title: Dist. 17, Part 3, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 459 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum oporteat confiteri omnem peccati mortalis differentiam.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum sit confitenda omnis peccati mortalis differentia, scilicet peccatum cordis, oris et operis, peccatum etiam latens, vel manifestum. Et quod omnem differentiam, videtur.

1. Per decretalem[^1], quae dicit cuilibet fideli: « Omnia solus peccata sua », non dicit omnia quantum ad venialia: ergo dicit omnia quantum ad mortalia.

2. Item, hoc videtur ratione: quia pro quolibet horum efficitur homo inimicus Dei et separatur ab unitate Ecclesiae; sed confessio ad hoc directe instituta est, ut homo reconcilietur Ecclesiae et ostendatur reconciliatus Deo[^2]: ergo de omnibus tenetur confiteri.

3. Item, pro omni differentia peccati mortalis punitur quis actualiter et aeternaliter et condemnabitur; sed pro omni eo, pro quo adducendus est homo in iudicium condemnationis, necessario oportet adduci ante arbitrum Iesu Christi: ergo pro omni differentia mortalis tenetur confiteri.

4. Item, peccatum gravius magis est dignum punitione; sed peccatum cordis aliquando gravius est quam peccatum operis in alio genere, ut haeresis quam fornicatio, similiter peccatum apertum gravius quam occultum: si ergo oportet confiteri peccatum operis et oris, videtur, quod peccatum cordis similiter; si peccatum latens, videtur multo fortiori ratione, quod et manifestum: ergo omnem peccati mortalis differentiam necesse est confiteri.

5. Item, per omnem peccati mortalis differentiam naufragatur homo; sed patiens naufragium necesse habet ad tabulam recurrere; et non potest ad baptismum: ergo ad Sacramentum poenitentiae[^3]. Sed Sacramentum poenitentiae in quantum Sacramentum consistit in confessione: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. Sapientiae undecimo[^4]: *Per quae peccat quis, per haec et torquetur*: ergo si aliquis solo corde peccat, in solo scilicet spiritu et non in carne nec per organum oris; ergo sola contritione est puniendus, non ergo confessione: ergo non tenetur confiteri peccatum cordis.

2. Item, Augustinus[^5]: « Ubi peccatum oritur, ibi peccatum moriatur »: ergo peccatum, quod fuit in solo corde, ibi debet mori: ergo non oportet, quod exterius propaletur per verbum.

3. Item, in foro iudiciali ita est, quod non adducuntur aliqua ad iudicium, nisi quae aliquo modo manifesta sunt; unde Matthaei decimo octavo[^6]: *Si peccaverit in te frater tuus, corripe eum inter te et ipsum solum*: ergo videtur, quod si peccatum in solo corde fuit, cum nulli sit manifestum, quod non oporteat ad iudicium sacerdotale deferre. Item, quod solum peccatum latens sit confitendum, videtur.

4. Quia Augustinus[^7] definiens confessionem dicit, quod « confessio est, per quam morbus latens spe veniae aperitur ».

<!-- page 460 -->

5. Item, super illud Genesis quarto[^8]: *Vox sanguinis* etc.; Glossa: « Evidentia patrati sceleris non indiget accusatore »; sed confessio est accusatio, Proverbiorum decimo octavo: *Iustus in principio accusator est sui*: ergo quando peccatum est evidens, non indiget confessione.

6. Item, ideo fit confessio, ut instruatur sacerdos de quantitate peccati; sed non oportet, quando est publicum et notorium: ergo de aperto nullus debet nec tenetur confiteri.

> **Conclusio.** Confitendae sunt omnis peccati mortalis differentiae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod omnis peccati mortalis differentiam necesse est confiteri, sive sit latens, sive manifestum, sive sit cordis, sive sit oris. — Peccatum apertum oportet confiteri duplici ex causa: una est a parte audientis, alia ex parte confitentis. Ex parte audientis: quoniam, sicut est in iudicio forensi quod iudex aliquid novit ut privata persona, quod tamen non novit ut iudex, nec procedit ad sententiam, quousque innotescat ei ut iudici; sic est in iudicio poenitentiali, quod sacerdos aliquid novit ut homo, quod tamen non novit ut Deus, quia non est per testimonium conscientiae accusatum, quae est testis divinus; et quousque sic novit, non spectat ad ipsum nec solvere nec ligare: ideo oportet, quod ei confiteatur peccator, quantumcumque sit publicum[^9]. — Alia ratio est ex parte confitentis: quantumcumque enim aliquis ab aliquo accusetur, nunquam propter hoc iustus dicitur sive iudicatur, sed magis iniustus; sed quando homo se ipsum qui est dignus accusatione, accusat, tunc exercet opus iustitiae, et ideo dicitur *Iustus in principio accusator est sui*. Ut ergo quis iustificetur et iustus esse comprobetur et dignus Ecclesiae reconciliatione; necesse est, quod ipse se accuset, quantumcumque eius peccatum sit publicum[^10].

Oportet etiam peccatum cordis, sive peccatum latens confiteri duplici ex causa similiter: tum ex parte audientis, tum ex parte confitentis. Ex parte audientis: quoniam pro illo debet ligare ad poenam et absolvere[^11] — certum enim est, quod pro omni mortali meretur quis poenam aeternam — ideo satisfactio imponenda est secundum arbitrium sacerdotis: ideo talis habet necesse confiteri ei scelus occultum, quia aliter ipse non novit. — Alia ratio est ex parte confitentis, ut quae non erubuit intra thalamum cordis in conspectu divinae praesentiae cogitare et velle et volendo consentire, tunc coram oculis sacerdotis recitet cum rubore, ut, quae perpetravit inverecunde et verecundiam abiecit, nunc ex hoc in conspectu hominis erubescat; homo enim carnalis plus erubescit oculos hominis quam Dei. — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes, quod differentiae omnis peccati mortalis confitendae sunt.

**Ad argumenta:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Sapientiae undecimo[^12], dicendum, quod tam verbum illud, quam verbum Chrysostomi et Augustini super hac materia intelligendum est per *appropriationem*; non enim intelligendum est *praecise* per *veritatem*. Peccator enim, qui sola voluntate peccat, quae toti homini praesidet, totus punitur, ita quod *interius* et *exterius*; et ideo, si fiat emenda, totus homo debet eam facere, et per omnes actus, scilicet cordis, oris et manus.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Augustino, quod ubi oritur etc.; dicendum, quod verbum illud intelligitur quantum ad *progressum* peccati, ut peccatum non procedat, sed « ubi oritur, ibi moriatur » non intelligitur quantum ad *emendam*[^13]. — Vel dicendum, quod illud est intelligendum de poenitentia respondente peccato publico et occulto. De peccato enim publico publice est puniendum propter scandalum exstirpandum; et de occulto occulte coram unico sacerdote; et illud videtur Magister dicere in littera.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de foro iudicii, quod adducuntur manifesta; dicendum, quod in foro iudiciali, quod procedit secundum rigorem iustitiae ad condemnationem, alius est actor, alius est reus, alius testis; et ideo oportet, quod pluribus sit notum illud, de quo quis accusatur. Sed in foro poenitentiali sacerdos tenet locum Dei, et confitens tenet locum accusantis et accusati et testis. Nam ratio accusat voluntatem, testimonium ferente conscientia[^14];

<!-- page 461 -->

et quia iste est testis privatus, quem nihil latet et de omni occulto testimonium perhibet: ideo tali iudicio competit occulta iudicare.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de manifesto, quod confessio est latentis peccati, per Augustinum; dicendum, quod est peccati latentis illum cui confitetur, per modum iudicis. — Vel dicendum, quod peccatum omne in anima est quasi apostema intrinsecum; et quantumcumque homo peccet aperte, adhuc virtus peccati latet in anima; sed « in confessione rumpitur vulnus, et sanies peccati ad exteriora trahitur » ut dicit Gregorius[^15]; et hinc est, quod omnis confessio dicitur, per quam morbus latens spe veniae aperitur.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de evidentia patrati sceleris etc.; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur in foro iudiciali, quia factum illud exterius notum est et testibus non eget, eo quod nulla possit tergiversatione celari; sed non sic in foro poenitentiae; creditur enim ibi testimonio solius conscientiae. Si enim conscientia testificetur nunc contra hominem, in iudicio[^16] testificabitur pro homine; alioquin semper erit testis contrarius.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est ad sciendam quantitatem peccati; dicendum, quod ista non est tota ratio, immo rationes, quae superius assignatae sunt; et praeterea ad hoc est, ut sciat per modum iudicis.

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether one ought to confess every difference of mortal sin.*

Secondly it is asked whether every difference of mortal sin is to be confessed, namely the sin of heart, of mouth, and of deed, and also the sin that is hidden or manifest. And that every difference [ought to be confessed] seems to be the case.

1. By the decretal[^1], which says to every member of the faithful: "all his sins alone," it does not say all with respect to venial sins: therefore it says all with respect to mortal sins.

2. Likewise, this seems so by reason: for by each of these a man is made an enemy of God and is cut off from the unity of the Church; but confession was instituted directly for this, that a man be reconciled to the Church and be shown to have been reconciled to God[^2]: therefore he is bound to confess of them all.

3. Likewise, for every difference of mortal sin a man is punished, both temporally and eternally, and will be condemned; but for everything for which a man is to be brought into the judgment of condemnation, he must necessarily be brought before the tribunal of Jesus Christ: therefore for every difference of mortal sin he is bound to confess.

4. Likewise, a graver sin is more deserving of punishment; but the sin of the heart is sometimes graver than the sin of deed in another genus, as heresy than fornication, and likewise an open sin graver than a hidden one: if therefore it is necessary to confess the sin of deed and of mouth, it seems that one ought likewise to confess the sin of the heart; if a hidden sin, it seems by a much stronger reason that a manifest one too [ought to be confessed]: therefore it is necessary to confess every difference of mortal sin.

5. Likewise, through every difference of mortal sin a man suffers shipwreck; but one suffering shipwreck must have recourse to a plank; and he cannot have recourse to baptism: therefore to the Sacrament of penance[^3]. But the Sacrament of penance, insofar as it is a Sacrament, consists in confession: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. Wisdom 11[^4]: *By the things by which a man sins, by these also he is tormented*: therefore if anyone sins by the heart alone, namely in the spirit alone and not in the flesh nor through the organ of the mouth; therefore he is to be punished by contrition alone, not therefore by confession: therefore he is not bound to confess the sin of the heart.

2. Likewise, Augustine[^5]: "Where sin arises, there let sin die": therefore the sin which was in the heart alone ought to die there: therefore it is not necessary that it be propagated outwardly through speech.

3. Likewise, in the judicial forum it is so, that nothing is brought to judgment except what is in some way manifest; whence Matthew 18[^6]: *If your brother sins against you, rebuke him between you and him alone*: therefore it seems that if a sin was in the heart alone, since it is manifest to no one, it ought not to be brought to the priestly judgment. Likewise, that only a hidden sin is to be confessed seems to be the case.

4. For Augustine[^7], in defining confession, says that "confession is that by which a hidden disease is opened in hope of pardon."

<!-- page 460 -->

5. Likewise, on that passage of Genesis 4[^8]: *The voice of [his] blood* etc.; the Gloss: "The evidence of a crime committed does not need an accuser"; but confession is an accusation, Proverbs 18: *The just man is first the accuser of himself*: therefore when a sin is evident, it does not need confession.

6. Likewise, confession is made for this, that the priest be instructed concerning the magnitude of the sin; but this is not necessary when it is public and notorious: therefore of an open sin no one ought nor is bound to confess.

> **Conclusion.** All the differences of mortal sin are to be confessed.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is necessary to confess every difference of mortal sin, whether it be hidden or manifest, whether of the heart or of the mouth. — An open sin ought to be confessed for a twofold cause: one is on the part of the hearer, the other on the part of the one confessing. On the part of the hearer: because, just as in the forensic court a judge knows something as a private person which nevertheless he does not know as judge, nor does he proceed to sentence until it becomes known to him as judge; so it is in the penitential court, that the priest knows something as a man which nevertheless he does not know as God, because it has not been accused by the testimony of conscience, which is the divine witness; and so long as he knows it [only] thus, it does not belong to him either to loose or to bind: therefore it is necessary that the sinner confess it to him, however public it may be[^9]. — The other reason is on the part of the one confessing: for however much anyone be accused by another, never on that account is he called or judged just, but rather unjust; but when a man accuses himself, who is deserving of accusation, then he performs a work of justice, and therefore it is said *The just man is first the accuser of himself*. Therefore, in order that one be justified and be proved to be just and worthy of reconciliation to the Church; it is necessary that he accuse himself, however public his sin may be[^10].

The sin of the heart also, or the hidden sin, ought to be confessed for a twofold cause likewise: both on the part of the hearer and on the part of the one confessing. On the part of the hearer: because for it [the priest] ought to bind to punishment and to absolve[^11] — for it is certain that for every mortal [sin] one merits eternal punishment — therefore satisfaction is to be imposed according to the judgment of the priest: therefore such a one has need to confess to him the hidden crime, because otherwise he himself does not know it. — The other reason is on the part of the one confessing, so that the things which he was not ashamed to think and to will, and by willing to consent to, within the bedchamber of the heart in the sight of the divine presence, he may then recite before the eyes of the priest with blushing, so that what he committed shamelessly and casting off shame, he may now from this blush at it in the sight of a man; for the carnal man blushes more at the eyes of a man than of God. — Therefore the reasonings are to be conceded, that the differences of every mortal sin are to be confessed.

**Replies to the arguments:**

1. To that, then, which is objected from Wisdom 11[^12], it must be said that both that word, and the word of Chrysostom and Augustine on this matter, are to be understood by *appropriation*; for it is not to be understood *precisely* by *truth*. For the sinner, who sins by the will alone, which presides over the whole man, is punished wholly, so that *inwardly* and *outwardly*; and therefore, if amendment be made, the whole man ought to make it, and through all the acts, namely of heart, of mouth, and of hand.

2. To that which is objected from Augustine, that where it arises etc.; it must be said that that word is to be understood with respect to the *progress* of sin, that the sin not go forward, but "where it arises, there let it die"; it is not understood with respect to *amendment*[^13]. — Or it must be said that it is to be understood of the penance corresponding to public and hidden sin. For of a public sin punishment is to be made publicly, for the sake of rooting out scandal; and of a hidden one, in secret before a single priest; and this the Master seems to say in the text.

3. To that which is objected concerning the forum of judgment, that manifest things are brought forward; it must be said that in the judicial forum, which proceeds according to the rigor of justice unto condemnation, one is the plaintiff, another the defendant, another the witness; and therefore it is necessary that that of which one is accused be known to many. But in the penitential forum the priest holds the place of God, and the one confessing holds the place of accuser and accused and witness. For the reason accuses the will, conscience bearing testimony[^14];

<!-- page 461 -->

and because this witness is a private one, from whom nothing is hidden and who bears testimony concerning everything hidden: therefore it belongs to such a judgment to judge hidden things.

4. To that which is objected concerning the manifest [sin], that confession is of a hidden sin, according to Augustine; it must be said that it is of a sin hidden from him to whom one confesses, after the manner of a judge. — Or it must be said that every sin in the soul is like an inward abscess; and however openly a man sin, still the force of the sin lies hidden in the soul; but "in confession the wound is broken open, and the corruption of sin is drawn outward," as Gregory says[^15]; and hence it is that all is called confession by which a hidden disease is opened in hope of pardon.

5. To that which is objected concerning the evidence of a crime committed etc.; it must be said that that is to be understood in the judicial forum, because that deed, being outward, is known and does not need witnesses, in that it cannot be concealed by any evasion; but it is not so in the forum of penance; for there credence is given to the testimony of conscience alone. For if conscience now testifies against the man, in the judgment[^16] it will testify for the man; otherwise it will always be a contrary witness.

6. To that which is objected, that it is for knowing the magnitude of the sin; it must be said that this is not the whole reason, but rather the reasons which have been assigned above; and besides, it is for this, that he may know after the manner of a judge.

---

la: Scil. *Omnis utriusque sexus*; cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2. arg. 3. pro parte affirm.

en: Namely *Everyone of either sex* [the decretal of the Fourth Lateran Council]; cf. above, a. 1, q. 2, argument 3 for the affirmative side.

la: Vide supra p. II. a. 1. q. 2. in corp.

en: See above, pars II, a. 1, q. 2, in the body.

la: Cfr. supra d. 14. p. 1. dub. 1.

en: Cf. above, d. 14, pars I, dubium 1.

la: Vers. 17.

en: Verse 17. [Wisdom 11:17 (Vulg.).]

la: Serm. 82. (alias 16. de Verbis Domini) c. 8. n. 11: *Ubi contigit malum, ibi moriatur malum.* Cfr. Epist. 17. Pelagii ad Demetriadem (in append. Epist. August.), c. 26, de qua agit August., I. de Gratia Christi etc. c. 22. n. 23.

en: Sermon 82 (alias 16, On the Words of the Lord), c. 8, n. 11: *Where evil has happened, there let evil die.* Cf. Letter 17 of Pelagius to Demetrias (in the appendix to Augustine's Letters), c. 26, which Augustine treats in book I, On the Grace of Christ etc., c. 22, n. 23.

la: Vers. 15, ubi Vulgata verbo *corripe* praemittit *vade et*.

en: Verse 15, where the Vulgate prefixes *go and* to the word *rebuke*.

la: Haec definitio colligi potest ex Enarrat. in Ps. 31. enarrat. 2. n. 13. seqq.; in Ps. 66. n. 7; in Ps. 101. enarrat. 1. n. 10; in Ps. 105. n. 2; Serm. 20. (alias 3. ex Sirmond.) et serm. 67. (alias 8. de Verbis Domini).

en: This definition can be gathered from the *Enarrations on the Psalms*: on Ps. 31, enarration 2, n. 13 and following; on Ps. 66, n. 7; on Ps. 101, enarration 1, n. 10; on Ps. 105, n. 2; Sermon 20 (alias 3, from Sirmond) and sermon 67 (alias 8, On the Words of the Lord).

la: Vers. 10. — Glossa *interlinearis* apud Lyranum pro *accusatore* substituit *clamore accusatoris*, quod etiam codd. FG exhibent. — Seq. locus est Prov. 18, 17; *Iustus prior est accusator sui*.

en: Verse 10. — The interlinear Gloss in Lyra substitutes for *accusatore* the words *clamore accusatoris* ("by the cry of the accuser"), which codices FG also present. — The following passage is Proverbs 18:17; *The just man is first the accuser of himself*.

la: Vat. supplet *ut audiat*. — Cfr. Gratian. C. 2. q. I, et Bonav. III. Sent. d. 39. dub. 5.

en: The Vatican edition supplies *that he may hear*. — Cf. Gratian, C. 2, q. I, and Bonaventure, III Sent., d. 39, dubium 5.

la: Cod. U minus bene *publicus*. Pro *peccator* Vat. cum nonnullis codd. *peccatum*. Eadem Vat. mox post *confitentis* addit *ut iustificetur*.

en: Codex U reads, less well, *publicus*. For *peccator* the Vatican edition, with several codices, reads *peccatum*. The same Vatican edition, just after *confitentis*, adds *that he may be justified*.

la: Edd. *quoniam per illum debet ligari ad poenam, aut absolvi*.

en: The editions read *because for it he ought to be bound to punishment, or absolved*.

la: Vers. 17. — Verba Chrysostomi et Augustini habentur supra lit. Magistri, d. XVI. c. 1. Cfr. ibid. Comment. p. I. dub. 2, ubi dicitur, quod ipsa per *appropriationem* intelligenda sint.

en: Verse 17. — The words of Chrysostom and Augustine are found above in the text of the Master, d. XVI, c. 1. Cf. ibid. the Commentary, pars I, dubium 2, where it is said that they are to be understood by *appropriation*.

la: Sub quo respectu Hieron., Epist. 22. n. 6: « Nolo sinas cogitationes crescere... Dum parvus est hostis, interfice; nequitia, ne zizania crescant, elidatur in semine ». Ovid., Remedia amoris, v. 91: *Principiis obsta, sero medicina paratur, cum mala per longas invaluere moras.* Cfr. etiam praenotata epist. Pelagii. Secunda solut. magis respondet serm. 82. superius allegato, in quo agitur de modo fraternae correptionis, atque cur secreto fiat. — Sententiam Magistri vide hic in lit. c. 4. seq. — Inferius pro *puniendum* codd. H K *puniendus*, ed. 1 *confitendum*, Vat. glossando *confitendum seu puniendum*.

en: In which respect Jerome, Letter 22, n. 6: "I would not have you let thoughts grow... While the enemy is small, slay him; that wickedness may not grow into tares, let it be crushed in the seed." Ovid, Remedies of Love, v. 91: *Resist the beginnings; too late is the medicine prepared, when the evils have grown strong through long delays.* Cf. also the aforementioned letter of Pelagius. The second solution corresponds rather to Sermon 82 cited above, in which there is treated the manner of fraternal correction, and why it should be done in secret. — For the statement of the Master see here in the text, c. 4 following. — Below, for *puniendum* codices H and K read *puniendus*, edition 1 *confitendum*, the Vatican edition by way of gloss *confitendum or puniendum*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 14. p. II. dub. 6.

en: Cf. above, d. 14, pars II, dubium 6.

la: Libr. II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 40. n. 2, ubi agens de Lazaro mendico, ulceribus pleno [Luc. 16, 19. seqq.] dicit: *Quid est ergo peccatorum confessio, nisi quaedam vulnerum ruptio? Quia peccati virus salubriter aperitur in confessione, quod pestifere latebat in mente.* Vulnera etenim cutis in superficiem trahunt humorem putredinis. Et confitendo peccata quid aliud agimus nisi malum, quod in nobis latebat, aperimus? Cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 66. n. 7: *Conscientia tua saniem collegerat, apostema tumuerat... adhibet medicus fomenta verborum et aliquando secat... confitere, exeat in confessione et defluat omnis sanies* etc. — Mox post *et hinc est* ex codd. substituimus *quod omnis* [codd. K et I a secunda manu *quod vera*] *confessio*; edd. *quod Augustinus dicit, quod confessio*.

en: Bk. II, Homilies on the Gospels, homily 40, n. 2, where, treating of the beggar Lazarus, full of sores [Luke 16:19 and following], he says: *What then is the confession of sins, but a certain breaking open of wounds? Because the poison of sin, which lay hidden perilously in the mind, is healthfully opened in confession.* For wounds draw the humor of putrefaction to the surface of the skin. And in confessing sins what else do we do but open the evil which lay hidden in us? Cf. Augustine, Enarration on Ps. 66, n. 7: *Your conscience had gathered corruption, the abscess had swollen... the physician applies the fomentations of words and sometimes cuts... confess, let it come out in confession and let all the corruption flow away* etc. — Just after *et hinc est* we have substituted from the codices *quod omnis* [codices K and I by a second hand read *quod vera*] *confessio*; the editions read *quod Augustinus dicit, quod confessio*.

la: Post mortem.

en: After death. ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 51290–51477), cross-checked column-by-column against 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 459–461 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p46{0,1}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `vol4-p459-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`). Vol IV is two-column; the VOL II OVERRIDE applies (PDF authoritative in cascade-shattered regions — the OCR here was heavily two-column-bled in the Respondeo and footers). Offset pdf = printed + 20.
- **Page span / boundaries.** QUAESTIO II opens at the lower part of printed **p. 459 L** (just after the Article I/II SCHOLION, which occupies the upper bands). Body runs p. 459 → 460 → 461; the quaestio ends in the **left column of p. 461** at "ut sciat per modum iudicis," immediately before **QUAESTIO III** ("Utrum teneamur confiteri omnem peccati circumstantiam," raw 51478 / p. 461 L bottom). Running heads confirm: p. 459 = "DIST. XVII. P. III. ART. II. QUAEST. II"; p. 461 = "DIST. XVII. P. III. ART. II. QUAEST. III" (the running head advances to the next quaestio even though q2's replies finish in p. 461's left column).
- **OCR page-number garble.** The IA OCR running-head digits read "460" correctly but mangle others; the PDF bands confirm the true printed numbers 459/460/461. Trusted the +20 offset and running-head *text*, not the OCR digits (per CLAUDE.md Vol II/IV guidance).
- **Per-page footer split.** p. 459 footer notes 1–7 → [^1]–[^7] (arg./contra references). p. 460 footer notes 1–7 → [^8]–[^14] (the Genesis Gloss + Respondeo + replies 1–3). p. 461 footer notes 1–2 (left column only) → [^15]–[^16] (the Gregory homily and "Post mortem"). p. 461's right-column footer notes 3–8 belong entirely to QUAESTIO III and are NOT carried here.
- **Scholion disposition.** This quaestio renders **no scholion**. The Article II scholion (covering its questions, incl. q1–q3) is printed in the upper bands of p. 459 and is rendered in **bon-sent-IV-d17-p3-a2-q1**. `has_scholion: false`.
- **[?] flags.** None. All readings resolved against the PDF bands; the heavily two-column-bled OCR (esp. the Respondeo and the cross-column reply text) was reflowed from the PDF column reads.
- **Hand-off to QUAESTIO III (a2-q3).** No footers migrate forward: p. 461's right-column footer notes 3–8 (Gloss interlinearis/Lyra, "Sub quo respectu Hieron.," "Vide supra d. 14," "Formata," "Plures," "Vers." for *Leges*, etc.) are entirely q3's and were left for that chunk. QUAESTIO III opener ("Tertio quaeritur, utrum teneamur confiteri omnem peccati circumstantiam") begins at raw 51478 / bottom of p. 461 L.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 17, Part 3, Art. 2, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 461 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum teneamur confiteri omnem peccati circumstantiam.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum teneamur confiteri omnem peccati circumstantiam. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Quia Augustinus dicit sic in libro de Poenitentia[^1], enarrans multiplicia genera circumstantiarum: « Omnis, inquit, ista varietas confitenda est et deflenda ».

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia confessio maxime fit ad sciendam peccati quantitatem, quia imponenda est poenitentia secundum mensuram et aestimationem peccati, sicut dicitur Levitici quinto[^2]; sed penes circumstantias consistit peccati quantitas: ergo necesse est eas confiteri. Prima manifesta est; secunda probatur per hoc quod dicit Bernardus, quod « nugae in ore sacerdotis blasphemiae sunt ». Hoc autem non dicit nisi propter aggravationem peccati: ergo etc.

3. Item, in confessione necesse est genus peccati aperiri; sed genus peccati variatur per circumstantias, sicut patet; cognoscere enim non suam, quae soluta est, fornicatio est; cognoscere non suam, quae habet virum, est adulterium: ergo necesse est confiteri circumstantias.

4. Item, confessio potissime fit ad erubescentiam; sed maior est erubescentia in confessione circumstantiarum adiacentium quam etiam in enarratione actus: ergo videtur, quod potissime circa circumstantias in confessione insistendum est.

5. Item, confessio principaliter fit ad accusationem peccantis; sed accusatio actionis est ex circumstantiis. Unde Tullius in primo Rhetoricae: « Circumstantiae sunt, a quibus trahuntur argumenta accusationis, vel defensionis ». Et Boethius in quarto[^3]: « Circumstantiae sunt, quae quaestionem rhetoricam faciunt de laude et vituperio personae ».

6. Item, strictius est divinum iudicium quam humanum; sed in humano iudicio modo[^4] fit inquisitio et responsio de circumstantiis, unde non est sufficiens quaerere de actu: ergo multo fortius in iudicio divino. Sed hoc est iudicium poenitentiae: ergo etc.

7. Item, diligentius curandus est morbus spiritualis quam corporalis, sicut magna diligentia est habenda circa spiritum et maior quam circa corpus; sed morbus corporalis non detegitur sufficienter, nisi etiam circumstantiae detegantur: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. Translato principali, necesse est, quod transferatur annexum, sicut Apostolus dicit ad Hebraeos septimo[^5]: *Translato sacerdotio, necesse est, ut Legis translatio fiat*; sed peccatum est principale: ergo si per confessionem Dominus transfert peccatum, pari ratione et circumstantiam.

<!-- page 462 -->

2. Item, circumstantiae sunt infinitae nobis; et nullus tenetur ad illud quod sibi est impossibile[^6]: ergo non tenetur circumstantias peccati recolligere et referre.

3. Item, non est necesse, quod peccatori imponat sacerdos ita gravem poenam, sicut exigit culpa, immo tota die imponuntur multo minores: ergo pari ratione non est necesse, quod peccator confiteatur, se ita graviter peccasse, sicut peccavit.

4. Item, si tenetur confiteri circumstantias ad sciendam quantitatem peccati; sed quantitas peccati non scitur, nisi sciantur circumstantiae *alleviantes* sicut aggravantes, et circumstantiae *defendentes* sicut accusantes: ergo homo tenetur in confessione se ipsum excusare, sed hoc est falsum: ergo etc.

5. Item, videtur, quod circumstantia non augeat quantitatem, quia in bonis quantitas meriti non causatur ex circumstantiis, sed ex quantitate amoris, quo convertitur homo ad Deum[^7]: ergo pari ratione, cum peccatum sit aversio, quantitas peccati consistit in libidine sive contemptu cordis: non ergo in circumstantia exteriori.

6. Item, videtur, quod non det speciem peccato, quia omne illud, quod dat speciem et formam, debet esse essentiale et intrinsecum et unicum[^8]; sed circumstantiae sunt extrinsecae et accidentales et variabiles: ergo nulla circumstantia trahit in genus peccati novum: non ergo videtur, quod oporteat circumstantias confiteri.

Est igitur quaestio, quas oporteat confiteri, et quas non.

> **Conclusio.** Confessio circumstantiarum speciem mutantium necessaria est, aggravantium est congrua, alleviantium vero potius incongrua.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod circumstantiae, quae attingunt peccatum, quaedam sunt alleviantes, quaedam in aliud genus trahentes, quaedam aliquo modo aggravantes. Circumstantias in aliud genus trahentes confiteri est necessarium, quoniam genus peccati confiteri oportet. — Circumstantias vero alleviantes confiteri non est bonum, nisi propter hoc, ut satisfiat alienae inquisitioni, vel ut provideatur eius scandalo et perturbationi, utpote si timeret[^9], confessorem ex hoc accipere occasionem ad malum vel si etiam tantum diminuat, ut sit in genere venialis, sicut comedere carnes in Quadragesima propter infirmitatem, ita tamen, quod a latere non sit gulositas aliqua. Et ratio huius est, quia in confessione non debet peccator se *excusare*, sed *accusare*. — De circumstantiis autem, quae *aggravant*, si genus peccati non mutatum est, est inter doctores opinio diversa.

Quidam enim dicunt, quod poenitentes tenentur confiteri; sed praeceptum affirmativum est et obligat non *ad semper*, sed *pro loco et tempore*, scilicet quando eas cognoscit, sive per se, sive per inquisitionem alienam. Unde sapiens et intelligens tenetur eas confiteri absque inquisitione, simplex tenetur, si ab eo inquiratur.

Alii dicunt, quod *non tenemur* ad confessionem harum circumstantiarum tentione *necessitatis*, sed *de bono et aequo*; et quanto magis sapientes et perfecti, tanto magis debent distinctius eas explicare; sed non tenentur ad hoc, nisi forte ex propria conscientia obligentur. — Hanc positionem credo probabiliorem.

Unde dicendum, quod confessio circumstantiarum in *aliud genus trahentium* spectat ad confessionem quantum ad *necessitatem*; confessio vero *aggravantium* quantum ad *congruitatem*; confessio vero *alleviantium* potius facit incongruitatem; et hoc intelligatur, exceptis casibus praedictis.

Omnes igitur rationes probantes, circumstantias esse confitendas, sunt *congruitatis* quantum ad *aggravantes*; aliter, si velint probare necessitatem, ab insufficienti procedunt, illa excepta, quae est de circumstantia trahente in aliud genus.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1. 2. 4. 5. 7.* Unde verbum Augustini consilium est. — Et quod obiicitur de quantitate et erubescentia et accusatione et diligentia habenda, non concludunt[^10], nisi quod competentius fiat, si exprimatur cuiuslibet peccati circumstantia.

Quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod non oportet eas confiteri, concedendum[^11] est.

4. Tamen illud quod obiicit, quod circumstantiae alleviantes sunt confitendae etc.; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia aggravantes non tantum oportet confiteri propter quantitatem peccati, verum etiam propter erubescentiam et accusationem.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non augent quantitatem; dicendum, quod non augent *principaliter*, sed quia augent contemptum, vel libidinem. Nec est simile de bono; quia enim boni sumus, bona facimus[^12]; unde quantitas *bonitatis* venit ab *habitu intrinseco*, sed quantitas *malitiae* ab *actu*; quia enim mala facimus, mali sumus.

<!-- page 463 -->

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non mutat speciem; dicendum, quod est *esse naturae* et est *esse moris*. Et aliquid est alicui *accidentale* secundum *esse naturae*, quod tamen est *essentiale* secundum *esse moris*; et quamvis circumstantiae sint *accidentales* actui secundum *esse naturae*, tamen essentiales sunt secundum laudem et vituperium, quae laus venit ex parte moris, vel eius contrarium. Et *si tu obiicias*, quod non debent dici circumstantiae; dicendum, quod *aliqua* est circumstantia respectu *esse naturalis*, quae non est circumstantia respectu peccati, sed *forma*, utpote furti accipere rem non suam, invito Domino[^13]. Aliquando circumstantia est accidentalis respectu actus quantum ad esse naturae et in quantum peccatum, quia sine ea nihilominus est peccatum, sicut accipere rem alienam et sacram de loco sacro, et ita est circumstantia et forma; sed circumstantia respectu peccati furti, quia sine ea poterat esse furtum, sed forma respectu sacrilegii[^14].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether we are bound to confess every circumstance of sin.*

Thirdly it is asked whether we are bound to confess every circumstance of sin. And that we are, seems to be the case.

1. Because Augustine speaks thus in his book *On Penance*[^1], setting forth the manifold kinds of circumstances: "All this variety," he says, "is to be confessed and bewailed."

2. Likewise, it seems so by reason: for confession is made chiefly to know the magnitude of sin, because the penance is to be imposed according to the measure and estimation of sin, as is said in Leviticus 5[^2]; but the magnitude of sin lies in the circumstances: therefore it is necessary to confess them. The first is manifest; the second is proved by what Bernard says, that "trifles in the mouth of a priest are blasphemies." But he says this only on account of the aggravation of sin: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, in confession it is necessary that the kind of sin be disclosed; but the kind of sin is varied by circumstances, as is plain; for to know a woman not one's own, who is unmarried, is fornication; to know one not one's own, who has a husband, is adultery: therefore it is necessary to confess the circumstances.

4. Likewise, confession is made especially for shame; but there is greater shame in confessing the adjacent circumstances than even in the narration of the act: therefore it seems that in confession one ought to dwell especially upon the circumstances.

5. Likewise, confession is made principally for the accusation of the one sinning; but the accusation of the action is from the circumstances. Whence Tully in the first book of the *Rhetoric*: "Circumstances are those from which the arguments of accusation or of defense are drawn." And Boethius in the fourth[^3]: "Circumstances are those which make the rhetorical question concerning the praise and blame of a person."

6. Likewise, the divine judgment is stricter than the human; but in human judgment inquiry and response concerning circumstances is now[^4] made, whence it is not sufficient to ask about the act: therefore much more so in the divine judgment. But this is the judgment of penance: therefore etc.

7. Likewise, the spiritual sickness is to be tended more diligently than the bodily, just as great diligence is to be had concerning the spirit and greater than concerning the body; but bodily sickness is not sufficiently detected unless the circumstances also be detected: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. The principal being transferred, it is necessary that what is annexed be transferred, as the Apostle says to the Hebrews in the seventh chapter[^5]: *The priesthood being transferred, it is necessary that a transfer of the Law also be made*; but sin is the principal: therefore if through confession the Lord transfers sin, by equal reasoning the circumstance also.

<!-- page 462 -->

2. Likewise, the circumstances are infinite to us; and no one is bound to that which is impossible to him[^6]: therefore he is not bound to gather up and report the circumstances of sin.

3. Likewise, it is not necessary that the priest impose on the sinner so grave a penalty as the fault demands, but rather much lesser ones are imposed every day: therefore by equal reasoning it is not necessary that the sinner confess that he has sinned as gravely as he did sin.

4. Likewise, if he is bound to confess the circumstances in order to know the magnitude of sin; but the magnitude of sin is not known unless the *alleviating* circumstances be known as well as the aggravating, and the *defending* circumstances as well as the accusing: therefore a man is bound in confession to excuse himself, but this is false: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, it seems that the circumstance does not increase the magnitude, because in good deeds the magnitude of merit is not caused by the circumstances, but by the magnitude of the love by which a man is turned toward God[^7]: therefore by equal reasoning, since sin is an aversion, the magnitude of sin lies in the lust or contempt of the heart: not, therefore, in the exterior circumstance.

6. Likewise, it seems that it does not give species to the sin, because all that gives species and form ought to be essential and intrinsic and single[^8]; but circumstances are extrinsic and accidental and variable: therefore no circumstance draws sin into a new kind: it does not, therefore, seem that one must confess the circumstances.

There is, then, the question, which ones it is necessary to confess, and which not.

> **Conclusion.** The confession of circumstances changing the species is necessary, that of aggravating ones is fitting, but that of alleviating ones is rather unfitting.

**I respond:** It must be said that the circumstances which touch upon sin are some alleviating, some drawing it into another kind, and some in some way aggravating. To confess the circumstances drawing it into another kind is necessary, since the kind of sin must be confessed. — But to confess the alleviating circumstances is not good, except for this: that satisfaction be made to another's inquiry, or that provision be made against his scandal and disturbance, as for example if he should fear[^9] that the confessor might from this take occasion for evil; or also if it so diminishes the sin that it falls within the kind of the venial, as to eat meat in Lent on account of infirmity, yet in such a way that there be no gluttony on the side. And the reason for this is that in confession the sinner ought not to *excuse* himself, but to *accuse* himself. — But concerning the circumstances which *aggravate*, if the kind of sin is not changed, there is a diverse opinion among the doctors.

For some say that penitents are bound to confess them; but it is an affirmative precept and obliges not *always*, but *for the place and the time*, namely when he knows them, whether of himself or through another's inquiry. Whence one wise and intelligent is bound to confess them without inquiry; the simple is bound if he be questioned about it.

Others say that *we are not bound* to the confession of these circumstances by the bond of *necessity*, but *out of what is good and fitting*; and the more wise and perfect one is, the more distinctly ought he to explain them; but they are not bound to this, unless perhaps they be obliged out of their own conscience. — This position I believe to be the more probable.

Whence it must be said that the confession of circumstances drawing into *another kind* pertains to confession as regards *necessity*; but the confession of *aggravating* ones as regards *fittingness*; whereas the confession of *alleviating* ones rather produces unfittingness; and let this be understood with the aforesaid cases excepted.

All the reasons, therefore, proving that the circumstances are to be confessed, are reasons of *fittingness* as regards the *aggravating* ones; otherwise, if they wish to prove necessity, they proceed from an insufficient ground, that one excepted which concerns the circumstance drawing into another kind.

**Replies to the arguments:**

*To 1, 2, 4, 5, 7.* Whence the word of Augustine is a counsel. — And as to what is objected concerning the magnitude and the shame and the accusation and the diligence to be had, they do not conclude[^10] anything except that it be done more becomingly if the circumstance of each sin be expressed.

What is objected on the contrary, that it is not necessary to confess them, is to be conceded[^11].

4. Yet as to that which objects that the alleviating circumstances are to be confessed etc.; it must be said that it is not the same: because the aggravating ones must be confessed not only on account of the magnitude of sin, but also on account of shame and accusation.

5. To that which is objected, that they do not increase the magnitude; it must be said that they do not increase it *principally*, but because they increase the contempt or the lust. Nor is it the same with the good; for because we are good, we do good[^12]; whence the magnitude of *goodness* comes from the *intrinsic habit*, but the magnitude of *malice* from the *act*; for because we do evil, we are evil.

<!-- page 463 -->

6. To that which is objected, that it does not change the species; it must be said that there is the *being of nature* and the *being of morals*. And something is *accidental* to a thing according to the *being of nature*, which nevertheless is *essential* according to the *being of morals*; and although the circumstances are *accidental* to the act according to the *being of nature*, yet they are essential according to praise and blame, which praise comes from the side of morals, or its contrary. And *if you object* that they ought not to be called circumstances; it must be said that *some* thing is a circumstance with respect to *natural being*, which is not a circumstance with respect to sin, but a *form*, as in theft to take a thing not one's own, against the will of the owner[^13]. Sometimes a circumstance is accidental with respect to the act as regards the being of nature and inasmuch as it is sin, because without it there is nonetheless sin, as to take a thing belonging to another and sacred from a sacred place, and thus it is both a circumstance and a form; but it is a circumstance with respect to the sin of theft, because without it there could be theft, but a form with respect to sacrilege[^14].

---

la: Sive de Vera et falsa Poenitentia (inter opera August.), c. 14. n. 29. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XVI. c. 2, ubi integra verba habentur.

en: Or *On True and False Penance* (among the works of Augustine), c. 14, n. 29. See above the text of the Master, d. XVI, c. 2, where the words are had in full.

la: Vers. 18. — Verba Bernardi inveniuntur in II. de Considerat. c. 13. n. 22. Vide etiam supra d. 16. p. I. dub. 7. et 9.

en: V. 18. — The words of Bernard are found in the second book *On Consideration*, c. 13, n. 22. See also above, d. 16, pars I, dubia 7 and 9.

la: Formata est haec definitio ex doctrina Ciceronis, I. Rhetor. c. 5. et 23. seqq. Vide supra pag. 400, nota 1, ubi etiam mentio fit ipsius Boethii, qui in IV. de Differentiis topic. definitionem seq. insinuat.

en: This definition is formed from the teaching of Cicero, *Rhetoric* I, c. 5 and 23 ff. See above, p. 400, note 1, where mention is also made of Boethius himself, who in the fourth book *On Topical Differences* suggests the following definition.

la: Plures codd., ut AFGHK 1, omittunt *modo*.

en: Several codices, such as AFGHK 1, omit *modo*.

la: Vers. 12, ubi Vulgata post *ut* addit *et*. — In fine arg. voci *pari* cod. R praemittit *necesse est, quod*.

en: V. 12, where the Vulgate after *ut* adds *et*. — At the end of the argument, before the word *pari* codex R prefixes *necesse est, quod*.

la: Vide supra pag. 234, nota 6.

en: See above, p. 234, note 6.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 353, nota 6. et pag. 378, nota 3.

en: Cf. above, p. 353, note 6, and p. 378, note 3.

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 225, nota 6. — Plures codd. *unitum*.

en: Cf. tom. II, p. 225, note 6. — Several codices read *unitum*.

la: Codd. R S X *timor est*, cod. F *timerem*. Superius pro *satisfiat* codd. A W et ed. 1 *satisfaciat*. Aliquanto inferius pro *mutatum est* cod. G *mutant*.

en: Codices R, S, X read *timor est*, codex F *timerem*. Above, for *satisfiat* codices A, W and edition 1 read *satisfaciat*. Somewhat below, for *mutatum est* codex G reads *mutant*.

la: Codd. A 1 K et ed. 1 *concludit*.

en: Codices A 1 K and edition 1 read *concludit*.

la: Vat. *Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, dicendum, quod non oportet eas confiteri, congruum est tamen. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod circumstantiae alleviantes etc.*

en: The Vatican edition reads: *To that which is objected on the contrary, it must be said that it is not necessary to confess them, yet it is fitting. To that which is objected, that the alleviating circumstances etc.*

la: Vide supra pag. 352, nota 10.

en: See above, p. 352, note 10.

la: Respicitur definitio furti tom. III. pag. 835, nota 3, allata. — Superius pro *quae non* codd. F G *quae tamen non*. Iidem codd. mox *Aliqua* pro *Aliquando*, et *ista est* pro *ita est*.

en: Reference is made to the definition of theft adduced in tom. III, p. 835, note 3. — Above, for *quae non* codices F and G read *quae tamen non*. The same codices shortly read *Aliqua* for *Aliquando*, and *ista est* for *ita est*.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 36. dub. 5. — Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.

en: See the second book of the *Sentences*, d. 36, dubium 5. — See the scholion to question I of this article. ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 51478–51705), cross-checked column-by-column against 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 461–463 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p46{1,2,3}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`). Vol IV is two-column; the VOL II OVERRIDE applies (PDF authoritative in any cascade-shattered region — the fundamenta and Respondeo were heavily diagonal-shattered in the OCR and were reflowed from the PDF bands column-by-column). Offset pdf = printed + 20.
- **Page span / boundaries.** QUAESTIO III opens at the very bottom of the left column of printed **p. 461** ("Tertio quaeritur, utrum teneamur confiteri omnem peccati circumstantiam"); the prior quaestio's (a2-q2) replies fill the top of both columns of p. 461 and are held by the a2-q2 chunk. Body runs p. 461 (fund. 1–7 + Contra 1) → p. 462 (Contra 2–6, *Quaestio connexa*, Conclusio, Respondeo, replies *Ad 1.2.4.5.7* + replies 4, 5) → top of **p. 463** left column (reply 6, ending at "sed forma respectu sacrilegii," immediately before **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI**, raw 51706).
- **Running heads.** p. 461 = "DIST. XVII. P. III. ART. II. QUAEST. III"; p. 462 = "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p. 463 = "DIST. XVII. P. III. DUBIA." (verso/recto running heads, confirming the article + page numbers).
- **OCR page-number garble.** The IA OCR running-head digits were unreliable; the PDF bands read the true printed numbers 461/462/463. Trusted the +20 offset and running-head *text*, not the OCR digits (per CLAUDE.md Vol II/IV guidance).
- **Per-page footer split.** p. 461 footer notes 1–3 (Greg. *Homil.* 40 on Lazarus; "Post mortem"; "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.") belong to the **prior** quaestio (a2-q2) and its scholion pointer — NOT carried here. p. 461 notes 4–8 are q3's and render here as [^1]–[^5]. p. 462 notes 1–7 → [^6]–[^12]. p. 463 reply-6 notes 1 and 2 (first sentence) → [^13]–[^14]; p. 463 notes 3–9 belong to the DUBIA and are NOT carried here.
- **Scholion disposition.** This quaestio renders **no scholion**. The Article II scholion (the § on q3 included) is printed with and rendered in **bon-sent-IV-d17-p3-a2-q1**. Confirmed by p. 461 footer note 3 ("Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.") and by p. 463 footer note 2 ("Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.," the second clause of [^14]). `has_scholion: false`.
- **Marker note.** Fund. 2 ("Levitici quinto") and the embedded Bernard quote ("nugae … blasphemiae sunt") share a single Quaracchi footer (p. 461 note 5); both references are folded into [^2], with the marker placed at "Levitici quinto" per the OCR superscript. Fund. 5's Tully (*Rhetoric* I) quotation carries no footer; only the following Boethius quotation is annotated (p. 461 note 6 → [^3]), so the marker sits at "Boethius in quarto."
- **[?] flags.** None. All readings resolved against the PDF bands.
- **Hand-off to ARTICULUS II.** This is the last quaestio of ARTICULUS II. The next chunk is the pars-III **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI** (begins at raw 51706 / p. 463 L column, "In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram…", DUB. I "Si tamen desit sacerdos, proximo vel socio facienda est confessio"). No q3 footers migrate forward: p. 463 footer notes 3–9 (B. Albert.; *Vide II. Sent. d. 36 dub. 5* belongs to [^14] here, but notes 3 ff. are the DUBIA's) are entirely the DUBIA's and were left for that 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, Dubia

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

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

source_text:
<!-- page 432 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Cassiodorus: *Votum pro operatione iudicatur.*[^1] Videtur enim male dicere, quia secundum hoc tantum valet, si quis habet voluntatem confitendi, quantum si confitetur: frustra ergo confitetur. — Item, aut Sacramentum confert *aliquid* habenti bonam voluntatem, aut *nihil.* Si *aliquid*: ergo non est idem et aequivalens velle et Sacramentum suscipere. Si *nihil* confert habenti bonam voluntatem, et nulli alii confert: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *votum* hic dicitur firmum propositum, et hoc computatur pro operatione, non quia tantum valeat omnino, sed quia hoc etiam Deus acceptat, et si adsit votum, et desit facultas, Deus excusatum habet. Concedo ergo bene, quod semper aliquid recipit qui opere accipit Sacramentum et aliquam utilitatem habet; tamen ubi deest facultas, Deus reputat sufficiens ad impetrandum ipsum votum; et ubi adest, antequam perveniat ad opus, reputat conveniens ad obtinendum gratiam. Nec tamen frustra confitetur; si enim pro loco et tempore non confiteretur, verum votum non esset, aut esse desisteret, si prius esset[^2].

<!-- page 433 -->

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *nemo potest confiteri nisi suscitatus.* Videtur enim non esse verum quod dicit, quia secundum hoc, cum nullus mortuus teneatur ad sui suscitationem, quia hoc est impossibile, nullus peccator tenetur ad confessionem; quod est inconveniens.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *posse confiteri* est dupliciter: aut peccatum detegendo, ut sit confessio *manifesta*, et sic potest fieri etiam a peccatore; aut ut sit confessio vere *reconciliativa*, et sic non potest fieri nisi a iusto et suscitato. Si enim alias fiat, absolvitur exterius, sed non interius. Nihil enim ad salutem valet alicui poenam temporalem taxare, quousque Dominus absolvat ab aeterna[^3].

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Ut anima vita corporis, ita eius vita Deus est.* Videtur enim esse falsum, quia anima vivificando informat corpus, sed Deus non est forma animae[^4]. — Item, corpus privatum animae vita non resuscitatur nisi per miraculum: ergo videtur, quod iustificatio sit miraculosa; quod non videtur, cum nemo admiretur hoc, nec sit insolitum[^5].

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sic Deus est vita animae, sicut anima corporis, quodam modo, et quodam modo non sic. In hoc enim est *similitudo*, quod quemadmodum corpus indiget anima et ab ipsa vivificatur, quamdiu illi coniungitur, et per eius separationem vilescit; sic, quamdiu anima unitur Deo per caritatem, vivificatur, et quando separatur ab eo, moritur et vilescit. In hoc autem est *dissimilitudo*, quia anima coniungitur naturaliter et naturaliter ex corruptione naturae separatur, ita quod appetitus et indigentia est in utroque, quia constituunt tertium[^6]; ex Deo autem et anima non fit unum. Et *praeterea*, coniunctio illa est voluntatis ex utraque parte; et hinc est, quod quia voluntas nostra naturaliter est vertibilis, et divina misericordia prompta est misereri, quod resuscitatio animae non est *miraculosa*, sed ut proprius loquamur, est *mirabilis*[^7].

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *non meretur iustificari qui in vita sua non vult peccatum confiteri.* Videtur enim improprie loqui, quia iustificatio antecedit omne meritum: ergo nullus iustificari meretur. — Item quaeritur: cum omnes virtutes dentur homini, scilicet fides, caritas etc., quare magis vocatur iustificatio deletio culpae quam aliud? — Item, cum anima dicatur *iustificari*, *vivificari*[^8], *sanari* et *renovari*; quaeritur, quae sit differentia inter haec.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod iustificatio non cadit sub merito *condigni*, cadit tamen sub merito *congrui*[^9]; dicitur autem reparatio animae *iustificatio.* Peccatum enim actuale est deordinatio sive obliquatio circa aliquem actum animae; et per hanc separatur anima a Deo et ex hoc incurrit duplex malum, scilicet *difficultatem ad bonum*, et ista dicitur vetustas, qua anima iam inveterata est; et *pronitatem ad malum*, et haec dicitur infirmitas; unde omne peccatum dicitur iniustitia, dicitur mors, dicitur vetustas, dicitur infirmitas[^10]. Per oppositum igitur anima in adventu gratiae *vivificatur*, et ex susceptione virtutum ordinantium universas potentias *iustificatur* — et hoc quidem fit in instanti — unde iustificatio dicitur a *iustitia generali*; sed *sanatur* ulterius per gratiam Sacramentorum, et *renovatur* per bonum exercitium et fit semper ad bonum habilior. Unde dicit Apostolus secundae ad Corinthios quarto[^11]: *Quod renovatur de die in diem, sicut exterior de die in diem corrumpitur.*

Unde notandum, quod peccatum uno modo dicitur infirmitas et vetustas, alio modo sequela peccati. Et primo quidem modo statim fit sanatio et renovatio; secundo modo successive, nec pervenitur ad perfectam sanitatem et novitatem nisi in gloria, eo quod semper manet pronitas et difficultas in via[^12].

Quod ergo quaeritur: quare dicitur iustificatio? dicendum, quod dicitur a iustitia generali, non a iustitia cardinali. — Quod quaeritur, quomodo haec differant, iam patet. — Patet etiam illud quod consuevit quaeri, cuius sit sanare. Dico enim, quod contritionis, in quantum est actus virtutum, est iustificare; sed eius, in quantum est sacramen-

<!-- page 434 -->

talis, est curare — Sacramenta enim proprie sanant, et virtutes rectificant — sed in quantum gratiae, est *vivificare*; in quantum horum omnium, renovare[^13].

### Dub. V

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Chrysostomus: *Nisi purgatus fuerit ab omni peccato per poenitentiam et confessionem, vel baptismum.* Quaeritur, quomodo ista tria distinguantur; videtur enim confessio ab his non differre.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod curatio a morbo est dupliciter: aut per virtutem, aut per Sacramentum. Si per virtutem, dicit per poenitentiam; si per Sacramentum, hoc est dupliciter, sicut duplex est *tabula*[^14]; et sic est confessio et baptismus. — Aliter potest dici et melius, quod Chrysostomus loquitur de adultis, et hi purgantur duplici Sacramento, scilicet confessione et baptismo; et praeparatorium ad utrumque est contritio, et hanc nomine poenitentiae dat intelligi.

### Dub. VI

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Nemo dicat: Occulte ago poenitentiam* etc. Videtur enim ex hoc, quod poenitentia omnis sit facienda in publico, et illud videtur per litteram sequentem de Iob[^15]: *Si erubui peccata mea* etc.; videtur secundum hoc, quod quilibet teneatur confiteri peccata sua in conspectu populi: ergo non est vere poenitens qui confitetur in privato.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Augustinus intelligit de occultatione, quae fit respectu sacerdotis, cui praecipit Dominus manifestare, non respectu aliarum personarum[^16].

### Dub. VII

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Venialis est culpa, quam sequitur confessio delictorum.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia culpa non alleviatur ex effectu sequenti, quamvis aggravetur: ergo videtur, quod mortale nunquam per confessionem fiat veniale. — Item, veniale non fit mortale, ergo nec e converso. — Item, si fit veniale quia Deus dimittit, pari ratione, immo multo fortiori deberet dicere de contritione.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in absolutione, quae est in contritione, culpa recipit veniam quantum ad poenam aeternam, in confessione vero partim recipit veniam, partim non, quia ad unam partem poenae ligatur, ab alia absolvitur. Et ideo dicit Ambrosius[^17], quod *venialis efficitur*, non quantum ad maculam, sed quantum ad obligationem ad poenam aliquam. Et sic patet illud.

### Dub. VIII

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Dormiat in sacco.* Non enim videtur competens, cum etiam multi in sericis non asperis[^18] poenitentiam agant.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *saccus* accipitur pro qualicumque humiliatione, eo tropo, quo species accipitur pro genere[^19]. — Vel dicendum, quod est perfectionis et consilium; nec intelligitur de sacco *exterius*, sed quod *interius* feratur vestimentum asperum. — Vel dicendum et melius, quod ita est intelligendum quod *ingrediatur Ecclesiam*, sicut *dormire in sacco*; non enim intelligitur de templo materiali, sed de unitate spirituali; sic interius debet esse amictus sacco, quia vera poenitentia debet esse humilis et austera, quorum utrumque notatur in sacco et fuit in Ninivitis. — Sed ista auctoritas non videtur ad propositum de confessione; et ideo dicendum, quod adducta est non propter confessionem, sed propter satisfactionem; facit tamen ad confessionem quasi *a posteriori.* Et sic patet illud.

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

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that Cassiodorus says: *A vow is judged for the deed.*[^1] For it seems to be said badly, because according to this it avails just as much if one has the will of confessing as if he confesses: therefore he confesses in vain. — Likewise, the Sacrament either confers *something* on one having a good will, or *nothing.* If *something*: therefore to will [it] and to receive the Sacrament are not the same and equivalent. If it confers *nothing* on one having a good will, and confers [it] on no other: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that a *vow* is here called a firm resolve, and this is reckoned for the deed, not because it avails just as much altogether, but because God also accepts this, and if the vow is present and the opportunity is lacking, God holds [the man] excused. I grant, therefore, well, that he who receives the Sacrament in deed always receives something and has some benefit; nevertheless, where the opportunity is lacking, God reckons the vow itself sufficient for obtaining [it]; and where it is present, before [one] arrives at the deed, He reckons [it] fit for obtaining grace. Nor yet does he confess in vain; for if he were not to confess according to place and time, the vow would not be a true [vow], or would cease to be, if it were [one] before[^2].

<!-- page 433 -->

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says, that *no one can confess unless raised up [from death].* For it seems not to be true what he says, because according to this, since no dead man is bound to his own raising-up, because this is impossible, no sinner is bound to confession; which is unfitting.

**I respond:** It must be said that *to be able to confess* is twofold: either by uncovering the sin, so that it be a *manifest* confession, and thus it can be done even by a sinner; or so that it be a truly *reconciliative* confession, and thus it cannot be done except by one who is just and raised up. For if it be done otherwise, [the man] is absolved outwardly, but not inwardly. For it avails nothing for salvation to assess a temporal penalty for anyone, until the Lord absolves [him] from the eternal [one][^3].

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *That, as [the soul is] the life of the body, so its life is God.* For it seems to be false, because the soul by giving life informs the body, but God is not the form of the soul[^4]. — Likewise, a body deprived of the life of the soul is not raised up except by a miracle: therefore it seems that justification is miraculous; which does not seem [so], since no one wonders at this, nor is it unusual[^5].

**I respond:** It must be said that God is the life of the soul as the soul [is] of the body, in a certain way, and in a certain way not so. For in this there is a *likeness*, that just as the body needs the soul and is given life by it, as long as it is joined to it, and by its separation grows worthless; so, as long as the soul is united to God by charity, it is given life, and when it is separated from Him, it dies and grows worthless. But in this there is an *unlikeness*, because the soul is joined naturally and by the corruption of nature is naturally separated, so that appetite and need are in both, because they constitute a third [thing][^6]; but from God and the soul one [thing] is not made. And *moreover*, that conjunction is of the will on both sides; and hence it is, that because our will is by nature changeable, and the divine mercy is prompt to have mercy, the raising-up of the soul is not *miraculous*, but, to speak more properly, is *wondrous*[^7].

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says, that *he does not merit to be justified who in his life is unwilling to confess [his] sin.* For it seems to speak improperly, because justification precedes all merit: therefore no one merits to be justified. — Likewise it is asked: since all the virtues are given to man, namely faith, charity, etc., why is justification rather called the deletion of fault than [anything] else? — Likewise, since the soul is said to be *justified*, *given life*[^8], *healed*, and *renewed*; it is asked what is the difference between these.

**I respond:** It must be said that justification does not fall under the merit of *condignity*, yet it falls under the merit of *congruity*[^9]; and the repairing of the soul is called *justification.* For actual sin is a disorder or twisting about some act of the soul; and through this the soul is separated from God, and from this it incurs a double evil, namely *difficulty toward the good*, and this is called oldness, by which the soul is now grown old; and *proneness toward evil*, and this is called infirmity; whence every sin is called injustice, is called death, is called oldness, is called infirmity[^10]. By the opposite, therefore, the soul at the coming of grace is *given life*, and from the reception of the virtues ordering all the powers is *justified* — and this indeed is done in an instant — whence justification is named from *general justice*; but it is further *healed* through the grace of the Sacraments, and is *renewed* through good exercise and becomes ever fitter for the good. Whence the Apostle says in the second to the Corinthians four[^11]: *That [the inward man] is renewed day by day, just as the outward [man] day by day is corrupted.*

Whence it is to be noted that sin is in one way called infirmity and oldness, in another way the sequel of sin. And in the first way, indeed, healing and renewal are done at once; in the second way, successively, nor is perfect health and newness attained except in glory, because proneness and difficulty always remain in the way[^12].

As to what then is asked: why is it called justification? it must be said that it is named from general justice, not from cardinal justice. — As to what is asked, how these differ, it is now plain. — That too is plain which has been wont to be asked, to whom [the office] of healing belongs. For I say that it belongs to contrition, insofar as it is an act of the virtues, to justify; but to it, insofar as it is sacra-

<!-- page 434 -->

mental, [it belongs] to cure — for the Sacraments properly heal, and the virtues rectify — but insofar as [it is] of grace, [it belongs] to *give life*; insofar as [it is] of all of these, to renew[^13].

### Doubt V

Likewise it is asked about this, that Chrysostom says: *Unless he be purged from every sin by penitence and confession, or baptism.* It is asked how these three are distinguished; for it seems that confession does not differ from these.

**I respond:** It must be said that the curing of a disease is twofold: either by virtue, or by Sacrament. If by virtue, he means by penitence; if by Sacrament, this is twofold, just as there is a double *plank*[^14]; and thus there is confession and baptism. — Otherwise it can be said, and better, that Chrysostom speaks of adults, and these are purged by a double Sacrament, namely confession and baptism; and the preparation for both is contrition, and this he gives to be understood by the name of penitence.

### Doubt VI

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Let no one say: I do penitence secretly* etc. For from this it seems that all penitence is to be done in public, and that seems [to follow] from the following text concerning Job[^15]: *If I have blushed at my sins* etc.; according to this it seems that everyone is bound to confess his sins in the sight of the people: therefore he who confesses in private is not truly penitent.

**I respond:** It must be said that Augustine understands [it] of the concealment which is done with respect to the priest, to whom the Lord commands [him] to make [them] manifest, not with respect to other persons[^16].

### Doubt VII

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *It is a venial fault, which the confession of offenses follows.* For it seems to be said badly, because a fault is not lightened by a following effect, although it is aggravated [by one]: therefore it seems that a mortal [sin] never becomes venial through confession. — Likewise, a venial [sin] does not become mortal, therefore neither [does it become so] conversely. — Likewise, if it becomes venial because God remits [it], by parity of reason, indeed by a much stronger [reason], he ought to say [the same] of contrition.

**I respond:** It must be said that in the absolution which is in contrition, the fault receives pardon as to the eternal penalty, but in confession it partly receives pardon, partly not, because it is bound to one part of the penalty [and] from another is absolved. And therefore Ambrose[^17] says, that *it becomes venial*, not as to the stain, but as to the obligation to some penalty. And so that is plain.

### Doubt VIII

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Let him sleep in sackcloth.* For it does not seem fitting, since even many [who are] in silks, not in rough [garments][^18], do penitence.

**I respond:** It must be said that *sackcloth* is taken for any humiliation whatever, by that trope by which the species is taken for the genus[^19]. — Or it must be said that it is [a matter] of perfection and a counsel; nor is it understood of sackcloth *outwardly*, but that *inwardly* a rough garment be worn. — Or it must be said, and better, that it is to be understood that *he enter the Church* just as [that he] *sleep in sackcloth*; for it is not understood of a material temple, but of spiritual unity; thus inwardly he ought to be clothed with sackcloth, because true penitence ought to be humble and austere, both of which are noted in sackcloth and were [found] in the Ninevites. — But this authority does not seem to the point concerning confession; and therefore it must be said that it is adduced not for the sake of confession, but for the sake of satisfaction; yet it bears on confession as it were *a posteriori.* And so that is plain.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 40. a. 1. q. 3. — Pro *verum*, quod exhibent codd. H L U (bb a secunda manu) et codd. F G K omittunt, alii cum edd. *aut.* — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 2; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. II *Sentences*, d. 40, a. 1, q. 3. — For *verum* ("true"), which codices H L U (bb by a second hand) exhibit and codices F G K omit, others with the editions [read] *aut* ("or"). — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 2; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Vide infra p. II. a. 2. q. 3. et d. 18. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. scholion. — Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 18. m. 4. a. 5. § 7; B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: See below, p. II, a. 2, q. 3, and d. 18, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, scholion. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 18, m. 4, a. 5, § 7; Blessed Albert, here a. 6; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 229, nota 1.

en: Cf. above, p. 229, note 1.

la: Vide Aristot., I. de Anima, text. 90. et II. text. 4. seqq. (I. c. 3. et II. c. 1.). — Superius post *coniungitur* codd. R S supplent *corpori.*

en: See Aristotle, *On the Soul* I, text 90, and II, text 4 ff. (I, c. 3, and II, c. 1). — Above, after *coniungitur* ("is joined") codices R S supply *corpori* ("to the body").

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 18. a. 1. q. 2. ad 8, ubi distinctio inter *miraculum* et *mirabile* exponitur. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. II *Sentences*, d. 18, a. 1, q. 2, ad 8, where the distinction between *miracle* and *wonder* is expounded. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Ita codd. M U; in edd. omittitur *iustificari*, econtra in aliis codd. *vivificari.*

en: So codices M U; in the editions *iustificari* ("to be justified") is omitted, [whereas] on the contrary in other codices [it reads] *vivificari* ("to be given life"). [This variant note glosses the Dub. IV enumeration word *vivificari*; printed as p.433's footer at the column seam — see [^8] and the editorial caution in the Notes.]

la: Cfr. supra d. 15. p. I. q. 5.

en: Cf. above, d. 15, p. I, q. 5.

la: Cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 31, 3. n. 13; Anselm., de Conceptu virgin. etc. c. 3.

en: Cf. Augustine, *Enarrations on the Psalms*, Ps. 31, [sermon] 3, n. 13; Anselm, *On the Virginal Conception* etc., c. 3.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 321, nota 1. De seq. propos. cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 6. — Pro *universas* cod. W *diversas.*

en: Cf. above, p. 321, note 1. On the following proposition cf. above, d. 1, p. I, q. 6. — For *universas* ("all") codex W [reads] *diversas* ("diverse").

la: Vers. 16: *Licet is qui foris est noster homo corrumpatur, tamen is qui intus est, renovatur* etc. — Post *in diem* cod. X addit *homo interior.*

en: Verse 16: *Though our outward man is corrupted, yet [the man] who is within is renewed* etc. — After *in diem* ("day by day") codex X adds *homo interior* ("the inward man").

la: Cfr. August., de Perfectione iustitiae hominis, c. 4. n. 9.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the Perfection of Man's Justice*, c. 4, n. 9.

la: Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 17. m. 1. a. 1. seqq.; B. Albert., hic a. 17. seqq.; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 17, m. 1, a. 1 ff.; Blessed Albert, here a. 17 ff.; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1.

la: Cap. 31, 33: *Si abscondi quasi homo peccatum meum.* Cfr. tamen hic lit. Magistri, c. 1, verba Augustini, ex quibus textus huius dubii sumtus est.

en: Chapter 31:33: *If as a man I have hidden my sin.* Cf. however here the text of the Master, c. 1, the words of Augustine, from which the text of this doubt is taken.

la: Vide infra p. III. a. 1. q. 3; Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 18. m. 4. a. 11. § 8; B. Albert., hic a. 26. seq.; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: See below, p. III, a. 1, q. 3; Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 18, m. 4, a. 11, § 8; Blessed Albert, here a. 26 f.; St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Cfr. supra d. 16. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. — Inferius pro *pari ratione, immo* edd. *per confessionem.* — In textu huius dubii. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 28; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. above, d. 16, p. II, a. 3, q. 1. — Below, for *pari ratione, immo* ("by parity of reason, indeed") the editions [read] *per confessionem* ("through confession"). — In the text of this doubt. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 28; Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Codd. D Q *mollibus* pro *non asperis*, edd. *asperas poenitentias*, cod. U *mollibus asperas poenitentias*, cod. O *in ciliciis asperis.*

en: Codices D Q [read] *mollibus* ("in soft [garments]") for *non asperis* ("not rough"), the editions *asperas poenitentias* ("rough penances"), codex U *mollibus asperas poenitentias* ("in soft [garments], rough penances"), codex O *in ciliciis asperis* ("in rough hair-shirts").

la: Cfr. August., III. de Doctr. christian. c. 34. n. 47. — Deinde post *quod est perfectionis* plures codd. omittunt *et*, edd. legunt: *quod non est praeceptionis, sed consilii.* — Verbum Hieronymi hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1, allegatum, ex quo textus huius dubii. — Cod. K (I a secunda manu) *ingredi Ecclesiam est.* Vat., pro *ita* posito *sicut*, hic prosequitur *sic quod dormiat in sacco.* — Ionae 3, 5. seqq. Cfr. Hieron. in hunc loc. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 30.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On Christian Doctrine* III, c. 34, n. 47. — Then, after *quod est perfectionis* ("that it is [a matter] of perfection") several codices omit *et* ("and"), the editions read: *quod non est praeceptionis, sed consilii* ("that it is not of precept, but of counsel"). — The word of Jerome cited here in the text of the Master, c. 1, from which [comes] the text of this doubt. — Codex K (I by a second hand) [reads] *ingredi Ecclesiam est* ("is to enter the Church"). The Vatican [edition], for *ita* ("just as") placing *sicut* ("as"), here continues *sic quod dormiat in sacco* ("thus that he sleep in sackcloth"). — Jonah 3:5 ff. Cf. Jerome on this passage. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 30.

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`vol4-p432-{L,R}-*` through `vol4-p434-{L,R}-*`, split x=1880) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion (the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters this dubia region — every Respondeo and footer is diagonally fragmented and two-column-bled), cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 48711–48943. English is a fresh literal translation. The dubia open on printed p.432 (PDF 452) under the full-width centered header DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI and conclude on printed p.434 (PDF 454) at the close of Dub. VIII (*…facit tamen ad confessionem quasi a posteriori. Et sic patet illud.*), immediately before the DIST. XVII. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I. running head / Pars II Commentarius opening on p.435. Running heads read **DIST. XVII. P. I. DUBIA. 433** (odd page) and **434 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.** (even page) — confirmed DIST. XVII, P. I.

**Dubia count: 8** (Dub. I–VIII). Each follows the Master's-text format: a lemma from Lombard's text (*Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit…*) + objection (*Videtur enim…*) + **Respondeo**. Dub. III and Dub. IV have multi-pronged objections; Dub. VII has three; the rest are single-objection.
- **Dub. I** — On Cassiodorus's *Votum pro operatione iudicatur*: does the vow-to-confess make actual confession superfluous / does the Sacrament confer nothing? Ans.: the vow (firm resolve) is reckoned for the deed where opportunity is lacking; the Sacrament-in-deed always confers something; the vow is no true vow if one refuses to confess when place/time allow.
- **Dub. II** — On *nemo potest confiteri nisi suscitatus*: then no dead sinner is bound to confess (absurd). Ans.: "to be able to confess" = (a) manifest confession (even a sinner can), (b) truly reconciliative confession (only one just and raised up); temporal-penalty assessment avails nothing till the Lord absolves from the eternal.
- **Dub. III** — On *ut anima vita corporis, ita eius vita Deus est*: God is not the soul's form; is justification then miraculous? Ans.: God is the soul's life by a *likeness* (charity vivifies as soul vivifies body) and an *unlikeness* (soul-body union is natural and constitutes a third; God-soul union is voluntary); raising the soul is not *miraculosa* but *mirabilis*.
- **Dub. IV** — On *non meretur iustificari qui… non vult peccatum confiteri*: justification precedes merit; why is it called deletion-of-fault; how do *iustificari / vivificari / sanari / renovari* differ? Ans.: justification falls under merit of *congruity* not *condignity*; actual sin yields oldness (difficulty-to-good) + infirmity (proneness-to-evil); grace vivifies + justifies (in an instant, from *general* justice), then heals (Sacraments) and renews (good exercise, 2 Cor. 4:16); contrition justifies *qua* virtue-act, cures *qua* sacramental, vivifies *qua* grace.
- **Dub. V** — On Chrysostom's *poenitentiam et confessionem, vel baptismum*: how do the three differ; does confession differ from them? Ans.: cure of the disease is by virtue (penitence) or by Sacrament (the double *tabula* = confession + baptism); better, Chrysostom speaks of adults purged by the two Sacraments, with contrition as the preparation called "penitence."
- **Dub. VI** — On *Nemo dicat: Occulte ago poenitentiam* (+ Job *Si erubui peccata mea*): must all penitence be public? Ans.: Augustine speaks of concealment from the *priest*, whom the Lord commands [him] to tell, not from other persons.
- **Dub. VII** — On *Venialis est culpa, quam sequitur confessio delictorum*: a fault is not lightened by a following effect; mortal never becomes venial; venial→mortal fails, so the converse too. Ans.: in contrition-absolution the fault is pardoned as to eternal penalty; in confession partly pardoned, partly bound; per Ambrose it *becomes venial* as to obligation-to-penalty, not as to the stain.
- **Dub. VIII** — On *Dormiat in sacco*: unfitting, since many in silks do penance. Ans.: "sackcloth" = any humiliation (species-for-genus); or it is counsel/perfection (inward rough garment); best, "enter the Church" = "sleep in sackcloth" understood of spiritual unity — true penitence is humble and austere (the Ninevites); the authority bears on satisfaction, and on confession only *a posteriori*.

**Page-split map (mid-page seams, all verified grammatically continuous against the column bands; within each page read Left column top→bottom, then Right column):**
- The full-width centered header DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI sits on **p.432** below the upper two-column block, which holds the close (Conclusio + replies 1–4) of the *preceding* Pars I quaestio (a. 2, q. 1) — that quaestio is a separate prior chunk, NOT part of these dubia. DUB. I's objection then occupies p.432 L (lower) and its Respondeo p.432 R (lower).
- `<!-- page 433 -->` falls at the **Dub. I → Dub. II** boundary: Dub. I closes at the foot of p.432 R (*…aut esse desisteret, si prius esset.*); Dub. II opens at the top of p.433 L. (Clean inter-dubium boundary, not a mid-sentence splice.)
- `<!-- page 434 -->` falls **inside Dub. IV** (the closing *cuius sit sanare* passage), at the *…sed eius, in quantum est sacramen- | talis, est curare* seam (p.433 R-bottom → p.434 L-top — verified grammatically continuous).

**Footer ownership (Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; markers re-mapped to a single chunk-wide [^1]–[^19] sequence by content, not OCR digit order):**
- **p.432** — the printed footer block has 6 numbered footers, but footers **1–4 belong to the preceding a.2 q.1 chunk** (Conclusio/replies); only footers **5–6 belong to the dubia** (Dub. I) → [^1] (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*) and [^2] (*Cfr. II. Sent. d. 40… Pro verum…*). The four q.1 footers are NOT rendered here (they are owned by the prior chunk).
- **p.433** — footers → [^3]–[^12]. Dub. II: [^3] (*Vide infra p.II a.2 q.3…*). Dub. III: [^4] (*Cfr. supra pag. 229*), [^5] (*Aristot. de Anima*), [^6] (*II Sent. d.18… miraculum/mirabile*). Dub. III/IV seam: [^7] (*Ita codd. MU… iustificari/vivificari* — the column-seam variant note, see caution). Dub. IV: [^8] (same MU variant, anchored at the body *vivificari*), [^9] (*Cfr. supra d.15 p.I q.5*), [^10] (*August. Enarrat. in Ps. 31 / Anselm*), [^11] (*Vers. 16 / 2 Cor.*), [^12] (*August. de Perfectione iustitiae* — glossing the *renovare* clause that runs over onto p.434 L).
- **p.434** — footers → [^13]–[^19]. Dub. IV tail: [^13] (*Cfr. August. de Perfectione iustitiae hominis, c.4 n.9*, glossing the *renovare* close). Dub. V: [^14] (*Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal. q.17…*). Dub. VI: [^15] (*Cap. 31,33 Si abscondi*), [^16] (*Vide infra p.III a.1 q.3…*). Dub. VII: [^17] (consolidates *Cfr. supra d.16 p.II a.3 q.1* + *pari ratione* edd. + *In textu huius dubii*). Dub. VIII: [^18] (*Codd. DQ mollibus*), [^19] (consolidates *August. III de Doctr. christ. c.34* + *Verbum Hieronymi* + *Cod. K ingredi Ecclesiam* + *Ionae 3,5*).

**[?] flags / editorial cautions:**
- **None at the body level** — all 8 dubia bodies read cleanly from the column bands. The Quaracchi footnote *numbers* in the cascade-shattered OCR are unreliable, so the [^N] anchors were placed by *content* (the lemma each footer glosses) against the printed footer text read off the band L-2/R-2 crops, not by trusting OCR digit order.
- **[^7] / [^8] duplication (intentional, flagged for the d.20 polish-pass):** the printed apparatus carries ONE variant note (*Ita codd. M U; in edd. omittitur* iustificari*…*) that glosses the Dub. IV enumeration word *vivificari*. Its marker sits at the p.433 R-column footer block adjacent to the Dub. III close. To keep apparatus paired both where the OCR ambiguously seats the marker (Dub. III tail) and at the unambiguous body anchor (*vivificari* in Dub. IV's *iustificari, vivificari, sanari et renovari*), the same note is carried at **both** [^7] and [^8]. This is the only deliberate duplication; net distinct apparatus entries: **18** (19 markers). A 600 dpi footer eyes-on in the d.20 gate can collapse it to a single marker if the seat is confirmed unique.

**Pars II boundary confirmed:** Dub. VIII is the last dubium of Pars I; it closes on p.434 (*…Et sic patet illud.*). The next page (p.435, running head **DIST. XVII. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I.**) opens the **Pars II Commentarius** (Bonaventure's commentary on Dist. XVII Pars II), which is a separate chunk (`bon-sent-IV-d17-p2-*`). Hand-off to Pars II: the p.434 footer block is fully owned here ([^13]–[^19]); p.435's footers belong to the Pars II divisio/q.1 chunk. This dubia chunk ends cleanly above the p.435 header.