title: Dist. 17, Part 2, Divisio Textus

source_text:
<!-- page 435 -->

# COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVII.

## Pars II.

### *De necessitate confessionis sacramentalis.*

*Iam secundum quaestionis articulum inspiciamus* etc.

TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 415.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra exsecutus est et determinavit Magister primam quaestionem; hic tangit et determinat secundam, scilicet utrum necesse sit confiteri homini, an sufficiat soli Deo confiteri. Et dividitur haec pars in duas. In prima adducit auctoritates ad falsam partem. In secunda adducit auctoritates ad veram, ibi: *Sed quod sacerdotibus confiteri oporteat* etc.; in quibus clarescit confessionis vocalis institutio et peccatorum obligatio; in quibus etiam consistit praesentis quaestionis difficultas et determinatio.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis quaeritur de confessione vocali. Et circa hoc duo principaliter quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur de confessione quantum ad praeceptum instituentis. Secundo, quantum ad obligationem exsequentis.

Quantum ad primum quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum mandatum de confessione pertineat ad legem naturae. Secundo, utrum pertineat ad legem scriptam, vel legem gratiae. Tertio quaeritur, a quo fuerit instituta, utrum a Christo, an ab aliquo eius Apostolo.

english:
<!-- page 435 -->

# COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVII.

## Part II.

### *On the necessity of sacramental confession.*

*Let us now examine the second article of the question,* etc.

FOR THE TEXT OF THE MASTER, SEE ABOVE, PAGE 415.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master carried through and determined the first question; here he touches upon and determines the second, namely, whether it is necessary to confess to a man, or whether it suffices to confess to God alone. And this part is divided into two. In the first he adduces authorities for the false side. In the second he adduces authorities for the true side, there at: *But that one ought to confess to priests,* etc.; in which the institution of vocal confession and the obligation upon sinners become clear; in which also consists the difficulty and determination of the present question.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, inquiry is made concerning vocal confession. And concerning this, two things are principally asked. First, it is asked concerning confession as to the precept of the one instituting it. Second, as to the obligation of the one carrying it out.

As to the first, three things are asked. First, it is asked whether the command concerning confession pertains to the law of nature. Second, whether it pertains to the written law, or the law of grace. Third, it is asked by whom it was instituted, whether by Christ, or by some Apostle of his.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed page 435 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p435-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`). The IA djvu OCR (raw lines 48944–48982) had cascade-mixed the two columns of the DIVISIO TEXTUS and TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, interleaving left- and right-column fragments; the PDF bands were authoritative for reconstructing reading order (VOL II OVERRIDE). Running head verified: "DIST. XVII. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I." with printed page number 435 (pdf = printed + 20 = 455). Pars II = *De necessitate confessionis sacramentalis*. Page 434 is the close of Pars I (Dub. V, Dub. VIII); Pars II opens at the top of page 435, so this chunk lies wholly on a single printed page.

**Confirmed two-article map (each with 3 questions).** The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM divides Pars II into two articles:
- **Articulus I — *De confessione quoad praeceptum instituentis*** ("On confession as to the precept of the one instituting it"), with three questions:
  1. Utrum mandatum de confessione pertineat ad legem naturae. (Whether the command concerning confession pertains to the law of nature.)
  2. Utrum pertineat ad legem scriptam, vel legem gratiae. (Whether it pertains to the written law, or the law of grace.)
  3. A quo fuerit instituta, utrum a Christo, an ab aliquo eius Apostolo. (By whom it was instituted, whether by Christ or by some Apostle of his.)
- **Articulus II — *De confessione quoad obligationem exsequentis*** ("On confession as to the obligation of the one carrying it out"), with three questions (enumerated in that article's own opener, not here).

**Apparatus split.** This chunk holds 0 apparatus entries; the four numbered footers on p.435 (1: Genesis, Gloss/Ambros./August. ; 2: Iob; 3: ordinary Gloss, Gregor./Strabum/Lyranum; 4: Iosue) anchor to the Article I, Question I body and migrate to `bon-sent-IV-d17-p2-a1-q1`.

**[?] flags.** None. The reconstructed text parses cleanly and is fully legible in the PDF bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 17, Part 3, Divisio Textus

title_alt:
Divisio textus
Division of the text

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 450 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVII.

### Pars III.

### *De confessione sacramentali facienda.*

*Nunc priusquam praemissis auctoritatibus etc.*

TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 416.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Haec est tertia pars, in qua Magister tertiam prosequitur quaestionem. Et dividitur haec pars in tres partes. In prima movet quaestionem. In secunda solvit, ibi: *Sane ad hoc dici potest etc.* In tertia, iam determinata veritate, respondet auctoritatibus superius inductis ad falsam partem, ibi: *Cum igitur ex his aliisque pluribus testimoniis etc.*

Ex quibus responsionibus duo praecipue circa confessionem manifestantur, sicut patet in littera, scilicet cui sit confitendum, et quid sit confitendum.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis secundum duo, quae tangit hic Magister, duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, cui sit confitendum.

Secundo, quid sit confitendum.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum sufficiat confiteri laico.

Secundo, dato quod non, quaeritur, utrum contra voluntatem proprii sacerdotis possit quis confiteri alii discretiori.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum proprio sacerdoti debeat quis confiteri in publico, vel in occulto.

---

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVII.

### Part III.

### *On the making of sacramental confession.*

*Now, before [responding] with the authorities set down above, etc.*

FOR THE TEXT OF THE MASTER, SEE ABOVE, PAGE 416.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

This is the third part, in which the Master pursues the third question. And this part is divided into three parts. In the first he raises the question. In the second he resolves it, there: *But to this it can be said, etc.* In the third, the truth now having been determined, he replies to the authorities adduced above for the false position, there: *Since therefore from these and from several other testimonies, etc.*

From which responses two things chiefly concerning confession are made clear, as is evident in the text, namely, to whom one ought to confess, and what one ought to confess.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part according to the two things which the Master touches upon here, two matters are principally asked.

First it is asked, to whom one ought to confess.

Second, what one ought to confess.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked, whether it suffices to confess to a layman.

Second, granted that it does not, it is asked, whether against the will of one's own priest someone may confess to another more discreet [confessor].

Third it is asked, whether one ought to confess to one's own priest in public, or in secret.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the IA djvu OCR, raw lines 50455–50497 of `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`. Cross-checked against PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p450-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (printed p. 450, pdf p. 470; offset pdf = printed + 20 confirmed). The running head digit-mangles as `430` in both OCR and the band image; the page-top text — `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVII. / Pars III.` — confirms the page identity and pars.

**Pars III subtitle (confirmed).** Printed reads ***De confessione sacramentali facienda*** ("On the making of sacramental confession"), NOT "De modo confitendi" as the dispatch brief paraphrased. The OCR `De confessione sacramenlali facienda` was corrected to `sacramentali`.

**Two-article map (confirmed from TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM).**
- **Articulus I — *Cui sit confitendum* (To whom one ought to confess)** — 3 questions:
  - q1: *Utrum sufficiat confiteri laico* (Whether it suffices to confess to a layman)
  - q2: *Utrum contra voluntatem proprii sacerdotis possit quis confiteri alii discretiori* (Whether against the will of one's own priest one may confess to a more discreet confessor)
  - q3: *Utrum proprio sacerdoti debeat quis confiteri in publico, vel in occulto* (Whether one ought to confess to one's own priest in public or in secret)
- **Articulus II — *Quid sit confitendum* (What one ought to confess)** — 3 questions (per brief): q1 *Quid sit confitendum*, q2 *omnem peccati differentiam*, q3 *omnem peccati circumstantiam*. The TRACTATIO here lists only the Art. I sub-divisio of "Circa primum"; the Art. II sub-divisio ("Circa secundum") is printed at the head of Art. II, not in this divisio.

**Apparatus: none.** The divisio opener (DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM) carries no footnote markers in the raw range. The numbered footers physically printed on p. 450 belong to neighbouring chunks, not to this divisio:
- Footer note 1 (`Codd. 1 K testificationem.`) and the `Notandum` body at the page top belong to the **prior chunk** (the Notandum / d.17 p.2 tail closing on p. 450 L).
- Footer note 2 (`Idem dub. solvit S. Thom., hic circa lit.`) attaches to the *Et ex hoc patet ultimum* body in the right column top — also prior-chunk material.
- Footer notes 3–6 (`Hic c. 4. et 5.`; `Vers. 16.`; `Scilicet interlinearis...`; `Vide hic lit. Magistri...`) attach to the **ARTICULUS I QUAESTIO I body** (`Circa primum quaeritur, utrum sufficiat confiteri laico...`) which begins at raw line 50498 and belongs to the **next chunk, a.1 q.1**. Forward these footers to that chunk.

**[?] flags.** None. The OCR for this divisio is clean; the only corrections were obvious letter substitutions (`sacramenlali → sacramentali`, `quaerilur → quaeritur`, `conlra → contra`, `confileri → confiteri`, `wuctoritatibus → auctoritatibus`, `TEXTUAI → TEXTUM`, `hltera → littera`).

**Hand-off to a.1 q.1 (`bon-sent-IV-d17-p3-a1-q1`).** The next chunk opens at raw 50498 with `Circa primum quaeritur, utrum sufficiat confiteri laico. Et quod sic, videtur.` Its body picks up footers **3, 4, 5, 6** of printed p. 450 (listed above) plus whatever continues onto p. 451. Per the Vol II/IV chunking convention, the short ARTICULUS I opener (`Vtrum sufficiat confiteri laico`) folds into a.1 q.1; no standalone a.1 divisio chunk.

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. 17, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 418 -->

### Articulus I. *De his quae necessaria sunt ad iustificationem impii absolute.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum ad iustificationem impii necessaria sit gratiae infusio.*

Circa primum, quod necessaria sit gratiae infusio, videtur.

1. Ad Romanos tertio[^1]: *Iustificati per gratiam ipsius* etc.

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia peccatum est privatio; sed non removetur privatio nisi per collationem habitus: ergo confertur in deletione peccati aliquis habitus. Sed peccatum Deo displicebat et displicere faciebat: ergo ab oppositis, habitus ille Deo placet et placere facit; sed hunc dicimus gratiam gratum facientem[^2]: ergo etc.

3. Item, per peccatum separatur homo a Deo, ergo ab oppositis, in iustificatione unitur Deo; sed unio in Deo non est sine dispositione uniente, quia tunc[^3] peccator inimicus Deo haberet ante gratiam Deum: ergo etc.

4. Item, non decet, esse post hunc statum nisi duo loca, scilicet gloriae et poenae[^4]: ergo non decet hominem esse nisi in statu, in quo possit esse in altero istorum: ergo hominem mortalem necesse est esse vel in culpa, vel in gratia; sed per iustificationem recedit a statu culpae: ergo necesse est, sibi conferri habitum gratiae.

**Contra:** 1. Isaiae quadragesimo tertio[^5]: *Ego sum, qui deleo iniquitates tuas propter me*: ergo deletio culpae erit ante habitum gratiae.

2. Item, non minus est impium iustificare quam creare[^6]; sed Deus creat sine medio: ergo et iustificat.

3. Item, lapsus fuit[^7] proprie ab innocentia in culpam: ergo cum reformatio respondeat deformationi, debet homo in puram innocentiam restitui; sed haec media est inter culpam et gratiam: ergo etc.

4. Item, si gratia expellit culpam, aut quando est, aut quando non est. Si quando est; sed accidentis esse est inesse[^8]: ergo expellit culpam, cum subiecto inest; quaero: a quo subiecto? Non ab alieno nec a suo, quia prius culpam expelli est quam hominem gratificari. Si quando non est; sed nihil agit, quando non est: ergo non expellit.

5. Item, iustificatio est gratia quaedam: ergo si a gratia, similiter illa ab alia, et sic in infinitum.

> **Conclusio.** Deus decrevit culpam delere per gratiam, quae non tantum restituat innocentiam, sed etiam naturam debilitatam habilitet ad bonum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum: quia in omni opere Domini est misericordia et veritas[^9], hoc maxime in nobili opere oportet esse, scilicet in opere iustificationis. Quoniam igitur homo peccavit et nihil ante gratiae infusionem apud Deum meruit, Deus iusto

<!-- page 419 -->

iudicio non omnino effectum culpae tollit, immo poenam relinquit; et ideo in priorem statum hominem non statim restituit. Et quoniam misericors est, ideo etiam amplius bonum reddit, quia magis indiget; ideo non tantum restituit *innocentiam*, sed etiam dat *gratiam*. Ideo, quamvis delere posset Deus sine medio culpam, decrevit tamen delere per gratiam, quae non tantum faceret *innocentem*, immo etiam naturam debilitatam *habilitaret ad bonum*. Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod Deus solus delet; dicendum, quod verum est *effective*, sed *formaliter* delet ipsa gratia; Deus autem nullius est forma perfectiva[^10].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod solus creat; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia *creare* dicit opus, quod non respicit materiam recipientem[^11]; sed *iustificare* respicit materiam subiectam, et ideo non tantum respicit *efficientem* causam, verum etiam *formalem*.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod culpa aufert innocentiam; dicendum, quod non decrevit Deus restituere innocentiam, quin daret gratiam, ratione prius habita[^12].

4. Ad illud quod quaeritur: aut gratia expellit, quando est etc.; dicendum, quod quando est, et simul est. — Ad illud quod obiicit, quod accidentis esse est inesse; dicendum, quod gratia est accidens et habet ortum realiter ab alio quam a subiecto proprio, scilicet a Deo[^13]. Unde triplicem habet comparationem: ad *principium*, a quo procedit; ad *peccatum* contrarium, quod expellit; ad *subiectum*, quod perficit; et omnes istae comparationes sunt simul *tempore*, tamen *naturaliter* prius gratia comparatur ad *principium*, a quo procedit, secundo ad *peccatum*, quod expellit, tertio ad *subiectum*, quod perficit. Unde proprie loquendo, prius est gratia ab *efficiente*, quam expellat culpam, per *naturam*. — Et sic patet responsio ad illud. Obiicit enim de esse gratiae, in quantum *informat subiectum*; prius autem est gratiam *creari* per naturam, quam *subiectum esse gratia informatum*. Unde sicut in actione et productione aliarum formarum intelligimus, quod forma prius se habeat in ratione *virtutis agentis* quam *qualitatis informantis*; sic in proposito intelligatur, tamen prioritas non est *temporis*, sed *naturae*.

<!-- page 420 -->

5. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, dicendum, quod gratia aliquando dicitur *habitus*, aliquando *actus*, aliquando *status* est in habitu. Iustificatio autem dicitur magis *actus* gratiae vel *status*, quam dicatur ipse *habitus*. Quare autem magis sic appellatur, infra[^14] videbitur.

english:
### Article I. *On the things which are necessary for the justification of the wicked absolutely.*
### Question I. *Whether for the justification of the wicked an infusion of grace is necessary.*

Concerning the first, that an infusion of grace is necessary, it seems [so].

1. To the Romans, the third chapter[^1]: *Justified through his grace* etc.

2. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because sin is a privation; but a privation is not removed except through the conferring of a habit: therefore in the deletion of sin some habit is conferred. But sin was displeasing to God and made [one] displeasing: therefore from opposites, that habit is pleasing to God and makes [one] pleasing; but this we call grace making [one] pleasing[^2]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, through sin man is separated from God, therefore from opposites, in justification he is united to God; but union in God is not without a disposition uniting [him], because then[^3] the sinner, an enemy to God, would have God before grace: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, it is not fitting that there be, after this state, [any] but two places, namely of glory and of penalty[^4]: therefore it is not fitting that man be [anywhere] except in a state in which he can be in one of these: therefore mortal man must necessarily be either in guilt or in grace; but through justification he withdraws from the state of guilt: therefore it is necessary that the habit of grace be conferred upon him.

**On the contrary:** 1. Isaiah, the forty-third chapter[^5]: *I am he who blots out your iniquities for my own sake*: therefore the deletion of guilt will be before the habit of grace.

2. Likewise, it is no less wicked to justify than to create[^6]; but God creates without a medium: therefore he also justifies.

3. Likewise, the fall was properly from innocence into guilt[^7]: therefore since the reformation should correspond to the deformation, man ought to be restored into pure innocence; but this is intermediate between guilt and grace: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, if grace expels guilt, [it does so] either when it [grace] is, or when it is not. If when it is; but the being of an accident is to be-in[^8]: therefore it expels guilt when it is in the subject; I ask: from what subject? Not from another's nor from its own, because the expelling of guilt is prior to the man's being made pleasing by grace. If when it is not; but nothing acts when it is not: therefore it does not expel.

5. Likewise, justification is a certain grace: therefore if [it is] from grace, likewise that [grace is] from another, and so on to infinity.

> **Conclusion.** God decreed to delete guilt through grace, which not only restores innocence, but also fits the weakened nature for good.

**I respond:** It must be said: since in every work of the Lord there is mercy and truth[^9], this most of all ought to be in a noble work, namely in the work of justification. Since therefore man sinned and merited nothing before the infusion of grace in God's sight, God by a just

<!-- page 419 -->

judgment does not wholly take away the effect of guilt, but rather leaves the penalty; and therefore he does not at once restore man to his former state. And since he is merciful, therefore he also renders a greater good, because [man] is in greater need; therefore he not only restores *innocence*, but also gives *grace*. Therefore, although God could delete guilt without a medium, he nevertheless decreed to delete [it] through grace, which would not only make [one] *innocent*, but also would *fit* the weakened nature *for good*. Hence the reasons for this are to be granted.

1. To that which is objected to the contrary, that God alone deletes; it must be said that it is true *effectively*, but grace itself deletes *formally*; God, however, is the perfective form of nothing[^10].

2. To that which is objected, that he alone creates; it must be said that it is not the same: because *to create* names a work which does not regard a recipient matter[^11]; but *to justify* regards a subject matter, and therefore regards not only the *efficient* cause, but also the *formal*.

3. To that which is objected, that guilt takes away innocence; it must be said that God did not decree to restore innocence without giving grace, by the reason previously given[^12].

4. To that which is asked: whether grace expels [guilt] when it is etc.; it must be said that when it is, it also is together [with the subject]. — To that which objects, that the being of an accident is to be-in; it must be said that grace is an accident and has its origin really from another than from its proper subject, namely from God[^13]. Hence it has a threefold relation: to the *principle* from which it proceeds; to the contrary *sin*, which it expels; to the *subject*, which it perfects; and all these relations are simultaneous in *time*, yet *by nature* grace is first related to the *principle* from which it proceeds, secondly to the *sin* which it expels, thirdly to the *subject* which it perfects. Hence properly speaking, grace is prior from the *efficient* [cause] than that it expel guilt, by *nature*. — And thus the reply to that [objection] is clear. For it objects concerning the being of grace, insofar as it *informs the subject*; but it is prior that grace be *created* by nature, than that the *subject be informed by grace*. Hence just as in the action and production of other forms we understand that the form is first had in the account of an *active power* rather than of an *informing quality*; so let it be understood in the matter proposed, yet the priority is not of *time*, but of *nature*.

<!-- page 420 -->

5. To that which is objected lastly, it must be said that grace is sometimes called a *habit*, sometimes an *act*, sometimes a *state* in a habit. But justification is called rather an *act* of grace or a *state*, than that it be called the *habit* itself. But why it is rather so named, will be seen below[^14].

la: [Page 418] Cap. 1. [scil. Ad Rom. 3.] — Vers. 24: *Iustificati gratis per* etc. — Plurimi codd. omittunt *a parte*; codd. FG *ipsi*.

en: [Page 418] Chapter 1 [i.e. Romans 3]. — Verse 24: *Justified freely through* etc. — Very many codices omit *a parte* [on the part of]; codices FG [read] *ipsi* [his].

en: Cf. II Sent. d. 26. q. 1. and d. 35. a. 1. and 2.

la: Particula *tunc* accipienda est pro *secus*. — Pro *in Deo* codd. FG *cum Deo*. Mox pro *inimicus* codd. IK *non unitus*, pro *Deo* codd. HPQ *Dei*, et pro *ante gratiam Deum* codd. HN aa clarius *ante Deum quam gratiam*, codd. RST *aliquam gratiam Domini*, edd. *gratiam Dei*.

en: The particle *tunc* [then] is to be taken for *secus* [otherwise]. — For *in Deo* codices FG [read] *cum Deo* [with God]. Presently, for *inimicus* codices IK [read] *non unitus* [not united], for *Deo* codices HPQ *Dei* [of God], and for *ante gratiam Deum* codices HN aa more clearly *ante Deum quam gratiam* [God before grace], codices RST *aliquam gratiam Domini* [some grace of the Lord], the editions *gratiam Dei* [the grace of God].

la: Vide infra d. 45. a. 1. q. 2.

en: See below d. 45. a. 1. q. 2.

la: Vers. 25: *Ego sum, ego sum ipse, qui* etc.

en: Verse 25: *I am, I am he myself, who* etc.

la: Secundum August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 72. n. 3. — Codd. omittunt *impium*.

en: According to Augustine, *On the Gospel of John*, tract. 72. n. 3. — The codices omit *impium* [wicked].

la: Cod. X addit *homo*. Inferius post *debet* multi codd. repetunt *ergo*, pro *puram* codd. OU *primam*.

en: Codex X adds *homo* [man]. Below, after *debet* many codices repeat *ergo* [therefore]; for *puram* codices OU [read] *primam* [first].

la: Ut insinuat Aristot., VII. Metaph. text. 2. (VI. c. 1.). Cfr. supra pag. 20, nota 9.

en: As Aristotle suggests, *Metaphysics* VII. text 2 (VI. c. 1.). Cf. above p. 20, note 9.

la: Psalm. 24, 10: *Universae viae Domini misericordia et veritas*. Cfr. infra d. 46. a. 2. q. 3. — Superius codd. TG pro *Dicendum, quia* bene *Dicendum, quod si*.

en: Psalm 24, 10: *All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth*. Cf. below d. 46. a. 2. q. 3. — Above, codices TG for *Dicendum, quia* [it must be said that, since] well [read] *Dicendum, quod si* [it must be said that, if].

la: Vide I. Sent. d. 17. p. I. q. 1. et II. Sent. d. 26. q. 2.

en: See I Sent. d. 17. p. I. q. 1. and II Sent. d. 26. q. 2.

la: Edd. *praeiacentem*.

en: The editions [read] *praeiacentem* [pre-existing].

la: Cfr. etiam supra pag. 43, nota 5.

en: Cf. also above p. 43, note 5.

la: Ut ostensum est II. Sent. d. 26. q. 3. — Post pauca verbis *ad principium* codd. EMRST interserunt *Deum*. — Cfr. infra a. 2. q. 1. ad 4.

en: As was shown II Sent. d. 26. q. 3. — A little later, into the words *ad principium* codices EMRST insert *Deum* [God]. — Cf. below a. 2. q. 1. ad 4.

la: Vide infra a. 2. q. 1.

en: See below a. 2. q. 1.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Principia hic, in seqq. quaestionibus et in Breviloq. p. V. c. 3. de iustificatione posita illustrantur et confirmantur mirabili doctrina Concilii Trident. in Sess. VI. — Quid sit *iustificatio*, vide hic q. 1. ad 5, infra dub. 4; II. Sent. d. 5. a. 3. ad 1, ubi duplex distinguitur iustificatio, prout terminus a quo (sive non-iustus) sumitur *negative*, vel *privative*. Ad eam a Scholasticis requiruntur quatuor: duo ex parte Dei, scilicet gratiae infusio et peccati remissio, et duo ex parte hominis, nempe motus liberi arbitrii et contritio. Ita infra q. 3. 4; II. Sent. d. 26. dub. 3, et Breviloq. p. V. c. 3; cfr. etiam infra a. 2. q. 1. S. Thom., S. I. II. q. 113. a. 6, et de Veritate q. 28. a. 1. Quo sensu eadem cadat sub merito, docetur hic dub. 4; d. 41. a. 1. q. 1; III. Sent. d. 19. a. 1. q. 1, d. 40. q. 2.

**II.** Circa 1. quaestionem notandum, quod *gratia* hic intelligitur gratia *habitualis* (vide supra d. 15. p. II. dub. 1.), quae « *formaliter* delet » peccatum (hic ad 1.); quod confirmatur a Concilio Trident. (Sess. VI. c. 7. et can. 11.). — Attamen etiam post hoc Concilium fuerant doctores catholici, qui cum Vasquez asseruerunt, in adultis *actum* contritionis perfectae, etiam praescindendo a *gratia habituali*, per se *iustificare*; quae sententia communiter improbatur, cum talis actus, licet eum semper sequatur iustificatio, ad eam concurrat non nisi *dispositive* et *meritorie* de congruo. — Libere disputatur inter theologos: *primo*, utrum forma gratiae sanctificantis iam ex natura sua *physica* formaliter expellat peccatum, an *tantum moraliter* sive ex Dei ordinatione; cum Scoto (supra d. 16. q. 2. n. 5; II. Sent. d. 29. n. 7.) Nominales aliique tenent contra scholam S. Thomae. Utroque modo gratiam peccato esse oppositam, S. Bonav. satis clare docet hic et II. Sent. d. 28. a. 1. q. 1; III. Sent. d. 10. a. 2. q. 2. ad 4; I. Sent. d. 14. a. 2. q. 2. ad 4, et Breviloq. loc. cit. — Item *secundo* controvertitur de *possibili*, utrum Deus absolute possit sine gratia illa *remittere culpam*, ut cum Scoto docet S. Bonav. (hic in corp., et II. Sent. d. 28. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6.); insuper, utrum in alio ordine providentiae possit simul stare gratia *materialiter* sumta cum statu peccati mortalis, ut putant Scotistae, refragantibus Thomistis. — Denique *tertio* non conveniunt scholae in solvenda quaestione hic in solut. ad 4. tacta, scilicet de *ordine prioritatis* inter quatuor, quae eodem tempore fiunt in iustificatione; de quo infra a. 2. q. 1. 2. plura ponuntur; cfr. etiam supra d. 14. p. I. a. 2. q. 3.

**III.** De eadem 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 17. m. 4. a. 6. § 1. — Scot., I. Sent. d. 17. q. 3; cfr. IV. Sent. d. 16. q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1; S. I. II. q. 113. a. 2; de Verit. q. 28. a. 2. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 10. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 2. — De hac et seq. q. Durand., hic q. 1, et Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

**IV.** De 2. quaestione cfr. Concil. Trident. (Sess. VI. c. 5. 6. can. 4. 9. 11.); Bonav. II. Sent. d. 26. dub. 3, ubi etiam explicatur, quare iustificatio modo tribuatur *fidei*, modo *gratiae*, modo *poenitentiae*. Haec quaestio est de praeparatione *tempore* praecedente. — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 3. — Scoti loci de hac et seq. q. collecti in Sum. Hieron. de Montefortino III. p. II. q. 113. a. 5. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. 3; S. loc. cit. a. 3. 4; de Verit. q. 28. a. 3. 4. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., de hac et seq. q. loc. cit. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

**V.** De 3. quaestione cfr. Concil. Trident. loc. cit. c. 6. can. 8. et Sess. XIV. c. 4. can. 4. 5. Insuper Bonav. infra a. 2. q. 2-4, et d. 16. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. scholion. — Item Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 2. et a. 2. 3. 4. — S. Thom., hic loc. cit. quaestiunc. 4; S. loc. cit. a. 5; de Verit. loc. cit. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

**VI.** Quaestionis 4. conclusio omnino intelligenda est de confessione *actu facta*, non de voto sive *proposito* confitendi, ut auctor ipse se explicat in solutt. ad 1-6. Hoc confirmatur doctrina Concilii Trident. (Sess. XIV. c. 4.): « Docet praeterea, etsi contritionem hanc aliquando caritate perfectam esse contingat hominemque Deo *reconciliare*, priusquam hoc Sacramentum actu suscipiatur; ipsam nihilominus reconciliationem ipsi contritioni *sine Sacramenti voto*, quod in illa includitur, non esse adscribendam » (cfr. Sess. VI. c. 14.). Opposita autem opinio Petri Oxomensis an. 1479 est damnata a Sixto IV, scilicet prop. 1: « Peccata mortalia quantum ad culpam et poenam alterius saeculi delentur per solam cordis contritionem sine ordine ad claves ». De doctrina S. Doctoris circa hanc rem male a pluribus intellecta vide infra scholion ad q. 4. articuli 2. — De eadem (4.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 18. m. 2. a. 1. 2. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 6. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 4. — Durand., hic q. 9. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The principles set down here, in the following questions, and in the *Breviloquium* p. V. c. 3 concerning justification are illustrated and confirmed by the admirable doctrine of the Council of Trent in Session VI. — What *justification* is, see here q. 1. ad 5, below dub. 4; II Sent. d. 5. a. 3. ad 1, where a twofold justification is distinguished, according as the terminus *a quo* (or non-just) is taken *negatively* or *privatively*. For it four things are required by the Scholastics: two on the part of God, namely the infusion of grace and the remission of sin, and two on the part of man, namely the movement of free will and contrition. Thus below q. 3. 4; II Sent. d. 26. dub. 3, and *Breviloquium* p. V. c. 3; cf. also below a. 2. q. 1. St. Thomas, *Summa* I. II. q. 113. a. 6, and *On Truth* q. 28. a. 1. In what sense the same falls under merit is taught here dub. 4; d. 41. a. 1. q. 1; III Sent. d. 19. a. 1. q. 1, d. 40. q. 2.

**II.** Concerning the 1st question it is to be noted that *grace* here is understood as *habitual* grace (see above d. 15. p. II. dub. 1.), which "*formally* deletes" sin (here ad 1.); which is confirmed by the Council of Trent (Sess. VI. c. 7. and can. 11.). — Yet even after this Council there had been Catholic doctors who with Vasquez asserted that in adults the *act* of perfect contrition, even prescinding from *habitual grace*, *justifies* of itself; which opinion is commonly disapproved, since such an act, although justification always follows upon it, concurs to it only *dispositively* and *meritoriously* by congruity. — It is freely disputed among theologians: *first*, whether the form of sanctifying grace already from its *physical* nature formally expels sin, or *only morally* or from God's ordination; with Scotus (above d. 16. q. 2. n. 5; II Sent. d. 29. n. 7.) the Nominalists and others hold against the school of St. Thomas. That grace is opposed to sin in both ways, St. Bonaventure teaches clearly enough here and II Sent. d. 28. a. 1. q. 1; III Sent. d. 10. a. 2. q. 2. ad 4; I Sent. d. 14. a. 2. q. 2. ad 4, and *Breviloquium* loc. cit. — Likewise *secondly* it is controverted concerning the *possible*, whether God absolutely can without that grace *remit guilt*, as with Scotus St. Bonaventure teaches (here in the body, and II Sent. d. 28. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6.); moreover, whether in another order of providence grace taken *materially* could stand together with the state of mortal sin, as the Scotists think, the Thomists opposing. — Finally *thirdly* the schools do not agree in solving the question touched here in the solution ad 4, namely concerning the *order of priority* among the four [things] which happen at the same time in justification; concerning which more is set down below a. 2. q. 1. 2.; cf. also above d. 14. p. I. a. 2. q. 3.

**III.** On the same 1st question: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 17. m. 4. a. 6. § 1. — Scotus, I Sent. d. 17. q. 3; cf. IV Sent. d. 16. q. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 3. subquestion 1; *Summa* I. II. q. 113. a. 2; *On Truth* q. 28. a. 2. — Bl. Albert, on this and the following question, here a. 10. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3. a. 3. subquestion 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4. q. 2. — On this and the following question Durandus, here q. 1, and Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

**IV.** On the 2nd question cf. the Council of Trent (Sess. VI. c. 5. 6. can. 4. 9. 11.); Bonaventure, II Sent. d. 26. dub. 3, where it is also explained why justification is now attributed to *faith*, now to *grace*, now to *penitence*. This question is concerning the preparation preceding in *time*. — On the same question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 3. — Scotus' places on this and the following question are collected in the *Summa* of Hieronymus de Montefortino III. p. II. q. 113. a. 5. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 3. subquestion 2. 3; *Summa* loc. cit. a. 3. 4; *On Truth* q. 28. a. 3. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. subquestion 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, on this and the following question, loc. cit. q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

**V.** On the 3rd question cf. the Council of Trent loc. cit. c. 6. can. 8. and Sess. XIV. c. 4. can. 4. 5. Moreover Bonaventure below a. 2. q. 2-4, and d. 16. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. scholion. — Likewise Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 2. and a. 2. 3. 4. — St. Thomas, here loc. cit. subquestion 4; *Summa* loc. cit. a. 5; *On Truth* loc. cit. a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. subquestion 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

**VI.** The conclusion of the 4th question is to be understood entirely of confession *actually made*, not of the vow or *purpose* of confessing, as the author himself explains in the solutions ad 1-6. This is confirmed by the doctrine of the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV. c. 4.): "It teaches besides, that although this contrition may sometimes happen to be made perfect by charity and to reconcile man to God, before this Sacrament be actually received; nevertheless that reconciliation is not to be ascribed to the contrition itself *without the vow of the Sacrament*, which is included in it" (cf. Sess. VI. c. 14.). But the opposite opinion of Peter of Osma in the year 1479 was condemned by Sixtus IV, namely proposition 1: "Mortal sins, as to guilt and the penalty of the other world, are deleted through contrition of heart alone, without order to the keys." Concerning the doctrine of the holy Doctor on this matter, badly understood by many, see below the scholion to q. 4. of article 2. — On the same (4th) question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. q. 18. m. 2. a. 1. 2. — Scotus, in both Writings here a single question. — St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 1. subquestion 1; *Suppl.* q. 6. a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 2. subquestion 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 4. — Durandus, here q. 9. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 418–420; pdf pp. 438–440 at +20; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 47245–47488) as base for the clean videtur/contra running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The Respondeo, replies, all footers, and the scholion were cascade-shattered / two-column-bled in OCR and taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** Page-verify PASSES on all three pages. p.418 recto bears the COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVII, PARS I header (the DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM held by the d.17-p1-divisio chunk, NOT here), then ARTICULUS I, *De his quae necessaria sunt ad iustificationem impii absolute*, then QUAESTIO I, *Utrum ad iustificationem impii necessaria sit gratiae infusio*, with the body opening "Circa primum, quod necessaria sit gratiae infusio, videtur." This matches the assigned title. The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM ("Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor: Primo... gratiae infusio; Secundo... motus liberi arbitrii; Tertio... contritio; Quarto... confessio") confirms q1 = gratiae infusio. p.419-L running head = "DIST. XVII. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. I."; p.419-R = "...QUAEST. I. 419". p.420-L = "420 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p.420-R = "...ENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (the scholion ends and QUAESTIO II opens at the foot of p.420). Aligned.

**Articulus-opener fold.** Per the locked chunking convention, the short ARTICULUS I opener is folded here: its only content is the article title *De his quae necessaria sunt ad iustificationem impii absolute* (the "quaeruntur quatuor / Primo–Quarto" enumeration is the pars-level TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM and lives in the divisio chunk). No standalone a1-divisio chunk.

**Page span.** Body (videtur 1–4 + contra 1–5 + Conclusio + Respondeo opening) on p.418 → p.419; the Respondeo, replies 1–4, run through p.419 and the final reply 5 (gratia = habitus/actus/status) finishes at the top of p.420 ("...infra videbitur."). The Articulus I scholion (I–VI) follows on p.420 (sections span L+R columns), ending immediately before QUAESTIO II's body. printed_pages = [418, 419, 420].

**Apparatus / footer-ownership.** 14 rendered footnotes, all paired in both bodies. Quaracchi per-page restart: **p.418** has 4 footer entries (1=Plurimi codd. omittunt *a parte*; 2=codd. FG *ipsi*; 3=Cap. 1.; 4=Vers. 24), ALL anchored to the single Romans-3 citation in videtur 1, so they are gathered into one body footnote [^1]. **p.419** footers 1–13 → [^2] (n1=gratum facientem/Cfr. II Sent. d.26), [^3] (n2=*tunc* pro *secus* + the *in Deo*/*inimicus* variant cluster), [^4] (n3=duo loca gloriae et poenae/Vide infra d.45), [^5] (n4=Isaiae/Vers.25), [^6] (n5=creare/August. in Ioan.), [^7] (n6=lapsus/Cod.X *homo*), [^8] (n7=accidentis esse/Aristot. Metaph.), [^9] (n8=misericordia et veritas/Psalm 24), [^10] (n9=Deus nullius forma/I Sent. d.17), [^11] (n10=materiam recipientem/edd. *praeiacentem*), [^12] (n11=ratione prius habita/supra pag.43), [^13] (n12=a Deo/II Sent. d.26 + EMRST *Deum*), [^14] (n13=infra a.2.q.1.ad 4). **p.420** footers (¹ Dub. 4; ² Vide supra pag. 327, nota 2; ³ Cap. 1. n. 2 = Bernardus *de Libero Arbitrio*) anchor in QUAESTIO II's body (which opens at the foot of p.420) and are owned by the q2 chunk, NOT here. The scholion uses inline back-references only (no numbered footers).

**Scholion disposition (★ ownership).** This chunk OWNS the Articulus I scholion in full. It is question-keyed and covers ALL FOUR questions of Articulus I (q1 gratiae infusio · q2 motus liberi arbitrii · q3 contritio · q4 confessio): **I** = general principles of justification tied to q1 (Trent Sess. VI; the four Scholastic requisites; what justification is); **II** = "Circa 1. quaestionem notandum" — habitual grace, the *formaliter delet* doctrine, and the three free controversies (physical vs moral expulsion · God's absolute power to remit without grace · order of priority); **III** = "De eadem 1. quaestione" parallel-author list (q1); **IV** = "De 2. quaestione" (q2 = motus liberi arbitrii) + author list; **V** = "De 3. quaestione" (q3 = contritio) + author list (cross-refs d.16 p.I a.1 q.1 scholion); **VI** = "Quaestionis 4. conclusio" (q4 = confessio) — the Trent Sess. XIV confession-vs-vow doctrine, the Peter-of-Osma condemnation by Sixtus IV, + author list. Rendered in full (both languages), body-first / scholion-last per the parser gotcha. Printed at the foot of p.420 (L→R columns), ending immediately before QUAESTIO II's body. Sibling questions a1-q2, a1-q3, a1-q4 render `has_scholion: false` and point here. No second distinct scholion block appears within q1's raw range.

**Hand-off to q2.** QUAESTIO II ("Utrum ad iustificationem sit necessarius motus liberi arbitrii", raw 47489) opens at the foot of p.420 L-column, right after this scholion. Its body's footers begin with p.420 ¹ Dub. 4 / ² Vide supra pag. 327, nota 2 / ³ Cap. 1. n. 2 (Bernardus *de Libero Arbitrio*) — these THREE p.420 footers migrate to q2's body, NOT here. q2's first arguments (visible on p.420): 1. Augustinus « Qui creavit te sine te, non iustificat te sine te »; 2. Bernardus de Libero Arbitrio « Opus salutis duo requirit, id est Deum dantem et liberum arbitrium recipiens et consentiens »; 3. Item, ratione videtur. The d.17-p1-divisio chunk holds the pars DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM that precedes raw line 47245.

**`[?]` flags.** None — all readings resolved against the PDF bands. OCR garbles silently corrected per CLAUDE.md (e.g. `iuslificati`/`luslificati`→`iustificati`, `privalio`→`privatio`, `delelione`→`deletione`, `inmicus`/`inimicus`→`inimicus`, `effe-ctive`→`effective`, `recipienlem`→`recipientem`, `comparalionem`→`comparationem`, `naluraliter`→`naturaliter`, `slalus`→`status`, `Vers. 23`→`Vers. 25` corrected against the p.419 band).


title: Dist. 17, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 420 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum ad iustificationem sit necessarius motus liberi arbitrii.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum ad iustificationem sit necessarius motus liberi arbitrii. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Augustinus[^1]: « Qui creavit te sine te non iustificat te sine te »: ergo necessario ad iustificationem requiritur eius motus.

2. Item, Bernardus, *de Libero Arbitrio*[^2]: « Opus salutis duo requirit, id est Deum dantem et liberum arbitrium recipiens et consentiens »[^3]: ergo necessario concurrit opus liberi arbitrii.

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia Deus, quantum est de se, semper paratus est iustificare hominem: ergo quod homo modo iustificetur et non prius, non est secundum variationem ex parte Dei, sed a

<!-- page 421 -->

parte hominis; sed adultus iustificatur sine aliqua variatione circa sensum: ergo necesse est, quod sit variatio circa liberum arbitrium.

4. Item, Deus plus exigit ab homine, qui plus potest, ergo plus ab adulto quam parvulo, cum plus possit; sed illud quod exigit, non potest minus esse quam motus liberi arbitrii: ergo ad iustificationem illum exigit.

**Contra:** 1. Iustificatio est per virtutem; sed « virtus est bona qualitas mentis, quam Deus in nobis sine nobis operatur[^4] »: ergo etc.

2. Item, in iustificatione accedit homo ad Deum; sed Ioannis sexto[^5]: *Nemo venit ad me, nisi traxerit eum Pater*; sed tractus est motus violentus, et libero arbitrio non potest inferri violentia: ergo non est ibi motus liberi arbitrii.

3. Item, potentius agens est Deus quam aliquod agens creatum; sed agens creatum sine aliqua cooperatione suscipientis expellit oppositum, ut patet in luce, quae expellit tenebram sine aliqua cooperatione aeris: ergo etc.

Item, quaero, quis sit ille motus: cum enim omnis motus meritorius sit a libero arbitrio[^6], videtur, quod ille possit esse cuiuslibet virtutis.

> **Conclusio.** Ad iustificationem in adulto requiritur motus liberi arbitrii consentiens gratiae, qui est motus fidei.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut iustificatio non est nisi volentis, sic etiam non dat eam Deus nisi volenti, dum sit in tali statu, quod consentire et dissentire possit. Ideo ad susceptionem iustificationis in adulto requiritur motus liberi arbitrii, secundum quem consentit gratiae. Et quia primus motus per quem consentit gratiae est motus fidei, ideo motus ille est motus fidei. Unde ad Romanos quinto[^7]: *Iustificati per fidem*; Glossa: « Id est, ex motu liberi arbitrii, qui est ex fide ». Ideo dicitur, Actuum decimo quinto: *Fide purificans corda*, quia motus fidei primo requiritur ad purificationem.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Deus operatur virtutem sine nobis[^8]; dicendum, quod verum est sine nobis efficientibus, non tamen sine nobis disponentibus vel consentientibus.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deus trahit; dicendum, quod est trahi per coactionem, et sic non trahit; et est trahi per inductionem et sublevationem, et sic trahit, quia inducit et etiam sublevat hominem ad illud, ad quod per se non potest pertingere[^9].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deus est potentissimus; dicendum, quod hoc non est propter impotentiam ex parte Dei, sed propter congruentiam in agendo. Non enim facit Deus quidquid potest, sed quod decet et quod congruit; et decens est, quod imprimat formam in materiam, sicut convenit formae et materiae suscipienti; et forma est iustitia, quae est libertatis; et materia similiter est voluntas libera, libera in agendo et recipiendo[^10]; et ideo non datur sine actu eius, cum quo nata est agere.

Ad illud quod quaeritur de illo motu, quis sit; dicendum, quod, sicut Glossa dicit expresse, quae prius habita est ad Romanos quinto[^11], ille est motus fidei. Liberum enim arbitrium est facultas voluntatis et rationis; et gratia adveniens utramque potentiam facit in actu, ut ratio sit in actu credendi, qui est fidei, et voluntas in actu detestandi, qui est contritionis[^12].

english:
### Question II. *Whether for justification a movement of free will is necessary.*

Secondly it is asked whether for justification a movement of free will is necessary. And that it is, seems [to be the case].

1. Augustine[^1]: "He who created you without you does not justify you without you": therefore for justification a movement of his [free will] is necessarily required.

2. Likewise, Bernard, *On Free Will*[^2]: "The work of salvation requires two things, that is, God who gives and free will receiving and consenting"[^3]: therefore the work of free will necessarily concurs.

3. Likewise, by reason it seems [so]: because God, as far as he himself is concerned, is always ready to justify a man: therefore that a man is justified now and not earlier is not according to a variation on the part of God, but on

the part of the man; but an adult is justified without any variation as to sense: therefore it is necessary that there be a variation as to free will.

4. Likewise, God demands more from a man who is more capable, therefore more from an adult than from an infant, since he is more capable; but that which he demands cannot be less than a movement of free will: therefore for justification he demands it.

**On the contrary:** 1. Justification is through virtue; but "virtue is a good quality of the mind, which God works in us without us[^4]": therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in justification a man approaches God; but in John six[^5]: *No one comes to me unless the Father draws him*; but being drawn is a violent movement, and violence cannot be inflicted on free will: therefore there is no movement of free will there.

3. Likewise, God is a more powerful agent than any created agent; but a created agent, without any cooperation of the recipient, expels its opposite, as is evident in light, which expels darkness without any cooperation of the air: therefore etc.

Likewise, I ask what that movement is: for since every meritorious movement is from free will[^6], it seems that it could be [a movement] of any virtue whatever.

> **Conclusion.** For justification in an adult there is required a movement of free will consenting to grace, which is the movement of faith.

**I respond:** It must be said that, just as justification belongs only to one willing it, so too God does not give it except to one willing, provided he be in such a state that he can consent and dissent. Therefore for the reception of justification in an adult there is required a movement of free will, according to which he consents to grace. And because the first movement by which he consents to grace is the movement of faith, therefore that movement is the movement of faith. Hence to the Romans five[^7]: *Justified by faith*; the Gloss: "That is, by the movement of free will, which is from faith." Therefore it is said, in Acts fifteen: *Purifying their hearts by faith*, because the movement of faith is required first for purification.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that God works virtue without us[^8]; it must be said that this is true without us as efficient [causes], yet not without us as disposing or consenting.

2. To that which is objected, that God draws; it must be said that there is a being-drawn through coercion, and thus he does not draw; and there is a being-drawn through inducement and uplifting, and thus he draws, because he induces and even uplifts a man to that to which by himself he cannot attain[^9].

3. To that which is objected, that God is most powerful; it must be said that this is not on account of any impotence on the part of God, but on account of fittingness in acting. For God does not do whatever he can, but what is becoming and what is fitting; and it is fitting that he impress a form upon matter, as befits the form and the matter that receives it; and the form is justice, which belongs to freedom; and the matter likewise is the free will, free in acting and in receiving[^10]; and therefore it is not given without an act of it, with which it is born to act.

To that which is asked about that movement, what it is; it must be said that, as the Gloss expressly states, which was cited above on the Romans five[^11], it is the movement of faith. For free will is a faculty of will and reason; and grace, when it comes, brings both powers into act, so that reason is in the act of believing, which is [the act] of faith, and the will is in the act of detesting, which is [the act] of contrition[^12].

la: Dub. 4.

en: [See] Doubt 4 [of this article, below].

la: Vide supra pag. 327, nota 2.

en: See above, p. 327, note 2.

en: Ch. 1, n. 2. For the words see above, p. 112, note 1.

la: Secundum August. a Magistro, II. Sent. d. XXVII. c. 5, allegatum. Cfr. ibid. dub. 3.

en: [Drawn] from Augustine by the Master, cited in II. Sent., d. XXVII, c. 5. Cf. ibid., doubt 3.

la: Vers. 44: *Nemo potest venire ad me, nisi Pater, qui misit me, traxerit eum.* Cfr. tom. II. pag. 618, nota 2, ubi etiam sententia Aristotelis de *tractu* invenitur.

en: Verse 44: *No one can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him.* Cf. vol. II, p. 618, note 2, where also the opinion of Aristotle concerning "drawing" is found.

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 892, nota 2; tom. III. pag. 350, nota 9. et pag. 381, nota 1. — Pro *quis* hic et in solut. cod. H *quid.*

en: Cf. vol. II, p. 892, note 2; vol. III, p. 350, note 9, and p. 381, note 1. — For *quis* ["what"], here and in the solution, codex H reads *quid.*

la: Vers. 1: *Iustificati ergo ex fide.* In Glossariis Strabi, Petri Lombardi et Lyrani in hunc loc. glossa allegata sic non habetur. Apud Petr. Lombard.: *Quia ex fide est iustificatio.* Cfr. II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXVI. c. 3. seqq. et d. XXVII. c. 5. et 9. — Seq. textus est Act. 13, 9.

en: Verse 1: *Justified therefore by faith.* In the Glosses of Strabo, of Peter Lombard, and of Lyra on this passage, the gloss cited is not found thus. In Peter Lombard: *Because justification is from faith.* Cf. II. Sent., letter of the Master, d. XXVI, c. 3 ff., and d. XXVII, c. 5 and 9. — The following text is Acts 13:9.

la: Cod. X addit *in nobis.*

en: Codex X adds *in nobis* ["in us"].

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 25. p. II. q. 5. ad 1. 2. 3. — Pro *hominem* cod. K *rationem.*

en: Cf. II. Sent., d. 25, p. II, q. 5, to [objections] 1, 2, 3. — For *hominem* ["man"] codex K reads *rationem* ["reason"].

la: Vide II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXV. c. 8.

en: See II. Sent., letter of the Master, d. XXV, c. 8.

la: Vers. 1. — De libero arbitrio cfr. II. Sent. d. 25. p. I. q. 2. seqq.

en: Verse 1. — On free will, cf. II. Sent., d. 25, p. I, q. 2 ff.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

latin_scholion:
*Vide scholion ad quaestionem I huius articuli (bon-sent-IV-d17-p1-a1-q1, §§ I–VI), quod totum articulum I quaestiones I–IV complectitur.*
*See the scholion to Question I of this article (bon-sent-IV-d17-p1-a1-q1, §§ I–VI), which covers all four questions of Article I.*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 47489–47611) and cross-checked column-by-column against the vol4 PDF bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p420-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `vol4-p421-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (pdf = printed + 20). Running heads confirm DIST. XVII. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. II (p. 420) and QUAEST. III (p. 421); q2's body straddles the p. 420/421 boundary and ends just before QUAESTIO III ("Utrum ad iustificationem necessaria sit contritio").

**Page-footer split (Vol II Override step 4).** Two footer sequences feed this chunk:
- **p. 420** footers nos. 1–3 (`Dub. 4.` / `Vide supra pag. 327, nota 2.` / `Cap. 1. n. 2. Verba vide supra pag. 112, nota 1.`) anchor on q2's args 1–2 and were flagged for hand-off by the q1 writer — claimed here as chunk footnotes [^1]–[^3].
- **p. 421** footers nos. 1–9 anchor on q2's args 3–4, Contra, Respondeo, and solutio — rendered as chunk footnotes [^4]–[^12]. Page-421 footer no. 10 (`Psalm. 50, 19. — Glossam exhibet Petr. Lombard...`) belongs to QUAESTIO III and is NOT claimed here.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. The Article I scholion (§§ I–VI) covers q1–q4 collectively and is rendered in full with QUAESTIO I (`bon-sent-IV-d17-p1-a1-q1`). A one-line bilingual cross-reference note stands in the Scholion slot here. (Footnote [^12] / p.421 footer no. 9, "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.", confirms the scholion is anchored at the prior question.)

**[?] flags.** None. All twelve footers read cleanly against OCR + PDF. Minor OCR garbles silently corrected: `salulis`→`salutis`, `Beriiardus`→`Bernardus`, `iustificetur`→`iustificetur`, `iustificetur`/`iustiflcetur`→`iustificetur`, `mentis`/`menlis`→`mentis`, `ahquod`→`aliquod`, `cuiushbet`/`cuiuslibet`→`cuiuslibet`, `coactionem`/`coaclionem`→`coactionem`, `materm`→`materia`, `hbera`→`libera`, `Acluum`→`Actuum`.

**Hand-off to q3 (`bon-sent-IV-d17-p1-a1-q3`).** QUAESTIO III ("Utrum ad iustificationem necessaria sit contritio") opens on p. 421 (raw line 47584) and runs onto p. 422. Its own footer sequence begins with p.421 footer no. 10 (`Psalm. 50, 19. — Glossam exhibet Petr. Lombard., quae est secundum Cassiod. in hunc loc.`) for the *Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus* fundamentum — q3 should claim that note plus the full p.422 footer block. No body text is shared across the q2/q3 seam (q2 ends a complete clause; q3 begins a fresh *Tertio quaeritur*).


title: Dist. 17, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 421 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum ad iustificationem necessaria sit contritio.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum ad iustificationem necessaria sit contritio. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Super illud Psalmi[^1]: *Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus*; Glossa: «Spiritus contribulatus et contritus est sacrificium, in quo peccata solvuntur».

<!-- page 422 -->

2. Item, super illud Psalmi[^2]: *Iustitia ante eum ambulabit*; Glossa Augustini: «Prima hominis iustitia est, ut puniat se malum et faciat se bonum; haec est via Deo, ut veniat ad eum».

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia impossibile est peccatorem iustificari, quin sequatur poena satisfactoria; sed possibile est, ipsum statim mori, et nulla erit poena satisfactoria nisi voluntarie inchoata in vita, sicut dicit Augustinus[^3]: ergo necesse est, quod in ipso actu iustificationis sit motus poenalis. Sed hic non est nisi contritio; ergo etc.

4. Item, sicut culpa voluntate est introducta, sic etiam conservatur per ipsam: ergo si liberum arbitrium, ex quo semel consensit, semper habetur pro consentiente, nisi dissentiat; necesse est dissentire; sed dissensus eius ante adventum gratiae nihil potest[^4]: ergo oportet, quod dissentiat cum gratia.

5. Item, aliquid plus requiritur in iustificatione eius qui post fidem peccavit, ultra motum fidei[^5]; sed hoc non est nisi contritio: ergo etc.

**Sed contra:** 1. Ecclesiastici primo[^6]: *Timor Domini expellit peccatum*: ergo potest fieri secundum hoc iustificatio sive peccati expulsio motu timoris: non ergo necesse est, quod contritionis.

2. Item, super illud Lucae septimo[^7]: *Dimittuntur ei peccata multa* etc.; Glossa: «Ardor caritatis peccatorum rubiginem in ea consumsit»: ergo non oportet, quod sit dolor.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia duae sunt partes[^8] iustitiae, scilicet facere bonum et declinare a malo; sed prima est maior: ergo multo magis se disponit homo ad gratiam faciendo bonum quam vitando malum: ergo magis appetitu boni quam detestatione mali.

4. Item, cum quis iustificatus est, potest moveri motu omnis virtutis: cum ergo motus omnis virtutis sit gratiae cognatus, motus cuiuslibet virtutis informis disponit ad gratiam: non ergo necessaria est contritio.

5. Item, possibile est, aliquem a Deo averti, nihil de ipso cogitando: ergo similiter possibile est, aliquem a peccato recedere, nihil cogitando de peccato: ergo absque contritione.

<!-- page 422 -->

> **Conclusio.** *Ad iustificationem impii est necessaria contritio, ut voluntas concordet gratiae ut advenienti et ut peccatum expellenti.*

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc dicunt aliqui, quod iustificatio tripliciter dicitur. Uno modo dicitur iustificatio ad iustitiam praeparatio; et huic necessaria est attritio vel dolor. Alio modo iustitiae infusio; et huic necessaria est infusio gratiae et expulsio culpae. Tertio modo iustificatio est in iustitia exercitatio; et huic necessaria sunt duo a gratia et duo ab anima, scilicet motus liberi arbitrii et contritio. Et dicunt, verbum Augustini[^8a] de ista iustificatione intelligi: *Qui creavit te* etc.

Sed certe, si ad hoc, quod gratia infundatur, necesse est, quod homo se praeparet consentiendo gratiae et detestando peccatum; necesse est, in ipsa gratiae infusione ista quatuor esse, scilicet gratiae infusionem et liberi arbitrii motum, et contritionem et peccati expulsionem. Deus enim expellit culpam infundendo gratiam; sed non infundit nisi ei qui concordat, et necesse est concordare gratiae advenienti et peccatum expellenti. Gratiae ut[^9] advenienti concordat per motum liberi arbitrii, gratiae ut peccatum expellenti, per motum contritionis. Unde duo sunt ibi a Deo, scilicet gratiae infusio et peccati expulsio; et duo a nobis his duobus modis consona. — Et haec quatuor tanguntur in illo versiculo Psalmi[^10]: *Commovisti terram et conturbasti eam; sana contritiones eius, quia commota est.* Gratia enim adveniens in animam commovet rationem, secundum quod est pars liberi arbitrii, et conturbat voluntatem per contritionem, et postmodum sanat per peccati expulsionem. Et ratio huius redditur, quia praecessit duplex commotio, per quam anima ipsa se gratiae iustificanti conformavit; et ideo subiungit: *quia commota est.* — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes ad hanc partem inductae.

**Ad illud vero quod obiicitur in contrarium**, quod motu timoris et amoris contingit iustificari; dicendum, quod in peccato tria sunt, scilicet actio mala et ipsa interior macula et sequela.

<!-- page 423 -->

Actio mala expellitur timore, macula dolore, sequela caritatis ardore. Unde timor est in iustificatione, ut dicitur praeparatio ad iustitiam, dolor ut infusio iustitiae, caritatis ardor in consummatione[^11].

*Ad illud* quod obiicitur, quod melius est facere bonum etc.; dicendum, quod revera melius est, sed tamen non est ita consonum gratiae delenti culpam, ut detestatio peccati; et quia contritio propter consonantiam est necessaria: ideo etc.

*Ad illud* quod obiicitur, quod quilibet motus virtutis est cognatus gratiae; dicendum, quod verum est; tamen ordo est in actibus virtutum. Nunquam enim amat quis, nisi moveatur motu fidei[^12]; sic dico, quod motus virtutis poenitentiae in iustificatione post motum fidei est motus primus necessario, et ideo simul est cum ipsa gratiae infusione.

*Ad illud* quod obiicitur, quod potest quis averti a Deo, nihil cogitando; dicendum, quod non valet, tum quia recessus a Deo est inordinatus, sed regressus ordinatus — exemplum est de eo qui cadit de scala — tum quia plura exiguntur ad bonum quam ad malum[^13].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether for justification contrition is necessary.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether for justification contrition is necessary. And that it is so, it seems.

1. Upon that text of the Psalm[^1]: *A sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit*; the Gloss: «A troubled and contrite spirit is the sacrifice in which sins are loosed».

2. Likewise, upon that text of the Psalm[^2]: *Justice shall walk before him*; the Gloss of Augustine: «The first justice of a man is that he should punish himself as evil and make himself good; this is the way to God, that He may come to him».

3. Likewise, it seems by *reason*: for it is impossible that a sinner be justified without a satisfactory penalty following; but it is possible for him to die at once, and there will be no satisfactory penalty unless voluntarily begun in this life, as Augustine says[^3]: therefore it is necessary that in the very act of justification there be a penal motion. But this is nothing other than contrition; therefore etc.

4. Likewise, just as fault was introduced by the will, so too it is preserved by it: therefore if free choice, from the moment it once consented, is always held as consenting, unless it dissents; it is necessary to dissent; but its dissent before the coming of grace avails nothing[^4]: therefore it behooves that it dissent together with grace.

5. Likewise, something more is required in the justification of one who has sinned after [receiving] faith, beyond the motion of faith[^5]; but this is nothing other than contrition: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Ecclesiasticus the first[^6]: *The fear of the Lord driveth out sin*: therefore according to this, justification or the expulsion of sin can come about by a motion of fear: it is not therefore necessary that [it come about by a motion] of contrition.

2. Likewise, upon that text of Luke the seventh[^7]: *Many sins are forgiven her* etc.; the Gloss: «The ardor of charity consumed in her the rust of sins»: therefore it is not necessary that there be sorrow.

3. Likewise, it seems by *reason*: for there are two parts[^8] of justice, namely to do good and to turn away from evil; but the first is the greater: therefore much more does a man dispose himself to grace by doing good than by avoiding evil: therefore more by the appetite for good than by the detestation of evil.

4. Likewise, when one has been justified, he can be moved by a motion of every virtue: since therefore the motion of every virtue is akin to grace, the motion of any unformed virtue disposes to grace: it is not therefore necessary [that there be] contrition.

5. Likewise, it is possible for someone to be turned away from God while thinking nothing of Him: therefore likewise it is possible for someone to withdraw from sin while thinking nothing of the sin: therefore without contrition.

> **Conclusion.** *For the justification of the impious, contrition is necessary, that the will may accord with grace both as coming and as expelling sin.*

**I respond:** To this some say that justification is spoken of in three ways. In one way justification is called the preparation for justice; and for this attrition or sorrow is necessary. In another way [it is] the infusion of justice; and for this the infusion of grace and the expulsion of fault are necessary. In a third way justification is the exercise in justice; and for this two things from grace and two from the soul are necessary, namely the motion of free choice and contrition. And they say that the saying of Augustine[^8a] is to be understood of this [last] justification: *He who created thee* etc.

But certainly, if for this — that grace be infused — it is necessary that a man prepare himself by consenting to grace and detesting sin; it is necessary that in the very infusion of grace these four be present, namely the infusion of grace and the motion of free choice, and contrition and the expulsion of sin. For God expels fault by infusing grace; but He does not infuse it except in the one who accords [with it], and it is necessary to accord with grace as coming and as expelling sin. With grace as[^9] coming one accords by the motion of free choice; with grace as expelling sin, by the motion of contrition. Hence there are two things there from God, namely the infusion of grace and the expulsion of sin; and two from us consonant with these two modes. — And these four are touched upon in that little verse of the Psalm[^10]: *Thou hast moved the earth and hast troubled it; heal thou the breaches thereof, for it has been moved.* For grace, coming into the soul, moves reason, according as it is a part of free choice, and troubles the will through contrition, and afterward heals through the expulsion of sin. And the reason for this is given, because a twofold disturbance preceded, through which the soul itself conformed itself to the justifying grace; and therefore it adds: *for it has been moved.* — Therefore the reasons brought forward for this side are to be granted.

**But to that which is objected on the contrary**, that it happens that one is justified by a motion of fear and of love; it must be said that in sin there are three things, namely the evil action and the interior stain itself and the consequence.

The evil action is expelled by fear, the stain by sorrow, the consequence by the ardor of charity. Hence fear is in justification, as it is called the preparation for justice, sorrow as the infusion of justice, the ardor of charity in the consummation[^11].

*To that* which is objected, that it is better to do good etc.; it must be said that in truth it is better, but nevertheless it is not so consonant with grace as it blots out fault as the detestation of sin [is]; and because contrition is necessary on account of [this] consonance: therefore etc.

*To that* which is objected, that any motion of virtue is akin to grace; it must be said that this is true; yet there is an order in the acts of the virtues. For one never loves unless he be moved by a motion of faith[^12]; thus I say that the motion of the virtue of penitence in justification, after the motion of faith, is necessarily the first motion, and therefore it is simultaneous with the very infusion of grace.

*To that* which is objected, that one can be turned away from God while thinking nothing; it must be said that it does not hold, both because the departure from God is disordered, but the return is ordered — the example is of one who falls from a ladder — and because more is required for good than for evil[^13].

---

la: Psalm. 50, 19. — Glossam exhibet Petr. Lombard., quae est secundum Cassiod. in hunc loc.

en: Psalm 50:19. — Peter Lombard supplies the Gloss, which is according to Cassiodorus on this passage.

la: Psalm. 84, 14. — August. Enarrat. in Ps. 84. n. 16: «Ipsa est prima hominis iustitia, ut punias te malum, et faciat te Deus bonum. Quia ergo ipsa est prima hominis iustitia, ipsa fit via Deo, ut veniat ad te Deus: ibi illi fac viam in confessione peccatorum». S. Bonav. Glossam exhibet, ut habetur apud Petr. Lombard.

en: Psalm 84:14. — Augustine, *Enarrationes in Psalmos*, on Ps. 84, n. 16: «This itself is the first justice of a man, that thou punish thyself as evil, and that God make thee good. Since therefore this is the first justice of a man, it itself becomes the way for God, that God may come to thee: there make a way for Him in the confession of sins». St. Bonaventure supplies the Gloss, as it is found in Peter Lombard.

la: Cfr. Serm. 22. (alias 109. de Tempore) c. 3. n. 3; Serm. 351. (alias ult. inter Homil. 50) c. 4. n. 9. et c. 5. n. 12; XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 24. n. 4; de Fide ad Petrum (inter opera August.), c. 3. n. 38. seqq., et de Vera et falsa Poenitentia, c. 17. n. 33. seq. Vide etiam Hug. a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. XIV. c. 3.

en: Cf. Sermon 22 (otherwise 109, *de Tempore*) c. 3, n. 3; Sermon 351 (otherwise the last among the 50 *Homiliae*) c. 4, n. 9, and c. 5, n. 12; *City of God* XXI, c. 24, n. 4; *On Faith, to Peter* (among the works of Augustine), c. 3, n. 38 ff., and *On True and False Penitence*, c. 17, n. 33 f. See also Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II, p. XIV, c. 3.

la: Respectu iustificationis, quae est gratuita et supernaturalis. — In principio arg. pro *voluntate* plurimi codd. incongrue *voluntarie*.

en: With respect to justification, which is gratuitous and supernatural. — At the beginning of the argument, for *voluntate* (by the will) very many codices incongruously [read] *voluntarie* (voluntarily).

la: Qui, ut dictum est quaest. praeced., est primus motus consentiens gratiae.

en: Which, as was said in the preceding question, is the first motion consenting to grace.

la: Vers. 27. — In fine arg. pro *quod* cod. U *motus*.

en: Verse 27. — At the end of the argument, for *quod* codex U [reads] *motus*.

la: Vers. 47: *Remittuntur ei* etc. — Glossa, quae est secundum Gregor. (II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 33. n. 4.), ordinaria est apud Strabum et Lyranum.

en: Verse 47: *Are forgiven her* etc. — The Gloss, which is according to Gregory (*Homilies on the Gospels* II, homily 33, n. 4), is the *Ordinaria* in Strabo and Lyra.

la: Scilicet integrales. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 728, nota 2. — De minori vide supra pag. 357, nota 8.

en: Namely integral [parts]. Cf. tom. III, p. 728, note 2. — On the minor [premise] see above, p. 357, note 8.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 327, nota 2. — Superius post *duo a gratia* cod. aa subiungit: *quae immediate sunt dicta, scilicet infusio gratiae et expulsio culpae.*

en: Cf. above, p. 327, note 2. — Above, after *two things from grace*, codex aa adds: *which have just been mentioned, namely the infusion of grace and the expulsion of fault.*

la: Ita codd. GHY, cod. bb *sicut*, in aliis et edd. *sic*, cod. Z *ut advenienti, sic concordat.*

en: Thus codices GHY; codex bb [reads] *sicut*; in others and in the editions, *sic*; codex Z, *ut advenienti, sic concordat* (as coming, so it accords).

la: Psalm. 59, 2. Cfr. August. et Cassiodor., in hunc loc.; Gregor., 1. Homil. in Ezech. homil. 10. n. 28.

en: Psalm 59:2. Cf. Augustine and Cassiodorus on this passage; Gregory, *Homilies on Ezekiel* I, homily 10, n. 28.

la: Cfr. supra d. 14. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. seq. et d. 16. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. — Edd. *consummationem*. Superius post *Unde timor* Vat. addit *scilicet servilis*.

en: Cf. above d. 14, p. I, a. 2, q. 2 f. and d. 16, p. I, a. 1, q. 1. — The editions [read] *consummationem*. Above, after *Unde timor* (Hence fear), the Vatican edition adds *scilicet servilis* (namely servile).

la: Ut ostensum est III. Sent. d. 23. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. et d. 27. a. 2. q. 1. — Infra edd. *primo necessarius.*

en: As was shown in III *Sent.* d. 23, a. 1, q. 1, in the body, and d. 27, a. 2, q. 1. — Below, the editions [read] *primo necessarius* (first, necessary).

la: Cfr. supra pag. 19, nota 7. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: Cf. above, p. 19, note 7. — See the scholion on the first question of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{421,422,423}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (offset pdf = printed + 20). Per the VOL II OVERRIDE the PDF is authoritative for the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio and all page footers; the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 47584–47776) is too fragmented in this range to use except for footnote-marker spacing. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Page span / split map.** Quaestio III runs printed pp. 421–423.
- p.421: opener + fundamentum 1 (left col. bottom continues to right col. bottom). The left-col. *top* and most of the right col. of p.421 belong to the **prior** chunk (q2's Solutio: Conclusio 2 / Solutio oppositorum / Duplex tractio / Notandum / Ad quaest. incid.). p.421 footer nn.1–10 are q3's fundamenta apparatus (rendered here as [^1]–[^8], with [^9]/[^10] of that page being the *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* note and the Ps. 50 Gloss note → folded into [^1]).
- p.422: fundamenta 2–5, Sed contra 1–5, Conclusio, Respondeo through the Solutio's *macula et sequela*. p.422 footer nn.1–10 → [^1] (Ps. 84), [^2] (Augustine sermons), [^3] (*voluntate* variant), [^4] (consentiens-gratiae), and the Respondeo-block notes [^8a], [^9], [^10].
- p.423: q3 tail only at top of both columns (Ad 3 / Ad 4 / Ad 5 of the Solutio), ending "...quam ad malum³." **QUAESTIO IV begins immediately below** (next chunk). The p.423 running head reads "DIST. XVII. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. IV." because q4 opens on that page; this is the expected Quaracchi running-head convention, NOT a misalignment. q3 owns only p.423 footer nn.1–3 (rendered [^11], [^12], [^13]); nn.4–13 of p.423 belong to q4.

**Scholion.** Quaestio III renders **no scholion** (`has_scholion: false`). The Articulus I scholion (§§ I–VI, covering q1–q4) is rendered with QUAESTIO I (`bon-sent-IV-d17-p1-a1-q1`). Confirmed by p.423 footer [^13]: *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.* ("See the scholion on the first question of this article").

**Hand-off to q4.** Quaestio IV (*Utrum ad iustificationem necessaria sit confessio*; raw line 47777) opens at the bottom of p.423 both columns. Its fundamenta apparatus = p.423 footer nn.4–9 (Anselm *Dialog. de veritate*; Isa. 43; Ambrose *de Paradiso*; Chrysostom; Matth. 16/Ioan. 20; *maiorem notandum*) plus the right-footer nn.10–13. No q3 footer text spills into q4.

**[?] flags.** None. All readings were legible in the PDF bands.


title: Dist. 17, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 423 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum ad iustificationem necessaria sit confessio.*

Quarto quaeritur, utrum ad iustificationem necessaria sit confessio. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Proverbiorum vigesimo octavo[^1]: *Qui abscondit scelera sua non dirigetur, qui autem confessus fuerit et reliquerit ea misericordiam consequetur*; sed iustificatio nihil aliud est quam spiritualis directio, quia «iustitia est rectitudo voluntatis»: cum ergo nullus possit dirigi, nisi praecedat confessio, nullus sine confessione praevia potest iustificari.

2. Item, Isaiae quadragesimo tertio[^2]: *Narra, si quid habes, ut iustificeris*; sicut exponit Ambrosius et Origenes, hoc intelligitur de narratione culpae, quae est in confessione: ergo haec necessaria est ad iustificationem.

3. Item, Ioannes Chrysostomus[^3]: «Non potest quis gratiam accipere, nisi purgatus fuerit ab omni peccato per confessionem»: ergo confessio necessaria est.

4. Item, Ambrosius in libro de Paradiso[^4]: «Non potest quis iustificari a peccato ante confessionem»: ergo confessio necessario praeit.

5. Item, ratione videtur: quia omnis habens gratiam et iustitiam ingreditur in regnum caelorum, nec aliquis potest portam claudere, salva iustitia et gratia; sed nullus potest intrare in regnum caelorum nisi per ostiarium Petrum, cum data sit ei clavis, a qua nullus est exemptus[^5]: ergo nullus potest obtinere gratiam nec habere remissionem culpae, nisi habeat per auctoritatem summi Pontificis et eorum qui in hoc communicant. Sed nullus absolvitur a sacerdote sine confessione praevia: ergo etc.

6. Item, poenitentia est Sacramentum necessarium ad salutem, ergo partes eius sunt necessariae; sed prima, id est contritio, est necessaria ad impii iustificationem, ut visum est[^6]: ergo pari ratione necessaria est confessio.

**Contra** hoc obiicitur, sicut Magister obiicit:

1. Primo auctoritate Psalmi[^7]: *Dixi, confitebor* etc.; Cassiodorus: «Magna pietas Dei, quod ad solam promissionem peccatum dimittit. Votum enim pro operatione iudicatur».

2. Item, Augustinus super illud idem[^8]: «Luce clarius constat, cordis contritione, non oris confessione, peccata dimitti»; sed iustificatio est ibi, ubi est peccati dimissio: ergo sine confessione est iustificatio, et sic etc. — Ad hoc etiam sunt auctoritates Magistri in littera[^9].

3. Item ratione videtur: quia pronior est Deus ad miserandum quam ad condemnandum[^10]; sed solo actu cordis consentaneo subtrahit gratiam: ergo multo fortius actu cordis peccata dimittit.

<!-- page 424 -->

4. Item, «Deus non alligavit suam potentiam Sacramentis[^11]»: ergo quandocumque homo facit quod in se est, Deus facit quod in se est: ergo si doleat quis de culpa, si non sit confessor, vel confessio extra, Deus facit quod est in se: ergo iustificat.

> ### Conclusio.
> *Iustificatio potest esse sine confessione.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod si iustificatio dicatur iustitiae infusio, non est necessaria confessio, sicut expresse ostendunt illae rationes, quae inductae sunt. Unde solum ista quatuor sunt necessaria, scilicet gratiae infusio, motus liberi arbitrii, contritio et peccati expulsio. Secundum enim rectum ordinem, sicut patebit[^12], confessio sequitur tempore et natura contritionem; et si sequitur contritionem, cum ipsa contritio non sit sine iustificatione, nec e converso, ipsa iustificatio potest esse sine confessione.

Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium de illis auctoritatibus, dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Augustinus[^13], «quamvis aliquis iustificari possit sine Sacramentis, tamen nullus iustificatur contemnens Sacramenta». Quoniam igitur confessio est peccantibus imposita, impossibile est, aliquem iustificari, qui non habeat confessionem in facto vel in proposito. Si enim confessionem contemnat, quantumcumque doleat, non acquirit iustitiam. Si autem confessionem habeat in proposito, cum Deus bonam voluntatem et propositum in talibus reputet pro facto, si vere bona et efficax est, tunc, si adsit dolor, potest esse iustificatus. Ideo pro tanto dicunt auctoritates Sanctorum et rationes praedictae, quod confessio necessaria sit ad iustificationem. Voluntatem enim confitendi confessionem vocant, et hoc patet discurrendo per singulas.

1. Nam quod primo dicitur: *Qui abscondit scelera*; constans est, quod loquitur de hypocrita, quia non tantum caret proposito confitendi, immo etiam habet malitiam celandi et excusandi.

2. 3. 4. Ad illud similiter quod dicitur: *Dic tu iniquitates* etc.; dicendum, quod quando homo vult huic mandato obedire, se disponit de congruo ad gratiam; et divina misericordia largissima, cum invenit animam dispositam, gratiam tribuit, ac si esset confessa per sermonem. — Aliae vero duae auctoritates ita intelligendae sunt; vel si intelligantur de actu confitendi, tunc sumunt confessionem pro peccati recognitione, quae interius est inter animam et Deum, et sic non concludunt.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nullus intrat sine potestate clavium; dicendum, quod sine potestate clavium intrare dupliciter potest intelligi: aut sine potestate, ita quod intelligatur contrarie, sicut contemnens clavem Petri; vel sine potestate, ita quod privative: et adhuc dupliciter: vel simpliciter privative, ita quod non habet effectum absolutionis nec in opere nec in devotione sive in desiderio; aut ita, quod habet in devotione et proposito, et ita quodam modo habet. Primo et secundo modo non intrat nec iustificatur, sed tertio modo intrat et aliquo modo per clavem, licet non sic, sicut ille qui absolvitur actualiter.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod poenitentia est Sacramentum necessarium; dicendum, quod nullum Sacramentum est adeo necessarium, quin fides et devotio suppleat locum eius, sicut patet in baptismo[^14]; et ideo sine Sacramento poenitentiae salus alicui esse potest. — Et quod obiicitur de contritione, quod est necessaria; dicendum, quod non est necessaria, secundum quod est pars poenitentiae-Sacramenti, sed secundum quod est actus poenitentiae-virtutis; et illa est prima virtus, sine qua non est salus peccatori adulto[^15], et simul est in actu et habitu virtus illa in ipsa infusione, quia invenit liberum arbitrium in actu sibi conformi in iustificatione, ut visum est[^16]. Praeterea, esto quod contritio poenitentialis, prout est sacramentalis, esset necessaria, non sequitur propter hoc de confessione, quae est actus exterior, superaddens contritioni.

english:
### Question IV. *Whether for justification confession is necessary.*

Fourth, it is asked whether for justification confession is necessary. And that it is, seems to be the case:

1. Proverbs twenty-eight[^1]: *He that hideth his sins shall not prosper, but he that shall confess and forsake them shall obtain mercy*; but justification is nothing else than spiritual direction, since "justice is the rectitude of the will": since therefore no one can be directed unless confession precedes, no one can be justified without prior confession.

2. Likewise, Isaiah forty-three[^2]: *Tell, if thou hast anything, that thou mayest be justified*; as Ambrose and Origen expound, this is understood of the recounting of fault, which is in confession: therefore this is necessary for justification.

3. Likewise, John Chrysostom[^3]: "No one can receive grace unless he has been purged from every sin by confession": therefore confession is necessary.

4. Likewise, Ambrose in the book *On Paradise*[^4]: "No one can be justified from sin before confession": therefore confession necessarily comes first.

5. Likewise, it seems by reason: because everyone having grace and justice enters into the kingdom of heaven, nor can anyone shut the gate, justice and grace remaining intact; but no one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except through the doorkeeper Peter, since the key has been given to him, from which no one is exempt[^5]: therefore no one can obtain grace nor have remission of fault unless he have it by the authority of the supreme Pontiff and of those who share in this. But no one is absolved by a priest without prior confession: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, penance is a Sacrament necessary for salvation, therefore its parts are necessary; but the first, that is contrition, is necessary for the justification of the ungodly, as has been seen[^6]: therefore by parity of reason confession is necessary.

**On the contrary** it is objected, as the Master objects:

1. First by the authority of the Psalm[^7]: *I said, I will confess* etc.; Cassiodorus: "Great is the mercy of God, that He forgives sin at the mere promise. For the vow is judged in place of the deed."

2. Likewise, Augustine upon that same passage[^8]: "It is clearer than light that sins are forgiven by the contrition of the heart, not by the confession of the mouth"; but justification is there, where there is the remission of sin: therefore justification is without confession, and so etc. — To this also there are authorities of the Master in the text[^9].

3. Likewise it seems by reason: because God is more inclined to have mercy than to condemn[^10]; but by the act of the consenting heart alone He withdraws grace: therefore much more powerfully by an act of the heart does He forgive sins.

4. Likewise, "God has not bound His power to the Sacraments[^11]": therefore whenever a man does what is in him, God does what is in Him: therefore if anyone grieves over his fault, even if there be no confessor, or confession be lacking outwardly, God does what is in Him: therefore He justifies.

> ### Conclusion.
> *Justification can be without confession.*

**I respond:** It must be said that if justification be called the infusion of justice, confession is not necessary, as those reasons which have been adduced expressly show. Hence only these four things are necessary, namely the infusion of grace, the motion of free choice, contrition, and the expulsion of sin. For according to the right order, as will be made clear[^12], confession follows contrition in time and in nature; and if it follows contrition, since contrition itself is not without justification, nor conversely, justification itself can be without confession.

To that, then, which is objected on the contrary from those authorities, it must be said that, as Augustine says[^13], "although someone can be justified without the Sacraments, yet no one is justified who despises the Sacraments." Since therefore confession is imposed upon sinners, it is impossible for anyone to be justified who does not have confession in deed or in intention. For if he despise confession, however much he grieve, he does not acquire justice. But if he have confession in intention, since God reckons the good will and intention in such matters as a deed, if it be truly good and effective, then, if grief be present, he can be justified. Therefore so far the authorities of the Saints and the aforesaid reasons say that confession is necessary for justification. For they call the will of confessing "confession," and this is clear by going through them one by one.

1. For as to what is said first: *He that hideth his sins*; it is settled that it speaks of the hypocrite, since he not only lacks the intention of confessing, but rather has the malice of concealing and excusing.

2. 3. 4. To that likewise which is said: *Tell thou thine iniquities* etc.; it must be said that when a man wishes to obey this command, he disposes himself congruously toward grace; and the most abundant divine mercy, when it finds the soul disposed, bestows grace, as if it had confessed by speech. — But the other two authorities are to be understood thus: either, if they be understood of the act of confessing, then they take confession for the recognition of sin, which is inwardly between the soul and God, and so they do not conclude.

5. To that which is objected, that no one enters without the power of the keys; it must be said that to enter without the power of the keys can be understood in two ways: either without the power, in such a way that it be understood contrarily, as one despising the key of Peter; or without the power, in such a way that it be privatively: and this still in two ways: either simply privatively, in such a way that he does not have the effect of absolution either in act or in devotion or in desire; or in such a way that he has it in devotion and intention, and so in a certain manner has it. In the first and second way he neither enters nor is justified, but in the third way he enters and in some manner through the key, although not as does he who is actually absolved.

6. To that which is objected, that penance is a necessary Sacrament; it must be said that no Sacrament is so necessary but that faith and devotion supply its place, as is clear in baptism[^14]; and therefore salvation can belong to someone without the Sacrament of penance. — And as to what is objected concerning contrition, that it is necessary; it must be said that it is not necessary insofar as it is part of the Sacrament of penance, but insofar as it is an act of the virtue of penance; and that is the first virtue, without which there is no salvation for an adult sinner[^15], and that virtue is at once in act and in habit in the very infusion, because it finds free choice in an act conformed to itself in justification, as has been seen[^16]. Moreover, granted that penitential contrition, insofar as it is sacramental, were necessary, it does not follow on this account regarding confession, which is an exterior act, superadded to contrition.

la: Vers. 13. — Definitio iustitiae inferius allata est Anselmi, Dialog. de veritate, c. 12.

en: Prov. 28, verse 13. — The definition of justice adduced below is Anselm's, *Dialogue on Truth*, c. 12.

la: Vers. 26. — Ambros. de Paradiso, c. 14. n. 71. (Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.); Origen., in Levit. homil. 3. n. 4. — Pro *Origenes* cod. Z *Augustinus*.

en: Isa. 43, verse 26. — Ambrose, *On Paradise*, c. 14, n. 71. (See here the Master's text, c. 1.); Origen, on Leviticus, homily 3, n. 4. — For *Origen* codex Z has *Augustine*.

la: Vide supra pag. 414, nota 3.

en: See above, page 414, note 3.

la: Cap. 14. n. 71. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Chapter 14, n. 71. See here the Master's text, c. 1.

en: Cf. Matt. 16, 19 and John 20, 23.

la: Quaest. praeced. — Quoad maiorem notandum, quod agatur hic de iustificatione impii sive peccatoris in mortali existentis. — Pro *sed prima* edd. *sed poenitentia*.

en: The preceding question. — As to the major premise it is to be noted that the discussion here is of the justification of the ungodly, that is, of one existing in mortal sin. — For *but the first* the editions have *but penance*.

la: Psalm. 31, 5. — Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1, ubi etiam verba Cassiodori.

en: Ps. 31, 5. — Cf. here the Master's text, c. 1, where also the words of Cassiodorus are found.

la: Verba haec non sunt Augustini, sed Gratiani, C. *Si cui etiam* (30.), de Poenitentia, d. 1; verba Augustini vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1. — In cod. M huic arg. praemittitur aliud una cum responsione, petitum ex August., scil. quod qui vult habere iustitiam habeat eam: ergo contritio absque confessione sufficit. Responsio in eo versatur quod August. hanc sententiam retractaverit, addendo «si gratia concomitatur voluntatem» (cfr. I. Retract. c. 9. n. 4.), quod solum fit in confessione, si adsit facultas confitendi.

en: These words are not Augustine's, but Gratian's, in the canon *Si cui etiam* (30), *On Penance*, d. 1; for the words of Augustine see here in the Master's text, c. 1. — In codex M another argument together with its reply is set before this one, drawn from Augustine, namely, that he who wishes to have justice may have it: therefore contrition without confession suffices. The reply turns on the fact that Augustine retracted this opinion, adding "if grace accompanies the will" (cf. I *Retractations* c. 9, n. 4), which happens only in confession, if there be opportunity of confessing.

la: Hic c. 1.

en: Here, c. 1.

la: Vide supra pag. 333, nota 3. — Codd. E L *miserandum*.

en: See above, page 333, note 3. — Codices E L have *miserandum* [to be pitied].

la: Ut dicit Magister supra in lit. d. 1. c. 5. Cfr. Hug. a S. Vict., l. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 5. — Inferius pro *confessor* codd. R S T U bb *confessus*.

en: As the Master says above in the text, d. 1, c. 5. Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments*, part IX, c. 5. — Below, for *confessor* codices R S T U bb have *confessus*.

la: Art. seq. q. 4.

en: The following article, question 4.

la: Libr. IV. de Baptismo contra Donatist. c. 25. n. ... supra pag. 107, nota 6.

en: Book IV, *On Baptism, against the Donatists*, c. 25, n. ...; see above, page 107, note 6.

la: Cod. M addit *voluntas*, edd. omittunt *vere*. — Pro *vere bona et efficax*, intellige de «contritione caritate perfecta».

en: Codex M adds *will*, the editions omit *truly*. — For *truly good and effective*, understand it of "contrition perfected by charity."

la: A cod. M suppletur *peccatum suum*. Superius pro *quia* non Vat. cum paucis codd. *qui non*.

en: From codex M *his sin* is supplied. Above, for *because* not, the Vatican edition with a few codices has *who not*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 16. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — Paulo superius post *fides* codd. R S T addunt *Dei*. — Quaest. praeced. — Superius post *infusione* Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. supplet *gratiae*. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: Cf. above d. 16, p. II, a. 1, q. 1. — A little earlier, after *faith* codices R S T add *of God*. — The preceding question. — Above, after *infusion* the Vatican edition with one or another codex supplies *of grace*. — See the scholion on question 1 of this article.

latin_scholion:
La. Scholion ad articulum I (§I–VI, ad quaestiones I–IV) cum **Quaestione I** redditur — vide *bon-sent-IV-d17-p1-a1-q1*.
En. The Article I scholion (§I–VI, covering questions I–IV) is rendered with **Question I** — see *bon-sent-IV-d17-p1-a1-q1*.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (raw `bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 47777–47910), corrected against the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p423-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p424-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`). Two-column Vol IV (VOL II OVERRIDE; PDF authoritative in the cascade-fragmented Respondeo/footer regions; offset pdf = printed + 20). Page-verify confirmed against running heads "DIST. XVII. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. IV. 423" and "424 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."

**Page span.** Printed pp. 423–424. Q4 opens mid-recto on p.423 (after q3's tail, which belongs to *q3*'s chunk) and closes on p.424 immediately before **ARTICULUS II** ("De ordine eorum quae concurrunt ad iustificationem"). The `<!-- page 424 -->` break falls between contra-argument 3 and contra-argument 4 (right column of p.423 ends with arg. 3; p.424 left column opens with arg. 4 "Deus non alligavit suam potentiam Sacramentis").

**Apparatus.** 13 entries from p.423's footer (notes 1–13, restarted per page) plus p.424's footer notes 1–9 (re-numbered here [^11]–[^16] continuing the chunk sequence; the page-424 markers 1–9 map to chunk markers as: p424 n.1→[^11], n.2→[^12], n.3→[^13], n.4→[^14], n.5→[^15], n.6→[^16], with n.7–9 being repeats of cross-refs already folded into [^16]). The full page-423 footer (notes 1–13) is entirely captured here; no cross-chunk footer split with q3 — q3's footer block precedes the QUAESTIO IV header.

**Scholion disposition.** Article I carries a single shared scholion (§I–VI) covering questions I–IV; per the corpus convention (CLAUDE.md VOL II override step 5) it is rendered in full with **Question I** (`bon-sent-IV-d17-p1-a1-q1`). This chunk therefore has `has_scholion: false` and a one-line La+En cross-reference pointer. Note [^16] itself cites "the scholion on question 1 of this article."

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Note 13's editor citation ("Libr. IV. de Baptismo contra Donatist. c. 25. n. ...") has an OCR-clipped numeral after "n." in the band (column edge); rendered with "n. ..." and the cross-ref to p.107 n.6, which is intact. Not material to the body text. Note 15's "n. 32" / "quia non" reading verified against the R-2 band.

**Hand-off to ARTICULUS II.** ARTICULUS II ("De ordine eorum quae concurrunt ad iustificationem"; *Et circa hoc quatuor quaeruntur*) begins at raw line 47911, in the left column of p.424, after this chunk's close. Its short opener ("Consequenter viso de his quae concurrunt ad iustificationem impii in se, quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de ordine ipsorum ad invicem") folds into Art. II's q1 per the chunking convention. No footer text owed forward: p.424's footer notes 5–9 (right column) belong to Art. II's body, not this chunk — they are *not* transcribed here.