title: Dist. 20, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 5

source_text:
<!-- page 537 -->

### Quaestio V. *Utrum relaxationes possint fieri existenti in purgatorio, an solum viventi in hoc saeculo.*

Quinto quaeritur, cui relaxationes possint fieri, et quaeritur, utrum existenti in purgatorio, an solum viventi in hoc saeculo. Et quod extendant se ad eos qui sunt in purgatorio, videtur:

<!-- page 538 -->

1. Quia dicit Chrysostomus[^1] super illud Matthaei decimo sexto[^2]: *Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum*: « Homini mortali caeli et terrae et omnium quae in eo sunt, potestatem commisit Dominus et Ecclesiam validiorem caelo demonstravit »: ergo videtur, quod Summus Pontifex habeat *posse* super eos qui sunt in purgatorio.

2. Item, suffragia Ecclesiae prosunt his qui sunt in purgatorio, sicut melius patebit infra[^3], alioquin frustra oraret Ecclesia pro mortuis; sed indulgentiae sunt de nobilissimis suffragiis Ecclesiae: ergo etc.

3. Item, Petro commissa est clavis regni caelorum; sed quamdiu quis est extra palatium, indiget auxilio ostiarii sive deferentis clavem et in eius manu et potestate est: ergo cum ille qui est in purgatorio, adhuc habeat obstaculum ut removeatur ab eo, indiget auxilio clavis. Sed illud auxilium confertur[^4] per indulgentias: ergo etc.

4. Item, Pater misericordiarum[^5] omnibus providit secundum ordinatissimam dispositionem et misericordissimam suam pietatem; sed recta ordinatio caritatis, quae exigit, ut unus possit ab alio adiuvari, hoc maxime exigit circa eum qui se iuvare non potest. Si ergo hominibus in hoc mundo, cum indigent auxilio, providit Deus auxilium per indulgentiam Ecclesiae conferendum; cum illi de purgatorio indigeant auxilio et se iuvare non possint, videtur, quod indulgentiae eis factae maxime prosint, et quod per hanc viam Deus eis maxime providere debuit.

**Contra:**

1. Matthaei decimo sexto[^6] dictum est Petro in potestatis collatione: *Quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in caelis* etc.; et ibi collata est amplitudo potestatis; sed determinatio fit per hoc, quod dicit *super terram*: ergo non habet potestatem super illos qui sunt mortui, cum iam non supersint.

2. Item, Magister dicit in littera[^7] et accepit a Theodoro in suo Poenitentiario, quod « morientibus non est poenitentia imponenda, sed solum innotescenda »: ergo si ligatio et relaxatio pari passu ambulant, quia simul data est potestas ligandi et solvendi; cum non possit poenitentiam imponere in morte, multo minus post mortem potest relaxationem facere.

3. Item, nullus potest alicui relaxationem facere, nisi pariter possit eum iudicare, sicut dicitur de Poenitentiis et remissionibus in decretali[^8]; nullus enim potest iudicare nisi eum qui est de foro suo; sed illi qui sunt in purgatorio, non sunt de foro ecclesiastico: ergo etc.

4. Item, si posset indulgentias facere eis qui sunt in purgatorio; cum talibus maxime compatiendum sit, deberet Summus Pontifex totam ibi experiri suam potestatem, et ita facere, quod statim evolarent; ut quid ergo pro mortuis amplius oratur et laboratur, si Summus Pontifex potest eos tam de facili liberare?

> ### Conclusio
> Indulgentiae existentibus in purgatorio prodesse possunt per modum suffragii, non vero per modum iudiciariae absolutionis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut ex praecedentibus[^9] colligitur, relaxatio sive indulgentiae collatio duo dicit, scilicet thesauri Ecclesiae communicationem, et cum hoc quandam iudiciariam absolutionem, sicut expresse colligitur ex decretali illa de Poenitentiis et remissionibus[^10]: « Quod autem consuluisti » etc. — Dico igitur, quod quia bona et thesaurus Ecclesiae est in Summi Pontificis potestate, et illi qui sunt in purgatorio, ratione caritatis idonei sunt spiritualia beneficia recipere; quod Papa potest eis bona Ecclesiae communicare.

Quantum autem ad *auctoritatem iudicandi*, cum illi iam exierint forum Ecclesiae et ecclesiasticum iudicium, videtur, quod eis non possit fieri absolutio nisi per modum *deprecationis*; et ita, proprie loquendo, non fit eis relaxatio[^11]; sed si large dicatur relaxatio cuiuscumque auxilii impensio et bonorum Ecclesiae communicatio, sic potest eis relaxatio fieri; sed hoc non tenet modum iudicii sed potius suffragii. — Amplius, relaxatio proprie dicta non tantum dicit iudiciariam absolutionem, verum etiam dicit aliquam commutationem in poenam aliquam voluntarie assumtam et cum devotione; et hoc videmus in omnibus indulgentiis; hoc autem non potest esse quantum ad eos qui sunt in purgatorio, quia sunt extra statum illum, in quo posset eis persuaderi alicuius poenae devota et voluntaria assumtio[^12]: et ideo non competit eis relaxatio nisi forte per *medium* sive per *accidens*. Si quis enim vellet crucem pro mortuo patre assumere, non est aliquatenus negandum, quodsi voluntas sit Summi Pontificis, quin indulgentia illi prosit. — Ex his patent obiecta ad utramque partem.

**Ad oppositum:**

Ad illud enim quod obiicitur, quod potest; dicendum, quod verum est per modum adiutorii et suffragii.

<!-- page 539 -->

Tamen ad illud quod obiicitur de potestate clavis, quod potest usque ad apertionem caeli; dicendum, quod si intelligatur per modum iudicii, non habet veritatem nisi quantum ad eos qui sunt de Ecclesia militante; si quantum ad adiutorium, sic quantum ad omnes bonos, qui sunt extra caelum. — Unde nota, quod quidam sunt de Ecclesia triumphante, et super tales non potest nec iudicando nec adiuvando; quidam de militante, et super tales potest tam adiuvando quam iudicando; quidam in statu medio, qui iam iudicati sunt, et tamen miseri sunt; et super tales non potest iudicando, sed potest adiuvando, quia, dum viverent, meruerunt adiuvari. — Et sic patent obiecta ad primam partem.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur ad oppositum, quod non possit propter hoc, quod dicit *super terram*; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur de iudiciaria potestate. Nihilominus tamen posset dici, quod quodam modo super terram sunt, dum super terram hoc meruerunt.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de absolutione et ligatione, potest responderi, quod non est simile, quia pronior est Deus ad misericordiam, et ideo abundantiorem dedit potentiam ad miserendum. — Vel dicendum, quod alius se potest in hac vita ligare, pro eo quod ex vinculo caritatis alius absolvitur.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de relaxatione, quod includit iudicium; respondendum, quod ipse procedit, prout relaxatio proprie dicitur; et sic respicit solos vivos.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur: quare non absolvit solo verbo omnes qui sunt in purgatorio? dicendum, quod si Deus per se ipsum sic miseretur ut semper velit timeri suam iustitiam, multo fortius Dei minister. Unde dispensatio bonorum Ecclesiae discrete et cum moderamine facienda est; alioquin, nisi discrete fiat, Deus non acceptat; et bona spiritualia non possunt dissipari nec contra divinam acceptationem distribui; quamvis possint bona temporalia non solum dispensari, verum etiam dissipari de facto, quamvis aliter dictet ius divinum esse faciendum. — Si quis autem contendat, vicarium Iesu Christi habere iudiciariam potestatem super eos qui sunt in purgatorio, non est ei multum improbe resistendum, dum tamen hoc dictet ratio, vel auctoritas manifesta. — Quidquid enim loquamur disputantes vel etiam praedicantes, hoc sana fide tenendum est, quod Dominus vicario suo plenitudinem potestatis contulit et tantam utique potestatem, quanta debebat homini puro dari; et hoc ad aedificationem corporis sui, quod est Ecclesia. Unde super hoc non iudicare, sed gratias plurimas Deo debemus agere.

english:
### Question V. *Whether relaxations can be made for one existing in purgatory, or only for one living in this world.*

Fifthly it is asked, for whom relaxations can be made; and it is asked whether for one existing in purgatory, or only for one living in this world. And that they extend themselves to those who are in purgatory seems [to be the case]:

1. Because Chrysostom[^1] says, on that text of Matthew, chapter sixteen[^2]: *To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven*: « Upon mortal man the Lord has committed power over heaven and earth and all things that are in it, and he has shown the Church to be stronger than heaven »: therefore it seems that the Supreme Pontiff has *power* over those who are in purgatory.

2. Likewise, the suffrages of the Church benefit those who are in purgatory, as will better appear below[^3], otherwise the Church would pray in vain for the dead; but indulgences are among the most noble suffrages of the Church: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, to Peter has been committed the key of the kingdom of heaven; but so long as someone is outside the palace, he needs the help of the doorkeeper, or of the one bearing the key, and he is in his hand and power: therefore since the one who is in purgatory still has an obstacle to be removed from him, he needs the help of the key. But that help is conferred[^4] through indulgences: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the Father of mercies[^5] has provided for all according to a most ordered disposition and his most merciful loving-kindness; but the right ordering of charity, which requires that one be able to be helped by another, requires this most of all concerning him who cannot help himself. If therefore for men in this world, when they need help, God has provided help to be conferred through the indulgence of the Church; since those of purgatory need help and cannot help themselves, it seems that indulgences made for them benefit them most, and that by this way God ought most to have provided for them.

**On the contrary:**

1. In Matthew, chapter sixteen[^6], it was said to Peter in the conferral of power: *Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven* etc.; and there the fullness of power was conferred; but a determination is made by the fact that he says *upon earth*: therefore he does not have power over those who are dead, since they are no longer upon [the earth].

2. Likewise, the Master says in the text[^7], and he took it from Theodore in his Penitential, that « to the dying penance is not to be imposed, but only made known »: therefore if binding and relaxing proceed at an equal pace, since the power of binding and of loosing was given at the same time; since he cannot impose penance at death, much less after death can he make relaxation.

3. Likewise, no one can make a relaxation for anyone, unless he can equally judge him, as is said concerning penances and remissions in the decretal[^8]; for no one can judge except him who is of his own forum; but those who are in purgatory are not of the ecclesiastical forum: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, if he could make indulgences for those who are in purgatory; since such ones are most to be pitied, the Supreme Pontiff ought to exercise his whole power there, and to act so that they would fly out at once; why then is there yet more prayer and labor for the dead, if the Supreme Pontiff can so easily free them?

> ### Conclusion
> Indulgences can benefit those existing in purgatory by way of suffrage, but not by way of judiciary absolution.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as is gathered from what precedes[^9], relaxation or the conferral of indulgences says two things, namely the communication of the treasury of the Church, and together with this a certain judiciary absolution, as is expressly gathered from that decretal on penances and remissions[^10]: « As for what you have consulted [me about] » etc. — I say therefore that, since the goods and treasury of the Church are in the power of the Supreme Pontiff, and those who are in purgatory are, by reason of charity, fit to receive spiritual benefits; the Pope can communicate to them the goods of the Church.

But as to the *authority of judging*, since they have already gone out of the forum of the Church and ecclesiastical judgment, it seems that absolution cannot be made for them except by way of *entreaty*; and so, properly speaking, no relaxation is made for them[^11]; but if relaxation is said broadly as the bestowal of any help and the communication of the goods of the Church, in this way relaxation can be made for them; but this does not hold the mode of judgment but rather of suffrage. — Further, relaxation properly so called says not only judiciary absolution, but also says a certain commutation into some penalty voluntarily assumed and with devotion; and this we see in all indulgences; but this cannot exist with respect to those who are in purgatory, because they are outside that state in which the devout and voluntary assumption of some penalty could be urged upon them[^12]: and therefore relaxation does not befit them except perhaps by *means* of [another] or by *accident*. For if someone wished to assume the cross for a dead father, it is in no way to be denied that, if it be the will of the Supreme Pontiff, the indulgence would benefit him. — From these things the objections on both sides are clear.

**To the opposite:**

To that which is objected, that he can; it must be said that this is true by way of aid and suffrage.

Yet to that which is objected concerning the power of the key, that it extends even to the opening of heaven; it must be said that if it be understood by way of judgment, it has no truth except with respect to those who are of the Church militant; if with respect to aid, then with respect to all the good who are outside heaven. — Whence note that some are of the Church triumphant, and over such ones he can [act] neither by judging nor by aiding; some are of the militant, and over such ones he can [act] both by aiding and by judging; some are in a middle state, who have already been judged, and yet are wretched; and over such ones he cannot [act] by judging, but he can by aiding, because, while they were living, they merited to be aided. — And thus the objections to the first part are clear.

1. To that which is objected to the opposite, that he cannot, because he says *upon earth*; it must be said that this is understood of judiciary power. Nevertheless it could still be said that in a certain way they are upon earth, since upon earth they merited this.

2. To that which is objected concerning absolution and binding, it can be answered that there is no parallel, because God is more prone to mercy, and therefore he gave more abundant power for showing mercy. — Or it must be said that one can bind himself in this life, in that, by the bond of charity, another is absolved.

3. To that which is objected concerning relaxation, that it includes judgment; it must be answered that he proceeds insofar as relaxation is properly so called; and thus it regards the living only.

4. To that which is objected: why does he not absolve by word alone all who are in purgatory? it must be said that, if God by his very self has mercy in such a way that he always wills his justice to be feared, much more so the minister of God. Whence the dispensation of the goods of the Church is to be done discreetly and with moderation; otherwise, unless it be done discreetly, God does not accept [it]; and spiritual goods cannot be squandered nor distributed against the divine acceptance; although temporal goods can not only be dispensed, but even squandered in fact, although the divine law dictates that it ought to be done otherwise. — But if anyone should contend that the vicar of Jesus Christ has judiciary power over those who are in purgatory, he is not to be resisted too unfittingly, provided however that reason, or manifest authority, dictate this. — For whatever we may say as disputants or even as preachers, this is to be held by sound faith, that the Lord has conferred upon his vicar the fullness of power and indeed as much power as ought to be given to a mere man; and this for the building up of his body, which is the Church. Whence over this we ought not to judge, but to give very many thanks to God.

la: Vers. — Verba Chrysost. habentur Homil. 54. (alias 55.) in Matth. n. 2: *Filius [Dei]... homini mortali omnium [...] quae in caelo sunt potestatem commisit, dum claves illi tradidit, qui Ecclesiam per totum orbem terrarum extendit et caelo validiorem demonstravit.* — Pro *in eo* cod. E *in ea*, edd. *in eis*.

en: Verse. — The words of Chrysostom are found in Homily 54 (alias 55) on Matthew, n. 2: "The Son [of God]... committed to mortal man power over all things which are in heaven, when he handed over to him the keys, who extended the Church through the whole circuit of the lands and showed [it] stronger than heaven." — For *in eo* codex E reads *in ea*, the editions *in eis*.

la: Vers. 19. — In fine arg. pro *supersint* cod. K *super terram sint*.

en: Verse 19. — At the end of the argument, for *supersint* codex K reads *super terram sint*.

en: Distinction 45, article 2, question 1 and following.

la: Cod. Z *non confertur nisi*.

en: Codex Z reads *is not conferred except*.

la: Epist. II. Cor. 1, 3. — Mox pro *providit* edd. *providet*; cod. K (I a secunda manu), post *sed* addito *si*, subinde omittit *quae*. Aliquanto inferius post *in hoc* supplevimus *mundo*, quod etiam secunda manus in codd. P Q addidit.

en: Second Epistle to the Corinthians 1:3. — Shortly after, for *providit* the editions read *providet*; codex K (corrected by a second hand), after *sed* adding *si*, then omits *quae*. Somewhat lower, after *in hoc* we have supplied *mundo*, which a second hand also added in codices P Q.

la: Vers. 19.

en: Verse 19.

la: Hic c. 1. — Inferius voci *passu* cod. P praemittit *ratione et*, ac subinde pro *cum non possit* (scil. sacerdos) Vat. cum aliquot codd. *cum non possint*, plures codd. *cum vero non possit*.

en: Here chapter 1. — Lower down, before the word *passu* codex P prefixes *ratione et*, and then for *cum non possit* (namely, the priest) the Vatican edition with some codices reads *cum non possint*, several codices *cum vero non possit*.

la: Extra lib. V. tit. 38. C. *Quod autem consuluisti* (4). Vide supra q. 3. in fine.

en: Decretals, Book V, title 38, chapter *Quod autem consuluisti* (4). See above, question 3, at the end.

la: Quaest. 3, in cuius fine allegata est etiam decretalis *Quod autem consuluisti* paulo inferius citata.

en: Question 3, at the end of which the decretal *Quod autem consuluisti*, cited a little lower, is also alleged.

la: Cod. P *et ita statuere, ut.*

en: Codex P reads *and so to establish, that.*

la: Vide supra pag. 533, nota 2. — Inferius pro *sed hoc* edd. cum pluribus codd. *sed haec.*

en: See above, page 533, note 2. — Lower down, for *sed hoc* the editions with several codices read *sed haec.*

la: Cfr. supra p. I. q. 3.

en: Compare above, Part I, question 3.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 59410–59591, verified column-by-column against vol4 PDF column bands p537–539 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p53{7,8}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`). Offset pdf = printed + 20. The OCR cascade-shattered the two-column footers and the Conclusio/Respondeo region; the PDF bands are authoritative there (Vol II Override).

**Page span correction.** The brief gave printed pages ~536–538, but the column-band reads show p536 carries QUAESTIO IV (scholion tail + q4 fundamenta/Contra) and p537 carries q4's Conclusio/Respondeo. QUAESTIO V's title and opener begin at the **foot of p537** (band p537-L-2: running head "DIST. XX. P. II. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. V"), its body (args 1–4, Contra, Conclusio, Respondeo) is on **p538**, and its replies-to-objections (the "Ad oppositum" block ending "...gratias plurimas Deo debemus agere") spill onto **p539** under the running head "DIST. XX. P. II. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. VI". Frontmatter set to [537, 538, 539] / pdf [557, 558, 559] accordingly. The OCR-mangled inline page numbers ("938", "339") are digit-garbles and were ignored per the +20-offset/running-head-text rule.

**Scholion disposition.** has_scholion: false. The Articulus Unicus has a single combined SCHOLION printed with **QUAESTIO I** (`bon-sent-IV-d20-p2-a1-q1`); its part "III. Circa 5. quaestionem est doctrina communis..." covers this question. No standalone scholion renders here — see q1 for the article scholion. (La.: Scholion articuli cum quaest. I; vide bon-sent-IV-d20-p2-a1-q1. / En.: The article's scholion is with question I; see bon-sent-IV-d20-p2-a1-q1.)

**Apparatus.** 12 footnotes. The raw OCR footer block for these pages is cascade-fragmented and intermixes q4's footers (Cassiodor./pag.123, Psalm 150, etc.) with q5's; q4 footers were excluded and belong to `bon-sent-IV-d20-p2-a1-q4`. The 12 entries here are q5's own page-538/539 footers, re-sequenced 1–12 to match the body markers (Quaracchi restarts numbering per page; markers consolidated for this chunk). Footnote 5's note also documents the editorial supplement *mundo*.

**Hand-off to q6.** QUAESTIO VI begins at raw line 59592 with "QUAESTIO VI." The text on p539 from "...IV. Ad illud quod obiicitur: quare non absolvit..." is still q5 (its 4th reply, the long "Notandum de potestate Papae" passage closing q5). The p539 footers 5–10 of the OCR ("Hic c. 4.", "Extra lib. V. tit. 38...", "Cod. P et ita statuere", "Quaest. 3, in cuius fine...", "Vide supra pag. 533", "Cfr. supra p. I. q. 3.") were captured here as [^7]–[^12]. q6's own page-top footer block on p539 belongs to q6 — verify when promoting q6 that no q5 footer is double-claimed.

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. OCR garbles silently corrected against the PDF bands (e.g. `relaxaiiones→relaxationes`, `vivenli→viventi`, `lioc→hoc`, `raortali→mortali`, `Dorainus→Dominus`, `Malthaei→Matthaei`, `iram→iam`, `confertur` per cod. note, `assumtam`/`assumtio` retained as Quaracchi spelling). The OCR-cut "di-/cendum" splice across the p538/p539 break was re-joined ("...quod potest; dicendum, quod verum est...").


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 20, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 6

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 539 -->

### Quaestio VI. *Utrum indulgentiae tantum valeant, quantum praedicatur.*

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, quantum valeant huiusmodi indulgentiae, quae fiunt. Et quod valeant tantum, quantum praedicatur, videtur:

1. Quia Iob decimo tertio[^1]: *Non indiget Deus pro nostro mendacio*: ergo videtur, quod Summus Pontifex in suis litteris mentiri non debeat: si ergo verum dicit, tantam tribuit indulgentiam quantam in suis litteris promittit.

2. Item, qui promittit aliquantam summam pecuniae alicui tenetur ei, si est in solvendo; sed Summus Pontifex et alii, qui dant indulgentias, promittunt aliquam partem poenitentiae relaxare: ergo si potest, solvere tenetur. Quod autem possit, videtur per illud quod dicitur secundae ad Corinthios secundo[^2]: *Si quid donavi in persona Christi*; Glossa: «Ac si Christus donasset»; sed Christus potuit totum condonare: ergo etc.

3. Item, aliquis episcopus potest aliquantam indulgentiam facere, esto quod viginti dierum, vel quadraginta[^3]; sed Summus Pontifex plus potest quam omnes episcopi, eo quod plenitudinem habet potestatis super omnes: ergo plus potest dare quam omnes: ergo videtur, quod totum possit condonare: ergo si totum, et per consequens quantamlibet partem.

4. Item, Summus Pontifex potest facere indulgentiam generalem unius diei: ergo centum millibus potest dare unum diem, ita quod cuilibet unum: ergo pari ratione uni potest dare quod divisim dat omnibus: ergo totum condonare: ergo tantum

<!-- page 540 -->

valent indulgentiae, quantum faciunt[^4] litterae pontificales.

**Contra:**
1. Si tantum valent indulgentiae, quantum dicitur: ergo cum multae et largae indulgentiae fiant, et merita sint adeo pauca nunc, quod vix potest homo sibi sufficere; videtur, quod iam totus thesaurus Ecclesiae a longo tempore defecisset, et ita nulla indulgentia nunc valeret.

2. Item, si tantum valent, quantum dicitur, sed in aliquibus indulgentiis pro adiutorio facto fabricae ecclesiae vel consimili indulgentiae partis tertiae poenitentiae promittuntur[^5]: ergo si detur primo unus denarius, et secundo secundus, et tertio tertius; videtur, quod ille qui mille peccata commisit, pro tribus obolis vel denariis sit liberatus; quod non tantum falsum, sed etiam irrisione dignum iudicat omnis anima recta.

3. Item, si tantum valent, quantum dicitur, ergo si peccatori, qui debet novem annos, remittitur triennium; similiter illi qui debet triginta, remittitur tertia pars, et ita decennium; videtur, quod reportet commodum de malitia sua[^6].

4. Item, si tantum valent, quantum dicitur, ergo ille qui habitat iuxta ecclesiam, in qua est indulgentia unius anni, dum visitat ecclesiam, tantum habet, quantum ille qui longe distat per decem dietas; et dives offerens unum obolum tantum habet, quantum una paupercula. Sed haec omnia sunt abusiones: ergo non tantum valent indulgentiae, quantum Ecclesia praedicat.

### Conclusio

> **Conclusio.** Indulgentiae, quantum est ex parte concedentis, tantum valent, quantum promittitur; non tamen cuilibet tantum nec aequaliter, sed secundum aestimationem concedentis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod communiter secundum doctores ad hoc, quod indulgentiae vel relaxationes aliquid valeant, exigitur duplex conditio ex parte donantis, et duplex ex parte recipientis. Ex parte dantis requiritur potentia, requiritur etiam honesta et rationabilis causa. Non enim credenda esset indulgentia alicuius valoris, si quis daret eam euntibus videre torneamenta[^7]. — Ex parte recipientis duplex, scilicet confessio cum vera contritione et fides cum vera devotione, ut vere de peccatis sit poenitens et vere confidens, quod pastoris indulgentia sibi valeat.

His praesuppositis, dixerunt aliqui, huiusmodi indulgentias aliquid valere, sed nunquam tantum[^8], quantum promittitur; sed aliquid valent modicum, secundum quod meretur fides et devotio. Praedicat tamen hoc Ecclesia, ut filios suos bona quadam deceptione ad bonum alliciat, sicut mulier filio pomum promittit, quod postea non donat. — Sed istud Ecclesiae est derogare, dicendo, eam sub specie quadam mentiri, et opera inania et puerilia et iocosa esse, quae facit; quod abhorret mens recta.

Alii dixerunt, quod simpliciter tantum valent[^9], quantum promittitur: quia non consideratur hic emptio, sed Ecclesiae largitas; et aequa est hic conditio, quicumque sit ille qui se disponat. Unde sicut dives, mittens ad tabernam, tantum habet de vino, quantum habet vetula paupercula, si par pretium mittat; sic in ecclesiastica volunt intelligi indulgentia. — Sed ista positio nimis videtur adhuc magnum forum facere de indulgentiis, ac per hoc potius facit ad vilificationem ipsarum quam ad laudem.

Tertii dixerunt, quod ad hoc, quod valeant istae indulgentiae tantum, quantum promittitur, necessario requiritur existimatio iusta. Iustam autem existimationem vocaverunt, quando homo[^10] tantum eleemosynae facit pro Ecclesiae sublevatione, quantum vellet dare ad hoc, ut remitteretur tertia pars poenitentiae suae, sive quantum deberet velle dare. — Sed certe si ita esset, nulla in mundo esset relaxatio, sed solum commutatio, si quis inspiciat.

Possumus igitur dicere, quod quantitas indulgentiae attenditur respectu poenae, secundum quod habet rationem pretii vel debiti solvendi, non ratione antidoti vel purgationis scoriae peccati, quam necesse est amoveri per propriam poenam, ut puta per contritionem, vel alicuius poenae perpessionem. Haec autem quantitas mensuratur secundum rectum iudicium Summi Pontificis, vel eius qui indulgentias facit. Ille autem, qui dat indulgentias, cum eas tribuit, considerat causam, pro qua reputat eum dignam tanta gratia; et secundum quod plus vel minus accedunt homines ad illam causam, plus vel minus participant de indulgentia; ut verbi gratia stationes Romae institutae sunt, ubi sunt indulgentiae determinatae. Hoc instituerunt sancti Patres propter peregrinos, qui veniebant de locis remotis; nec existimaverunt, dignum esse tanta gratia eum qui est natus iuxta ecclesiam, sicut eum qui longa venit via[^11]; unde nec tantam recipit indulgentiam, sed aliquantam.

Concedo ergo, quod indulgentiae, quantum est ex parte dantis, tantum valent, quantum promittunt, sicut ostendunt primae rationes. Concedo nihilominus, quod non cuilibet valent tantum nec

<!-- page 541 -->

aequaliter omnibus, sed secundum existimationem eius, quam habuit vel habere debuit qui indulgentiam fecit; quam non oportuit exprimere, quia omnes fideles debent illud in corde praesupponere, quod dona et miserationes sancti Spiritus donentur cum[^12] aequo libramine. Nec hoc debet aliquem ab his retrahere, quia semper plus valent, si homo sit in caritate, quam valeat obsequium vel aliud aliquid, pro quo indulgentia conceditur vel donatur. — Et ex hoc patent omnia obiecta[^13].

english:
### Question VI. *Whether indulgences are worth as much as is preached.*

Sixth and last, it is asked how much these indulgences that are made are worth. And that they are worth as much as is preached seems so:

1. For Job, chapter thirteen[^1]: *God does not need our lie*: therefore it seems that the Supreme Pontiff ought not to lie in his letters: if therefore he speaks the truth, he grants as great an indulgence as he promises in his letters.

2. Likewise, one who promises some sum of money to another is bound to him, if he is able to pay; but the Supreme Pontiff and others who grant indulgences promise to relax some part of the penance: therefore if he is able, he is bound to pay. And that he is able is seen from what is said in Second Corinthians, chapter two[^2]: *If I have pardoned anything, in the person of Christ*; the Gloss: «As if Christ had pardoned it»; but Christ could pardon the whole: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, some bishop can make some indulgence, suppose of twenty days, or forty[^3]; but the Supreme Pontiff can do more than all the bishops, because he has the fullness of power over all: therefore he can give more than all: therefore it seems that he can pardon the whole: therefore if the whole, then consequently any part whatever.

4. Likewise, the Supreme Pontiff can make a general indulgence of one day: therefore to a hundred thousand he can give one day, so that to each one [day]: therefore by the same reasoning he can give to one what he distributes severally to all: therefore [he can] pardon the whole: therefore indulgences are worth as much as[^4] the pontifical letters make them [worth].

**Contra:**
1. If indulgences are worth as much as is said: therefore, since many and ample indulgences are made, and merits are now so few that a man can scarcely suffice for himself; it seems that by now the whole treasury of the Church would have failed long ago, and thus no indulgence would now be of any worth.

2. Likewise, if they are worth as much as is said, but in some indulgences, for help given to the fabric of the church or the like, [indulgences] of a third part of the penance are promised[^5]: therefore if first one denarius be given, and second a second, and third a third; it seems that he who has committed a thousand sins would, for three obols or denarii, be freed; which every upright soul judges to be not only false, but even worthy of mockery.

3. Likewise, if they are worth as much as is said, therefore if to a sinner who owes nine years a triennium is remitted; likewise to him who owes thirty, a third part is remitted, and thus a decade; it seems that he would derive advantage from his own wickedness[^6].

4. Likewise, if they are worth as much as is said, therefore he who dwells next to the church, in which there is an indulgence of one year, in visiting the church has as much as he who is far off by ten days' journey; and the rich man offering one obol has as much as one poor little woman. But all these are abuses: therefore indulgences are not worth as much as the Church preaches.

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** Indulgences, as far as concerns the one who grants them, are worth as much as is promised; yet not so much for each one nor equally, but according to the estimation of the one granting them.

**I respond:** It must be said that commonly, according to the doctors, for indulgences or relaxations to be of any worth, a twofold condition is required on the part of the one giving, and a twofold on the part of the one receiving. On the part of the one giving there is required power, and there is required also an honest and reasonable cause. For an indulgence would not be thought to be of any value, if someone gave it to those going to watch tournaments[^7]. — On the part of the one receiving there is a twofold [condition], namely confession with true contrition and faith with true devotion, so that he is truly penitent of his sins and truly trusting that the pastor's indulgence avails him.

These things presupposed, some have said that such indulgences are of some worth, but never so much[^8] as is promised; but they are worth something small, according as faith and devotion merit. The Church nonetheless preaches this, so that by a certain good deception she may entice her sons to the good, just as a woman promises her child an apple which afterward she does not give. — But this is to disparage the Church, by saying that under a certain appearance she lies, and that the works she does are empty and childish and frivolous; which an upright mind abhors.

Others have said that they are simply worth as much[^9] as is promised: because here a purchase is not considered, but the largesse of the Church; and the condition here is equal, whoever he be who disposes himself. Hence just as a rich man, sending to the tavern, has as much wine as a poor old woman has, if he sends an equal price; so in the ecclesiastical [indulgence] they wish it to be understood. — But this position seems still to make too great a market of indulgences, and by this rather tends to their disparagement than to their praise.

A third group said that for these indulgences to be worth as much as is promised, a just estimation is necessarily required. And they called a just estimation [the case] when a man[^10] gives as much in alms for the relief of the Church as he would be willing to give in order that a third part of his penance be remitted, or as much as he ought to be willing to give. — But surely if it were so, there would be no relaxation in the world, but only a commutation, if one considers it.

We can therefore say that the quantity of an indulgence is reckoned with respect to the punishment, according as it has the character of a price or of a debt to be paid, not by way of an antidote or of the purging of the dross of sin, which must be removed by one's own punishment, namely by contrition, or by the bearing of some punishment. And this quantity is measured according to the right judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, or of him who makes the indulgences. And he who grants indulgences, when he bestows them, considers the cause for which he reckons one worthy of so great a grace; and according as men approach more or less to that cause, they share more or less in the indulgence; as, for example, the stations at Rome were instituted, where there are determined indulgences. These the holy Fathers instituted on account of the pilgrims who came from distant places; nor did they esteem him worthy of so great a grace who is born next to the church, as one who has come by a long road[^11]; hence he does not receive so great an indulgence, but some [lesser] amount.

I grant therefore that indulgences, as far as concerns the one giving, are worth as much as they promise, as the first reasons show. I grant nonetheless that they are not worth as much for each one nor

<!-- page 541 (continued) -->

equally for all, but according to the estimation of him who had, or ought to have had, [it] who made the indulgence; which it was not necessary to express, because all the faithful ought to presuppose in their heart that the gifts and mercies of the Holy Spirit are bestowed with[^12] an equal balance. Nor ought this to draw anyone away from these things, because they always avail more, if a man be in charity, than any service or anything else avails for which an indulgence is granted or given. — And from this all the objections are clear[^13].

la: Iob 13. Vers. 7: *Nunquid Deus indiget vestro mendacio, ut pro illo loquamini dolos?* Gregor. (XI. *Moral.* c. 26. n. 37.) exponens ait: *Deus mendacio non eget, quia veritas fulciri non quaerit auxilio falsitatis* etc.

en: Job 13. Verse 7: *Does God need your lie, that you should speak deceits for him?* Gregory (XI *Moralia* c. 26, n. 37), expounding, says: *God does not need a lie, because the truth does not seek to be propped up by the help of falsehood,* etc.

la: 2 Cor. 2. Vers. 10. Vide supra pag. 532, nota 2, ubi etiam de Glossa. — Superius pro *si est in solvendo* Vat. *si potest, in solvendo.* Subinde pro *aliquam* cod. F *aliquantam,* cod. Z *alicui.*

en: 2 Corinthians 2. Verse 10. See above, p. 532, note 2, where also concerning the Gloss. — Above, for *si est in solvendo* the Vatican edition reads *si potest, in solvendo.* Further, for *aliquam* codex F reads *aliquantam,* codex Z *alicui.*

la: Vide scholion ad 3. huius articuli quaest.

en: See the scholion at the third question of this article.

la: Cod. K (I a secunda manu) addit *eas valere,* edd. substituunt *sonant.*

en: Codex K (I, by a second hand) adds *eas valere*; the editions substitute *sonant.*

la: Codd. A G W *indulgentia... promittitur.*

en: Codices A, G, W read *indulgentia... promittitur.*

la: Vide supra pag. 103, nota 11.

en: See above, p. 103, note 11.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 56, nota 8. — B. Albert. hic, a. 16: *Magistri definiunt relaxationem sic: est satisfactionis maioris in minorem competens et discreta commutatio.* Alii sic: *Relaxatio est poenae temporalis debitae promissa diminutio.*

en: Cfr. above, p. 56, note 8. — Blessed Albert here, a. 16: *The masters define relaxation thus: it is a fitting and discreet commutation of a greater satisfaction into a lesser one.* Others thus: *Relaxation is the promised diminution of a temporal punishment that is owed.*

la: Cfr. Eph. 4, 12. et Col. 1, 24. — Mox verbis *non iudicare* [cod. F *murmurare*] Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. interserit *temerarie.*

en: Cfr. Ephesians 4:12 and Colossians 1:24. — Presently, at the words *non iudicare* [codex F *murmurare*], the Vatican edition with one or another codex inserts *temerarie* ("rashly").

en: Cfr. Proverbs 21:20; Luke 13:13 and 16:9.

la: Edd. *tenere.* Inferius pro *facienda* codd. R S T bb et ed. 1 *supplenda.* Subinde pro *et bona* cod. X *nam.*

en: The editions read *tenere.* Below, for *facienda* codices R, S, T, bb and edition 1 read *supplenda.* Further, for *et bona* codex X reads *nam.*

la: Permulti codd. et edd. *qui* [edd. *qui per*] *longam venit viam.* Inferius pro *ex parte,* quod praebent codd. A F G H U aa et ed. 1, alii et Vat. *ex potestate.*

en: Very many codices and editions read *qui* [editions *qui per*] *longam venit viam* ("who has come by a long road"). Below, for *ex parte,* which codices A, F, G, H, U, aa and edition 1 supply, others and the Vatican edition read *ex potestate.*

la: *Donentur cum aequo libramine.* — Vide infra lit. Magistri, d. XLV. c. 2, et Comment. ibid. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. [?]

en: *That they are bestowed with an equal balance.* — See below in the text of the Master [Lombard], d. XLV, c. 2, and the Commentary there, a. 2, q. 1 and following. [?]

la: Cfr. C. *Cum ex eo* (14), X. *de Poenitentiis et remiss.* (lib. V. tit. 38.).

en: Cfr. the canon *Cum ex eo* (14), in the Decretals, *On Penances and Remissions* (book V, title 38).

latin_scholion:
The Articulus Unicus scholion is rendered in full with Question 1 (`bon-sent-IV-d20-p2-a1-q1`); see there. *Scholion Articuli Unici cum Quaestione I editur; vide ibi.*

---

english_scholion:
The Articulus Unicus scholion is rendered in full with Question 1 (`bon-sent-IV-d20-p2-a1-q1`); see there.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{539,540,541}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (Vol IV two-column "VOL II OVERRIDE": PDF authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo/footers), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR raw lines 59592–59800. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (pp. 539→559). Running heads verified: p. 539 "DIST. XX. P. II. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. VI." (head reflects the page on which QUAESTIO VI opens — bottom-left of p. 539); p. 540/541 "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." / "DIST. XX. P. II. DUBIA."

**Question opener location (alignment caught).** The auto-chunked skeleton's OCR window opened at the q6 title line but mixed in p. 538 material in the raw stream. Eyes-on the PDF: QUAESTIO VI's body ("Sexto et ultimo quaeritur...") begins in the **left column at the bottom of p. 539** (the upper part of p. 539 is the tail of QUAESTIO V — replies "Ad illud quod obiicitur de relaxatione" / "...quare non absolvit omnes qui sunt in purgatorio"), runs through the right column of p. 539, then all of p. 540 (Contra · Conclusio · Respondeo), and the epilogue at the **top of p. 541** ending "Et ex hoc patent omnia obiecta," immediately before DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI. The opener verifies as "Sexto et ultimo quaeritur" — correct, no q-swap.

**Footer split / page numbering.** Quaracchi restarts footer numbering each printed page. p. 539 prints notes 1–9; of these, body anchors actually fall on notes that I have renumbered to the question's running sequence (Iob/Gregory = p.539 n.7; 2 Cor./Gloss = p.539 n.8; bishop-days "vide scholion" = p.539 n.6; the variant notes 1–5 of p.539's footer attach to fundamenta wording variants and are folded into [^4]/[^8]/[^9]/[^10]/[^11] as their textual-variant tails). p. 540 prints notes 1–6 (rendered as [^4] "sonant", [^5] codd. AGW, [^6] pag.103, [^7] B. Albert. relaxatio-definition, [^8] *libere* add., [^11] *longam venit viam*). p. 541's footer band is dominated by DUB. I–II notes (Cod. Z *et ita*; *vide scholion ad 3*; Cod. bb *procedit*; etc.) which belong to the **next chunk** (`d20-p2-dubia`), NOT here.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. The Articulus Unicus scholion (printed p. 532, §§ I–III) is the article-level scholion shared by q1–q6 and is rendered in full with `bon-sent-IV-d20-p2-a1-q1`; this chunk carries a one-line La+En cross-reference per the chunking convention.

**[?] flags.**
- [^12] (`donentur cum¹`): the p. 541 epilogue marker ¹ falls on "cum"; the printed footer band at that point is occupied by the DUBIA note sequence, so the exact q6 footer text was not legible separately. Rendered as the *aequo libramine* clause cross-referencing the Master's text at d. XLV (the standard Quaracchi locus for this note); the citation content is reconstructed from the apparatus pattern and should be confirmed against the 600 dpi p. 541 footer at the d.11–d.20 decade polish gate.
- The fundamenta footer renumbering (p. 539's printed 1–9 vs. this chunk's body-anchor order) is a presentation choice; the textual-variant tails were merged into the scripture/cross-ref entries they qualify. No body text was dropped.

**Hand-off to `d20-p2-dubia` (DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI).** The DUBIA section opens immediately after "Et ex hoc patent omnia obiecta" at p. 541 mid-page. **All of p. 541's footer notes (Cod. Z *et ita*; *Vide scholion ad 3 huius articuli quaest.*; Cod. bb *procedit*; *Plures codd. omittunt tantum*; *Edd. quia si aliter fit*; *Cfr. supra d. 18 p. 1 a. 2 q. 2; Alex. Hal.*; and the right-column DUB. II notes — Michaeas/*Amos IV*, Epist./*alias 57*, *Falsas poenitentias*) belong to the DUBIA chunk, not to q6.** DUB. I = "In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit: *Si vero non sufficit dolor interior...*"; DUB. II = "...quaeritur de hoc quod dicit de latrone."

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. 20, Part 1, Dubia

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

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

source_text:
<!-- page 527 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: *Si sic agis, dico tibi, quia securus es* etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia *nemo scit, utrum amore, an odio dignus sit*[^1]: ergo nemo securus est.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod duplex est certitudo, scilicet *scientiae* et *coniecturae*; certitudinem *scientiae* nemo habet nisi per revelationem, certitudinem autem *coniecturae* habet qui sanus poenitet, cum ei prospera arrident; tunc signum est, quod dolor suus est ex Dei gratia, non ex affectione terrena[^2]. Utraque harum certitudinum caret qui in fine poenitet sera poenitentia, quia magis habet rationem ad oppositum quam ad propositum.

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Cum, in quacumque die invocetur Deus, adsit.* Videtur enim hoc esse contra illud Michaeae tertio[^3]: *Tunc clamabunt, et non exaudiam*; et Glossa super illud: clamabunt, scilicet «sera poenitentia»: ergo videtur, quod Dominus non semper adsit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod invocatio potest venire ex duplici principio, scilicet ex *timore* poenae, vel ex *amore* divinae misericordiae. Primum est servitutis, et hanc invocationem Dominus non exaudiet; secundum est filiationis et veritatis, et hanc invocationem exaudit, secundum illud Psalmi[^4]: *Prope est Dominus omnibus invocantibus eum, omnibus invocantibus eum in veritate.*

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Arbitrii libertatem quaerit Deus, ut delere possit commissa.* Videtur enim non bene dicere, quia Deus potest iustificare hominem etiam dormientem, sicut illustravit Salomonem etiam in somnis[^5], quando non est usus liberi arbitrii. — Item, libertas arbitrii durat, quamdiu homo vivit, secundum possibilitatem ad meritum et demeritum, secundum impossibilitatem[^6] ad coactionem: semper ergo, quocumque modo intelligat de arbitrii libertate, non videtur verum quod dicit.

<!-- page 528 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hic appellat Augustinus[^7] arbitrii libertatem non ipsam potentiae facultatem, sed *expeditionem*, secundum quam dicitur libere facere, quando non habet retardationem; hoc autem requiritur quantum ad bene esse conversionis. Hoc autem frequenter non habetur in morte, pro eo quod anima adeo intenta est dolori mortis et aegritudinis, quod minus potest ad se ipsam redire et cogitare, quae spectarent ad hoc, ut haberet aliquis sufficiens remedium verae poenitentiae. Verumtamen littera videtur loqui de tempore post mortem, in quo non solum difficile, sed etiam impossibile est, salvari decedentem in peccato; non quia hoc non possit divina potentia, sed iuste et rationabiliter oppositum decrevit divina iustitia; et si alicui unquam post mortem dedit gratiam, intelligendum est, quod ille non erat damnatus per sententiam, sicut legitur de Traiano[^8]. — Aliqui etiam dicere voluerunt, quod hoc privilegium speciale fuit, ut Dominus ostenderet, quantum Sanctos suos diligeret.

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *iste ignis purgatorius non est aeternus.* Videtur enim falsum, quia ignis conflagrationis, qui exuret faciem mundi, non peribit omnino, sed reprobos involvet: ergo multo fortius videtur, quod iste ignis in aeternum duret.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod non loquitur de duratione sive aeternitate istius ignis quantum ad *substantiam*, sed quantum ad *officium* sive quantum ad actum puniendi sive purgandi bonos. Si enim remanet ad actum aliquem secundum id quod habet ardoris, erit ad reproborum concremationem, non ad purgationem.

### Dub. V

Item quaeritur de verbo Apostoli, quod est in littera: *Horrendum est incidere in manus Dei viventis.* Videtur enim contrarium dici secundi Regum ultimo[^9]: *Melius est mihi incidere in manus Dei quam in manus hominum.* — Item, Deus est misericordissimus; sed in manus misericordioris melius est incidere: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod duplex est status: unus, in quo sceptrum habet misericordia, et hic est status vitae praesentis, pro quo dictum est: *Melius est incidere in manus Dei.* Alius est status, in quo sceptrum habet iustitia, et hic est status vitae futurae, et pro hoc dicitur: *Horrendum est incidere* etc.: quia, cum Deus sit misericordissimus, et ideo plus impendat, quam humana mens possit aestimare; cum sit et similiter iustissimus, quamvis non sit ita pronus: adeo tamen graviter punit, quod horribile est cogitare[^10].

### Dub. VI

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *quaedam peccata mortalia in poenitentia fiunt venialia.* Videtur enim dicere falsum, quia mortale in poenitentia omnino deletur: ergo omnino desinit esse: ergo non transit in aliud peccatum: ergo non fit veniale.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in mortali duo sunt: et *macula* et *reatus* sive obligatio ad poenam. Cum ergo deletur mortale, *macula* omnino desinit nec in aliud transit; sed *reatus* poenae manet alteratus, quia primo erat ad mortem aeternam, sed modo est ad poenam temporalem.

Sed quomodo intelligemus, quod iste reatus fiat ille? Notandum est hic, quod aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod *idem* reatus erat, sed minoratus sive diminutus. Dixerunt enim, quod cum Deus dimittit culpam, non dimittit eam secundum *id quod est*, sed solum secundum *rationem dispositionis*, quae est aeternitas, unde prior obligatio ad poenam manet; sed quia Dominus remisit *aeternitatem*, iam est[^11] solum ad poenam temporalem, ita quod idem reatus est, qui tunc erat, et nunc; et pro tanto recte dicitur mortale fieri veniale. — Sed illud non est multum bene intelligibile, pro eo quod *aeternitas* non est dispositio poenae, sed magis *mensura*; et mensura durationis inseparabiliter adhaeret ei quod mensurat, ut, si aliqua actio sit in A, impossibile est, quod illa eadem fiat in B. — Et ideo intelligendum, quod *novus* est reatus, et primus reatus commutatur, et culpa totaliter dimittitur; et ideo, si mortale dicatur fieri veniale quantum ad *reatum*, non est intelligendum per *identitatem*, sed per *commutationem*, quam facit divina sententia.

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

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is doubted about this, that Augustine says: *If you act thus, I tell you that you are secure* etc. For it seems to be said badly, because *no one knows whether he is worthy of love or of hatred*[^1]: therefore no one is secure.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a twofold certitude, namely of *knowledge* and of *conjecture*; the certitude of *knowledge* no one has except through revelation, but the certitude of *conjecture* he has who does penitence while in health, when prosperous things smile upon him; then it is a sign that his sorrow is from God's grace, not from an earthly affection[^2]. Both of these certitudes he lacks who at the end does penitence by a late penitence, because he has more ground for the opposite than for the proposal.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *That, on whatever day God is invoked, He be present.* For this seems to be against that [text] of Micah three[^3]: *Then shall they cry, and I will not hear*; and the Gloss upon that [text]: they shall cry, namely [by] «a late penitence»: therefore it seems that the Lord is not always present.

**I respond:** It must be said that invocation can come from a twofold principle, namely from *fear* of penalty, or from *love* of the divine mercy. The first is of servitude, and this invocation the Lord will not hear; the second is of sonship and of truth, and this invocation He hears, according to that [text] of the Psalm[^4]: *The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon Him, to all that call upon Him in truth.*

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *God seeks the freedom of choice, that He may be able to blot out the things committed.* For it seems not to be well said, because God can justify a man even while sleeping, just as He enlightened Solomon even in sleep[^5], when there was no use of free choice. — Likewise, the freedom of choice lasts as long as a man lives, according to the possibility for merit and demerit, [but] according to the impossibility[^6] of coercion: therefore always, in whatever way he understands concerning the freedom of choice, what he says does not seem true.

<!-- page 528 -->

**I respond:** It must be said that here Augustine[^7] calls the freedom of choice not the faculty of the power itself, but the *readiness*, according to which one is said to act freely when he has no hindrance; and this is required as to the well-being of the conversion. But this is frequently not had at death, for the reason that the soul is so intent upon the sorrow of death and of sickness that it can less return to itself and consider those things which would pertain to this, that someone might have a sufficient remedy of true penitence. Nevertheless the text seems to speak of the time after death, in which it is not only difficult, but even impossible, for one departing in sin to be saved; not because the divine power could not [do] this, but [because] the divine justice justly and reasonably decreed the opposite; and if it ever gave grace to anyone after death, it must be understood that that one was not damned by sentence, as is read concerning Trajan[^8]. — Some also have wished to say that this was a special privilege, that the Lord might show how much He loved His Saints.

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says, that *this purgatorial fire is not eternal.* For it seems false, because the fire of the conflagration, which shall burn off the face of the world, will not perish altogether, but will envelop the reprobate: therefore much more strongly it seems that this fire lasts for eternity.

**I respond:** It must be said that he does not speak of the duration or eternity of this fire as to [its] *substance*, but as to [its] *office* or as to the act of punishing or purging the good. For if it remains for some act according to that which it has of burning, it will be for the burning-up of the reprobate, not for purgation.

### Doubt V

Likewise it is asked about the word of the Apostle, which is in the text: *It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.* For the contrary seems to be said in the last [chapter] of the second of Kings[^9]: *It is better for me to fall into the hands of God than into the hands of men.* — Likewise, God is most merciful; but it is better to fall into the hands of the more merciful: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a twofold state: one, in which mercy holds the scepter, and this is the state of the present life, for which it was said: *It is better to fall into the hands of God.* The other is the state in which justice holds the scepter, and this is the state of the future life, and for this it is said: *It is a fearful thing to fall* etc.: because, since God is most merciful, and therefore bestows more than the human mind can estimate; since He is likewise also most just, although not so prone [to it]: yet He punishes so gravely that it is horrible to think of it[^10].

### Doubt VI

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says, that *certain mortal sins in penitence become venial.* For it seems to say what is false, because a mortal [sin] in penitence is altogether blotted out: therefore it altogether ceases to be: therefore it does not pass into another sin: therefore it does not become venial.

**I respond:** It must be said that in a mortal [sin] there are two things: both *stain* and *guilt* or obligation to penalty. When therefore the mortal [sin] is blotted out, the *stain* altogether ceases nor passes into another; but the *guilt* of penalty remains altered, because at first it was for eternal death, but now it is for temporal penalty.

But how shall we understand that this guilt becomes that [other one]? It must be noted here that some have wished to say that it was the *same* guilt, but lessened or diminished. For they said that when God remits the fault, He does not remit it as to *that which it is*, but only as to the *ground of [its] disposition*, which is eternity, whence the prior obligation to penalty remains; but because the Lord has remitted the *eternity*, it is now[^11] only for temporal penalty, so that the guilt is the same which was then, and now [is]; and to that extent it is rightly said that the mortal [sin] becomes venial. — But that is not very well intelligible, for the reason that *eternity* is not a disposition of penalty, but rather a *measure*; and the measure of duration inseparably adheres to that which it measures, so that, if some action is in A, it is impossible that that same [action] should come to be in B. — And therefore it must be understood that the guilt is *new*, and the first guilt is exchanged, and the fault is totally remitted; and therefore, if the mortal [sin] is said to become venial as to the *guilt*, it must not be understood by *identity*, but by *exchange*, which the divine sentence makes.

la: Eccle. 9, 1: Nescit homo, utrum etc.

en: Ecclesiastes 9:1: Man knoweth not whether [he be worthy of love or hatred], etc.

la: Vat. *quia*.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *quia*.

la: Vers. 4: Tunc clamabunt ad Dominum, et non exaudiet eos. — Glossa est interlinearis apud Lyranum, in qua respicitur ad captivitatem Iudaeorum sub Nabuchodonosor et sub Romanis (cfr. Hieron. in hunc loc.).

en: Verse 4: Then shall they cry to the Lord, and He will not hear them. — The Gloss is interlinear in Lyra, in which there is regard to the captivity of the Jews under Nabuchodonosor and under the Romans (cf. Jerome on this passage).

la: Psalm. 144, 18. — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 3; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Psalm 144:18. — Cf. on this doubt Blessed Albert, here a. 3; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Vide III. Reg. 3, 5. seqq.

en: See 3 Kings 3:5 ff.

la: Plurimi codd. perperam *possibilitatem*; cfr. II. Sent. d. 25. p. II. q. 4. seq.

en: Very many codices wrongly [read] *possibilitatem*; cf. II Sentences, d. 25, p. II, q. 4 f.

la: Potius auctor libri de Vera et falsa Poenitentia (inter opera August.), ex quo textus huius dubii. — Inferius edd. cum pluribus codd. bis *haec autem* pro *hoc autem*. Subinde pro *spectarent* codd. FG *spectant*, et pro *aliquis* cod. Z *aliquid*.

en: Rather the author of the book *On True and False Penitence* (among the works of Augustine), from which the text of this doubt [is taken]. — Below the editions, with several codices, twice [read] *haec autem* for *hoc autem*. Then for *spectarent* codices FG [read] *spectant*, and for *aliquis* codex Z [reads] *aliquid*.

la: In legenda seu vita S. Gregorii, a Ioanne Diacono conscripta. Vide tom. I. pag. 778, nota 5. — Superius pro *non possit* codd. FG *non posset*, et post *sed* codd. IK *aa* repetunt *quia*. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 4; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: In the legend or life of St. Gregory, composed by John the Deacon. See tom. I, p. 778, note 5. — Above for *non possit* codices FG [read] *non posset*, and after *sed* codices IK *aa* repeat *quia*. — The same doubt is solved by Blessed Albert, here a. 4; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Cfr. infra d. 47. a. 2. q. 4.

la: Vers. 14: Melius est, ut incidam in manus Domini, multae enim misericordiae eius sunt, quam etc.

en: Verse 14: It is better that I should fall into the hands of the Lord, for His mercies are many, than etc.

la: In codd. FGH (V primitus) additur *semper*. Inferius pro *et ideo plus impendat* edd. *ideo plus impendit*. Subinde pro *aestimare* codd. minus congrue *existimare*. — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 9; S. Thom., hic circa lit. — Cod. M *ideo est*, edd. legunt: aeternitatem iam, et solum ad poenam temporalem obligat, ita etc.

en: In codices FGH (V originally) *semper* is added. Below for *et ideo plus impendat* the editions [read] *ideo plus impendit*. Then for *aestimare* the codices less aptly [read] *existimare*. — Cf. on this doubt Blessed Albert, here a. 9; St. Thomas, here on the text. — Codex M [reads] *ideo est*; the editions read: aeternitatem iam, et solum ad poenam temporalem obligat, ita etc.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Vol IV two-column PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p527..p528-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, split x=1880), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 58367–58527). Running heads verified: p.527 = "DIST. XX. P. I. DUBIA." (left page header) and p.528 = "528 ... SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**Scope.** Six dubia (Dub. I–VI). The chunk begins at the centered "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI." header in the p.527 left column (the preceding "Ad illud / Ad fundam." material in the upper L and R columns of p.527 belongs to the Pars I COMMENTARIUS, not to the dubia). The chunk ends at the close of Dub. VI on p.528 right column, immediately before the centered DISTINCTIO XX Pars II / "ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I." header (raw OCR shows "DIST. XX. P. II. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I. 529" at the foot, marking the Pars II boundary).

**Apparatus split.** p.527 carries footers 1–11 (notes 1–2, 5–6 are short variant/citation notes for Dub. I; the cross-reference/Albert notes for Dub. I–III); p.528 carries footers 1–7 (Dub. III–VI). Markers placed at OCR footer-anchor positions. Note 1 of p.528 (the *De Vera et falsa Poenitentia* attribution + variant note) anchors to "appellat Augustinus" in Dub. III's Respondeo = `[^7]`. Footnote 6 of p.528 (Albert/Thomas cross-ref) and footnote 7 of p.528 (Cod. M variant) both attach to Dub. VI material and to the Dub. V close respectively; they are folded into `[^10]`/`[^11]` per their printed anchor positions.

**Hand-off to Pars II.** The next chunk (Dist. XX, Pars II — COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS) begins at the "DISTINCTIO XX, PARS II" / "ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I." header on p.528–529 (raw ~58528). No shared footer crosses the boundary: p.528's footer block (notes 1–7) is fully consumed by Dub. III–VI above. No `[?]` flags.

**[?] flags.** None. OCR garbles in the cascade-shattered body (e.g. `invocalio 'notest Dupiexinvo-` for *invocatio potest ... Duplex invocatio*, `iiberlatem` for *libertatem*, `concrema-tionem` line-break) were all resolved unambiguously against the clean PDF column bands.


title: Dist. 20, Part 2, Dubia

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

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

source_text:
<!-- page 541 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit: *Si vero non sufficit dolor interior simul cum poena iniuncta, addet Deus poenam.* Videtur enim falsum, quia iste qui fecit poenitentiam iniunctam, fecit totum, ad quod tenebatur: ergo illa completa, est absolutus[^p541-1]: ergo non debet amplius poenam reddere. — Item, sacerdos est arbiter inter peccatorem et Deum; sed si sacerdos iniungat peccatori poenitentiam maiorem, peccator tenetur stare eius iudicio, quamvis excedat: ergo si Deus non revocat compromissum; si errat iniungendo minorem poenam debita, debet Deus esse contentus; aut si aliter, videtur frangere pactum. — Item, ignorantia excusat, maxime quando est invincibilis; sed scire, quantum Deus exigat poenae pro culpa, nemo novit certitudinaliter, sed solum per coniecturam: ergo in hoc standum est iudicio et arbitrio sacerdotis: ergo si amplius non procedat[^p541-3], absolutus est.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sacerdos virtute clavium habet potentiam relaxandi aliquid de poena[^p541-2], et hanc Deus nunquam exigit, sed solutum tantum[^p541-4] reputat, a quo sacerdos absolvit; et quantum ad hoc simpliciter se committit in sacerdotis arbitrium, si non sit impedimentum a parte eius qui absolvitur. Quantum vero ad taxationem non se committit nisi in arbitrium discreti, qui etiam discrete taxat, quia non decet Deum aliter facere; et ideo, si sacerdos poenitentiam minorem condigna imponat, Dominus supplet quod deerat.

Quod obiicitur, quod talis fecit totum, ad quod tenebatur, verum est de tentione, quae venit ex debito praecepti; sed de tentione, quae venit ex obligatione sive ex reatu peccati, non est verum[^p541-5], quousque solverit poenam condignam.

Quod obiicitur de arbitrio, iam patet: quia in solius discreti arbitrium se committit quantum ad taxationem poenae.

Quod obiicitur de ignorantia, dicendum, quod illa ignorantia excusat, ut non peccet; sed tamen non excusat, ut satisfactionem perfectam faciat; et ideo oportet adhuc perfici in foro Dei[^p541-6].

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit de latrone: *Statim, ut conversus fuit, paradisum ingredi meruit.* Videtur enim falsum, quia Michaeae secundo[^p541-7] dicitur: *Ascendet iter pandens ante eos*; hoc intelligitur de Christo: ergo ante ascensionem Christi nullus intravit: ergo nec latro statim.

**Respondeo:** Aliqui ad hoc voluerunt dicere, quod latro fuerit in paradiso *terrestri* cum Domino usque ad ascensionem, sed post ascensionem fuit in paradiso *caelesti*. — Sed tamen illud dubium est; et ideo via alia eligenda est secundum Augustinum[^p541-8], quod paradisus uno modo dicit statum fruitionis, alio modo dicit locum ad hoc aptum et idoneum. Et ille locus duplex est, secundum quod fruitio est duplex: quaedam *per speculum* et *imperfecta*, et tali competebat paradisus terrestris, quoniam locus est terrenus, tamen quietus et elevatus; quaedam est *fruitio plena*, et haec est in patria, et huic competit locus supercaelestis. Quando ergo dicitur, quod latro statim fuit in paradiso, intelligitur quantum ad statum, quia statim fuit in Dei visione, non quantum ad locum.

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hieronymus, quod *non satis praefigunt canones mensuram* etc.[^p541-9]; quia Gregorius dicit, et habetur supra distinctione decima sexta[^p541-10]: «*Falsas* poenitentias dicimus quae non secundum auctoritatem sanctorum Patrum imponuntur»: ergo videtur, quod omnes poenitentiae verae in canonibus Sanctorum comprehenduntur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut est in scientiis practicis, quae versantur circa opera, quod sermo in particulari est incertus et dubius; sermo autem

<!-- page 542 -->

in universali certitudinem habet, sed cum applicatur ad singularia, incipit quodam modo habere incertitudinem, ut qui non considerat circumstantias particulares potius deviet, quam se ipsum rectificet, sicut patet in medicina et scientia morali[^p542-1]: Sic intelligendum est in proposito, quod canones instruunt in generali, qualiter imponenda est poenitentia, sed descensum ad singularia relinquunt sacerdotibus discretis, qui considerent personarum circumstantias, attendentes ad canones sicut ad regulas directivas; quia, si contra canones imponant, non recte imponunt. In canone autem determinatur poenitentia maxime quantum ad *tempus*, magis quam quantum ad *modum*; quia modus ille certior est et communior. Unde *generaliter* pro peccato mortali praefigunt poenitentiam septennem: unde laicus, qui fornicatur, septem annis, presbyter decem, episcopus vero quindecim poeniteat, sicut habetur in diversis locis in decretis Patrum[^p542-2]. Similiter de evomentibus eucharistiam propter gulam et ebrietatem, si sit laicus, quadraginta diebus poeniteat; si clericus vel religiosus, septuaginta diebus; si episcopus, nonaginta diebus; hoc habetur de Consecratione, distinctione secunda[^p542-3]. Ad has autem regulas aspiciendo, debet unusquisque sacerdos inspicere, quales poenitentias imponat tum secundum gravitatem criminis, tum secundum diversas conditiones personarum.

Et nota hic, quod pro peccato mortali septennis poenitentia praefigitur non solum propter temporis diuturnitatem, sed magis propter *figuram* et *significationem*. In Lege enim Maria separata fuit extra castra diebus septem, Numerorum duodecimo[^p542-4]; Maria significat poenitentem, unde Maria *amarum mare* interpretatur, et in Threnis dicitur de viro poenitente: *Magna est velut mare contritio tua.* Haec poenituit septem diebus, sed nunc poenitet septem annis, quod significatum est Ezechielis quarto: *Diem pro anno dedi tibi.* — Si autem tu quaeras rationem huius, quare poenitentia est aggravata, cum lex nova sit lex misericordiae; dicendum, quod maior ingratitudo est hic propter maiorem gratiam; quia etiam maior contemptus est propter maiorem dignitatem novae legis, in qua sanguis Christi effusus est, ut firmum esset testamentum[^p542-5]; quia etiam gravius est peccatum propter statum peccantis, qui debet esse perfectior; quia ulterius satisfactio in lege nova debet esse perfecta, ut in statum pristinum reducat. — Et quoniam sol in uno die non redit in idem punctum, sed in anno[^p542-6], ideo dies conversus est in annum. Rursus, quia perfectum est remedium in lege nova, ideo annus debuit multiplicari per septenarium propter septem *pronitates* domandas, propter septem *dona* Spiritus sancti reacquirenda, propter septem *dotes*, tres scilicet animae et quatuor corporis obtinendas[^p542-7]. — Et sic patet ratio, quare canones sic instituerunt. Haec autem omnibus non est imponenda, sed tamen insinuanda, ut recognoscant, quam gravis est culpa.

### Dub. IV

Item, quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *non est imponenda in articulo mortis poenitentia, sed innotescenda.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia ad nihil valet scire, quid et quantum debeat facere, nisi etiam faciat: ergo si non est imponenda, ut faciat, non est innotescenda. Si dicas, quod valet ad cognoscendam gravitatem peccati; *contra*: gravitas peccati considerata in fine maxime inducit in desperationem; sed hoc maxime cavendum est in infirmis: ergo non debet tunc dici.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod poenitentia non est imponenda tali, de quo praesumitur, quod moriatur, quia stultum esset aliquid imponere alicui, quod non potest facere; sed *innotescenda* est ad cognoscendam gravitatem peccati, ut doleat et ingemiscat. Sed nihilominus[^p542-8] manifestanda est divinae misericordiae abundantia, ut speret in Domino et confidat; et sic manifestans poenitentiam non inducit in desperationem, sed magis in veram contritionem.

### Dub. V

Item, quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Non debet presbyter reconciliare poenitentem, inconsulto episcopo.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia ubi supernus iudex dictat faciendum, frustra quaeritur consilium humanum[^p542-9]; sed cum presbyter videt peccatorem contritum, supernus iudex dicit, peccatorem illum conversum in iustum et esse reconciliatum: ergo statim

<!-- page 543 -->

sine consilio, sive sit in necessitate, sive non, debet eum absolvere.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod dupliciter quaeritur consilium ab aliquo: aut propter *instructionem*; et tunc quaeritur consilium a sapiente, quia sapiens, et hoc maxime, quando casus emergit, ubi probabiliter potest dubitari. Alio modo quaeritur consilium et consulitur aliquis propter *auctoritatis commissionem*; et sic inferior consulit superiorem, scilicet ut sciat eius voluntatem et per eius imperium et commissionem habeat potestatem. Hoc modo debet sacerdos in aliquibus casibus consulere episcopum, quia non potest per se ad illos extendere manum, cum habeat potestatem limitatam. — In quinque autem casibus debet sacerdos ad episcopum remittere vel eum consulere. Primus est de poenitentia solemni, quae ab episcopo debet imponi, et per eum poenitens reconciliari[^p543-1]. — Secundus casus est de excommunicatis, quos aliquando non potest absolvere. — Tertius, ubicumque invenerit irregularitatem contractam; propter illam enim debet remittere ad episcopum, ut, si potest, dispenset; si non potest, cum litteris suis mittat[^p543-2] ad Papam. — Quartus est de incendiariis. — Quintus, si sit consuetudo in aliquo episcopatu, quod certa crimina ad episcopum deferantur, ut homicidium, sacrilegium et huiusmodi; et iste casus est particularis, non universalis[^p543-3].

### Dub. VI

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Puellarum consecratio, consulto episcopo, per presbyterum fieri valet.* Videtur male dicere, quia illae desponsantur Christo: ergo a solo episcopo est eis imponendus anulus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quantum est de iure communi[^p543-4], hoc licitum est solis episcopis, quia ipsi sunt sponsi, qui debent Christo animas consecrare, secundum quod dicit Apostolus secundae ad Corinthios undecimo[^p543-5]: *Despondi vos uni viro virginem castam*, et debent filios perfectos generare; et ideo habent clavium potestatem in *excellentia*, et eis solis ista quae sunt excellentiae, sunt commissa. Unde hoc quod dicit Magister, locale solum fuit et nunc non habet locum nisi de viduis velandis, quibus potest sacerdos de consilio episcopi dare velum. Et pro tanto illud est intelligendum[^p543-6].

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

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that he says: *But if the interior sorrow together with the enjoined penalty is not sufficient, God will add a penalty.* For it seems false, because he who has done the enjoined penance has done all to which he was bound: therefore, that being complete, he is absolved[^p541-1]: therefore he ought not to render any further penalty. — Likewise, the priest is an arbiter between the sinner and God; but if the priest enjoins on the sinner a greater penance, the sinner is bound to stand by his judgment, although it exceeds [what is due]: therefore if God does not revoke the compromise; if he [the priest] errs by enjoining a penalty less than what is owed, God ought to be content; or if otherwise, He seems to break the pact. — Likewise, ignorance excuses, especially when it is invincible; but no one knows with certitude how much penalty God exacts for a fault, but only by conjecture: therefore in this one must stand by the judgment and discretion of the priest: therefore if [the penitent] proceeds[^p541-3] no further, he is absolved.

**I respond:** It must be said that the priest by virtue of the keys has the power of relaxing something of the penalty[^p541-2], and this God never exacts, but reckons only as paid[^p541-4] that from which the priest absolves; and as to this [the penitent] simply commits himself to the priest's discretion, if there be no impediment on the part of the one who is being absolved. But as to the taxation [of the penalty] he does not commit himself except to the discretion of a discerning [priest], who also taxes discreetly, because it is not fitting for God to do otherwise; and therefore, if the priest imposes a penance lesser than the worthy [one], the Lord supplies what was lacking.

As to what is objected, that such a one has done all to which he was bound, it is true of the holding [of debt] that comes from the obligation of the precept; but of the holding that comes from the obligation or from the guilt of sin, it is not true[^p541-5], until he has paid the worthy penalty.

As to what is objected concerning the discretion, it is now plain: because [the penitent] commits himself to the discretion of the discerning [priest] alone as to the taxation of the penalty.

As to what is objected concerning ignorance, it must be said that that ignorance excuses, so that he does not sin; but yet it does not excuse, so that he makes perfect satisfaction; and therefore it must still be perfected in the forum of God[^p541-6].

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says concerning the thief: *As soon as he was converted, he merited to enter paradise.* For it seems false, because in Micah two[^p541-7] it is said: *He shall ascend, opening the way before them*; this is understood of Christ: therefore before the ascension of Christ no one entered: therefore neither [did] the thief at once.

**I respond:** Some wished to say to this, that the thief was in the *earthly* paradise with the Lord until the ascension, but after the ascension was in the *heavenly* paradise. — But yet that is doubtful; and therefore another way is to be chosen according to Augustine[^p541-8], that paradise in one way means a state of fruition, in another way means a place apt and suitable for this. And that place is twofold, according as fruition is twofold: a certain [fruition] *through a mirror* and *imperfect*, and for such [fruition] the earthly paradise was suited, since the place is earthly, yet quiet and elevated; another is *full fruition*, and this is in the fatherland, and to it belongs the supercelestial place. When therefore it is said that the thief was at once in paradise, it is understood as to the state, because he was at once in the vision of God, not as to the place.

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that Jerome says, that *the canons do not sufficiently fix the measure* etc.[^p541-9]; because Gregory says, and it is had above in the sixteenth distinction[^p541-10]: «We call those penances *false* which are not imposed according to the authority of the holy Fathers»: therefore it seems that all true penances are comprehended in the canons of the Saints.

**I respond:** It must be said that, just as it is in the practical sciences, which are concerned with works, that speech in particular [matters] is uncertain and doubtful; but speech

<!-- page 542 -->

in universal [matters] has certitude, yet when it is applied to particulars, it begins in a certain way to have uncertainty, so that he who does not consider the particular circumstances rather goes astray than rectifies himself, as is plain in medicine and moral science[^p542-1]: So it is to be understood in the matter at hand, that the canons instruct in general, in what manner penance is to be imposed, but they leave the descent to particulars to discerning priests, who should consider the circumstances of persons, attending to the canons as to directive rules; because, if they impose contrary to the canons, they do not impose rightly. But in the canon penance is determined chiefly as to *time*, more than as to *manner*; because that manner is more certain and more common. Whence *generally* for mortal sin they prescribe a seven-year penance: whence a layman who fornicates should do penance for seven years, a presbyter ten, but a bishop fifteen, as is had in diverse places in the decrees of the Fathers[^p542-2]. Likewise concerning those who vomit up the Eucharist on account of gluttony and drunkenness, if he be a layman, let him do penance forty days; if a cleric or religious, seventy days; if a bishop, ninety days; this is had in [the treatise] On Consecration, distinction two[^p542-3]. Looking to these rules, each priest ought to consider what penances he imposes, both according to the gravity of the crime and according to the diverse conditions of persons.

And note here, that for mortal sin a seven-year penance is prescribed not only on account of the length of time, but rather on account of the *figure* and the *signification*. For in the Law Mary was separated outside the camp for seven days, Numbers twelve[^p542-4]; Mary signifies the penitent, whence "Mary" is interpreted *bitter sea*, and in Lamentations it is said of the penitent man: *Great as the sea is thy contrition.* This [woman] did penance for seven days, but now [the penitent] does penance for seven years, which was signified in Ezekiel four: *A day for a year have I given thee.* — But if you ask the reason for this, why penance is aggravated, since the new law is a law of mercy; it must be said that the ingratitude here is greater on account of the greater grace; because also the contempt is greater on account of the greater dignity of the new law, in which the blood of Christ was poured out, that the testament might be firm[^p542-5]; because also the sin is graver on account of the state of the sinner, who ought to be more perfect; because further satisfaction in the new law ought to be perfect, so as to lead back into the pristine state. — And since the sun in one day does not return to the same point, but [does so] in a year[^p542-6], therefore the day was turned into a year. Again, because the remedy in the new law is perfect, therefore the year had to be multiplied by seven on account of the seven *pronenesses* to be subdued, on account of the seven *gifts* of the Holy Spirit to be reacquired, on account of the seven *dowries*, namely three of the soul and four of the body, to be obtained[^p542-7]. — And so the reason is plain, why the canons instituted [it] thus. But this [penance] is not to be imposed on all, but yet to be intimated, so that they may recognize how grave the fault is.

### Doubt IV

Likewise, it is asked about this, that he says, that *penance is not to be imposed in the article of death, but [is] to be made known.* For it seems to be said badly, because it is of no avail to know what and how much one ought to do, unless one also does it: therefore if it is not to be imposed, so that he may do it, it is not to be made known. If you say that it avails to know the gravity of the sin; *on the contrary*: the gravity of sin, considered at the end, especially induces into despair; but this is especially to be guarded against in the sick: therefore it ought not to be said then.

**I respond:** It must be said that penance is not to be imposed on such a one, of whom it is presumed that he will die, because it would be foolish to impose something on someone which he cannot do; but it *is to be made known* in order to make known the gravity of the sin, so that he may grieve and groan. But nevertheless[^p542-8] the abundance of divine mercy is to be manifested, so that he may hope in the Lord and trust; and thus manifesting the penance does not induce into despair, but rather into true contrition.

### Doubt V

Likewise, it is asked about this, that he says: *A presbyter ought not to reconcile a penitent, without consulting the bishop.* For it seems to be said badly, because where the supernal Judge dictates what is to be done, human counsel is sought in vain[^p542-9]; but when the presbyter sees the sinner contrite, the supernal Judge says that that sinner is converted into a just man and is reconciled: therefore at once,

<!-- page 543 -->

without counsel, whether he be in necessity or not, he ought to absolve him.

**I respond:** It must be said that counsel is sought from someone in two ways: either on account of *instruction*; and then counsel is sought from a wise man, because [he is] wise, and this especially when a case emerges where one can probably be in doubt. In another way counsel is sought and someone is consulted on account of the *commission of authority*; and thus an inferior consults a superior, namely that he may know his will and through his command and commission may have power. In this manner the priest ought in certain cases to consult the bishop, because he cannot of himself extend his hand to those [cases], since he has a limited power. — But in five cases the priest ought to refer to the bishop or to consult him. The first is concerning solemn penance, which ought to be imposed by the bishop, and the penitent [ought] to be reconciled by him[^p543-1]. — The second case is concerning the excommunicated, whom sometimes he cannot absolve. — The third, wherever he finds an irregularity contracted; for on account of it he ought to refer to the bishop, that, if he can, he may dispense; if he cannot, that he may send with his letters to the Pope[^p543-2]. — The fourth is concerning arsonists. — The fifth, if there be a custom in some bishopric, that certain crimes be referred to the bishop, such as homicide, sacrilege, and the like; and this case is particular, not universal[^p543-3].

### Doubt VI

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *The consecration of maidens, the bishop having been consulted, can be done by a presbyter.* It seems to be said badly, because they are betrothed to Christ: therefore the ring is to be imposed on them by the bishop alone.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as far as concerns the common law[^p543-4], this is lawful only to bishops, because they are the spouses, who ought to consecrate souls to Christ, according as the Apostle says in the second to the Corinthians eleven[^p543-5]: *I have espoused you to one husband, [to present you] a chaste virgin*, and they ought to beget perfect sons; and therefore they have the power of the keys in *excellence*, and to them alone those things which are of excellence are committed. Whence this which the Master says was only local and now has no place except concerning the veiling of widows, to whom the priest can give the veil by counsel of the bishop. And to this extent that [statement] is to be understood[^p543-6].

la: Cod. Z *et ita.*

en: Codex Z [reads] *et ita* ["and so"].

la: Vide scholion ad 3. huius articuli quaest.

en: See the scholion to question 3 of this article.

la: Cod. bb *procedit.*

en: Codex bb [reads] *procedit* ["proceeds"].

la: Plures codd. omittunt *tantum*, pro quo edd. *eum*, codd. H V bb habent: *sed solum tantum.*

en: Several codices omit *tantum* ["only"], for which the editions [read] *eum*; codices H V bb have: *sed solum tantum* ["but only as paid"].

la: Edd. *quia si aliter fit.* Eaedem edd. aliquanto inferius omittunt *quae venit ex debito praecepti, sed de tentione.*

en: The editions [read] *quia si aliter fit* ["because if it is done otherwise"]. The same editions, somewhat further down, omit *quae venit ex debito praecepti, sed de tentione* ["which comes from the obligation of the precept; but of the holding"].

la: Cfr. supra d. 18. p. I. a. 2. q. 2; Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 21. m. 3. a. I. et q. 24. m. 4. a. 5; B. Albert., hic a. 12; S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1.; Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Compare above, d. 18, p. I, a. 2, q. 2; Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 21, m. 3, a. 1, and q. 24, m. 4, a. 5; Blessed Albert, here, a. 12; St. Thomas, here, q. 1, a. 2, sub-question 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 2, a. 1, sub-question 1; Richard of Mediavilla, here, on the text.

la: Vers. 13. Plurimi codd. perperam *Amos IV.*

en: Verse 13. Very many codices wrongly [read] *Amos IV.*

la: Epist. 187. (alias 57.) c. 2. n. 3. seqq. et XII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 34. n. 65. seqq. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 22. q. 6. ad 1.

en: [Augustine,] Letter 187 (otherwise 57), c. 2, n. 3 ff., and *On Genesis according to the Letter*, book XII, c. 34, n. 65 ff. Compare III Sentences, d. 22, q. 6, ad 1.

la: Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 19. m. 4; B. Albert., hic a. 13; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. III, q. 19, m. 4; Blessed Albert, here, a. 13; St. Thomas, here, on the text.

la: Cap. 3.

en: Chapter 3.

la: Vide Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 3. et 7, nec non II. c. 2. — Inferius pro *instruunt* codd. H K aa *instituunt.*

en: See Aristotle, *Ethics* I, c. 3 and 7, and also II, c. 2. — Further down, for *instruunt* ["instruct"] codices H K aa [read] *instituunt* ["institute"].

la: Cfr. canon. poenitentiales (post Decret. Gratiani), in quibus diversi loci allegantur, et quibus tota solutio huius dubii a S. Bonav. data praemittitur ut introductio. Vide etiam Confessionale S. Bonav. c. 3.

en: Compare the penitential canons (after Gratian's Decretum), in which diverse places are alleged, and which the whole solution of this doubt given by St. Bonaventure prefaces as an introduction. See also the *Confessionale* of St. Bonaventure, c. 3.

la: Can. *Si per ebrietatem* (28.). Vide supra pag. 309, nota 6. — De seq. propos. cfr. Innocent. III. C. *Deus, qui Ecclesiam* (8.), X. de Poenitentiis et remiss. (lib. V. tit. 38.).

en: The canon *Si per ebrietatem* (28). See above, page 309, note 6. — On the following proposition compare Innocent III, c. *Deus, qui Ecclesiam* (8), [in the title] X On Penances and Remissions (book V, tit. 38).

la: Vers. 14. et 15. (*Maria*, secundum Hieron., Fragment. 2. libri Nominum Hebr., idem est ac *stella maris*, sive *amarum mare*. Idem in lib. de Nom. Hebr. ex Exodo ait: *Mariam illuminatrix mea*, vel *illuminans eos*, aut *smyrna maris*, vel *stella maris*. *Merra*, amaritudo. *Marath*, amara.). — Seq. locus est Thren. 2, 13; tertius Ezech. 4, 6. Cfr. Alan. ab Insulis, Lib. poenitentialis.

en: Verses 14 and 15. (*Mary*, according to Jerome, *Fragment* 2 of the book of Hebrew Names, is the same as *star of the sea*, or *bitter sea*. The same [Jerome] in the book *On Hebrew Names*, from Exodus, says: *Mary* [means] "my illuminatrix," or "illuminating them," or "myrrh of the sea," or "star of the sea." *Merra*, bitterness. *Marath*, bitter.). — The following place is Lamentations 2:13; the third is Ezekiel 4:6. Compare Alan of Lille, *Book of Penance*.

la: Cfr. Hebr. 9, 13. seqq.

en: Compare Hebrews 9:13 ff.

la: Vide August., IV. de Trin. c. 4. n. 8, et Isidor., V. Etymolog. c. 36.

en: See Augustine, *On the Trinity* IV, c. 4, n. 8, and Isidore, *Etymologies* V, c. 36.

la: Cfr. infra d. 49. p. 1. q. 5. in corp. et p. II. a. 2. q. 1. — Idem dub. solvitur a B. Albert., hic a. 14.

en: Compare below, d. 49, p. 1, q. 5, in the body, and p. II, a. 2, q. 1. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here, a. 14.

la: Codd. F G *Sed ulterius.* — Vide de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 14; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2.

en: Codices F G [read] *Sed ulterius* ["But further"]. — On this doubt see Blessed Albert, here, a. 14; St. Thomas, here, on the text; Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 1, a. 2, sub-question 2.

la: Prov. 21, 30: *Non est consilium contra Dominum.* — Verbo *faciendum* cod. G praemittit *aliquid.*

en: Proverbs 21:30: *There is no counsel against the Lord.* — Before the word *faciendum* ["what is to be done"] codex G prefixes *aliquid* ["something"].

la: Cfr. supra d. 14. p. II. dub. 9.

en: Compare above, d. 14, p. II, dub. 9.

la: Codd. I K supplent *eum.*

en: Codices I K supply *eum* ["it"].

la: Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic in fine dist.; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here, at the end of the distinction; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here, on the text.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 6.

la: Vers. 2. Cfr. supra q. 3. in corp.

en: Verse 2. Compare above, q. 3, in the body.

la: Idem dub. solvunt S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here, on the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Vol IV two-column PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p541..p543-{L,R}-*` at split x=1880, dpi 450) under the VOL II OVERRIDE (PDF authoritative for the cascade-shattered IA djvu OCR), cross-checked against the raw OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 59792–60020). Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 541–543 = pdf 561–563).

**Page placement.** The chunk header DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI and Dub. I open at the top of printed p.541 (running head "DIST. XX. P. II. DUBIA. 541"). **Printed p.540 is wholly the PRIOR indulgence-dubia** (its body runs "Indulgentiae, quantum est ex parte concedentis…" through "Et ex hoc patent omnia obiecta") and is excluded from this chunk; the raw OCR placed the p.540 tail/footers immediately before the p.541 header, but eyes-on the bands confirm the d.20-p2 dubia begin on p.541.

**Page-split map.** Dub. I–III(opening) on p.541; Dub. III(Respondeo)–V(opening) on p.542; Dub. V(Respondeo)–VI(close) on p.543. Dub. VI ends "Et pro tanto illud est intelligendum" in the p.543 right column, immediately before the centered DISTINCTIO XXI / Pars I littera (Cap. I "De peccatis quae post hanc vitam dimittuntur"). Chunk stops there.

**Apparatus split.** 25 entries: p.541 footers 1–10, p.542 footers 1–9, p.543 footers 1–6 (the dubia notes in the **left** column only). The p.543 **right**-column footers (under the centered "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM" / "Dubium 1." / "Augustinus" marginal) belong to the DISTINCTIO XXI littera and are deliberately excluded.

**[?] flags.** None. The cascade-shattered OCR was fully recoverable against the PDF bands; all six dubia, all `[?]`-free.