequent p.483 footers belong to the Pars II divisio/quaestiones chunks. This dubia chunk ends cleanly above the p.483 COMMENTARIUS header.

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. 18, Part 2, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XVIII, Pars II)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. XVIII, Part II)

source_text:
<!-- page 495 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Magister: *Sibi ipsis relinquuntur, ut sit eis liberum arbitrium ruere in peccatum.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia liberum arbitrium non recipit *magis* et *minus*: ergo non est modo liberius post excommunicationem ad peccatum quam ante. — Item, iuxta hoc quaeritur, quae sint mala, quae incurrit quis per excommunicationem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod libertas peccandi non est libertas, sed defectus libertatis[^1]. Liberum ergo arbitrium, prout dicitur liberum *a culpa*, quia hoc non est libertas *essentialis*, sed *accidentalis*, dicitur magis et minus liberum; et tunc *magis* est liberum, quando melius se potest defendere, et *minus* liberum, quando minus se potest defendere a peccati dominio. Quoniam igitur meritis orationum Ecclesiae multi sustentantur et defenduntur a culpis; tunc dicuntur *liberiores* ad peccandum fieri, quando auferuntur suffragia Ecclesiae. Unde patet, quomodo illud verbum intelligitur.

Et nota, quod multa sunt incommoda, quae incurrunt excommunicati, quae notantur his versibus:

> *Gratia subtrahitur, magis ac magis obice rupto.*
> *De vitio ruit in vitium, suffragia perdit*
> *Ecclesiae; satanae vexandus traditur ille,*
> *Quem ligat ex propriis anathematizatio culpis.*

Et intelliguntur quantum ad *expositionem* vel *desertionem*[^2]; sicut rex diceretur militem tradere inimico, quem non defenderet ab eius vexatione.

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Sed intelligendum est de his quorum merita solvunt vel ligant.* — Quaeritur ergo hic, si aliquis sit iniuste excommunicatus, utrum se debeat habere pro excommunicato. Et quod sic, videtur: quia dicitur in iure[^3]: «Sententia pastoris, sive iusta sive iniusta, tenenda est et timenda». — Sed contra: Magister[^4] dicit, quod illam solam sententiam approbat curia caelestis, quae datur ex meritis. — Item, favere et tenere sententiam iniustam est praestare patrocinium iniustitiae: ergo talis sententia, ut videtur, nullo modo tenenda est, nec ab eo qui excommunicatur, nec ab aliis.

Item, quaeritur, quomodo sit sententia excommunicationis iniuste lata.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sententia iniusta dicitur ex *animo*, ex *causa*, ex *ordine*[^5]: ex *animo*, ut cum infertur non zelo iustitiae, sed vindictae; ex *causa*, ut cum non est meritum sufficiens, vel certum, propter quod debeat excommunicari ille cui infligitur; ex *ordine*, ut cum praetermittitur ordo iuris.

Si ergo talis excommunicatio feratur in aliquem, distinguendum est: quia aut fertur ab habente canonicam iurisdictionem, aut a non habente. Si ab habente; dicendum, quod tenenda est et timenda, quia non est subditorum discutere sententias maiorum; et si contemnat, graviter peccat[^6]. — Excipiuntur autem duo casus, videlicet si sententia illa lata est post appellationem legitimam, vel quando continet intolerabilem errorem, ut si diceretur: Excommunico te, quia credis in Deum. In his duobus casibus non quaerentes absolutionem admittuntur ad eorum probationem; alias autem non admittuntur, nisi humiliter petant absolutionem. — Absolvit autem dominus Papa in omnibus *ad cautelam*[^7], non propter hoc quod reputet fuisse excommunicatos, vel excommunicandos, sed ut ostendat, Ecclesiae sententiam, quantumcumque sit iniusta, esse formidandam. Unde timetur et tenetur non consideratione iniustitiae, sed ob reverentiam potestatis ecclesiasticae. Hoc sentiendum est secundum iura, si excommunicetur ab habente iurisdictionem canonicam.

Si autem ab alio excommunicetur, qui non habet canonicam iurisdictionem, et hoc constat; tunc non est tenenda, utpote si sint haeretici, vel schismatici, apostatae, intrusi, suspensi a iurisdictione[^8]. Si autem talium crimen sit occultum, toleranda est talium sententia, sicut et ipsi tolerantur ab Ecclesia.

<!-- page 496 -->

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *peccatum dicitur tenebrae, quia intellectus obtunditur et totus interior homo obtenebratur.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia videmus multos peccatores in peccatis existentes, qui valde bene intelligunt et addiscunt, et ita experimentum est contra hoc. Item, Domini documentum, Lucae decimo sexto[^9]: *Filii saeculi huius prudentiores sunt filiis lucis.* — Item, cum multo magis sit peccatum deordinativum *affectus* quam *intellectus*, et corruptivum *amoris* quam *luminis*, et *caritatis* quam *fidei*; videtur potius esse dicendum, quod peccatum sit *frigus* quam *tenebra*.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod gratia magis dicitur *lux* quam *calor*, quoniam lux in se habet et virtutem illuminandi, et illuminando magis et magis virtutem calefaciendi; et ideo plus complectitur lux quam calor. Et gratia in quantum lux non tantum respicit intellectum, verum etiam affectum, immo lux, ut dicitur de gratia, nominat eam ut respicit totam animam; quoniam, sicut lux[^10] est forma totius orbis primi, et per cuius influentiam fiunt generationes circa partes inferiores, et una est ratio actualitatis et diffusionis, secundum quod innuit et dicit aperte Dionysius in libro de Divinis Nominibus[^11]: et quia hoc competit gratiae, quae est radix omnium habituum gratuitorum et principium omnis boni operis: hinc est, quod dicitur *lux*, et peccatum dicitur *tenebra*; quia[^12] tenebra non tantum privat actum lucis, secundum quem est in sensum visus, sed etiam alios actus, secundum quos est operativa: et ita ista tenebra non respicit intellectum tantum, sed intellectum ut extensum ad calorem affectus, vel ad operationem effectus.

Ex his patent obiecta. Quod enim dicitur, quod intellectus viget in peccatoribus; dicendum, quod verum est secundum actum, qui est purae speculationis, sed non prout extenditur ad affectum, vel opus. Unde aliter habuit prophetiam Balaam[^13], aliter David. Ille enim solum videbat, iste videbat et gaudebat et secundum hoc se in opere regulabat et se ipsum dirigebat. Exemplum est in musico et bono citharoedo; aliter enim novit consonantiam citharae musicus, aliter bonus citharoedus[^14]. Et quantum ad hanc obtunditur intellectus manifeste, licet non quantum ad primam ita aperte; credo tamen firmiter, quod quantum ad utramque.

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Ipsa ergo dissimilitudo, quae inest animae ex peccato, animae macula est.* Videtur enim male dicere. Omnis enim macula deformitas dicitur, aut quia aliquid est remotum, aut quia aliquid, quod non debet, circa rem ponitur; sicut patet: truncatus naso est deformatus, sed habens *morpheam*[^15] vel aliquid tale est maculatus; sed peccatum non corrumpit bona naturalia, quia nihil corrumpit «in eo quod est essentia vel natura[^16]»; aut si corrumpit, tamen nihil ponit: ergo nullo modo debet dici macula. Si tu dicas, quod ponit malam habilitatem et pronitatem ad malum, et illa est macula; contra: illa pronitas potest auferri per oppositam pronitatem: ergo macula peccati deleret maculam; quod inconveniens est dicere. Item, a pronitate liberatur per assuefactionem; solus autem Deus liberat a macula, ut dicitur in littera.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod peccatum non est aliud quam *privatio ordinis debiti*, et voco ordinem debitum, prout comprehendit modum, speciem et ordinem, prout circa ipsum consistit praecipue ratio boni[^17]. Ista ergo deordinatio remanens in anima est culpa ipsa et peccatum, quia est ex proprio actu, ubi debet esse ordo iustitiae. Haec autem habet considerari secundum rationem *aversionis* et secundum rationem *conversionis* et utriusque.

<!-- page 497 -->

Secundum primam rationem competit ei ratio *privationis*; secundum secundum modum ratio *infectionis*, et haec[^18] iungit sibi rem turpem; secundum tertium modum ratio *obligationis*. — Quantum ad primum modum dicitur peccatum *tenebra* et *deformitas*; quoniam bonum dupliciter potest considerari, scilicet *in se*, et sic dicitur *lux*, et per oppositum peccatum dicitur *tenebra*; et in comparatione ad vim cognitivam, et sic dicitur *pulcritudo* animae, et per oppositum peccatum *deformitas*. — Quantum autem ad *conversionem*[^19] sic dicitur *macula* et *foetor*; et hoc similiter secundum duplicem comparationem illius coniunctionis cum delectabili terreno: *in se*, et sic *macula*; ad *vim cognitivam*, et sic *foetor*; quantum ad utrumque, sic competit esse *vinculum mortis aeternae*[^20][^21].

english:
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that the Master says: *They are left to themselves, so that they have free choice to rush into sin.* For it seems to be said badly, because free choice does not admit of *more* and *less*: therefore it is not now freer toward sin after excommunication than before. — Likewise, in connection with this it is asked what are the evils that one incurs through excommunication.

**I respond:** It must be said that the freedom of sinning is not freedom, but a defect of freedom[^1]. Therefore free choice, insofar as it is called free *from fault*, because this is not *essential* freedom but *accidental*, is called more and less free; and then it is *more* free when it can better defend itself, and *less* free when it can less defend itself from the dominion of sin. Since therefore by the merits of the prayers of the Church many are sustained and defended from faults; then they are said to become *freer* toward sinning, when the suffrages of the Church are withdrawn. Whence it is plain how that word is understood.

And note that there are many harms which the excommunicate incur, which are noted in these verses:

> *Grace is withdrawn, more and more as the barrier is broken.*
> *From vice he rushes into vice, he loses the suffrages*
> *Of the Church; he is handed over to Satan to be vexed,*
> *He whom the anathematization binds for his own faults.*

And they are understood as to *exposure* or *abandonment*[^2]; just as a king would be said to hand a soldier over to the enemy, whom he would not defend from his vexation.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *But it is to be understood of those whose merits loose or bind.* — It is asked therefore here, if someone is unjustly excommunicated, whether he ought to regard himself as excommunicated. And that he should, it seems: because it is said in the law[^3]: «The sentence of the pastor, whether just or unjust, is to be held and feared». — But on the contrary: the Master[^4] says that the heavenly court approves only that sentence which is given from merits. — Likewise, to favor and hold an unjust sentence is to lend patronage to injustice: therefore such a sentence, as it seems, is in no way to be held, neither by him who is excommunicated, nor by others.

Likewise, it is asked how a sentence of excommunication is unjustly passed.

**I respond:** It must be said that an unjust sentence is so called from the *intention*, from the *cause*, from the *order*[^5]: from the *intention*, as when it is imposed not from zeal for justice, but for vengeance; from the *cause*, as when there is no sufficient or certain merit for which he ought to be excommunicated upon whom it is inflicted; from the *order*, as when the order of law is omitted.

If therefore such an excommunication is passed against someone, a distinction must be made: because either it is passed by one having canonical jurisdiction, or by one not having [it]. If by one having [it]; it must be said that it is to be held and feared, because it is not for subjects to discuss the sentences of their superiors; and if one despises [it], he sins gravely[^6]. — But two cases are excepted, namely if that sentence was passed after a legitimate appeal, or when it contains an intolerable error, as if it were said: I excommunicate you, because you believe in God. In these two cases those not seeking absolution are admitted to their proof; but otherwise they are not admitted, unless they humbly ask absolution. — Now the lord Pope absolves in all cases *for caution*[^7], not because he reckons that they were excommunicated, or to-be-excommunicated, but to show that the sentence of the Church, however unjust it be, is to be dreaded. Whence it is feared and held not from consideration of [its] injustice, but out of reverence for ecclesiastical power. This is to be understood according to the laws, if one is excommunicated by one having canonical jurisdiction.

But if one is excommunicated by another, who does not have canonical jurisdiction, and this is established; then it is not to be held, namely if they are heretics, or schismatics, apostates, intruders, [or persons] suspended from jurisdiction[^8]. But if the crime of such persons is hidden, the sentence of such persons is to be tolerated, just as they too are tolerated by the Church.

<!-- page 496 -->

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says, that *sin is called darkness, because the intellect is blunted and the whole interior man is darkened.* For it seems to be said falsely, because we see many sinners existing in sins, who understand and learn very well, and so experience is against this. Likewise, the Lord's teaching, Luke sixteen[^9]: *The children of this world are more prudent than the children of light.* — Likewise, since sin is much more disordering of the *affection* than of the *intellect*, and corruptive of *love* than of *light*, and of *charity* than of *faith*; it seems rather to be said that sin is *cold* rather than *darkness*.

**I respond:** It must be said that grace is called *light* rather than *heat*, because light has in itself both the power of illuminating, and, by illuminating, more and more the power of heating; and therefore light comprehends more than heat. And grace insofar as light regards not only the intellect, but even the affection, indeed light, as it is said of grace, names it as it regards the whole soul; because, just as light[^10] is the form of the whole first orb, and through whose influence generations come about in the lower parts, and there is one ground of actuality and of diffusion, according as Dionysius intimates and says openly in the book *On the Divine Names*[^11]: and because this belongs to grace, which is the root of all gratuitous habits and the principle of every good work: hence it is that it is called *light*, and sin is called *darkness*; because[^12] darkness not only deprives of the act of light, according to which it is in the sense of sight, but also [of] the other acts according to which [the soul] is operative: and so this darkness regards not the intellect only, but the intellect as extended to the heat of affection, or to the operation of effect.

From these things the objections are plain. For as to what is said, that the intellect flourishes in sinners; it must be said that it is true as to the act which is of pure speculation, but not as it is extended to affection or work. Whence Balaam had prophecy in one way[^13], David in another. For the former only saw, the latter saw and rejoiced and according to this regulated himself in work and directed himself. There is an example in the musician and the good cithara-player; for the musician knows the consonance of the cithara in one way, the good cithara-player in another[^14]. And as to this [latter] the intellect is manifestly blunted, although not as openly as to the first; yet I firmly believe that [it is blunted] as to both.

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Therefore that very unlikeness, which is in the soul from sin, is the soul's stain.* For it seems to be said badly. For every stain is called a deformity, either because something is removed, or because something which ought not [to be] is placed about the thing; as is plain: one cut off as to the nose is deformed, but one having *morphew*[^15] or some such thing is stained; but sin does not corrupt natural goods, because nothing is corrupted «in that which is essence or nature[^16]»; or if it corrupts, yet it places nothing: therefore in no way ought it to be called a stain. If you say that it places an evil aptitude and proneness to evil, and that is the stain; on the contrary: that proneness can be removed by an opposite proneness: therefore the stain of sin would delete the stain; which it is unfitting to say. Likewise, one is freed from proneness by habituation; but God alone frees from the stain, as is said in the text.

**I respond:** It must be said that sin is nothing else than the *privation of due order*, and I call due order [that] insofar as it comprehends mode, species, and order, insofar as about it consists chiefly the ground of the good[^17]. This disorder therefore remaining in the soul is the fault itself and sin, because it is from one's own act, where there ought to be the order of justice. But this has to be considered according to the ground of *aversion* and according to the ground of *conversion* and of both.

<!-- page 497 -->

According to the first ground there belongs to it the ground of *privation*; according to the second mode the ground of *infection*, and this[^18] joins to itself a base thing; according to the third mode the ground of *obligation*. — As to the first mode sin is called *darkness* and *deformity*; because the good can be considered in two ways, namely *in itself*, and thus it is called *light*, and by opposition sin is called *darkness*; and in comparison to the cognitive power, and thus it is called the *beauty* of the soul, and by opposition sin [is called] *deformity*. — But as to *conversion*[^19] thus it is called *stain* and *foulness*; and this likewise according to the twofold comparison of that conjunction with the earthly delightful thing: *in itself*, and thus *stain*; to the *cognitive power*, and thus *foulness*; as to both, thus there belongs [to it] to be the *bond of eternal death*[^20][^21].

la: Secundum Anselm. Vide II. Sent. d. 25. p. II. q. 3. ibid. q. 1, ubi explicantur diversi status liberi arbitrii, et quomodo in omnibus aequaliter reperitur, non secundum *magis et minus*. Vide etiam ibid. lit. Magistri.

en: According to Anselm. See II Sent., d. 25, p. II, q. 3, and there at q. 1, where the diverse states of free choice are explained, and how it is found equally in all, not according to *more and less*. See also there the text of the Master.

la: Edd. *de se eiectionem*.

en: The editions [read] *casting-out from oneself*.

la: Causa II. q. 3. c. 1. ex Gregor., II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 26. n. 6.

en: Cause II, q. 3, c. 1, from Gregory, *Homilies on the Gospels*, Book II, homily 26, n. 6.

la: Hic in lit. c. 7. — Pro *curia* codd. I K *iudex*. Subinde pro *favere* edd. *fovere*, et pro *quomodo* cod. Z *quando*.

en: Here in the text, c. 7. — For *court* codices I K [read] *judge*. Then for *to favor* the editions [read] *to foster*, and for *how* codex Z [reads] *when*.

la: Secundum Gratian. super C. *Episcopus, presbyter* (65.), C. 11. q. 3.

en: According to Gratian on C. *Episcopus, presbyter* (65), C. 11, q. 3.

la: Cfr. Gratian. super C. *Non solum ille reus* (77.), C. 11. q. 3. — Duo seqq. casus excipiuntur in C. *Per tuas litteras* (40.), X. de Sententia excommun. (lib. V. tit. 31.). Cfr. ibid. C. *Ad nostram* (3.), de Appellat. (lib. II. tit. 28.).

en: Cf. Gratian on C. *Non solum ille reus* (77), C. 11, q. 3. — The two following cases are excepted in C. *Per tuas litteras* (40), X, *On the Sentence of Excommunication* (bk. V, tit. 31). Cf. ibid. C. *Ad nostram* (3), *On Appeals* (bk. II, tit. 28).

la: Cfr. Can. cit. *Per tuas litteras*.

en: Cf. the cited Canon *Per tuas litteras*.

la: Vide C. *Audivimus, quod* (4.), C. 24. q. 1, eiusque expositionem per Gratian.; ibid. C. *Aperte, inquit* (36.), seq. — Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 22. m. 2. q. 2; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 4; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 5.

en: See C. *Audivimus, quod* (4), C. 24, q. 1, and its exposition by Gratian; ibid. C. *Aperte, inquit* (36) and following. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 22, m. 2, q. 2; St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1, quaestiuncula 4; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1, quaestiuncula 3; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 5.

la: Vers. 8.

en: Verse 8.

la: Vide codd. F G (E a secunda manu) addidimus *lux*, cod. bb legit: *quoniam est sicut ipsa forma*. — Forma propositionis deficit.

en: See codices F G (E by a second hand); we have added *light*; codex bb reads: *because it is as the form itself*. — The form of the proposition is lacking.

la: Cap. 4. § 4. Cfr. Aristot., II. Generat. et corrupt. text. 88. (c. 10.).

en: Chapter 4, § 4. Cf. Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption*, Book II, text 88 (c. 10).

la: Cod. Z *et quia*. Aliquanto inferius edd. omittunt *ita*, et subinde sola Vat. *vel ad operationem effectus*.

en: Codex Z [reads] *and because*. Somewhat below the editions omit *ita* [so], and then the Vatican edition alone [reads] *or to the operation of effect*.

la: Cfr. Num. c. 22. seqq.

en: Cf. Numbers c. 22 and following.

la: Musicus novit speculative, bonus citharoedus vero practice. «Cithara canendo, ut ait Aristot. (II. Ethic. c. 1.), citharoedi efficiuntur... ex eo enim, quod citharam pulsant, et boni et mali citharistae evadunt». — Ibid. VI. c. 3. dicit: «Vitium enim eiusmodi est, ut principium [rerum agendarum] corrumpat»; et c. 12: Id [principium], nisi bono viro, non apparet, propterea quod distorquet pravitas facitque, ut circa activa principia fallamur. Quare non posse quempiam prudentem esse, nisi bonus sit, manifestum est. — Mox pro *primam* et *utramque* [notitiam?] edd. *primum* et cum cod. M *utrumque*, incongrue, nisi pro *hanc* ponatur *hunc* [actum intellectus]. Sed vox aliqua excidisse videtur. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 8; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: The musician knows speculatively, but the good cithara-player practically. «By playing the cithara, as Aristotle says (*Ethics* II, c. 1), cithara-players are produced... for from the fact that they pluck the cithara, both good and bad citharists turn out». — Ibid. VI, c. 3, he says: «For vice is of such a kind that it corrupts the principle [of things to be done]»; and c. 12: That [principle] does not appear except to a good man, because depravity distorts [it] and makes us err about the active principles. Wherefore it is manifest that no one can be prudent unless he be good. — Presently for *primam* [the first] and *utramque* [knowledge?] the editions [read] *primum* and, with codex M, *utrumque*, incongruously, unless for *hanc* one puts *hunc* [act of the intellect]. But some word seems to have dropped out. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 8; St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: *Morphea*, ut docet du Cange (Glossarium etc.), est infirmitas, cum color [cutis] in alium mutatur... Italis *Morfea* est species scabiei. Cfr. Avicenna, IV. Canon. Fen 3. tr. 3. c. 1.

en: *Morphew*, as du Cange (the *Glossary*, etc.) teaches, is an infirmity, when the color [of the skin] is changed into another... To the Italians *Morfea* is a species of scabies. Cf. Avicenna, *Canon* IV, Fen 3, tr. 3, c. 1.

la: Dionys., de Div. Nom. c. 4. § 23: Οὐδὲ φθείρεταί τι τῶν ὄντων καθ' ὃ οὐσία καὶ φύσις, i. e. Nihil corrumpitur existentium, in eo [sive: secundum] quod est essentia et natura. Hinc non placet lectio codd. et edd. ponentium *corrumpit* pro *corrumpitur*, sicut etiam tom. II. pag. 813, nota 4. eandem lectionem multorum codd. reprobavimus (cfr. ibid. pag. 822, nota 9.), cum nullum exemplum in vocabulariis, quae prae manibus habemus, nobis praestetur, quod verbum *corrumpit* accipiatur intransitive pro *corrumpitur*. Quia tamen hic lectio codd. et edd. explicari potest, supplendo scil. *aliud* post *corrumpit*, ipsam retinuimus. Aliter iudicandum de seqq. verbis Dionysii, in quibus codd. et edd. perperam substituunt *existentia* pro *essentia*. — Secunda pars disiunctionis (peccatum nihil ponit) est secundum August. supra pag. 130, nota 5. allegatum.

en: Dionysius, *On the Divine Names* c. 4, § 23: *Nothing of existing things is corrupted in that according to which it is essence and nature.* Hence we are not pleased with the reading of the codices and editions placing *corrumpit* [corrupts] for *corrumpitur* [is corrupted], just as also in vol. II, p. 813, note 4, we reprobated the same reading of many codices (cf. ibid. p. 822, note 9), since no example is furnished us in the lexicons which we have at hand, that the word *corrumpit* be taken intransitively for *corrumpitur*. Yet because here the reading of the codices and editions can be explained, by supplying namely *aliud* [something else] after *corrumpit*, we have retained it. Otherwise it is to be judged concerning the following words of Dionysius, in which the codices and editions wrongly substitute *existentia* for *essentia*. — The second part of the disjunction (sin places nothing) is according to Augustine cited above on p. 130, note 5.

la: Hic c. 8.

en: Here c. 8.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 34. q. 2. a. 2. seq. et d. 35. per totam. — Inferius pro *debet* codd. F G *deberet*, et pro *Haec autem* Vat. *Hic autem*.

en: Cf. II Sent., d. 34, q. 2, a. 2, and following, and d. 35 throughout. — Below, for *debet* [ought] codices F G [read] *deberet* [would be obliged], and for *Haec autem* [but this] the Vatican edition [reads] *Hic autem* [but here].

la: Ita codd. E I K L bb et ed. 1, Vat. *hic*, codd. R S *in hoc*, alii *hoc* (ablativus?).

en: Thus codices E I K L bb and edition 1; the Vatican edition [reads] *hic* [here], codices R S *in hoc* [in this], others *hoc* (ablative?).

la: Edd. perperam *aversionem*.

en: The editions wrongly [read] *aversion*.

la: Vide supra p. I. dub. 1; II. Sent. d. 35. dub. 6. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 8; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2; Petr. a Tar., q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2. et circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: See above, p. I, dub. 1; II Sent., d. 35, dub. 6. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 8; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2; Peter of Tarentaise, q. 2, a. 1, quaestiuncula 2, and on the text; Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Vol IV two-column PDF column bands (`vol4-p495..p497-{L,R}-{0,1,2}` at split x=1880, offset pdf = printed + 20), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 55038–55272). This chunk is the DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI for Distinctio XVIII, Pars II — the last chunk of d.18. It contains **4 dubia** (Dub. I–IV).

**Page span / running heads.** The DUBIA header + Dub. I–II sit on **printed p. 495** (running head "DIST. XVIII. P. II. DUBIA. 495"; the OCR running head at raw line 55033 mis-prints this page number as "498"). Dub. III + the opening of Dub. IV are on **p. 496** (running head "496 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV", an even/left page that carries only the book title, not the distinction). The conclusion of Dub. IV (the *privatio/infectio/obligatio* and *macula/foetor/vinculum* analysis) spills onto **p. 497**, ending at *vinculum mortis aeternae* immediately before the centered **DISTINCTIO XIX.** header (raw line 55277). The prompt's nominal "496–498" was adjusted to the verified **495–497** span after band inspection.

**Apparatus / page-split map.** 21 footers total: **p. 495** footers 1–8 → `[^1]`–`[^8]` (1–5 left col, 6–8 right col); **p. 496** footers 1–10 → `[^9]`–`[^18]`; **p. 497** footers 1–3 → `[^19]`–`[^21]` (these three attach to the Dub. IV conclusion that crosses the 496→497 page break). Footer `[^16]` carries a Greek Dionysius quotation, transcribed in polytonic Greek per the printed text.

**Clean ending.** The chunk ends cleanly at the close of Dub. IV ("...vinculum mortis aeternae[^21]") and does not bleed into DISTINCTIO XIX (whose "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM" footnote block on p. 497, visible in the p497-L-2 band, belongs to d.19, not here).

**[?] flags.** None. All four dubia and all 21 footers were read clean against the PDF bands; ambiguous OCR garbles (e.g. *iidam* → *idem*, *friva-tionis* → *privationis*, *coniunctionis*) were resolved unambiguously from the column-band images.