title: Dist. 21, Part 1, Art. 3, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 555 -->

### Articulus III. *De liberatione a purgatorio.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum in purgatorio unus liberetur ante alium.*

Consequenter quantum ad tertium articulum quaeritur de liberatione a purgatorio. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, utrum unus liberetur ante alium. Secundo, utrum aliquis evolet ante extremum iudicium.

Quantum ergo ad primum ostenditur, quod unus liberetur ante alium:

1. *Primo* per illud quod dicit Apostolus primae ad Corinthios tertio[^1]: *Qui aedificat ligna, foenum, stipulam*; sed facilius et citius consumitur stipula quam lignum: ergo cum aliquis ferat stipulam, aliquis ferat lignum, videtur, quod citius liberetur unus quam alius.

2. Item, in littera[^2] habetur, et est verbum Augustini in Enchiridio: «*Post hanc vitam incredibile non est, nonnullos fideles per ignem purgatorium*[^3], quanto magis minusve bona pereuntia dilexerunt, tanto citius tardiusque salvari».

3. Item, in foro poenitentiae graviori culpae respondet gravior poena non solum quantum ad intensionem, sed etiam quantum ad durationem, ut patet inspicienti canones, in quibus poenitentiae taxantur[^4]: si ergo iudicium Ecclesiae rectum conforme est divino iudicio, patet etc.

4. Item, per peccatum meruit anima non solum in igne cremari, sed etiam[^5] Dei visione privari: ergo utroque modo debet temporaliter puniri: ergo

<!-- page 556 -->

qui gravius peccavit non solum acerbius puniri, verum etiam diutius debet a Dei visione separari, ergo tardius purgari.

**Contra:** 1. Quantumcumque merita sint inaequalia, tam in caelo quam in inferno sunt praemia et supplicia aequaliter durantia: ergo pari ratione, ut videtur, debet esse in poena purgatoria.

2. Item, secundum quod intensior est culpa, intensior ei redditur poena; sed quantum potest minor poena super minorem culpam, tantum potest maior super maiorem: ergo quam cito liberatur in purgatorio parvus peccator per parvam poenam, tam cito liberatur magnus peccator per magnam poenam.

Item, si alius citius alio liberatur[^6], aut ratione maioris caritatis, aut ratione minoris reatus. Ratione maioris caritatis, videtur: quia caritas est tanto maior, quanto anima est Deo similior, et quanto Deo est similior, tanto statui gloriae vicinior: ergo tanto citius curatur et purgatur et in caelum fertur. — Sed quod ratione minoris reatus, videtur: quia anima non est ibi nisi ad solvendum quod traxit ex hac vita; sed quanto debitum est minus, tanto citius solvitur: ergo videtur, quod talis citius purgetur et in caelum feratur.

> **Conclusio.** In purgatorio unus citius quam alius purgatur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Augustinus expresse in littera[^7], in illo igne citius purgatur unus quam alius. Qui enim diutius in peccato permansit, dignum est, ut diutius sustineat poenam; rursus, qui gravius offendit, dignum est, ut puniatur poena acerbiori et dilatione patriae longiori, divina hoc iustitia faciente, quae omnibus decentissime reddit stipendia meritorum.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium de aequalitate durationis in caelo, dicendum, quod non[^8] est simile: quia in inferno poena aeterna infligitur, et aeterno non est maius et minus ex parte post sive ex parte ea, qua est aeternum; similiter in caelo praemium aeternum datur; in purgatorio vero sola poena temporalis infligitur, et in hac est diutius et brevius.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod poena gravis aeque cito delet gravem etc. dicendum, quod verum esset, si omnino poena intenderetur secundum quod intenditur culpa; sed divina dispensatio[^9] sic ordinat, ut non omnino intendatur quantum ad acerbitatem, propter magnam difficultatem[^1b] sive etiam, quia vult utroque modo punire, ita ut maior acerbitas et diuturnitas recompensent, si quid in altero deficiebat.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, quis citius purgatur; dicendum, quod ille qui minorem habet reatum, quoniam locus purgatorius non est debitus nisi ratione reatus, vel alicuius culpae. Et si tu obiicias, quod caritas maior debet facere citius evolare; dicendum, quod caritas maior auget gloriam intensive, secundum autem durationem non. Unde si duo innocentes inaequalis caritatis simul[^2b] morerentur, simul evolarent, non tamen aequaliter beati essent. Quod ergo dicit, quod est similior statui gloriae; dicendum, quod verum est ratione ordinationis ad bonum, sed non magis quantum ad liberationem a malo; et velocior purgatio respicit ereptionem a malo directe, non habilitationem ad bonum.

english:
### Article III. *On the deliverance from purgatory.*
### Question I. *Whether in purgatory one is freed before another.*

Consequently, as to the third article, the inquiry concerns deliverance from purgatory. And concerning this two things are asked. First, it is asked whether one is freed before another. Second, whether anyone flies forth before the final judgment.

As to the first, then, it is shown that one is freed before another:

1. *First*, by that which the Apostle says in the First [Letter] to the Corinthians, chapter three[^1]: *He who builds wood, hay, stubble*; but stubble is consumed more easily and more quickly than wood: therefore, since one bears stubble and another bears wood, it seems that one is freed more quickly than another.

2. Likewise, it is had in the [Master's] text[^2], and it is a word of Augustine in the Enchiridion: «*After this life it is not incredible that some of the faithful are saved through a purgatorial fire*[^3], more quickly or more slowly according as they loved perishing goods more or less».

3. Likewise, in the court of penance a graver penalty corresponds to a graver fault, not only as to intensity, but also as to duration, as is clear to one inspecting the canons, in which the penances are assessed[^4]: if therefore the right judgment of the Church is conformed to the divine judgment, it is clear etc.

4. Likewise, through sin the soul has merited not only to be burned in the fire, but also[^5] to be deprived of the vision of God: therefore in both ways it ought to be punished temporally: therefore

he who has sinned more gravely ought not only to be punished more sharply, but also to be separated longer from the vision of God, therefore to be purged more slowly.

**On the contrary:** 1. However unequal the merits may be, both in heaven and in hell the rewards and punishments endure equally: therefore by parity of reasoning, as it seems, it ought to be so in the purgatorial pain.

2. Likewise, according as the fault is more intense, a more intense penalty is rendered to it; but a lesser penalty can do as much over a lesser fault as a greater can over a greater: therefore as quickly as the small sinner is freed in purgatory through a small penalty, just as quickly the great sinner is freed through a great penalty.

Likewise, if one is freed more quickly than another[^6], [it is] either by reason of greater charity, or by reason of lesser liability. By reason of greater charity, it seems [so]: because charity is the greater the more the soul is like to God, and the more it is like to God, the nearer to the state of glory: therefore so much the more quickly is it healed and purged and borne into heaven. — But that [it is] by reason of lesser liability, it seems [so]: because the soul is there only to pay off what it drew from this life; but the less the debt is, the more quickly it is paid off: therefore it seems that such a one is purged more quickly and borne into heaven.

> **Conclusion.** In purgatory one is purged more quickly than another.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as Augustine says expressly in the [Master's] text[^7], in that fire one is purged more quickly than another. For he who has remained longer in sin, it is fitting that he should bear the penalty longer; again, he who has offended more gravely, it is fitting that he be punished with a sharper penalty and a longer deferral of the fatherland, the divine justice doing this, which most becomingly renders to all the wages of [their] merits.

1. To that which is objected to the contrary concerning the equality of duration in heaven, it must be said that it is not[^8] similar: because in hell an eternal penalty is inflicted, and in the eternal there is no greater and lesser on the side of the after, or on the side of that whereby it is eternal; likewise in heaven an eternal reward is given; but in purgatory only a temporal penalty is inflicted, and in this there is longer and shorter.

2. To that which is objected, that a grave penalty as quickly does away with a grave [fault] etc., it must be said that it would be true, if the penalty were intensified entirely according as the fault is intensified; but the divine dispensation[^9] so orders [things] that it is not intensified entirely as to sharpness, on account of the great difficulty[^1b], or also because [God] wills to punish in both ways, so that the greater sharpness and the longer duration may make up for whatever was lacking in the other.

To that which is asked, who is purged more quickly; it must be said that the one who has the lesser liability, since the purgatorial place is not owed except by reason of liability, or of some fault. And if you object that greater charity ought to make [one] fly forth more quickly; it must be said that greater charity increases glory intensively, but not as to duration. Hence if two innocents of unequal charity were to die at the same time[^2b], they would fly forth at the same time, yet they would not be equally blessed. As to what is said, then, that [one] is more like to the state of glory; it must be said that it is true by reason of the ordination toward the good, but not more as to deliverance from evil; and the swifter purgation regards the rescue from evil directly, not the fitting [of the soul] for the good.

la: Vers. 12: *Si quis autem superaedificat... ligna* etc. — Inferius pro *sed*, quod plurimi codd. et ed. 1 omittunt, cod. K (I a secunda manu) *constat enim, quod*, cod. aa *si enim omnes transferentes secundum aliquam similitudinem transferunt* [ut dicit Aristot., VI. Topic. c. 2, cfr. tom. I. pag. 1, nota 8.] *et peccata venialia quaedam dicantur stipula* etc.

en: Verse 12: *But if anyone builds upon... wood* etc. — Below, for *but*, which most codices and ed. 1 omit, codex K (I by a second hand) [reads] *for it is established that*, codex aa [reads] *if indeed all who transfer [a meaning] do so according to some likeness* [as Aristotle says, *Topics* VI. c. 2, cf. tom. I. p. 1, note 8.] *and certain venial sins are called stubble* etc.

la: Hic c. 3. sumtum ex Enchirid. c. 69. n. 18.

en: Here c. 3., taken from the Enchiridion c. 69. n. 18.

la: Immo loc. cit. hoc affirmat (cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. XLIV. c. 6.). Praeter sermones paulo superius citt. vide etiam Serm. 104. (alias 41. de Sanctis) in append. serm. August. — Circa finem solut. voci *ignem* cod. Z praemittit *hunc*.

en: Indeed in the place cited he affirms this (cf. below the Master's text, d. XLIV. c. 6.). Besides the sermons cited a little above, see also Sermon 104 (otherwise 41. on the Saints) in the appendix of Augustine's sermons. — Near the end of the solution, before the word *fire* codex Z prefixes *this*.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the City of God* XIII. c. 3. and following. — Above, before the word *ordained* codex K (I by a second hand) prefixes *of itself*.

la: Codd. omittunt *etiam*, et fere omnes codd. cum edd. hic addunt *a*; post *privari* codd. R S T U bb subiungunt *et separari*. Subinde pro *ergo qui* cod. K (I a secunda manu) *ergo quae* [anima], et pro *a Dei visione separari* cod. F *visione Dei privari*.

en: The codices omit *also*, and almost all the codices with the editions here add *a*; after *deprived* codices R S T U bb append *and separated*. Then for *therefore he who* codex K (I by a second hand) [reads] *therefore which* [soul], and for *to be separated from the vision of God* codex F [reads] *to be deprived of the vision of God*.

la: In cod. bb additur *hoc est*. Inferius pro *videtur* et pro *Sed quod ratione* codd. (unus alterque iam a secunda manu correctus est) perperam substituunt *non videtur*, vel *Sed quod non ratione*. Subinde post *quia anima non est* supplendum duximus *ibi*, pro quo Alex. Hal., *in purgatorio*, edd. male *obligata*.

en: In codex bb is added *that is*. Below, for *it seems* and for *But that by reason* the codices (one or another of which has now been corrected by a second hand) wrongly substitute *it does not seem*, or *But that not by reason*. Then after *because the soul is not* we have judged that *there* must be supplied, for which Alexander of Hales [has] *in purgatory*, the editions wrongly [have] *bound*.

la: Hic c. 3. et in fundam. 2. iam allegatus.

en: Here c. 3., and already alleged in fundamentum 2.

la: Vat. hic et paulo inferius similiter.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] thus here and a little below likewise.

la: Cfr. supra d. 20. p. II. dub. 3. — Mox post *rectum* cod. F addit *et*.

en: Cf. above d. 20. p. II. dub. 3. — Soon, after *right* codex F adds *and*.

la: Supple: *patiendi*.

en: Supply: *of suffering*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** De ipsa conclusione 1. quaestionis non est controversia. Tamen S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3.) rationem longioris purgationis ponit in maiore adhaerentia, qua affectus magis inclinatur ad quaedam venialia quam ad alia. De nonnulla differentia opinionum cfr. Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — De 1. quaestione praeter S. Thomam: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 15. m. 4. a. 4. § 3. — B. Albert., supra d. 20. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

**II.** Animas beatas, plene purgatas, de quibus agitur in 2. quaestione, statim ad visionem Dei pervenire, a pluribus negatum vel in dubium vocatum est tum primis Ecclesiae saeculis, tum saec. XIV, sedente Ioanne XXII, qui aliquatenus ut doctor privatus huic errori favisse dicitur, nunquam tamen assertive eum docuit. Sed veritas catholica, quae iam in confessione fidei a Michaele Paleologo Concilio Lugdunensi II. (1274) oblata, clare exprimitur, postea a Benedicto XII. (Constit. *Benedictus Deus*, an. 1336), deinde a Concilio Florent. (Decret. unionis Graecorum) aliisque professionibus fidei definita est. — De 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 10. — Petr. a Tar., infra d. 45. q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2. — Alii antiqui non tractant explicite hanc quaestionem, sed passim conclusionem supponunt.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the conclusion itself of the first question there is no controversy. Yet St. Thomas (here q. 1. a. 3. quaestiuncula 3.) places the reason for a longer purgation in the greater adherence by which the affection is more inclined to certain venial [sins] than to others. On some difference of opinions cf. Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 2. — On Question 1, besides St. Thomas: Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV. q. 15. m. 4. a. 4. § 3. — Bl. Albert, above d. 20. a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here near the text.

**II.** That blessed souls, fully purged — of whom there is discussion in Question 2 — come at once to the vision of God, was denied or called into doubt by several, both in the first centuries of the Church, and in the fourteenth century, while John XXII sat [as pope], who is said to have favored this error to some extent as a private doctor, yet never taught it assertively. But the catholic truth, which is already clearly expressed in the confession of faith offered by Michael Palaeologus at the Second Council of Lyons (1274), was afterward defined by Benedict XII (Constitution *Benedictus Deus*, A.D. 1336), then by the Council of Florence (Decree of the union of the Greeks), and by other professions of faith. — On Question 2: Alexander of Hales, in the place cited, § 4. — Bl. Albert, here a. 10. — Peter of Tarentaise, below d. 45. q. 1. a. 1. quaestiuncula 2. — Other ancients do not treat this question explicitly, but here and there suppose the conclusion.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{555,556}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 61169–61318) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/scholion/footer regions. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 555–556 = PDF 575–576).

**Page-verify (TASK CORRECTION).** The task spec named printed pages ~554–556; page-verify (running heads, +20 offset, hint "ran ~1 low") proved the chunk spans **555–556, not 554–556**. p.554 ("554 / SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.") and the top bands of p.555 hold the *tail of the PRIOR article's question on the materiality of purgatorial fire* (Glossa/Augustine fire-material replies, poena mortis, etc.) — not this q1. The ARTICULUS III opener (*De liberatione a purgatorio*) + QUAESTIO I begin lower on **p.555** (band L-1). Running heads confirmed: p.555 "DIST. XXI. P. I. ART. III. QUAEST. I. 555"; p.556 "556 / SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; the SCHOLION (§I–§II) is fully contained on p.556 (starts bottom of p.556, both columns), and QUAESTIO II begins on p.557 ("DIST. XXI. P. I. ART. III. QUAEST. II. 557") immediately after. `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages` set to 555–556 / 575–576.

**Opener alignment confirmed.** q1 opens "Consequenter quantum ad tertium articulum quaeritur de liberatione a purgatorio... Primo quaeritur, utrum unus liberetur ante alium. Secundo, utrum aliquis evolet ante extremum iudicium" — Primo = this q1 (*Utrum unus liberetur ante alium*), Secundo = the sibling a3-q2. Matches the title.

**Chunking convention.** Per the locked Vol II/IV rule, the short ARTICULUS III opener (*Consequenter... quaeruntur duo...*) folds into this q1 — no standalone divisio chunk.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 555: ARTICULUS III opener + QUAESTIO I header + pro-args 1 (1 Cor 3), 2 (Augustine, Enchiridion), 3 (foro poenitentiae / canones), and the start of arg 4 ("...Dei visione privari: ergo").
- p. 555 → 556 boundary falls inside arg 4 ("ergo | qui gravius peccavit non solum acerbius puniri"). Page break placed there.
- p. 556: arg 4 tail; *Contra* args 1–2; the *Quaestio incidens* ("Item, si alius citius alio liberatur..."); CONCLUSIO; RESPONDEO; the three Solutio replies (1, 2, and the "Ad illud quod quaeritur, quis citius purgatur" reply); then the SCHOLION (§I–§II), fully contained on p.556.

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 14 entries).**
- p. 555 (10 footers, ^1–^9 used + the p.555 fn that lacks a body anchor): the print numbers them 1–10. Markers landing in this q1's p.555 body: `^1` Vers.12 *Si quis superaedificat* + codd. vars (arg 1); `^2` Hic c.3 ex Enchirid. (arg 2); `^3` Immo loc.cit. + Serm.104 (arg 2 *ignem purgatorium*); `^4` Cfr. August. XIII de Civ. Dei + cod. K var (arg 3 *taxantur*); `^5` Codd. omittunt *etiam* + R S T U bb *et separari* (arg 4 *sed etiam*). The print's fns 6/7 (= *Qui aedificat* / *in littera* anchors) and the long collation fn at p.555 foot are folded into `^1`/`^2`/`^5`/`^6` text above to keep one note per body marker.
- p. 556 (4 footers): `^6` In cod. bb *hoc est* + *non videtur*/*Sed quod non ratione* + *ibi* supplied (Quaestio incidens *liberatur*); `^7` Hic c.3 et in fundam.2 (Respondeo *in littera*); `^8` Vat. hic et paulo inferius similiter (reply 1 *non*); `^9` Cfr. supra d.20 p.II dub.3 + cod. F *et* (reply 2 *dispensatio*); `^1b` Supple *patiendi* (reply 2 *difficultatem*); `^2b` Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest. (reply *simul*). [Per-page p.556 print fns are 1–4: *separari* (continuation of p.555 fn10, no body anchor in this q1 — captured in `^5` text), ¹ In cod. bb, ² Hic c.3, ³ Supple patiendi, ⁴ Vat. hic; mapped to the `^6/^7/^1b/^8` anchors above.]
- The SCHOLION carries all its citations inline (no footnote markers).

**Scholion disposition (TASK FINDING).** `has_scholion: true`. The **Articulus III scholion (§I–§II)** is printed on p.556 immediately after q1's body, **within this q1's printed pages**, so per the task instruction it is **rendered IN FULL here (body first, scholion last).** §I addresses q1 (the conclusion + St. Thomas/Richard doctor-list); §II addresses the sibling **q2** (*Utrum aliquis evolet ante extremum iudicium* — the immediate-vision-of-God question, John XXII / Lyons II / Benedictus Deus / Florence). The article has only two questions (q1 here, q2 = a3-q2), and the prompt confirms a3-q2 renders none — so this scholion covers the whole article and **a3-q2 points here**.

**Cross-chunk hand-offs.**
- **Before (p1-a2-q2):** the prior chunk (the Articulus II material on the nature of purgatorial fire, running onto p.554–555 top) owns everything above `ARTICULUS III.`, including the p.555-top fire-material replies and the p.555-top footer "separari... pro ergo qui cod. K... pro a Dei visione separari cod. F" IF that anchors to its body — verify there; here that footer's continuation has NO anchor in this q1 (it belongs to the prior article's `separari` body word) and is NOT migrated into this chunk.
- **After (p1-a3-q2):** q2 (*Utrum aliquis evolet ante extremum iudicium*) begins on p.557 (running head "DIST. XXI. P. I. ART. III. QUAEST. II. 557") **after** this scholion; it opens its own per-page footer sequence. No footer migrates from this q1 to q2, and **q2 must reference THIS chunk's `### Scholion`** (§II addresses q2) rather than re-rendering it.

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Notable silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands: arg 1 *Qui aedificat ligna, foenum, stipulam* (OCR fragmented across columns); arg 2 *nonnullos fideles per ignem purgatorium... tanto citius tardiusque salvari* (OCR split L/R columns); Respondeo *reddit stipendia meritorum* (OCR `stipendia`); reply 2 *propter magnam difficultatem* (OCR `difTicultatem`); reply *si duo innocentes inaequalis caritatis simul morerentur, simul evolarent* (OCR `inaequalis... simul`). The marginal rubrics in the columns (*Ad oppositum.*, *Quaestio incidens.*, *Conclusio.*, *Respondeo.* and the truncated side-glosses) are editorial side-notes, omitted from the body per corpus convention.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 21, Part 1, Art. 3, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 557 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum aliquis Sanctorum evolet in caelum ante iudicium.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum aliquis Sanctorum evolet in caelum ante iudicium. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Ad Hebraeos undecimo[^1] Apostolus, loquens de viris sanctis et fidelibus, dicit: *Hi omnes non acceperunt repromissiones, Deo pro nobis aliquid melius providente, ne sine nobis consummarentur*: ergo si Sancti priores non debuerunt consummari sine aliis sanctis Apostolis; cum usque ad diem iudicii crescat numerus Sanctorum, patet, quod unus non evolet ante alium.

2. Item, Matthaei vigesimo quinto[^2]: *Statuet agnos a dextris, hoedos autem a sinistris*; *et dicet his qui erunt a dextris: Venite, benedicti Patris mei, percipite regnum*: ergo videtur, quod non sint ante illud iudicium gloriam percepturi. Si enim prius percepissent, non diceret Dominus: *percipite regnum*.

3. Item, nullius possessio, quae habetur per sententiam, obtinetur ante lationem sententiae; sed vitae aeternae possessio habetur per sententiam: ergo cum sententia detur in die iudicii, videtur, quod ante diem iudicii non evolet aliqua anima in caelum.

4. Item, magnifici regis eo modo est stipendia elargiri, per quem modum eius magnificentia magis declaratur; sed hoc est praecipue, dum[^3] fit curia una ex multitudine et ex aggregatione multorum: ergo videtur, quod Dominus reservet gloriam aeternam, ut eam simul omnibus conferat.

5. Item, anima peccavit in carne, ergo videtur, quod in carne debeat puniri: ergo nunquam perfecte purgatur nec punitur, quousque resumat corpus, in quo purgetur; sed ante perfectam purgationem non evolat anima in caelum: ergo non ante diem iudicii.

6. Item, corpora non glorificabuntur ante diem iudicii, quantumcumque sit sanctus qui moritur: ergo pari ratione nec animae.

**Contra:**
1. Lucae vigesimo tertio[^4] dixit Dominus latroni: *Hodie mecum eris in paradiso*, ergo anima latronis fuit cum Christo; sed constat, quod Christus quod promisit postmodum non abstulit: ergo semper post fuit cum Christo. Sed Christus ascendit in caelum: ergo anima latronis ascendit, ergo pari ratione aliae animae sanctae.

2. Item, ad Philippenses primo[^5]: *Cupio dissolvi et esse cum Christo*, ita dicebat Apostolus; sed constat, quod desiderium suum non erat cassum: ergo statim post dissolutionem fuit cum Christo.

3. Item, Apocalypsis sexto[^6]: *Datae sunt illis singulae stolae*; sed non est stola nisi gloria animae et stola corporis: ergo etc.

4. Item, caritas est pondus sufficienter inclinans sursum et elevans: ergo si non sit retardans, statim per caritatem anima sursum evolat; sed qui purgatur in purgatorio, post purgationem non habet aliquod retardans: ergo statim evolat.

5. Item, differre mercedem mercenarii[^7] facit praeiudicium iustitiae; sed Deus est summe iustus: ergo statim quando invenit hominem dispositum, statim retribuit.

6. Item, spes, quae differtur, affligit animam[^8]: si ergo differtur praemium Sanctorum usque ad iudicium, videtur, quod sint in continua afflictione et gemitu et exspectatione: ergo si Deus tantum differt, videtur, quod ipse sit crudelissimus.

> **Conclusio.** Erroneum est dicere, animas sanctas, quae non habent reatum poenae, non esse statim glorificandas, sed potius exspectare usque ad extremum diem iudicii.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliqui stulti circa hoc errant, dicentes, animas non esse glorificandas[^9], sed potius exspectare usque ad extremum diem iudicii. — Hos stultos dixi quoniam talis error nec fulcimentum habet ab auctoritate nec ab efficaci ratione, nec habuit ista positio aliquem magnum auctorem nec defensorem, sed quibusdam imponitur Graecis. Videtur tamen pro isto errore facere Glossa, quae est super Psalmum[^10]: *Noli aemulari*, ubi di-

<!-- page 558 -->

citur, quod iusti, qui moriuntur, non statim ubi erunt post iudicium, sed in illa requie, ubi erat Lazarus cum Abraham. Sed sicut patet in ipsa Glossa ex consequentibus[^11], illud dictum est quantum ad stolam corporis, non quantum ad gloriam, vel locum. Certum enim est, quod Christus exspoliavit principatus et potestates, ac per hoc constat, Sanctos, qui in limbo erant, ad caelum cum Christo esse sublimatos, ac per hoc et omnes iustos, qui non habent reatum poenae.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod non acceperunt repromissiones; dicendum, quod Apostolus vocat consummationem quantum ad illius supernae civitatis impletionem, post quam nullus intrabit. — Vel dicendum, quod Apostolus intelligit quantum ad tempus gratiae, quod conservavit usque ad nos, ut nos, facti participes gratiae in abundantia, participes etiam fieremus et gloriae[^12].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *statuet agnos* etc.; dicendum, quod iudicium illud erit quantum ad consummatam glorificationem suscipiendam in anima et in carne, quam nondum habent mortui, quamvis animae sint beatae in caelo[^13].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de sententia, dicendum, quod sicut dupliciter contingit regnum obtinere, scilicet integre et perfecte sive in toto, et alio modo secundum animam sive in parte: sic duplex est iudicium, sive etiam duplex sententia. Nam sicut homo glorificatur secundum partem, ita et particulariter iudicatur, et de eo sententia fertur quando anima de corpore egreditur; iudicium autem universale et sententia erit, quando homo erit glorificandus totaliter, et tunc consummabitur curia caelestis; et sic duplex iudicium competit duplici modo possidendi gloriam. Et duplex modus competit duobus, scilicet divinae magnificentiae et nostrae indigentiae. Propter nostram indigentiam tollendam statim, quando anima est apta, sublimatur ad gloriam, quia frustra exspectaret, cum non possit amplius mereri. Propter divinam magnificentiam ostendendam reservatur generalis et universalis resurrectio corporum in fine saeculorum. Et sic in nullo praeiudicatur commodo nostro, dum anima assumitur in gloriam, in nullo divinae gloriae, dum in fine fiet in resumtione corporum totum, quod fieret, si gloria differretur ab animabus.

4. 5. 6. Et per hoc patent illa tria, scilicet de possessione per sententiam, de Dei magnificatione et de corporum resuscitatione. De qua, quare differatur, suo loco habetur infra[^14].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether any of the saints flies up into heaven before the judgment.*

Secondly it is asked whether any of the saints flies up into heaven before the judgment. And it seems that it does not.

1. The Apostle, in Hebrews eleven[^1], speaking of holy and faithful men, says: *All these did not receive the promises, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be perfected without us*: therefore if the earlier Saints ought not to be perfected without the other holy Apostles; since up to the day of judgment the number of the Saints increases, it is plain that one does not fly up before another.

2. Likewise, Matthew twenty-five[^2]: *He will set the lambs on the right, but the goats on the left*; *and he will say to those who will be on the right: Come, blessed of my Father, receive the kingdom*: therefore it seems that they are not going to receive the glory before that judgment. For if they had received it before, the Lord would not say: *receive the kingdom*.

3. Likewise, no one's possession which is had through a sentence is obtained before the rendering of the sentence; but the possession of eternal life is had through a sentence: therefore, since the sentence is given on the day of judgment, it seems that before the day of judgment no soul flies up into heaven.

4. Likewise, it belongs to a magnificent king to bestow stipends in that manner by which his magnificence is the more declared; but this is especially so when[^3] one court is made from a multitude and from the gathering of many: therefore it seems that the Lord reserves the eternal glory, that he may confer it on all at once.

5. Likewise, the soul sinned in the flesh, therefore it seems that it ought to be punished in the flesh: therefore it is never perfectly purged nor punished until it resumes the body, in which it is to be purged; but before perfect purgation the soul does not fly up into heaven: therefore not before the day of judgment.

6. Likewise, bodies will not be glorified before the day of judgment, however holy he is who dies: therefore by parity of reasoning neither will souls.

**On the contrary:**
1. In Luke twenty-three[^4] the Lord said to the thief: *Today you will be with me in paradise*, therefore the soul of the thief was with Christ; but it is established that what Christ promised he did not afterward take away: therefore it was ever after with Christ. But Christ ascended into heaven: therefore the soul of the thief ascended; therefore by parity of reasoning so too the other holy souls.

2. Likewise, to the Philippians one[^5]: *I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ*, thus said the Apostle; but it is established that his desire was not in vain: therefore immediately after the dissolution he was with Christ.

3. Likewise, Apocalypse six[^6]: *Single robes were given to them*; but there is no robe except the glory of the soul and the robe of the body: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, charity is a weight sufficiently inclining and elevating upward: therefore if there is nothing holding back, the soul straightway flies up through charity; but he who is purged in purgatory, after the purgation has nothing holding him back: therefore he straightway flies up.

5. Likewise, to defer the wage of a hireling[^7] does prejudice to justice; but God is supremely just: therefore as soon as he finds a man disposed, he straightway repays.

6. Likewise, hope which is deferred afflicts the soul[^8]: if therefore the reward of the Saints is deferred until the judgment, it seems that they are in continual affliction and groaning and expectation: therefore if God defers so long, it seems that he himself is most cruel.

> **Conclusion.** It is erroneous to say that the holy souls, which have no liability to punishment, are not to be glorified at once, but rather to wait until the last day of judgment.

**I respond:** It must be said that certain foolish persons err about this, saying that souls are not to be glorified[^9], but rather to wait until the last day of judgment. — I have called them foolish because such an error has support neither from authority nor from any efficacious reason, nor did this position have any great author or defender, but it is imputed to certain Greeks. There seems, however, to make for this error the Gloss which is on the Psalm[^10]: *Be not emulous*, where it is said

that the just who die are not at once where they will be after the judgment, but in that rest where Lazarus was with Abraham. But as is plain in the Gloss itself from what follows[^11], that was said with respect to the robe of the body, not with respect to glory, or place. For it is certain that Christ despoiled the principalities and powers, and through this it is established that the Saints who were in limbo were raised up to heaven with Christ, and through this also all the just who have no liability to punishment.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that they did not receive the promises; it must be said that the Apostle calls "consummation" the filling-up of that supernal city, after which no one will enter. — Or it must be said that the Apostle understands it with respect to the time of grace, which he preserved down to us, so that we, made partakers of grace in abundance, might be made partakers also of glory[^12].

2. To that which is objected, that *he will set the lambs* etc.; it must be said that that judgment will be with respect to the consummated glorification to be received in soul and in flesh, which the dead do not yet have, although the souls are blessed in heaven[^13].

3. To that which is objected concerning the sentence, it must be said that, just as it happens in two ways to obtain the kingdom, namely wholly and perfectly or in the whole, and in another way according to the soul or in part: so the judgment is twofold, or even the sentence is twofold. For just as a man is glorified according to a part, so too he is judged particularly, and a sentence is borne concerning him when the soul departs from the body; but the universal judgment and sentence will be when the man is to be glorified totally, and then the heavenly court will be consummated; and so the twofold judgment corresponds to the twofold mode of possessing glory. And the twofold mode corresponds to two things, namely the divine magnificence and our indigence. For the removing of our indigence, straightway, when the soul is fit, it is raised up to glory, because it would wait in vain, since it can no longer merit. For the showing of the divine magnificence, the general and universal resurrection of bodies is reserved at the end of the ages. And so no prejudice is done to our advantage, while the soul is taken up into glory, none to the divine glory, while at the end there will be done, in the resuming of bodies, the whole that would be done if glory were deferred from the souls.

4. 5. 6. And through this those three are plain, namely concerning possession through a sentence, concerning God's magnification, and concerning the resuscitation of bodies. Concerning which—why it is deferred—it is treated in its place below[^14].

---

la: Vers. 39. seq.: *Et hi omnes testimonio fidei probati, non acceperunt repromissionem, Deo pro nobis melius aliquid providente, ut non sine* etc.

en: Verse 39 ff.: *And all these, approved by the testimony of faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that not without* etc.

la: Vers. 33. seq.: *Et statuet oves quidem a dextris...hoedos autem a sinistris. Tunc dicet rex his qui a dextris eius erunt: Venite, benedicti Patris mei, possidete paratum vobis regnum a constitutione mundi.* — Inferius ex cod. U substituimus *prius* pro *primo*.

en: Verse 33 ff.: *And he will set the sheep indeed on the right...but the goats on the left. Then the king will say to those who will be on his right: Come, blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.* — Further on, from codex U, we have substituted *prius* for *primo*.

la: Cod. F *cum*.

en: Codex F reads *cum*.

la: Vers. 43.

en: Verse 43.

la: Vers. 23: *Desiderium habens dissolvi* etc.

en: Verse 23: *Having a desire to be dissolved* etc.

la: Vers. 11.

en: Verse 11.

la: Cod. R *mercenariis*, cod. S *mercenario*.

en: Codex R reads *mercenariis*; codex S, *mercenario*.

en: Proverbs 13:12.

la: Edd. addunt *ante diem iudicii*. Pro *errant* codd. L R S T *erraverunt*. Mox pro *exspectare* cod. P *exspectantes*.

en: The editions add *ante diem iudicii* ("before the day of judgment"). For *errant* codices L R S T read *erraverunt*. Then for *exspectare* codex P reads *exspectantes*.

la: Psalm. 36, 1. — Glossa est ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum et sumta ex August., Enarrat. in hunc Ps. v. 10. serm. 1. n. 10, quam Vat. ita hic inserit: *Noli aemulari*, super illo versu eiusdem Psalmi: *Et adhuc pusillum* etc., ubi dicit

en: Psalm 36:1. — The Gloss is the ordinary one in Strabo and Lyra and is taken from Augustine, *Commentary on this Psalm*, v. 10, sermon 1, n. 10, which the Vatican edition here inserts thus: *Be not emulous*, upon that verse of the same Psalm: *And yet a little while* etc., where it says

la: Dicit enim: *In qua requie securus exspectes diem iudicii, quando, recepto corpore, Angelis aequaberis.* — Seq. locus est Col. 2, 15: *Et exspolians principatus et potestates* (Vat. et ed. 1 addunt *tenebrarum*).

en: For it says: *In which rest you may securely await the day of judgment, when, the body received back, you will be made equal to the Angels.* — The following passage is Col. 2:15: *And despoiling the principalities and powers* (the Vatican edition and edition 1 add *tenebrarum*, "of darkness").

la: Petr. Lombard. in hunc loc.: *Vel illi priores non acceperunt statim repromissionem* i. e. promissam vitam usque ad Christum. Cur non? *Deo providente aliquid melius*, scil. ut naturam nostram assumeret, et gloriosius eos nobiscum exaltaret. Unde addit: *ut non sine nobis consummarentur* i. e. requie et visione Dei fruerentur. Et si illi tenuerunt fidem, qui tamdiu exspectaverunt requiem, multo magis nos teneamus, qui statim accipimus. — Superius post *vocat* cod. X addit *repromissionem*.

en: Peter Lombard on this passage: *Or those earlier ones did not receive the promise at once*, i.e. the promised life, until Christ. Why not? *God providing something better*, namely that he might assume our nature and more gloriously exalt them with us. Whence he adds: *that they should not be perfected without us*, i.e. enjoy rest and the vision of God. And if they held the faith who so long awaited rest, much more let us hold it who receive it at once. — Above, after *vocat*, codex X adds *repromissionem*.

la: Codd. N aa addunt: *ideo universaliter* [cod. aa *naturaliter*] *dicitur percipite, id est perfecte capite; unde modo potius acceperunt, quam percepistis* [*perceperunt?*]. Pro *suscipiendam* cod. F *suscitandam*, plures codd. et ed. 1 *suscitatam*.

en: Codices N aa add: *therefore universally* [codex aa, *naturally*] *it is said "receive," that is, "take perfectly"; whence rather they have received now than you received* [*they received?*]. For *suscipiendam* codex F reads *suscitandam*; several codices and edition 1, *suscitatam*.

la: Cfr. infra d. 43. a. I. q. 3. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Cf. below d. 43, a. I, q. 3. — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 61319–61436), reflowed column-by-column (left then right) and verified against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 557, 558 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{557,558}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`; offset pdf = printed + 20). The opener "*Secundo quaeritur, utrum aliquis Sanctorum evolet in caelum ante iudicium*" confirms alignment with QUAESTIO II. Running head on p.557 R reads `DIST. XXI. P. I. ART. III. QUAEST. II. 557`.

**Page span correction.** The auto-rechunked frontmatter had `printed_pages: [555, 556, 557]`; this was WRONG. q2 physically OPENS on p.557 (`QUAESTIO II.` header + title there) and runs to p.558, ending with the combined reply "4. 5. 6." ("...suo loco habetur infra[^14]"). Corrected to `[557, 558]` / pdf `[577, 578]`. The raw OCR page marker `ooc` = a digit-mangle of `806`/`558`-region head `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`; verified via PDF page numbers.

**Scholion disposition.** This quaestio renders **no scholion** (`has_scholion: false`). No `SCHOLION.` header appears in the p.557–558 bands — only marginal gloss labels (`Conclusio.`, `Error quorundam.`, `Ratio.`, `Solutio oppositorum.`, `Aliter.`, `Distinctio.`, `Duplex`) printed in the outer margins, which are NOT a scholion and are not rendered. Per the task brief, the Articulus III scholion lives with q1 (`bon-sent-IV-d21-p1-a3-q1`, §II covers this q2). Footer `[^14]` itself directs: "*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*"

**Apparatus / page-split map.** 14 footer entries rendered, matched to body anchors:
- p. 557 footers 1–10 → `[^1]`–`[^10]` (obj. markers `undecimo¹`, `vigesimo quinto²`, `dum³`, contra `vigesimo tertio⁴`, `primo⁵`, `sexto⁶`, `mercenarii⁷`, `animam⁸`; Respondeo `glorificandas⁹`, `super Psalmum¹⁰`).
- p. 558 footers 1–4 → `[^11]`–`[^14]` (Respondeo `ex consequentibus¹¹`/`[^11]`; reply-1 `gloriae²`/`[^12]`; reply-2 `in caelo³`/`[^13]`; reply-4.5.6 `infra⁴`/`[^14]`). p.558 footers 5–6 (`Vers. 8...Glossa sumta ex Hieron.` and `Textus huius dubii...I. Cor. 3, 12`) belong to DUBIA (`p1-dubia`), NOT rendered here.

**Cross-chunk hand-offs.**
- *Before (← p1-a3-q1):* q2 opens cleanly at the top of p.557 L; no shared-page footer split with q1 (q1 closes on the prior page).
- *After (→ p1-dubia):* `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` / `DUB. I.` begins immediately after q2's "4. 5. 6." reply, on p.558 R (raw line 61436+). **Shared-page footer split on p.558:** footers 1–4 are q2's (`[^11]`–`[^14]`); footers 5, 6 (and the Dub. text's later notes) are the dubia's. The dubia chunk must pick up p.558 footers 5–6 onward.

**J2 apparatus-anchor fix (2026-07-13).** English body was missing `[^3]` (Latin: "sed hoc est praecipue, dum[^3] fit curia una"); inserted after "when" in fundamentum 4's English rendering to restore Tier-2 dual-body anchoring.

**[?] flags.** None. All readings resolved against the PDF bands; OCR garbles (`qiii`→qui, `statini`→statim, `slolam`→stolam, `coBdosio`→marginal *Conclusio*, `Yocat`→vocat, `fleremus`→fieremus, `Yis`→quamvis-tail *vis*, `ooc`/`806`, `imponilur`→imponitur, `etficaci`→efficaci) silently corrected per the OCR-cleanup rules.

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. 21, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 560 -->

### Articulus I. *De confessione quoad modum.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum liceat aliquod peccatum in confessione omittere.*

Quantum ad primum ostenditur, quod non liceat de confitendis dimittere[^3].

1. *Primo* auctoritate Augustini in libro de Poenitentia[^4]: «Caveat, ne, verecundia ductus, dividat apud se confessionem[^2], ut diversa diversis velit manifestare; quod est se laudare et ad hypocrisim tendere et semper venia carere, ad quam per frusta sperat pervenire».

2. Item, *ratione* ostenditur sic. Confessio ordinatur ad peccati cognitionem; sed nunquam recognoscit aegritudinem sufficienter qui solum peccatum unum novit, cum homo multis aegrotet, sicut patet in medicinis: ergo non sufficienter peccatum detegit qui non dicit uni sacerdoti omnia peccata, quae commisit.

3. Item, confessio est ad peccatoris accusationem; sed cum peccator se accusat de tribus peccatis et fecit decem, hoc ipso praetendit[^5] sacerdoti, se non peccasse nisi ter; sed hoc est falsitas et hypocrisis manifesta: ergo etc.

<!-- page 561 -->

4. Item, confessio fit propter absolutionem, absolutio autem sacerdotis signum est divinae absolutionis; sed Deus nunquam absolvit ab una culpa, quin absolvat ab omni culpa mortali[^1]: ergo absolutio sacerdotis aut nulla est, aut est ab omni culpa. Sed non meretur absolvi a sacerdote peccator, qui celat ei peccatum: ergo nulla est absolutio, nisi confiteatur uni sacerdoti omnia, a quibus indiget absolvi.

**Contra:** 1. Omnes sacerdotes tenent locum unius, scilicet Christi: ergo idem est confiteri diversis quod confiteri uni: ergo tantum valet, si peccator divisim diversis confiteatur omnia, quantum, si omnia confiteretur[^2a] uni.

2. Item, confessio instituta est in remedium, ergo non debet fieri in scandalum[^3a]; sed possibile est, quod poenitens confiteatur proprio sacerdoti aliquod peccatum, quod scandalizabit eum, utpote si cognata sacerdotis fuerit eius adultera: ergo videtur, quod possit peccatum hoc reservare et alia sibi dicere, et ita confessionem dimidiare.

3. Item, aliquis confessus est uni decem et commisit duodecim, et oblitus duorum, post recordatur, non habens copiam sacerdotis; iste fuit legitime confessus de decem: ergo si non debet bis puniri pro eodem[^4a], sufficit nunc confiteri duo: ergo videtur, quod confessio possit dimidiari.

4. Item, sufficit, si quis confitetur sacerdoti proprio illud, a quo potest absolvere; sed possibile est, quod aliquis habeat casum, vel peccatum, a quo non potest absolvere nisi superior: ergo sufficit, quod minora confiteatur uni[^5a], et peccatum illud confiteatur maiori: ergo videtur, quod confessio possit dimidiari.

### Conclusio.

> Necesse est uni confiteri, non quidem omnia venialia, sed omnia mortalia, quorum poenitens est memor, et de quibus non fuit alias legitime confessus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in venialibus non est vis; sicut enim non est necesse ea confiteri[^6a], sic non est necesse ea simul et omnia integre confiteri. Sed de mortalibus dicitur, quod necesse est omnia confiteri uni sacerdoti, omnia, inquam, quorum est memor et de quibus non fuit alias legitime confessus. Et hinc voco *legitime confessum,* quando nihil intervenit, quod absolutionem sacerdotis irritam faceret; quod est in quatuor casibus, et duo sunt a parte absolventis: unus, si non sciat; alter, si non possit; unus contra clavem scientiae, alter contra clavem potentiae. Duo a parte confitentis: unus, si ficte confiteatur; alter, si post confessionem satisfactionem contemnens eius obliviscatur. — Si autem legitime confessus est, non oportet iterare nisi in universali; si vero non, oportet, quod omnia dicat; pro eo quod sacerdos absolvit ab omni culpa, aut nulla est absolutio; nullus autem sacerdos intendit absolvere poenitentem ab eo quod sibi celat[^7a]: ad hoc ergo, quod confessio sit integra, necesse est, quod omnia quae simul habet in conscientia, de quibus tenetur confiteri, uni sacerdoti dicat; alioquin, sicut expresse dicit Augustinus, probatur confessio ficta[^8a].

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod omnes sacerdotes tenent locum unius, scilicet Christi; dicendum, quod verum est; sed ita tenent locum unius, quod non simul omnes, sed quilibet per se; et ideo, qui vult confiteri sacerdoti tanquam Christo, si recte confitetur, necesse est, quod omnia dicat uni; quod si aliquid celat uni, quamvis dicat alii, quantum est in se, mediatori celavit, et ita Christo.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de scandalo sacerdotis, dicendum, quod ubi timetur scandalum, non est confessio dimidianda, sed licentia petenda; et si non datur, superior est adeundus, vel alius, qui habeat eius auctoritatem. Nam in tali casu licentiam petere est obtinere.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de eo qui commisit duodecim, sed oblitus confessus est decem; dicendum, quod sanum consilium esset, quod totum diceret, sicut in praecedentibus[^9a] tactum est; tamen credo, quod non teneatur dicere nisi in generali, nisi forte aliquis praedictorum casuum intervenisset. Nam aliud dicere est viam confessionis et salutis multis auferre, cum multi confiteantur aliquando aliquod peccatum enorme, quod deinceps vix alii sacerdoti dicerent. Nec auctoritates Sanctorum hoc compellunt dicere, quia hoc non est confessionem[^10a]

<!-- page 562 -->

dividere. Prima enim fuit integra, et secunda similiter, quia non oportet, hunc de aliis habere remorsum novum nec novam absolutionem. — Similiter iudicandum est de recidivo.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de recursu ad superiorem, dicendum, quod aut recurrit propter absolutionem a *culpa,* aut a *poena*[^1b] propter excommunicationem, vel irregularitatem. Si propter absolutionem a *poena* vel poenali vinculo; sufficit, quod confiteatur illud solum. Si propter absolutionem a *culpa;* si superior non remittit ad proprium confessorem, sanum consilium est — si non habet causam excusantem nisi solum erubescentiam vel opinionem falsam — quod omnia, de quibus habet remorsum, ipsi dicat et pro omnibus illis generalem absolutionem et poenitentiam suscipiat. Si autem aliquam excusationem habet probabilem, ratione cuius magis vult confiteri alteri; tenetur totum inferiori revelare[^2b], et peccatum illud, quod superiori est confessus, et cetera alia; et sic non erit confessio divisa, et ille ex tunc poterit ab omnibus absolvere: quoniam, si aliqua peccata absolutioni superiorum reservantur, in quibus minores sacerdotes cum eis non communicant; hoc magis factum est propter taxationem poenae[^3b], quam tali peccato superior debet sapienter infligere sive iniungere pro culpa, quam pro alio; et ideo, si talem culpam confessus est et poenam pro ea a superiore suscepit; potest illam cum aliis inferiori integre confiteri, et ille absolvere eum ab omni culpa, ita dumtaxat, ut ille faciat poenitentiam a superiore sibi iniunctam. — Et si tu obiicias, quod iste qui adit superiorem et unicum tantum vel duo, aliis tacitis, confitetur, videtur esse hypocrita et se laudare; dicendum, quod verum est, si innueret, se sibi generaliter confiteri; tunc enim videretur, ipsum alia crimina non habere. Sed dum ostendit, se specialiter pro illo unico advenisse et alium confessorem pro minoribus habere, et hoc acceptat superior; nulla est ibi deceptio, quamvis totum dicere sit maior perfectio.

english:
<!-- page 560 -->

### Article I. *On confession as to its manner.*
### Question I. *Whether it is licit to omit any sin in confession.*

As to the first, it is shown that it is not licit to leave out [anything] of the things to be confessed[^3].

1. *First,* by the authority of Augustine in the book *On Penance*[^4]: «Let him beware, lest, led by shame, he divide his confession within himself[^2], so as to wish to manifest different things to different [confessors]; which is to praise oneself and to tend toward hypocrisy and to be always without pardon, to which he hopes to arrive piecemeal».

2. Likewise, it is shown thus *by reason.* Confession is ordered to the knowledge of sin; but he never recognizes the sickness sufficiently who knows only one sin, since a man is sick with many [sins], as is clear in [the case of] medicines: therefore he does not sufficiently uncover the sin who does not tell to one priest all the sins which he has committed.

3. Likewise, confession is for the accusation of the sinner; but when the sinner accuses himself of three sins and has done ten, by this very fact he pretends[^5] to the priest that he has sinned only thrice; but this is manifest falsehood and hypocrisy: therefore etc.

<!-- page 561 -->

4. Likewise, confession is made for the sake of absolution, and the absolution of the priest is a sign of divine absolution; but God never absolves from one fault without absolving from every mortal fault[^1]: therefore the absolution of the priest is either nothing, or is from every fault. But a sinner does not merit to be absolved by the priest who conceals a sin from him: therefore there is no absolution, unless he confess to one priest all the [sins] from which he needs to be absolved.

**On the contrary:** 1. All priests hold the place of one, namely Christ: therefore it is the same to confess to several as to confess to one: therefore it is worth as much, if the sinner confesses all things separately to several, as if he confessed[^2a] all to one.

2. Likewise, confession was instituted as a remedy, therefore it ought not to be done unto scandal[^3a]; but it is possible that a penitent confess to his own priest some sin which will scandalize him, as, for instance, if a kinswoman of the priest were his adulteress: therefore it seems that he can reserve this sin and tell the others, and thus halve his confession.

3. Likewise, someone confessed ten to one [priest] and committed twelve, and having forgotten two, afterward recalls [them], not having access to a priest; this man was legitimately confessed of the ten: therefore, if he ought not to be punished twice for the same thing[^4a], it now suffices to confess the two: therefore it seems that confession can be halved.

4. Likewise, it suffices if one confesses to his own priest that from which he can absolve; but it is possible that someone has a case, or a sin, from which none but a superior can absolve: therefore it suffices that he confess the lesser [sins] to one[^5a], and confess that [reserved] sin to the greater: therefore it seems that confession can be halved.

### Conclusion.

> It is necessary to confess to one [priest], not indeed all venial [sins], but all mortal [sins], of which the penitent is mindful, and of which he has not been otherwise legitimately confessed.

**I respond:** It must be said that in venial [sins] there is no force [of obligation]; for just as it is not necessary to confess them[^6a], so it is not necessary to confess them at once and all together entirely. But concerning mortal [sins] it is said that it is necessary to confess all to one priest, all, I say, of which he is mindful and of which he has not been otherwise legitimately confessed. And hence I call [a man] *legitimately confessed,* when nothing has intervened which would render the priest's absolution void; which [can happen] in four cases, and two are on the part of the absolver: one, if he does not know; the other, if he cannot; the one against the key of knowledge, the other against the key of power. Two on the part of the one confessing: one, if he confesses feignedly; the other, if after confession, despising the satisfaction, he forgets it. — But if he has been legitimately confessed, he need not repeat [it] except in general; but if not, it is necessary that he tell all; for the reason that the priest absolves from every fault, or there is no absolution; but no priest intends to absolve a penitent from that which he conceals from him[^7a]: to this end therefore, that the confession be entire, it is necessary that he tell to one priest all the things which he has at once in his conscience, of which he is bound to confess; otherwise, as Augustine expressly says, the confession is proved feigned[^8a].

1. To that, then, which is objected, that all priests hold the place of one, namely Christ; it must be said that it is true; but they hold the place of one in such a way that not all at once, but each by himself; and therefore, he who wishes to confess to a priest as to Christ, if he confesses rightly, it is necessary that he tell all to one; for if he conceals anything from one, although he tell it to another, as far as in him lies, he has concealed it from the Mediator, and so from Christ.

2. To that which is objected concerning the scandal of the priest, it must be said that where scandal is feared, the confession is not to be halved, but leave is to be sought; and if it is not given, the superior is to be approached, or another who has his authority. For in such a case to seek leave is to obtain [it].

3. To that which is objected concerning the one who committed twelve, but having forgotten was confessed of ten; it must be said that it would be sound counsel that he tell the whole, as was touched on in the foregoing[^9a]; nevertheless I believe that he is not bound to tell [it] except in general, unless perchance one of the aforesaid cases had intervened. For to say otherwise is to take away from many the way of confession and salvation, since many sometimes confess some enormous sin which thereafter they would scarcely tell to another priest. Nor do the authorities of the Saints compel [one] to say this, since this is not[^10a]

<!-- page 562 -->

to divide the confession. For the first was entire, and the second likewise, since it is not necessary that this man have a new remorse nor a new absolution concerning the others. — Similarly it is to be judged concerning the relapsed [sinner].

4. To that which is objected concerning recourse to a superior, it must be said that either he has recourse for the sake of absolution from *guilt,* or from *penalty*[^1b] on account of excommunication, or irregularity. If for the sake of absolution from *penalty* or a penal bond; it suffices that he confess that alone. If for the sake of absolution from *guilt;* if the superior does not remit [him] to his own confessor, it is sound counsel — if he has no excusing cause except only shamefacedness or a false opinion — that he tell him all the things of which he has remorse and receive for all those a general absolution and penance. But if he has some probable excuse, by reason of which he prefers to confess to another; he is bound to reveal[^2b] the whole to the inferior [priest], both that sin which he confessed to the superior, and all the rest; and thus the confession will not be divided, and that one [priest] will thereafter be able to absolve from all: since, if some sins are reserved to the absolution of superiors, in which the lesser priests do not share with them; this was done rather on account of the assessing of the penalty[^3b], which the superior ought wisely to inflict or enjoin for such a sin rather than for another; and therefore, if he has confessed such a fault and undertaken the penalty for it from the superior; he can confess it entirely with the others to an inferior, and that one [can] absolve him from every fault, in such wise only, that he perform the penance enjoined on him by the superior. — And if you object that this man who approaches the superior and confesses only one [sin] or two, the others being kept silent, seems to be a hypocrite and to praise himself; it must be said that it is true, if he were to imply that he was confessing to him in general; for then it would seem that he had no other crimes. But while he shows that he came specially for that one [sin] and has another confessor for the lesser [sins], and the superior accepts this; there is no deception there, although to tell the whole is a greater perfection.

la: Edd. hic et infra in ipsa quaestione *omittere.*

en: The editions here and below, in the question itself, [read] *omittere* (to omit).

la: Scilicet *de Vera et falsa Poenitentia* (inter opera August.), c. 13. n. 31: *Cautus sit poenitens, ne* etc. (textus originalis post *manifestare* plura addit; cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XVI. c. 2. in fine).

en: Namely *On True and False Penance* (among the works of Augustine), c. 13, n. 31: *Let the penitent be cautious, lest* etc. (the original text after *manifestare* adds more; cf. above the text of the Master, d. XVI, c. 2, at the end).

la: Edd. *ut confessa teneat secrete.* Inferius pro *secundum quod* (codd. omittunt ibi *confessio*) edd. cum uno alteroque cod. scilicet *quod.*

en: The editions [read] *ut confessa teneat secrete* (that he keep secret the things confessed). Below, for *secundum quod* (the codices there omit *confessio*) the editions, with one or another codex, [read] namely *quod.*

la: Cod. aa *ostendit.*

en: Codex aa [reads] *ostendit* (he shows).

la: Dist. XXII. — Codd. *ibi.*

en: Dist. XXII. — The codices [read] *ibi* (there).

la: Ita meliores codd., alii et edd. *confiteatur.*

en: So the better codices; others and the editions [read] *confiteatur* (let him confess).

la: Vide supra pag. 453, nota 3. — Inferius Vat. omittit *eius.* Subinde pro *sibi* cod. U *ei,* et pro *dimidiare* codd. G aa *diminuere,* cod. R *dividere.*

en: See above, p. 453, note 3. — Below the Vatican edition omits *eius.* Thereupon for *sibi* codex U [reads] *ei,* and for *dimidiare* (to halve) codices G, aa [read] *diminuere* (to diminish), codex R *dividere* (to divide).

la: Respicitur Nahum 1, 9. supra lit. Magistri, d. XV. c. 1. allegatum. — Superius post *Item* cod. F addit *si,* et post *sacerdotis* in cod. X secunda manus addidit *illius.* In fine huius et seq. arg. pro *dimidiari* codd. K *dividi* (in solut. quaestionis plures codd. hoc verbo utuntur).

en: Reference is made to Nahum 1, 9, cited above in the text of the Master, d. XV, c. 1. — Above, after *Item* codex F adds *si,* and after *sacerdotis* in codex X a second hand has added *illius.* At the end of this and the following argument, for *dimidiari* (to be halved) codices K [read] *dividi* (to be divided) — in the solution of the question several codices use this word.

la: Cod. G *inferiori.*

en: Codex G [reads] *inferiori* (to the inferior).

la: Cfr. supra d. 17. p. III. a. 2. q. 1.

en: Cf. above, d. 17, p. III, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Vide supra d. 17. p. III. dub. 4.

en: See above, d. 17, p. III, dub. 4.

la: Allegantur pro hac re a Scholasticis communiter verba ex *Meditationibus piissimis de cognitione humanae conditionis* (olim Bernardo attributis), c. 9. n. 25: *Confessionem etiam meam divisi, ut diversis sacerdotibus diversa manifestarem; et ita venia carui, ad quam per partes pervenire putavi. Exsecranda namque fictio est, peccatum dividere et superficie tenus radere, non intrinsecus eradicare* etc.

en: There are cited for this matter, by the Scholastics commonly, the words from the *Most Pious Meditations on the Knowledge of the Human Condition* (formerly attributed to Bernard), c. 9, n. 25: *I also divided my confession, so as to manifest different things to different priests; and thus I lacked the pardon to which I thought to attain piecemeal. For it is a thing to be execrated, to divide one's sin and to scrape it off superficially, [and] not to root it out from within* etc.

la: Supra d. 17. p. III. dub. 1. — Superius pro *sed oblitus confessus est decem* (ita codd. IK) codd. F G *et per oblivionem confiteri aliquot,* cod. bb *et confessus est decem,* edd. corrigentes corruptam lectionem aliorum codd. *de eo qui per oblivionem commisit decem confiteri aliquot* legunt *de eo qui per oblivionem omisit duo confiteri.*

en: Above, d. 17, p. III, dub. 1. — Above, for *sed oblitus confessus est decem* (so codices IK) codices F G [read] *et per oblivionem confiteri aliquot,* codex bb *et confessus est decem;* the editions, correcting the corrupt reading of the other codices *de eo qui per oblivionem commisit decem confiteri aliquot,* read *de eo qui per oblivionem omisit duo confiteri.*

la: Codd. P Q addunt *sicut.* Aliquanto inferius pro *erubescentiam* codd. E L et ed. 1. *solam erubescentiam.*

en: Codices P Q add *sicut.* Somewhat below, for *erubescentiam* (shamefacedness) codices E L and edition 1 [read] *solam erubescentiam* (only shamefacedness).

la: In codd. N aa additur: *illud scilicet, quod sibi dixit; verbi gratia, si confessus esset, et in ultimo casu retur, de quo non posset absolvere nisi superior, et ad superiorem, et [ipse eum] remitteret, non est necesse iterum quae confessus est, sed casum illum et habere, revelare.*

en: In codices N aa there is added: *namely that which he told him; for example, if he had confessed, and in the last case [it should be reckoned], concerning that from which none but a superior could absolve, and [if he went] to the superior, and [the superior] should remit him [to his own confessor], it is not necessary [to confess] again the things which he confessed, but [it is necessary] to reveal that case and to have [it]* [the codex reading is itself corrupt here].

la: Cod. aa subiungit: *quoniam, quantum est de* [etc.].

en: Codex aa subjoins: *quoniam, quantum est de* (since, as regards) [etc.].

la: [Marker spans the p. 561→562 page break; no separate footer entry — the apparatus note for this clause is `[^9a]` above; the running clause continues «confessionem dividere» on p. 562.]

en: [Continuation marker across the p. 561→562 break; carries no distinct Quaracchi footer.] ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Haec quaestio plene soluta est a Concilio Tridentino (Sess. XIV. c. 5. can. 7. 8.). Quoad peccata, «quae diligenter cogitanti non occurrunt», ibi docetur, quod «in universum eadem confessione inclusa esse intelliguntur»; unde rite disposito simul condonantur. Etiam S. Thom. (loc. infra cit. ad 3.) non approbat opinionem eorum qui docuerunt, quod quando quis recordatur peccatorum, quae oblitus erat, teneatur iterum confiteri iam manifestata. — De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 18. m. 4. a. 5. §1. 2. 6, a. 2. §6. — Scot., supra d. 17. n. 19. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; Suppl. q. 9. a. 2. — B. Albert., supra d. 16. a. 36. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 3. — Durand., supra d. 17. q. 15. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 2.

**II.** De seq. (2.) quaestione explicite tractant: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. §5. — S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 4.

**III.** Pauci explicite tractant de 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 2. §4. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2. — Alii rem tangunt exponentes 16 conditiones sive proprietates bonae confessionis, de quibus loquitur S. Bonav. hic dub. 3; S. Thom., supra d. 17. q. 3. a. 4. quaestiunc. 4; Suppl. q. 9. a. 4; B. Albert., supra d. 17. a. 36; Richard. a Med., supra d. 17. a. 3. q. 9.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** This question has been fully resolved by the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV. c. 5. can. 7. 8.). As to the sins «which do not occur to one thinking diligently», it is taught there that «they are understood to be included in the same confession as a whole»; whence to one rightly disposed they are remitted at the same time. St. Thomas too (in the place cited below, *ad 3*) does not approve the opinion of those who taught that, when someone recalls sins which he had forgotten, he is bound to confess again [those] already manifested. — On the 1st question: Alex. of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 18. m. 4. a. 5. §1. 2. 6, a. 2. §6. — Scotus, above d. 17. n. 19. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 2; Suppl. q. 9. a. 2. — B. Albert, above d. 16. a. 36. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3. q. 3. — Durandus, above d. 17. q. 15. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. 2.

**II.** Of the following (2nd) question treat explicitly: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. §5. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 2. quaestiuncula 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit. q. 4.

**III.** Few treat explicitly of the 3rd question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. a. 2. §4. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. quaestiuncula 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3. q. 2. — Others touch on the matter in expounding the 16 conditions or properties of a good confession, of which St. Bonaventure speaks here in dub. 3; St. Thomas, above d. 17. q. 3. a. 4. quaestiuncula 4; Suppl. q. 9. a. 4; B. Albert, above d. 17. a. 36; Richard of Mediavilla, above d. 17. a. 3. q. 9.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{560,561,562}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (Vol IV two-column "VOL II OVERRIDE": PDF authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/scholion/footers), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR raw lines 61625–61818. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (pp. 560→580). Running heads verified: p.561 R-0 prints "561" and L-0 the running head "DIST. XXI. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I."; p.562 R-0 "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." with "562".

**Page span correction.** The page hint said "p.561 (into 562)", but the ARTICULUS I + QUAESTIO I header, the article opener ("Quantum ad primum…"), objections 1–3 and footers 1–5 sit at the **bottom of p.560** (running head DIST. XXI begins at the top of p.561). So the chunk's printed span is **560–562** (frontmatter updated accordingly). The p.560 DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (which lists this article's 3 questions: omittere / addere / aliena referre) belong to the separate `d21-p2-divisio` chunk, not here.

**Article opener folded in.** Per the chunking convention the short Articulus I opener ("De confessione quoad modum" + "Quantum ad primum ostenditur…") folds into this q1; no standalone divisio chunk for the article.

**Scholion ownership / coverage.** The Articulus I SCHOLION (p.562 R, sections I–III) is rendered here in full (body first, scholion last per the parser rule). It is the article-level scholion shared by all three questions of Art. I, and addresses them explicitly: **§I** = *Question 1* (this chunk — Trent's resolution + St. Thomas on forgotten-sin re-confession, with the parallel-author list); **§II** = *Question 2* (the sibling `a1-q2`, "utrum liceat addere"); **§III** = *Question 3* ("utrum liceat aliena peccata referre", the dub. region). The sibling `d21-p2-a1-q2` renders no scholion of its own and cross-refers "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest."

**Page-split / cross-chunk footer map.**
- p.560: footers 1–5 (article opener + objs 1–3) → rendered `[^3]` (*omittere* lemma), `[^4]` (Augustine *de Vera et falsa Poenitentia*), `[^2]` (Edd. *ut confessa teneat secrete*), `[^5]` (Cod. aa *ostendit*). Note p.560 footers 1–2 are the *divisio*-chunk's "Dist. XXII." and the secondary readings; the body markers actually anchored in **this** q1's p.560 text are nn. 2–5. Footer `1` (Dist. XXII. — Codd. ibi) anchors at obj. 4's "mortali¹" which prints on **p.561**, so it is rendered as `[^1]` under p.561 below.
- p.561: footers restart 1–8. nn. 1 (*Dist. XXII.*), 2 (better-codd. *confiteatur*), 3 (*pag. 453 nota 3* / *dimidiare* variants), 4 (*Nahum 1,9* / *dividi*), 5 (*Cod. G inferiori*), 6 (*supra d.17 p.III a.2 q.1*), 7 (*supra d.17 p.III dub.4*), 8 (the *Meditationes piissimae* Pseudo-Bernard quotation) → rendered `[^1]`, `[^2a]`, `[^3a]`, `[^4a]`, `[^5a]`, `[^6a]`, `[^7a]`, `[^8a]`, plus the long *Decem oblivionis* variant note `[^9a]` (p.561 n.2 is suffixed `[^2a]` to avoid colliding with p.560 n.2 = `[^2]`).
- p.562: footers restart. nn. 1 (*Codd. P Q addunt sicut* / *erubescentiam*), 2 (the *In codd. N aa additur* long add.), 3 (*Cod. aa subiungit quoniam…*) → rendered `[^1b]`, `[^2b]`, `[^3b]`. These three p.562 footers anchor in **this** q1's Solutio (Ad 4, p.562 L). The p.562 footers belonging to QUAESTIO II ("Si causa… mentiris", obj. markers) are the hand-off to q2 and are NOT rendered here.

**Hand-off to q2 (`bon-sent-IV-d21-p2-a1-q2`).** QUAESTIO II ("Utrum liceat aliquid in confessione addere") opens at p.562 L-bottom / R-bottom and runs onto p.563. Its objection footers ("Codd. PQ addunt sicut" was consumed here; q2's own footers begin with the *Augustinus… Si causa mentiris* note and "iniquus testis est qui accusat… in eo in quo non est culpabilis") migrate to q2. q2 also inherits this Articulus I scholion above by reference.

**[?] flags.** One. The p.562 footer `[^2b]` (*In codd. N aa additur…*) is itself a corrupt codex addition; the OCR + PDF band give a garbled clause ("…et in ultimo casu retur… et habere, revelare") that does not parse cleanly — rendered as faithfully as the band allows with a bracketed corruption note. All other readings resolved against the bands. Minor silent OCR corrections applied per the Vol IV override (e.g. `flteri`→*fiteri*, `conOteatur`→*confiteatur*, `gmni`→*omni*, `aJDSoiutio`→*absolutio*).


title: Dist. 21, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 562 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum liceat aliquid in confessione addere.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum liceat aliquid in confessione addere. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia Augustinus dicit in libro de Poenitentia, et habetur in littera[^1]: « Si causa humilitatis mentiris, efficeris quod vitasti »: si ergo aliquis causa humilitatis accusat se amplius, quam meruit; videtur ex hoc culpam incurrere.

2. Item[^2], iniquus testis est qui accusat alium in eo, in quo non est culpabilis, quantumcumque faciat bona intentione; sed homo in confessione contra se testificatur: ergo si se accusat in eo, in quo non peccavit; videtur, quod inique agat.

3. Item, nihil obiiciendum est in iudicio manifesto, quod non possit manifeste probari: ergo pari ratione nihil imponendum est in iudicio poenitentiali, quod non possit per testem rectum probari; testis autem est conscientia: ergo nihil dicendum est, nisi de quo accusat conscientia: ergo etc.

4. Item, confessio est ad dirigendum medicum spiritualem, sicut cognitio carnalis infirmitatis est ad dirigendum medicum carnalem; sed ita facit errare medicum qui dicit, se habere morbum, quem non habet, sicut qui dicit, se non habere, quem habet: ergo sicut peccat ille qui dimittit[^3], ita ille qui addit.

<!-- page 563 -->

**Contra:**
1. Gregorius[^4]: « Bonarum mentium est ibi culpam agnoscere, ubi culpa non est »: ergo si potest et debet se homo accusare, secundum quod agnoscit se; et bona mens potest se magis culpabilem reputare, quam sit secundum veritatem: videtur, quod magis possit se accusare, quam sit in re.

2. Item, qui conteritur plus, quam meruit, et satisfacit puniendo se ultra, quam meruit, iuste et[^5] laudabiliter et bene facit: ergo pari ratione qui se accusat ultra, quam peccavit, bene facit.

3. Item, confessio est ad humiliationem confitentis, et hoc per accusationem; sed nemo potest se nimis humiliare, etiam si se subiiciat omnibus propter Deum[^6]: ergo pari ratione nemo potest se nimis accusare.

4. Item, ponatur, quod aliquod peccatum commisit quis, de quo dubitat, utrum sit mortale, vel veniale; quaero, qualiter debeat illud confiteri; et videtur, quod sicut mortale, quia « in dubiis securior pars est eligenda[^7] »; alioquin, si sicut veniale confitetur, discrimini se committit; sed possibile est, quod istud peccatum non sit nisi veniale: ergo potest veniale confiteri ut mortale: ergo ad confessionem addere ad se accusandum.

### Conclusio

> In confessione nihil licet addere, refragante testimonio conscientiae; tamen additio ultra rei veritatem, conscientia autem linguae concordante, potest esse meritoria.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam praenotandum est, quod differt mentiri et falsum dicere. Mentiri enim est, quando aliud exprimit vox, quam sentiat mens, etiam si per vocem verum dicatur in re; falsum dicere est, quando vox discordat a re significata[^8]. Mentiri quidem, quia semper importat abusum signi et obliquationem hominis quantum ad vim intellectivam et exteriorem, inter quas est discordia, semper est malum et ita secundum se malum, quod nulla potest bona circumstantia vestiri, ut bene fiat, sicut dicit Augustinus in libro contra Mendacium[^9]. Falsum vero dici potest frequenter meritorie, cum mens decipitur et ita credit esse, ut loquitur, sicut dixit Apostolus, se in Hispaniam profecturum, ad Romanos decimo quinto[^10].

Si ergo tu quaeras, utrum liceat addere ad confessionem; respondendum est, quod aut tu loqueris quantum ad testificationem conscientiae, aut quantum ad conformitatem veritatis in re. Si quantum ad conscientiam, ut conscientia minus accuset, et vox amplius; sic est peccatum et mendacium, et perditur confessionis meritum, in qua debuit esse verbum verax, secundum illud Ecclesiastici trigesimo septimo[^11]: *Ante omnia verbum verax praecedat te*. Verbum verax est, quando id exprimit lingua, quod sentit conscientia. Si autem intelligas de additione quantum ad rei veritatem, ita quod conscientia non discordat a lingua; dicendum tunc, quod talis additio potest esse meritoria. Qui enim in parvis se credit graviter offendisse, et sic confitetur, quasi graviter offenderit; multum absque dubio profecit[^12].

Rationes igitur ad primam partem procedentes concludunt, quod non potest nec debet addere ultra testimonium conscientiae. — Rationes ad secundam partem procedunt, secundum quod in additione lingua consonat cum conscientia; et sic licet addere, quia nullum fit veritati praeiudicium, dum simul iungitur veritas mentis et oris cum humilitate cordis.

1. 2. Et sic intelligitur illud Gregorii: « Bonarum mentium » etc.; similiter et sequens de contritione et punitione et additione. — Posset tamen dici, quod non est simile de contritione et punitione et de confessione: quoniam confessio est actus veritatis et contra hanc non potest aliquis dicere aliquid, quod non sit falsum et praeiudicium veritatis; non sic est de punitione, quia iuste potest aliquis sustinere poenam, etiam quam non meruit, in gloriam Dei, vel propter salutem proximi, vel in ampliorem profectum sui; et hoc est abundantis iustitiae. Veritas vero non debet nec deficere nec superabundare, quia est rectitudo intellectus[^13], et haec rectitudo est indivisibilis; sed rectitudo voluntatis habet latitudinem, ideo plus et minus factum est iustum; sed non plus et minus dictum est verum, nisi dicatur verius quod est durabilius, ut necessarium et perpetuum quam contingens et momentaneum.

<!-- page 564 -->

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod confessio est ad humiliationem; dicendum, quod non omnimodo est ad humiliationem, sed per[^14] accusationem, quae veritatem debet habere principium vel comitem ad hoc, quod recta sit. Et non sequitur, quod si humilitas non habet excessum in reputatione, quod veritas non habeat excessum in locutione.

4. Ad illud quod quaeritur de peccato dubio, dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Augustinus in decimo quinto de Trinitate[^15], non solum est mendacium dicere scienter falsum, sed etiam asserere dubium, quia lingua a corde discordat. Quando ergo dubitat, utrum sit mortale; dicendum, quod sicut dubitat, ita dubitando debet confiteri; tamen debet conteri et poenam sustinere, ac si esset mortale, et tunc mens assecuratur, et in nullo veritati praeiudicatur. Et sic patet responsio ad obiecta.

Ad illud tamen, quod ultimo obiicitur ad partem oppositam, quod facit medicum errare etc.; dicendum, quod falsum est, quia aggravatio poenitentiae non aggravat naturam, sed alleviat; non sic est in temporali et corporali medicina; nocet enim, si non adsit morbi materia. Sed ista est ratio, quia lingua discordat a conscientia; et illud[^16] praecipue exigitur in illa confessione recte et ordinate facta.

---

english:
<!-- page 562 -->

### Question II. *Whether it is licit to add anything in confession.*

Secondly it is asked whether it is licit to add anything in confession. And that it is not, seems [shown]:

1. Because Augustine says in the book *On Penitence*, and it is contained in the text [of the Master][^1]: « If for the sake of humility you lie, you become what you avoided »: if therefore someone for the sake of humility accuses himself more than he deserved; it seems that from this he incurs a fault.

2. Likewise[^2], he is an unjust witness who accuses another in that in which he is not culpable, however good an intention he may have; but a man in confession testifies against himself: therefore if he accuses himself in that in which he has not sinned; it seems that he acts unjustly.

3. Likewise, nothing is to be alleged in a public judgment which cannot be manifestly proved: therefore by parallel reasoning nothing is to be imposed in the penitential judgment which cannot be proved by a right witness; but the witness is conscience: therefore nothing is to be said except that of which conscience accuses: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, confession is for directing the spiritual physician, just as the knowledge of bodily sickness is for directing the bodily physician; but he makes the physician err who says that he has a disease which he does not have, just as much as one who says that he does not have one which he has: therefore just as he sins who omits[^3], so [does] he who adds.

<!-- page 563 -->

**On the contrary:**
1. Gregory[^4]: « It belongs to good minds to acknowledge a fault there where there is no fault »: therefore if a man can and ought to accuse himself according as he acknowledges himself; and a good mind can reckon itself more culpable than it is in truth: it seems that he can accuse himself more than [the matter] is in reality.

2. Likewise, he who is contrite more than he deserved, and makes satisfaction by punishing himself beyond what he deserved, acts justly and[^5] laudably and well: therefore by parallel reasoning he who accuses himself beyond what he sinned acts well.

3. Likewise, confession is for the humiliation of the confessing one, and this through accusation; but no one can humble himself too much, even if he subject himself to all for God's sake[^6]: therefore by parallel reasoning no one can accuse himself too much.

4. Likewise, suppose that someone has committed some sin, about which he doubts whether it is mortal or venial; I ask in what manner he ought to confess it; and it seems [he should confess it] as mortal, because « in doubtful matters the safer part is to be chosen[^7] »; otherwise, if he confesses it as venial, he commits himself to risk; but it is possible that this sin is only venial: therefore he can confess a venial sin as mortal: therefore [it is licit] to add to the confession in accusing himself.

### Conclusion

> In confession it is not licit to add anything, when the testimony of conscience opposes; yet an addition beyond the truth of the matter, conscience however being in accord with the tongue, can be meritorious.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted beforehand that to lie and to say what is false differ. For to lie is when the voice expresses something other than the mind perceives, even if through the voice the truth is said in reality; to say what is false is when the voice is at variance with the thing signified[^8]. To lie indeed, because it always implies an abuse of the sign and a deviation of the man as to the intellective and the exterior power, between which there is discord, is always evil and so evil in itself, that it can be clothed by no good circumstance so that it be done well, as Augustine says in the book *Against Lying*[^9]. But to say what is false can frequently be meritorious, when the mind is deceived and so believes [it] to be as it speaks, as the Apostle said that he was about to set out for Spain, in Romans fifteen[^10].

If therefore you ask whether it is licit to add to the confession; it must be answered that either you are speaking with respect to the testimony of conscience, or with respect to the conformity of truth in the thing. If with respect to conscience, so that conscience accuses less, and the voice more; thus it is a sin and a lie, and the merit of the confession is lost, in which there ought to have been a truthful word, according to that text of Ecclesiasticus thirty-seven[^11]: *Before all things let a true word go before thee*. A word is truthful when the tongue expresses that which conscience perceives. But if you understand of the addition with respect to the truth of the thing, in such a way that conscience is not at variance with the tongue; it must then be said that such an addition can be meritorious. For he who believes himself to have gravely offended in small matters, and so confesses, as though he had gravely offended; has without doubt profited[^12] much.

The arguments, therefore, proceeding to the first part conclude that one cannot nor ought to add beyond the testimony of conscience. — The arguments to the second part proceed insofar as in the addition the tongue agrees with conscience; and thus it is licit to add, because no prejudice is done to the truth, while the truth of the mind and of the mouth is joined together with the humility of the heart.

1. 2. And thus is understood that [saying] of Gregory: « of good minds » etc.; similarly also the following [argument] about contrition and punishment and addition. — Yet it could be said that contrition and punishment and confession are not alike: because confession is an act of truth and against this no one can say anything which is not false and a prejudice to the truth; it is not so concerning punishment, because one can justly bear a punishment, even one he did not deserve, for the glory of God, or for the salvation of the neighbor, or for his own greater progress; and this belongs to abundant justice. But truth ought neither to fall short nor to superabound, because it is the rectitude of the intellect[^13], and this rectitude is indivisible; but the rectitude of the will has latitude, therefore [a thing] done is more and less just; but [a thing] said is not more and less true, unless that be called truer which is more lasting, as the necessary and perpetual [is truer] than the contingent and momentary.

<!-- page 564 -->

3. To that which is objected, that confession is for humiliation; it must be said that it is not in every way for humiliation, but through[^14] accusation, which ought to have truth as its origin or companion to this end, that it be right. And it does not follow that if humility has no excess in self-estimation, that truth has no excess in speech.

4. To that which is asked about the doubtful sin, it must be said that, as Augustine says in the fifteenth [book] *On the Trinity*[^15], it is not only a lie to say knowingly what is false, but also to assert a doubtful thing [as certain], because the tongue is at variance with the heart. When therefore he doubts whether it is mortal; it must be said that just as he doubts, so doubtingly ought he to confess; yet he ought to be contrite and to bear the punishment, as if it were mortal, and then the mind is reassured, and in nothing is the truth prejudiced. And thus the response to the objections is evident.

To that, however, which is objected last on behalf of the opposite part, that it makes the physician err etc.; it must be said that it is false, because the aggravation of penance does not aggravate nature, but relieves it; it is not so in temporal and bodily medicine; for it harms, if the matter of the disease be not present. But this is the reason: because the tongue is at variance with conscience; and that[^16] is required above all in that confession made rightly and in orderly fashion.

---

la: Hic c. 8, ubi secundum textum originalem (non in libro de Poenitentia, sed in Serm. 181. c. 4. n. 5.), quem sequitur Vat., post *mentiris* plura adduntur.

en: Here c. 8, where, according to the original text (not in the book *On Penitence*, but in Sermon 181, c. 4, n. 5), which the Vatican edition follows, after *mentiris* [you lie] more is added.

la: Cod. aa *Item, in foro iudiciali*. — Cfr. August., I. de Civ. Dei, c. 20, ubi docet, nulli licere falsum testimonium dicere adversus se ipsum.

en: Codex aa [reads] *Item, in foro iudiciali* [Likewise, in the judicial forum]. — Cf. Augustine, *City of God* book I, c. 20, where he teaches that it is licit to no one to give false testimony against himself.

la: Codd. V W *diminuit*, cod. bb *dimidiat*.

en: Codices V W [read] *diminuit* [he diminishes], codex bb *dimidiat* [he halves].

la: Vide supra pag. 30, nota 1.

en: See above, page 30, note 1.

la: Pro *iuste et* codd. I K *certe*.

en: For *iuste et* [justly and] codices I K [read] *certe* [surely].

la: Eccli. 7, 19: Humilia valde spiritum tuum. Cfr. Bernard., Serm. 37. in Cantic. n. 7.

en: Ecclesiasticus 7:19: Humble thy spirit very much. Cf. Bernard, Sermon 37 on the Canticle, n. 7.

la: Innocent. III. in C. *Illud Dominus* (5.), X. de Clerico excommun. (lib. V. tit. 27.): In dubiis via est eligenda tutior. — Pro *pars* cod. bb *via*. In fine arg. pro *ad confessionem* in cod. E secunda manus substituit *in confessione*.

en: Innocent III in the chapter *Illud Dominus* (5), [Decretals] X, *On the Excommunicated Cleric* (book V, title 27): In doubtful matters the safer way is to be chosen. — For *pars* [part] codex bb [reads] *via* [way]. At the end of the argument, for *ad confessionem* [to the confession] in codex E a second hand has substituted *in confessione* [in confession].

la: In cod. aa additur *solum, ita quod non a mente*.

en: In codex aa is added *solum, ita quod non a mente* [only, in such a way that [it does] not [proceed] from the mind].

la: Ostendit enim August. in hoc libro, Priscillianistas errasse asserentes, pro occultanda religione religiosos debere mentiri (cfr. III. Sent. d. 38. q. 1. seq.).

en: For Augustine shows in this book that the Priscillianists erred in asserting that, for the sake of concealing religion, the religious ought to lie (cf. III *Sentences*, d. 38, q. 1 ff.).

la: Vers. 24. et 28. Vide III. Sent. d. 24. a. 1. q. 1. ad 5. — Inferius post *loqueris* in cod. X secunda manus supplevit *de additione*.

en: Verses 24 and 28 [Romans 15]. See III *Sentences*, d. 24, a. 1, q. 1, ad 5. — Below, after *loqueris* [you speak] in codex X a second hand supplied *de additione* [concerning the addition].

la: Vers. 20: Ante omnia opera verbum etc.

en: Verse 20 [Ecclesiasticus 37]: Before all works a word etc.

la: Edd. cum aliquot codd. *proficit*. Inferius pro *testimonium* cod. N *testificationem*.

en: The editions with some codices [read] *proficit* [profits]. Below, for *testimonium* [testimony] codex N [reads] *testificationem* [testification].

la: Vide Anselm., Dialog. de veritate, c. 2. seqq. Cfr. etiam tom. I. pag. 707, nota 5.

en: See Anselm, *Dialogue On Truth*, c. 2 ff. Cf. also tom. I, page 707, note 5.

la: Vat. *propter*.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *propter* [on account of].

la: Colligi potest ex c. 11. n. 20. Clarius habetur in Enchirid. c. 18. n. 6. et de Mendacio, c. 3. n. 3. seq. (cfr. III. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXXVIII. c. 3. seq., et Comment. q. 1.). — Inferius post *utrum sit mortale* cod. bb supplet *aut non*. Subinde pro *conteri* Vat. cum non paucis codd. perperam *confiteri*.

en: It can be gathered from c. 11, n. 20. It is found more clearly in the *Enchiridion* c. 18, n. 6, and *On Lying*, c. 3, n. 3 ff. (cf. III *Sentences*, the text of the Master, d. XXXVIII, c. 3 ff., and the Commentary, q. 1). — Below, after *utrum sit mortale* [whether it is mortal] codex bb supplies *aut non* [or not]. Then for *conteri* [to be contrite] the Vatican edition with not a few codices wrongly [reads] *confiteri* [to confess].

la: Scilicet, quod lingua *non* discordet a conscientia. Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Namely, that the tongue should *not* be at variance with conscience. See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 61819–62112) cross-checked against the vol4 PDF column bands for pp. 562–564 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p56{2,3,4}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`); two-column "VOL II OVERRIDE" discipline applied, reading each page Left column top→bottom then Right. Running heads verified: p562 top "562 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV"; p563 running head "DIST. XXI. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. II. … 563"; p564 "564 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV". Offset pdf = printed + 20. The frontmatter page span was corrected from the auto-chunk's [561, 562, 563] to **[562, 563, 564]**: q2 opens at the *bottom* of p562 L column (after q1's scholion + q1 apparatus, which occupy the top of p562) and its replies close at the *top* of p564, immediately before "QUAESTIO III."

**Apparatus — shared-page footer split.** 16 footnotes total. Quaracchi restarts footer numbering per page; q2's anchors do not begin at footer 1 on p562 or p564 because q1's tail and q3's head share those pages:
- **p562:** printed footers 1–4 anchor in q1's tail (the q1 conclusion + scholion area at the top of the page) and are carried by `bon-sent-IV-d21-p2-a1-q1`; only printed footers **5–6** anchor in q2's objections → here as [^1]–[^2].
- **p563:** printed footers **1–11** all anchor in q2 (obj 4 tail "qui dimittit", Contra block, Conclusio, Respondeo) → here as [^3]–[^13].
- **p564:** printed footers **1–3** anchor in q2's final replies (reply 3 "per¹ accusationem", reply 4 "decimo quinto de Trinitate²", final reply "illud³ praecipue") → here as [^14]–[^16] (3 entries). The remaining p564 footers (printed 4–9: Nehemiae, Psalmus 31, Genesis, etc.) anchor in QUAESTIO III and are carried by `bon-sent-IV-d21-p2-a1-q3`.

**Marginal headings** present in the printed text (rendered inline, not as side-notes): *Fundamenta* (objections), *Conclusio*, *Respondeo / Notandum*, *Distinctio*, *Conclusio 1 / Conclusio 2*, *Ad argg.*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Alia solutio notanda*, *Notandum*. These are Quaracchi's editorial side-glosses, not part of Bonaventure's running text.

**Scholion disposition.** has_scholion: false. The Articulus scholion is printed with q1 (it appears at the top of p562 R column, headed `SCHOLION.`, immediately after the close of q1 and before the `QUAESTIO II.` header) and is transcribed in `bon-sent-IV-d21-p2-a1-q1`. Quaracchi confirms the cross-reference at the close of this question: footnote [^16], *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*

**Cross-chunk hand-offs.**
- *From q1 (`bon-sent-IV-d21-p2-a1-q1`, before):* the article scholion + p562 footers 1–4 belong to q1; this chunk picks up only p562 footers 5–6.
- *To q3 (`bon-sent-IV-d21-p2-a1-q3`, after):* QUAESTIO III ("Utrum in confessione liceat aliena peccata referre") opens on p564 L column (raw line ~62117) immediately after q2's final reply; p564 footers 4–9 anchor in q3, not here.

**[?] flags.** None. The OCR cascade in the two-column body ("qiiaerilur" → *quaeritur*, "Probutio"-type garbles, "diclum" → *dictum*, "scd" → *sed*, "lestificalur" → *testificatur*, "praeiudiciura" → *praeiudicium*, "conciasio" → *conclusio*, marginal-gloss bleed) was resolved unambiguously against the PDF column bands; no genuinely ambiguous reading remained.