title: Dist. 19, Art. 3, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 510 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum inferior possit absolvere superiorem, ipso volente.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum inferior possit absolvere superiorem, ipso volente. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia ad Hebraeos quinto[^1] dicitur, quod pontifex non tantum pro se, sed etiam pro populo debet orare, eo quod *ipse sit circumdatus infirmitate:* ergo si peccat mortaliter, indiget confiteri, quemadmodum unus de populo; sed non habet superiorem ordinarium: ergo potest confiteri et absolvi ab inferiori.

2. Item, ad hoc, quod de peccato mortali fiat reconciliatio, necesse est, intervenire mediationem sacerdotis; sed possibile est, supremum praelatorum peccare: ergo indiget sacerdote reconciliante; sed non superiori: ergo inferiori.

3. Item, quamvis Summus Pontifex sit constitutus, *ut offerat dona et sacrificia pro peccatis*[^2], tamen ipse per alium sacerdotem potest facere hostiam offerri, et alius potest offerre pro eo: ergo quamvis claves habeat ad solvendum, tamen alius potest absolvere eum; sed non nisi inferior: ergo pari ratione in omnibus aliis.

4. Item, potestas absolvendi data est ad utilitatem eius qui absolvitur; sed ille cui data est potestas haec, non est peioris conditionis quam alii: ergo et ille potest absolvi; sed non a se, nec a superiori, quia frequenter non habet copiam eius, aut non habet superiorem, ut Papa: ergo etc.

**Contra:**
1. Relationis non est relatio, « nec motus est motus[^3] », nec mediationis est mediatio, nec mediatoris est mediator; sed supremus sacerdos et omnis praelatus mediator est inter inferiores et Deum: ergo non potest esse nec debet e converso.

2. Item, ad hoc, quod aliquis absolvat aliquem, necesse est, quod habeat iurisdictionem super eum, sicut in praecedentibus[^4] visum est; sed inferior non habet iurisdictionem super superiorem: ergo etc. Si dicas mihi, quod superior dat ei iurisdictionem absolvendi; contra: « nemo dat quod non habet »; sed praelatus non habet iurisdictionem absolvendi se, quia non habet potestatem supra se: ergo etc.

3. Item, praelatus inferior non potest alium excommunicare[^5], nec ipse potest dare alii iurisdictionem excommunicandi se: ergo similiter videtur, quod nec absolvendi.

4. Item, in hierarchia angelica non recipiunt Angeli superiores illuminationem ab inferioribus[^6]: ergo similiter videtur, quod in Ecclesia superior ab inferiore non absolvatur.

5. Item, probatum est per canones et rationes[^7], quod sacerdos non potest absolvere alienum parochianum: ergo nec suum praelatum, *per locum a maiori;* magis enim videtur, quod possit supra minorem quam supra maiorem. *Si tu dicas,* quod praelatus dat ei potestatem in se; quaeritur, quomodo hoc possit esse.

### Conclusio

> Sacerdos subditus potest absolvere praelatum, qui in foro poenitentiae ipsi se subiicit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod inferior superiorem potest absolvere, si superior velit se ei subiicere. — Et hoc patet sic. Virtus clavium, quantum est de se, ad omnes se extendit, nisi ex ordinatione[^8] superiorum manus arctaretur propter servandum ordinem ecclesiasticum. Sacerdos enim ex sua ordinatione institutus est mediator inter Deum iudicem et hominem peccatorem, et quantum est ex parte *Dei,* non est differentia — quilibet enim suum sacerdotem reputat mediatorem, et cuilibet impressit[^9] mediatoris characterem — sed differentia est ex parte *hominum:* quia, si quilibet esset mediator cuiuslibet, esset in Ecclesia confusio; et ideo alii aliis subiecti sunt, et qui subiiciuntur uni non possunt dare alteri auctoritatem in se; sed si libera esset persona, quae posset se subiicere, tunc absque dubio posset eum[^10] absolvere. Quoniam ergo supremus praelatus, qui merae libertatis est et nulli subiectus, potest se cui vult subiicere, et alii exempti etiam suis subditis: concedo, quod ipsi possunt eos absolvere.

<!-- page 511 -->

Quod autem supremus praelatus possit se ei subiicere, ius divinum concordat, quia, cum ipse sit *circumdatus infirmitate,* debet subiici Sacramentis; et sicut medicus infirmatus quaerit medicum et medicinam, non in quantum *medicus,* sed in quantum *aegrotus;* sic Ecclesiae praelatus et mediator quaerit sacerdotem, in quantum Dei inimicus factus est per culpam et in quantum peccator. — Ius etiam canonum concordat, quod unusquisque possit auctoritatem suam communicare pro se et pro utilitate sua sine praeiudicio facto propriae auctoritati et potestati; et ita Summus Pontifex potest se cuilibet sacerdoti subiicere et absolutionem petere; possunt etiam et alii praelati de permissione Papae, sicut dicitur in illa decretali *de Poenitentiis et remissionibus,* quae est Gregorii: « Ne pro dilatione poenitentiae periculum immineat animarum, permittimus episcopis et aliis superioribus nec non minoribus praelatis exemptis, ut praeter praelati sui licentiam providum et discretum sibi possint eligere confessorem ». — Et sic patet, quod subditus potest superiorem absolvere, ipso volente et eligente ac per hoc se eidem in foro poenitentiali subiiciente.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur primo, quod relationis non est relatio etc.; dicendum, quod verum est, secundum quod huiusmodi; nec medici medicus, secundum quod huiusmodi, nec sacerdotis sacerdos in quantum talis, sed in quantum peccatoris.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de iurisdictione, dicendum, quod praelatus dat ei iurisdictionem in se, seipsum subiiciendo. Et si obiiciat tunc, quod non potest dare quod non habet in se; dicendum, quod iurisdictio et subiectio est ad alterum; et ideo, quamvis non possit quis sibi ipsi esse subiectus, nihil prohibet, ipsum subiici posse alii, maxime si est liberae potestatis.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non potest dare auctoritatem excommunicandi se; dicendum, quod argumentum istud deficit dupliciter. Primum quidem, quia excommunicatio est contra hominem, sed absolutio pro homine; et homo non potest auctoritate sua uti contra se, quamvis possit pro se. — Amplius deficit, quia alius modus iurisdictionis requiritur ad excommunicationem quam ad absolutionem. Excommunicatio namque, quae respicit hominem, communem dicit iurisdictionem super hominem, sed absolutio mediationem inter Deum et hominem, quo scilicet homo semper inferior est. Et quoniam necesse est, hominem, quantumcumque sit magnus, iudicari cum Deo et in iudicio esse inferiorem; quantum ad hoc iudicium quilibet potest, quantumcumque sit magnus, dare alii propter se iurisdictionem. Sed quia praelatus talis super omnes est, talis iurisdictio, quae attenditur quantum ad praelationem super homines, in eum haberi non potest, nec ipse alteri dare, salvo iure suae dignitatis, ratione cuius potest dicere Deo: *Tibi soli peccavi.* Et ideo non potest alteri dare potestatem excommunicandi se ipsum.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de Angelis, quod non descendunt ad inferiores: dicendum, quod non est simile: quia Angeli semper in sua dignitate persistunt, nec cadit in eis obscuratio peccati; et ideo non oportet, eos ad inferiores descendere. Sed in ecclesiastica hierarchia secus est, quia peccant praelati et subditi; et ideo oportet, quod etiam ipsi subiiciantur inferioribus, quia et ipsi per culpam quodam modo inferiores facti sunt.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo de subdito alterius, patet responsio: quia non habet iurisdictionem in talem, nec talis potest ei dare, cum alteri subiectus sit. Unde sicut non valet: iste qui est servus Petri, non potest se facere servum Martini, ergo nec iste qui liber est; sic nec in proposito.

---

english:
<!-- page 510 -->

### Question II. *Whether an inferior can absolve a superior, with the superior himself willing it.*

Secondly it is asked whether an inferior can absolve a superior, with the superior himself willing it. And that he can, is shown:

1. Because in Hebrews chapter five[^1] it is said that the high priest ought to pray not only for himself but also for the people, since *he is compassed with infirmity:* therefore if he sins mortally, he needs to confess, just as one of the people; but he has no ordinary superior: therefore he can confess and be absolved by an inferior.

2. Likewise, in order that reconciliation be made for a mortal sin, it is necessary that the mediation of a priest intervene; but it is possible that the supreme prelate should sin: therefore he needs a priest to reconcile him; but not a superior: therefore an inferior.

3. Likewise, although the Supreme Pontiff is appointed *to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins*[^2], yet he can have the victim offered through another priest, and another can offer for him: therefore although he has the keys for loosing, nevertheless another can absolve him; but only an inferior: therefore by the same reasoning in all other cases.

4. Likewise, the power of absolving is given for the benefit of the one who is absolved; but he to whom this power is given is not of worse condition than others: therefore he too can be absolved; but not by himself, nor by a superior, since often he does not have access to him, or has no superior, as the Pope: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. Of a relation there is no relation, « nor is there a motion of a motion[^3] », nor a mediation of a mediation, nor a mediator of a mediator; but the supreme priest and every prelate is a mediator between inferiors and God: therefore there cannot be, nor ought there be, the converse.

2. Likewise, in order that someone absolve another, it is necessary that he have jurisdiction over him, as was seen in the preceding[^4]; but an inferior has no jurisdiction over a superior: therefore etc. If you say to me that the superior gives him jurisdiction to absolve; on the contrary: « no one gives what he does not have »; but a prelate does not have jurisdiction to absolve himself, since he has no power over himself: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, an inferior prelate cannot excommunicate another[^5], nor can he give to another jurisdiction to excommunicate himself: therefore it seems likewise that neither [can he give jurisdiction] of absolving.

4. Likewise, in the angelic hierarchy the superior Angels do not receive illumination from inferiors[^6]: therefore it seems likewise that in the Church a superior is not absolved by an inferior.

5. Likewise, it has been proved by canons and reasons[^7] that a priest cannot absolve another's parishioner: therefore neither his own prelate, *by argument from the greater;* for it seems rather that he could [act] over a lesser than over a greater. *If you say* that the prelate gives him power over himself; it is asked how this can be.

### Conclusion

> A subject priest can absolve a prelate who in the forum of penance subjects himself to him.

**I respond:** It must be said that an inferior can absolve a superior, if the superior is willing to subject himself to him. — And this is clear thus. The power of the keys, so far as concerns itself, extends to all, unless by the ordinance[^8] of superiors its hand were restricted for the sake of preserving ecclesiastical order. For a priest by his ordination is appointed a mediator between God the judge and sinful man, and so far as concerns the part of *God,* there is no difference — for everyone regards his own priest as mediator, and on everyone he has stamped[^9] the character of a mediator — but the difference is on the part of *men:* because, if everyone were the mediator of everyone, there would be confusion in the Church; and therefore some are subject to others, and those who are subjected to one cannot give to another authority over themselves; but if there were a free person who could subject himself, then without doubt one could absolve him[^10]. Since therefore the supreme prelate, who is of pure freedom and subject to none, can subject himself to whom he wills, and others exempt even from their own subjects: I concede that they can absolve them.

<!-- page 511 -->

That the supreme prelate can subject himself to him, divine law agrees, because, since he is *compassed with infirmity,* he ought to be subject to the Sacraments; and just as a sick physician seeks a physician and medicine, not insofar as he is a *physician,* but insofar as he is *sick;* so the prelate and mediator of the Church seeks a priest, insofar as he has been made an enemy of God through fault and insofar as he is a sinner. — The law of the canons too agrees, that each one can communicate his authority for himself and for his own benefit without prejudice done to his own authority and power; and so the Supreme Pontiff can subject himself to any priest and seek absolution; and other prelates also can do so by the permission of the Pope, as is said in that decretal *On Penances and Remissions,* which is Gregory's: « Lest through the delay of penance peril threaten souls, we permit bishops and other superiors as well as the lesser exempt prelates that, apart from the license of their own prelate, they may be able to choose for themselves a provident and discreet confessor ». — And so it is clear that a subject can absolve a superior, with the superior himself willing and choosing it and thereby subjecting himself to him in the penitential forum.

**Replies to the arguments:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected first, that of a relation there is no relation etc.; it must be said that it is true, according as it is of this kind; nor is the physician of a physician, according as he is of this kind, nor the priest of a priest insofar as such, but insofar as a sinner.

*To 2.* To that which is objected concerning jurisdiction, it must be said that the prelate gives him jurisdiction over himself, by subjecting himself. And if he then objects that he cannot give what he does not have in himself; it must be said that jurisdiction and subjection are toward another; and therefore, although one cannot be subject to himself, nothing prevents that he can be subject to another, especially if he is of free power.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that he cannot give the authority to excommunicate himself; it must be said that this argument fails in two ways. First indeed, because excommunication is against a man, but absolution for a man; and a man cannot use his authority against himself, although he can for himself. — Further it fails, because another mode of jurisdiction is required for excommunication than for absolution. For excommunication, which regards a man, bespeaks a common jurisdiction over a man, but absolution a mediation between God and man, in respect of which a man is always inferior. And since it is necessary that a man, however great, be judged together with God and be inferior in the judgment; as to this judgment anyone can, however great he be, give to another jurisdiction over himself. But because such a prelate is above all, such jurisdiction, which is regarded with respect to prelacy over men, cannot be had over him, nor can he give it to another, saving the right of his dignity, by reason of which he can say to God: *Against thee only have I sinned.* And therefore he cannot give to another the power of excommunicating himself.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning the Angels, that they do not descend to inferiors: it must be said that it is not similar: because the Angels always persist in their dignity, nor does the darkening of sin fall upon them; and therefore it is not needful that they descend to inferiors. But in the ecclesiastical hierarchy it is otherwise, because prelates and subjects sin; and therefore it is needful that they too be subjected to inferiors, since they too through fault have in a certain way been made inferiors.

*To 5.* To that which is objected last concerning another's subject, the response is clear: because he does not have jurisdiction over such a one, nor can such a one give it to him, since he is subject to another. Hence just as it does not hold: this man who is the servant of Peter cannot make himself the servant of Martin, therefore neither can this man who is free; so neither does it hold in the matter proposed.

---

la: Vers. 2. seq.

en: Verses 2 ff.

en: Hebrews 5:1.

la: Aristot., locc. supra pag. 180, nota 3. allegatis, in quibus etiam hanc rationem addit, quod secus statuendus esset processus in infinitum.

en: Aristotle, in the passages cited above on page 180, note 3, in which he also adds this reason, that otherwise a process to infinity would have to be posited.

la: Art. 2. q. 2. — Axioma: Nemo [ed. 1 cum pluribus codd. *Nihil*] dat quod non habet, est secundum Aristot., II. Elench. c. 3. (c. 22.).

en: Article 2, question 2. — The axiom: No one [ed. 1, with several codices, *Nothing*] gives what he does not have, is according to Aristotle, *Sophistical Refutations* II, c. 3 (c. 22).

la: Cfr. C. *Inferior sedes* (4.), seqq., d. 21. — Pro *alium* secunda manus in cod. E substituit *superiorem.* Subinde pro *nec ipse* cod. K *nec maior potest.*

en: Compare the canon *Inferior sedes* (4) and following, dist. 21. — For *another* a second hand in codex E substituted *a superior.* Then for *nor can he himself* codex K [reads] *nor can a greater.*

la: Secundum Dionys., de Caelesti Hierarch. c. 3. § 3, c. 8. § 2. et c. 12. § 2. — Pro *Ecclesia* cod. U *ecclesiastica.*

en: According to Dionysius, *On the Celestial Hierarchy* c. 3 § 3, c. 8 § 2, and c. 12 § 2. — For *Church* codex U [reads] *ecclesiastical.*

la: Quaest. praeced. — De loco a maiori cfr. tom. I. pag. 833, nota 5.

en: The preceding question. — On the argument from the greater, compare tome I, page 833, note 5.

la: Ed. 1 cum pluribus codd. *ordine.*

en: Edition 1, with several codices, [reads] *order.*

la: In edd. additur *episcopus;* sed potius supplendum: *Deus.*

en: In the editions *bishop* is added; but rather it should be supplied: *God.*

la: Edd. *eam.* Post pauca pro *merae* codd. I K *verae.*

en: The editions [read] *her (eam).* A little after, for *pure (merae)* codices I and K [read] *true (verae).*

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 56590–56724), reflowed column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p510-{L,R}-*` and `vol4-p511-{L,R}-*`. The question opens on printed p.510 (running head still reading "DIST. XIX. ART. III. QUAEST. I." as the carried-over head of the prior page) with the title line *Utrum inferior possit absolvere superiorem, ipso volente* and the *Secundo quaeritur…* opener — alignment with q2 confirmed. The Respondeo and the *Ad argumenta* (Ad 1–5) continue onto p.511 under running head "DIST. XIX. DUBIA." The chunk ends just before *DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI* (the dubia, raw 56725).

**Scholion disposition.** This question renders `has_scholion: false`. The Articulus III scholion (the marginal *Notandum* / *Aretatio duplex* notes and the "Et sic patet totum" close) is printed and rendered with QUAESTIO I (see `bon-sent-IV-d19-a3-q1`), filling printed p.509; q2 itself carries no scholion. — *La.:* Scholion articuli rejectum apud quaest. I. — *En.:* The article's scholion is rendered with question I.

**Apparatus / page-footer split.** All 10 apparatus entries derive from the p.510 footer block (footnotes 1–10), whose markers anchor the fundamenta, contra arguments, and Respondeo. The footers visible on p.511 (Psalm 50,6; Ioan 11,49; etc.) belong to the *DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI* section that follows and are not part of this quaestio; the q2 Respondeo continuation on p.511 carries no further numbered markers. The *Tibi soli peccavi* citation in *Ad 3* is Ps. 50:6 (Vulgate) but is unmarked in the q2 footer sequence (it is footnoted within the dubia sequence).

**[?] flags.** None. The Latin is clean across both columns; OCR garbles (e.g. *Ulrum*→*Utrum*, *siiperiorem*→*superiorem*, *recoDciliatio*→*reconciliatio*, *Itera*→*Item*, *snbiici*→*subiici*) were silently corrected against the PDF where context was unambiguous.

**Hand-off to dubia.** The next chunk is the *DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI* (raw 56725+, beginning *In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram… Cum esset pontifex anni illius* — Dub. I, p.511 R-column). Its footer sequence (p.511: 1 *Extra lib. V…*, 2 *Edd. supplent tamen*, 3 *Fortasse… coram, vel a*, 4 *Ita omnes codd.*, 5 *Psalm 50,6 — Superius post dare cod. G supplet potest*, 6 *In codd. H S bb additur intelligendum*, 7 *Ioan 11,49. seqq. Cfr. 18,14*) is entirely the dubia's, not this quaestio's.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 19, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XIX)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. XIX)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 511 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicitur: *Cum esset pontifex anni illius.* Videtur enim falsum, quia, sicut patet ex textu[^1], ipse dixit animo interficiendi Christum: ergo peccavit dicendo, non prophetavit. — Item, tam ipse quam Iudaei intellexerunt de salute corporali; constans est autem, illud fuisse falsum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in prophetatione illa duo est considerare, scilicet verbum cogitationis interioris et verbum exterioris hominis. In verbo autem ipso interiori est considerare duo, scilicet ipsius immissionem vel inspirationem, et post immissionem verbi immissi diiudicationem, quae fuit ab intellectu Caiphae. Et cum verbum haberet duplicem intellectum, scilicet carnalem et spiritualem; Spiritus sanctus immisit secundum intellectum spiritualem, et ipse intellexit secundum carnalem. — Et secundum hunc duplicem intellectum verbum exterius duplicem facit intelligentiam in auditoribus: unam carnalem in Iudaeis, et aliam spiritualem in Christianis. Et secundum primum intellectum non fuit verbum prophetationis, sed conspirationis; et sic intellexerunt Iudaei conspiratores; secundum vero secundum intellectum verbum fuit verum et pro-

<!-- page 512 -->

phetia facta fuit Christianis. Unde prophetavit nesciens, quid diceret, quantum ad verum intellectum, secundum quem inspiratum fuerat verbum. Et secundum hunc duplicem intellectum dicitur verbum illud fuisse fructum[^2] Spiritus sancti, vel malae voluntatis ipsius pontificis.

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Nullus officio sacerdotis uti debet, nisi immunis sit ab illis* etc; quia secundum hoc, cum nullus sit, qui careat venialibus, nullus deberet ab eis absolvere. Si tu dicas, quod intelligit de mortalibus; contra: sacerdotem, qui habet curam animarum, contigit peccare mortaliter, et tamen tenetur poenitentes audire; et nullus peccat faciendo illud, ad quod tenetur: ergo non peccat mortaliter. — Item, absolutio fructuosa et utilis fieri potest sine gratia gratum faciente: ergo non oportet, quod sit in gratia, nec tenetur, ex quo habet suum effectum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absolvere a mortali hominem iudicare in conspectu Dei hoc est; secundum autem omne forum nullus digne iudex est, qui reus est et in eadem damnatione[^3]: ideo dico, quod sacerdos, quando absolvit poenitentem, tenetur de culpa sua poenitere, alioquin indigne Sacramentum administrat; ideo graviter peccat, quia in quo alterum iudicat, se ipsum condemnat.

Quod obiicitur de veniali, non valet, quia non est ibi iudicium. — Quod obiicitur, quod facit quod debet; dicendum, quod verum est, sed non omni modo, quo debet. — Quod obiicitur, quod fructuosa est; dicendum, quod verum est suscipienti[^4], sed damnosa est absolventi sive administranti propter contemptum Sacramenti[^5].

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Iudicans enim alium, qui est iudicandus* etc. Ponatur ergo hic, quod sacerdos cognoscat parochianam suam, vel ut dicatur honestius, furetur cum parochianis suis res aliquas, utrum possit eos absolvere. Et quod sic, videtur: quia in quocumque peccato existit, absolvit[^6] de facto: ergo videtur, quod de tali possit eos absolvere. — Sed contra hoc est, quia non potest esse idem in eadem causa iudex et reus; et hoc patet: ergo si talis sacerdos reus est, iudex esse non potest.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod non video quare non possit absolvere. Esto enim, quod aliquis det malum consilium, utpote de homicidio faciendo; non video, quare ille idem non possit poenitenti dare bonum. — Verumtamen neutri credendum est esse tutum: non ipsi *absolventi*, quia videtur in eo manifesta praesumtio; non ipsi *poenitenti*, quia videtur in eo minus vera contritio et peccati detestatio, dum non vult detegere nisi noscenti. Unde si sacerdos nolit licentiare, debet superiorem adire; vel si ille non habeat superiorem, vel non possit ad eum ire, potest ab illo absolutionem recipere, quia revera absolvit, si contritio adest; et si ulterius ad maiorem certitudinem vult alii sacerdoti peccatum detegere, bonum est, et hoc dico ad maiorem securitatem habendam.

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Ideo liberavit peccatricem, quia non erat qui iuste proiiceret lapidem.* Secundum hoc enim videtur, quod illa peccatrix non fuit liberata ex misericordia, sed quia non aderat humana iustitia. — Item, esto quod praelatus sit malus; quaero a te, utrum teneatur subditos corrigere; constans est, quod non est absolutus a tentione: ergo si facit hoc, non[^7] peccat ex hoc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod duplex est correctio[^8]: per modum increpationis et arguitionis; et talis arguit per modum superioris, et qui sic arguit alium, peccat, quia quod facit, non ut debet, facit; sed si interior sit malitia, superbiendo peccat; si exterior, peccat scandalizando: et ideo ad hoc, quod licite corrigat, tenetur primo de oculo suo trabem eiicere[^9], alioquin ordinem correctionis pervertit. — Alia est correctio per modum cuiusdam supplicationis et admonitionis, et haec potest esse bonorum et etiam malorum; ipse autem loquitur de prima et non de secunda. — Quod obiicitur de muliere, patet, quia ille modus corripiendi erat per vindictam. — Quod

<!-- page 513 -->

obiicitur, quod ideo liberavit etc.: dicendum, quod ideo non dicit *finem*, quia ille fuit suae misericordiae abundantia, sed potius viam et modum ad ipsam liberandam insinuat.

De correctione vero fraterna hoc notandum, quod tunc tenetur homo corrigere, quando videt fratrem graviter peccare, et credit probabiliter, quod debeat[^10] prodesse et non obesse; hoc tamen cavendum, ne quis formet sibi conscientiam stultam ex modica coniectura.

### Dub. V

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Diligens ergo investigator sapienter interroget.* Ex hoc enim videtur, quod ad confessorem pertinet perscrutari conscientiam alienam. Sed contrarium habetur in Psalmo[^11]: *Scrutati sunt*, inquit, *iniquitates; defecerunt scrutantes scrutinio.* — Item, Deuteronomii vigesimo quarto: *Cum repetis a proximo tuo rem aliquam, quam tibi debet; non ingredieris domum eius, ut pignus auferas, sed stabis foris, et ille tibi proferet quod habuerit*: ergo non videtur, quod homo interius debeat ad secreta cordis ingredi. — Item, ex horum peccatorum ruminatione frequenter foetor oritur concupiscentiae in *quaerente*, et generatur cognitio mali in *audiente*; propter quod etiam frequenter contingit, eum titillari ad sciendum scientia experientiae: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio oportet, ipsum confessorem diligentem esse in investigando. Et ratio huius est, quoniam ipse iudex est, et iudex debet diligenter inquirere causae veritatem, maxime quando dubia apparet; secundum quod dicitur Iob vigesimo nono[^12]: *Causam, quam nesciebam, diligentissime investigabam.* In talibus autem inquisitionibus cavenda est superflua curiositas et negligentia. — Quaedam enim sunt, quae non debet inquirere in speciali confessor, sicut sunt peccata inconsueta et enormia et contra naturam, et de talibus intelligitur illud Proverbiorum undecimo[^13]: *Investigator malorum opprimetur ab eis.* Et ratio huius est, quia frequenter addiscit poenitens quod non noverat, et contingit, ipsum confessorem in talibus concuti; et ideo non debet talia quaerere nisi in generali et quasi de longinquo per quasdam circumlocutiones, ut, si fecit, qui confitetur intelligat, si non fecit, non addiscat. In huius rei significationem Iudith octavo[^14] dicitur: *Vos autem nolo, ut scrutemini actum meum*; Iudith confessio interpretatur, et hoc dixit sacerdotibus, quasi reprimens curiosam inquisitionem; et ideo, quia a longinquo debet esse, dicitur Iob vigesimo sexto[^15]: *Obstetricante manu, eductus est coluber tortuosus.*

Alia vero sunt inquirenda, scilicet transgressio decem praeceptorum, commissio septem capitalium, abusio quinque sensuum; et de his potest quaerere, quando videt, negligentem vel ignorantem esse ipsum poenitentem. Hoc autem semper est attendendum, ut inquisitio conferat statui poenitentis. Ideo dicitur Proverbiorum decimo octavo[^16]: *Iustus in principio est accusator sui. Venit amicus eius et investigabit eum.* Et cum magna prudentia oportet hoc facere; et ideo necesse est, confessores esse discretos. Unde Proverbiorum vigesimo octavo[^17]: *Sapiens sibi videtur vir dives, pauper autem prudens scrutabitur eum.*

### Dub. VI

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Cum tot sunt qui labuntur, ut pristinam dignitatem* etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia deferendum est multitudini; et «ubi multitudo est in causa, oportet rigori detrahere[^18]»: ergo magis restituendi sunt in gradum pristinum quam si pauci essent. — Contra: ius dicit, eos esse amovendos[^19]: ergo qui restituit facit contra ius, ergo agit iniuste.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in talibus, quando crimen grave est vel enorme, depositio sive amotio sacerdotum ab officio est de aequitate iuris et rigore, sed restitutio est de iuris relaxatione. In relaxatione autem ad hoc, ut fiat, consideranda est in eo qui facit, potentia, ut sit talis, qui supra ius possit et non sit illi iuri subiectus; et in eo cui fit, sit causa idonea, scilicet necessitas, vel utilitas; alioquin non dispensatio, sed dissipatio debet dici. Et quoniam dominus Papa non est subiectus constitutionibus Patrum, sed super omnes est; ideo potest in eis dispensare, et tunc bene facit, quando necessitas, vel utilitas hoc requirit. In mandatis vero decalogi nullo modo potest, quia ipse est subiectus eis; ideo dispensatio ita consuevit definiri:

<!-- page 514 -->

«*Dispensatio est iuris relaxatio, facta cum causae cognitione ab eo qui habet ius dispensandi.*» Unde dispensare dicitur quasi diversa pensare[^20]; et ideo in eis quae statum Ecclesiae decolorant, dispensandum non est, et in eis quae videntur ius infringere, et hoc quando multis conceditur quod paucis esset concedendum, et quando sic accipitur, non sicut fiat sibi de gratia, sed tanquam si esset de iure communi. Et in talibus loquitur auctoritas prius posita.

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

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that it is said: *Being the high priest of that year.* For it seems false, because, as is plain from the text[^1], he said [it] with the intention of killing Christ: therefore he sinned in saying [it], he did not prophesy. — Likewise, both he and the Jews understood [it] of bodily welfare; but it is established that that was false.

**I respond:** It must be said that in that prophesying there are two things to consider, namely the word of the interior thought and the word of the exterior man. But in the interior word itself there are two things to consider, namely the sending-in or inspiration of it, and after the sending-in the judging of the word sent in, which was from the intellect of Caiaphas. And since the word had a twofold sense, namely a carnal and a spiritual; the Holy Spirit sent [it] in according to the spiritual sense, and he himself understood [it] according to the carnal. — And according to this twofold sense the exterior word produces a twofold understanding in the hearers: a carnal one in the Jews, and another spiritual one in the Christians. And according to the first sense the word was not [a word] of prophesying, but of conspiring; and so the conspiring Jews understood it; but according to the second sense the word was true and a prophecy

<!-- page 512 -->

was made for the Christians. Whence he prophesied not knowing what he said, as to the true sense, according to which the word had been inspired. And according to this twofold sense that word is said to have been the fruit[^2] of the Holy Spirit, or of the evil will of the high priest himself.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *No one ought to use the office of priest, unless he be immune from those things* etc; because according to this, since there is no one who lacks venial [sins], no one would be able to absolve from them. If you say that he understands [it] of mortal [sins]; on the contrary: it happens that a priest who has the cure of souls sins mortally, and yet is bound to hear penitents; and no one sins in doing that to which he is bound: therefore he does not sin mortally. — Likewise, a fruitful and useful absolution can be made without grace-making-grateful: therefore it is not necessary that he be in grace, nor is he bound [to be], since it has its effect.

**I respond:** It must be said that to absolve from mortal [sin] is to judge a man in the sight of God; but according to every forum no one is worthily a judge who is guilty and under the same condemnation[^3]: therefore I say that the priest, when he absolves a penitent, is bound to do penance for his own fault, otherwise he administers the Sacrament unworthily; therefore he sins gravely, because in that wherein he judges another, he condemns himself.

What is objected concerning the venial [sin] has no force, because there is no judgment there. — What is objected, that he does what he ought; it must be said that this is true, but not in every manner in which he ought. — What is objected, that it is fruitful; it must be said that this is true for the one receiving[^4], but it is harmful to the one absolving or administering, on account of contempt of the Sacrament[^5].

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *For judging another, who is to be judged* etc. Let it then be supposed here that a priest knows [carnally] his parishioner-woman, or, to put it more decently, steals along with his parishioners certain things, whether he can absolve them. And that he can, it seems: because in whatever sin he exists, he absolves[^6] in fact: therefore it seems that he can absolve them of such [a sin]. — But against this is, that the same [person] cannot be judge and defendant in the same case; and this is plain: therefore if such a priest is a defendant, he cannot be a judge.

**I respond:** It must be said that I do not see why he cannot absolve. For let it be that someone gives evil counsel, for instance about committing a homicide; I do not see why that same [person] cannot give good [counsel] to a penitent. — Nevertheless it is to be believed that for neither is it safe: not for the one *absolving*, because there seems [to be] a manifest presumption in it; not for the *penitent*, because there seems [to be] in it a less true contrition and detestation of sin, while he is unwilling to disclose [it] except to one who knows [it already]. Whence if the priest is unwilling to give license, he ought to approach a superior; or if that [priest] has no superior, or cannot go to him, he can receive absolution from him, because in truth he absolves, if contrition is present; and if further, for greater certainty, he wishes to disclose the sin to another priest, it is good, and this I say for the sake of having greater security.

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *He therefore freed the woman-sinner, because there was no one who could justly cast the stone.* For according to this it seems that that woman-sinner was not freed out of mercy, but because human justice was not present. — Likewise, let it be that the prelate is evil; I ask of you, whether he is bound to correct his subjects; it is established that he is not released from his charge: therefore if he does this, he does not[^7] sin from this.

**I respond:** It must be said that correction is twofold[^8]: by way of rebuke and reproof; and such a one reproves by way of a superior, and he who thus reproves another sins, because what he does, he does not as he ought; but if the malice be interior, he sins by being proud; if exterior, he sins by giving scandal: and therefore in order that he may lawfully correct, he is bound first to cast the beam out of his own eye[^9], otherwise he perverts the order of correction. — Another is correction by way of a certain entreaty and admonition, and this can belong to the good and also to the evil; but he [the Master] speaks of the first and not of the second. — What is objected concerning the woman is plain, because that manner of reproving was by way of vengeance. — What

<!-- page 513 -->

is objected, that he therefore freed [her] etc.: it must be said that he does not therefore state the *end*, because that was an abundance of His mercy, but rather he intimates the way and manner for freeing her.

But concerning fraternal correction this is to be noted, that a man is then bound to correct, when he sees a brother gravely sinning, and probably believes that he ought to[^10] profit and not harm [him]; yet this is to be guarded against, lest one form for himself a foolish conscience from a slight conjecture.

### Doubt V

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Let the diligent investigator therefore wisely inquire.* For from this it seems that it pertains to the confessor to search out another's conscience. But the contrary is had in the Psalm[^11]: *They have searched out*, he says, *iniquities; they have failed in searching with [their] search.* — Likewise, Deuteronomy twenty-four: *When thou demandest of thy neighbor any thing which he oweth thee; thou shalt not go into his house to take away a pledge, but thou shalt stand outside, and he shall bring out to thee what he has*: therefore it does not seem that a man ought to enter inwardly into the secrets of the heart. — Likewise, from the ruminating of these sins there frequently arises a stench of concupiscence in the one *inquiring*, and a knowledge of evil is generated in the one *hearing*; on account of which it also frequently happens that he is tickled to know by the knowledge of experience: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt it behooves the confessor himself to be diligent in investigating. And the reason for this is that he himself is a judge, and a judge ought diligently to inquire into the truth of the case, especially when it appears doubtful; according as it is said [in] Job twenty-nine[^12]: *The cause which I knew not I searched out most diligently.* But in such inquiries superfluous curiosity and negligence are to be guarded against. — For there are certain things which the confessor ought not to inquire about in particular, such as unusual and enormous sins and [sins] against nature, and of such is understood that [text] of Proverbs eleven[^13]: *The investigator of evils shall be oppressed by them.* And the reason for this is that the penitent frequently learns what he did not know, and it happens that the confessor himself is shaken in such things; and therefore he ought not to ask such things except in general and as it were from afar by certain circumlocutions, so that, if he did [it], the one confessing may understand, [and] if he did not do [it], he may not learn [it]. In signification of this thing it is said [in] Judith eight[^14]: *But I will not [have you] search out my act*; Judith is interpreted "confession," and she said this to the priests, as it were repressing curious inquiry; and therefore, because it ought to be from afar, it is said [in] Job twenty-six[^15]: *With his hand bringing forth, the winding serpent was led out.*

But other things are to be inquired about, namely the transgression of the ten precepts, the commission of the seven capital [sins], the abuse of the five senses; and about these he can ask, when he sees the penitent himself to be negligent or ignorant. But this is always to be attended to, that the inquiry contribute to the penitent's state. Therefore it is said [in] Proverbs eighteen[^16]: *The just man in the beginning is the accuser of himself. His friend comes and shall investigate him.* And it behooves [him] to do this with great prudence; and therefore it is necessary that confessors be discreet. Whence Proverbs twenty-eight[^17]: *The rich man seemeth to himself wise, but the poor [man] that is prudent shall search him out.*

### Doubt VI

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Since there are so many who fall, that [their] former dignity* etc. For it seems to be said badly, because deference is to be given to the multitude; and «where the multitude is in question, the rigor must be relaxed[^18]»: therefore they are rather to be restored to their former grade than if they were few. — On the contrary: the law says that they are to be removed[^19]: therefore he who restores [them] acts against the law, therefore he acts unjustly.

**I respond:** It must be said that in such cases, when the crime is grave or enormous, the deposition or removal of priests from office is of the equity and rigor of the law, but the restitution is of the relaxation of the law. But in the relaxation, in order that it be done, there must be considered, in the one who does [it], the power, that he be such a one as can [act] above the law and not be subject to that law; and in the one for whom it is done, that there be a fit cause, namely necessity or utility; otherwise it ought to be called not a dispensation, but a dissipation. And since the lord Pope is not subject to the constitutions of the Fathers, but is above all; therefore he can dispense in them, and then he does well, when necessity or utility requires it. But in the precepts of the decalogue he can in no way [dispense], because he himself is subject to them; therefore a dispensation has been wont to be thus defined:

<!-- page 514 -->

«*A dispensation is a relaxation of the law, made with cognizance of the cause, by him who has the right of dispensing.*» Whence "to dispense" is so called as it were "to weigh diversely"[^20]; and therefore in those things which discolor the state of the Church, dispensation is not to be made, and in those things which seem to infringe the law, and this when to many is granted what ought to be granted to few, and when it is so received, not as if it were done for him out of grace, but as if it were of the common law. And in such [cases] the authority set down earlier speaks.

la: Extra lib. V. tit. 38. c. 16, ubi in textu originali (Gregor. IX.) post *ut* additur *etiam.* — Edd. supplent *tamen.* — Fortasse subsistendum *coram*, vel *a.* — *Ita* omnes codd., edd. melius *supra.*

en: *Decretals* (Extra) book V, tit. 38, c. 16, where in the original text (Gregory IX) after *ut* ("that") is added *etiam* ("also"). — The editions supply *tamen* ("nevertheless"). — Perhaps one should stop at *coram* ("before"), or *a* ("from"). — *Ita* ("thus") all codices; the editions better [read] *supra* ("above").

la: Ita plurimi codd., codd. H P Q *verbum*, edd. *factum.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio August., XVI. contra Faustum, c. 23; Gregor., XXVII. Moral. c. 1. n. 2; Hug. a S. Vict., V. Allegor. in nov. testam. (Ioan. 11, 49.). Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert. hic a. 13; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: So most codices; codices H P Q [read] *verbum* ("word"), the editions *factum* ("deed"). — Cf. on this doubt Augustine, *Against Faustus* XVI, c. 23; Gregory, *Morals* XXVII, c. 1, n. 2; Hugh of St. Victor, *Allegories on the New Testament* V (John 11:49). The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 13; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Luc. 23, 40. — Inferius respicitur Rom. 2, 1: *In quo enim iudicas alterum, te ipsum condemnas.*

en: Luke 23:40. — Below, reference is to Romans 2:1: *For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself.*

la: Edd. *absolvi.* — Ita omnes codd., edd. *poenitenti.*

en: The editions [read] *absolvi* ("to be absolved"). — So all codices; the editions [read] *poenitenti* ("for the penitent").

la: Ex constitutione Benedicti XIV. *Sacramentum poenitentiae* (an. 1741) et *Apostolici muneris* (an. 1745) constat, nullum confessarium absolvere posse complicem suum in peccato turpi (excepto in articulo mortis), et absolventem praesumentem incurrere ipso facto excommunicationem Papae reservatam.

en: From the constitution of Benedict XIV, *Sacramentum poenitentiae* (the year 1741) and *Apostolici muneris* (the year 1745), it is established that no confessor can absolve his accomplice in a base sin (except in the article of death), and that the one presuming to absolve incurs, by the very fact, an excommunication reserved to the Pope.

la: Plures codd. omittunt *non.*

en: Several codices omit *non* ("not").

la: Correctio fraterna, (a *magistris*, ut dicit B. Albert., hic a. 17.) definitur: *Est admonitio fratris de emendatione delicti ex fraterna caritate procedens.* Cfr. Aristot., X. Ethic. c. 9, ubi duplicem viam correctionis assignat, scil. per verba et per poenas, quia plerique non «pudori, sed timori obedire, neque abstinere a malis ob dedecus, sed ob poenam consueverunt». — Ed. 1 cum non paucis codd. *correptio.* Vat. hic addit *una.*

en: Fraternal correction (by the *masters*, as Blessed Albert says, here a. 17) is defined: *It is the admonition of a brother concerning the amendment of a fault, proceeding from fraternal charity.* Cf. Aristotle, *Ethics* X, c. 9, where he assigns a twofold way of correction, namely by words and by penalties, because most men are wont «to obey not shame, but fear, and to abstain from evils not on account of disgrace, but on account of penalty». — Ed. 1, with not a few codices, [reads] *correptio* ("reproof"). The Vatican [edition] here adds *una* ("one").

la: Matth. 7, 5: *Hypocrita, eiice primum trabem de oculo tuo, et tunc videbis eiicere festucam de oculo fratris tui.* Cfr. Luc. 6, 42.

en: Matthew 7:5: *Hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.* Cf. Luke 6:42.

la: Codd. R S T omittunt *quod debeat.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio August., II. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 19. n. 63. seqq. et in Ioan. Evang. tr. 33. n. 4. seqq. — Idem dub. solvitur a B. Albert., hic a. 17. seqq.; S. Thom., hic q. 2; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2; qui hic cum aliis commentatoribus Lombardi plures de correctione fraterna quaestiones solvunt.

en: Codices R S T omit *quod debeat* ("that he ought"). — Cf. on this doubt Augustine, *On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount* II, c. 19, n. 63 ff. and *On the Gospel of John*, tract 33, n. 4 ff. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 17 ff.; St. Thomas, here q. 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 3; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2; who here, with the other commentators on Lombard, resolve several questions concerning fraternal correction.

la: Psalm. 63, 7. — Seq. locus est Deut. 24, 10. seq.: *Cum repetes a proximo* etc.

en: Psalm 63:7. — The following passage is Deuteronomy 24:10 f.: *When thou demandest of thy neighbor* etc.

la: Vers. 16. — Superius pro *diligenter* non pauci codd. *libenter*, et pro *causae* plures codd. *omnem*, cod. U *rei.*

en: Verse 16. — Above, for *diligenter* ("diligently") not a few codices [read] *libenter* ("gladly"), and for *causae* ("of the case") several codices [read] *omnem* ("all"), codex U *rei* ("of the matter").

la: Vers. 27: *Qui autem investigator malorum est opprimetur ab eis.*

en: Verse 27: *But he who is an investigator of evils shall be oppressed by them.*

la: Vers. 33. — Secundum Hieron. (Origenian. sive Graecum Lexicon nominum hebraic.) *Iudith* idem valet ac «laudans aut confitens».

en: Verse 33. — According to Jerome (the *Origenian* or *Greek Lexicon of Hebrew Names*), *Judith* is equivalent to «praising or confessing».

la: Vers. 13, ubi Vulgata post *manu* addit *eius.* — Mox pro *inquirenda* cod. H (bb a secunda manu) *communia.*

en: Verse 13, where the Vulgate after *manu* ("hand") adds *eius* ("his"). — Soon, for *inquirenda* ("to be inquired about") codex H (bb by a second hand) [reads] *communia* ("common things").

la: Vers. 17: *Iustus prior est* etc.

en: Verse 17: *The just is first* etc.

la: Vers. 11. — Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Verse 11. — Cf. on this doubt St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Secundum C. *Comessationes* (1.), d. 41; C. *Ut constitueretur* (28.), d. 50; C. *Quoties a populis* (14.), C. I. q. 7. et C. *Non potest esse* (32.), C. 23. q. 4.

en: According to the canon *Comessationes* (1), d. 41; canon *Ut constitueretur* (28), d. 50; canon *Quoties a populis* (14), C. I, q. 7; and canon *Non potest esse* (32), C. 23, q. 4.

la: Vide C. *Si lapsis* (1.), seqq., d. 50.

en: See the canon *Si lapsis* (1) ff., d. 50.

la: Glossa in Gratian. super C. *Requiritis de iis* (5.), C. 1. q. 7. — Inferius pro *et quando* plurimi codd. *ut quando.* — Ut docet Bernard., III. de Considerat. c. 4. n. 18.

en: The Gloss in Gratian on the canon *Requiritis de iis* (5), C. 1, q. 7. — Below, for *et quando* ("and when") most codices [read] *ut quando* ("as when"). — As Bernard teaches, *On Consideration* III, c. 4, n. 18.

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`vol4-p511-{L,R}-*` through `vol4-p514-{L,R}-*`, split x=1880) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion (the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters this dubia region with heavy two-column bleed and diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation — every Respondeo and footer is fragmented), cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 56725–57014. English is a fresh literal translation. The dubia open on printed p.511 (PDF 531) under the centered header DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI (which spans both columns, beginning at the foot of p.511 L after the Quaestio II Ad-replies) and conclude on printed p.514 (PDF 534) at the close of Dub. VI (*…auctoritas prius posita.*), immediately before the centered DISTINCTIO XX / PARS I header that opens on p.514. Running heads read **DIST. XIX. DUBIA. 511 / 513** (odd pages) and **SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. 512 / 514** (even pages) — confirmed DIST. XIX.

**Page-span correction:** the dispatch brief estimated pp.510–514, but p.510 is entirely the tail of Quaestio II (*Utrum inferior possit absolvere superiorem, ipso volente* — its Conclusio, Respondeo, and Ad-replies), which belongs to the preceding question chunk, not to the dubia. The DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI header begins at the foot of p.511 L (just after the Quaestio II Ad 1/Ad 2/Ad 3 replies that fill the top of p.511 L–R), and the actual dubia run **pp.511–514** (PDF 531–534).

**Dubia count: 6** (Dub. I–VI). Each follows the Master's-text format: a lemma from Lombard (*Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit…*) + objection (*Videtur enim…* / *Sed contra…*) + **Respondeo**.
- **Dub. I** — On *Cum esset pontifex anni illius* (Caiaphas, John 11:49): did Caiaphas prophesy or sin? Ans.: the word had a twofold sense — the Holy Spirit sent it in the spiritual sense (prophecy, for Christians), Caiaphas understood it in the carnal sense (conspiracy, for the Jews); he prophesied not knowing what he said.
- **Dub. II** — On *Nullus officio sacerdotis uti debet, nisi immunis sit ab illis:* must the priest be sinless / in grace to absolve? Ans.: to absolve = to judge in God's sight; a priest in mortal sin sins gravely by judging while himself condemned, though the absolution is still fruitful for the recipient and harmful to the administrant.
- **Dub. III** — On *Iudicans enim alium qui est iudicandus:* can a priest who is the penitent's accomplice (e.g. in theft or carnal sin) absolve them? Ans.: he can (a giver of bad counsel can give good); but it is unsafe for both — presumption in the absolver, defective contrition in the penitent who confesses only to one who already knows. Approach a superior; if none, he may absolve, contrition being present.
- **Dub. IV** — On *Ideo liberavit peccatricem, quia non erat qui iuste proiiceret lapidem* (John 8): was she freed by mercy or only by lack of human justice? + must an evil prelate correct? Ans.: correction is twofold — by rebuke (superior's mode; the corrector must first cast the beam from his own eye, Matt. 7:5) and by entreaty/admonition; the Master speaks of the first. The woman's accusers corrected by way of vengeance. + a closing note on fraternal correction (when one sees a brother gravely sin and probably believes correction will profit).
- **Dub. V** — On *Diligens ergo investigator sapienter interroget:* may the confessor search another's conscience (vs Ps. 63:7; Deut. 24)? Ans.: yes — he is a judge and must inquire (Job 29), avoiding both superfluous curiosity and negligence; unusual/enormous/unnatural sins not asked in particular (Prov. 11:27; Judith 8; Job 26), but the decalogue / seven capital sins / abuse of five senses may be inquired (Prov. 18:17; 28:11), with discretion fitting the penitent's state.
- **Dub. VI** — On *Cum tot sunt qui labuntur, ut pristinam dignitatem:* should fallen priests be restored (deference to the multitude) or removed (the law)? Ans.: deposition is of the law's rigor, restitution of its relaxation (= dispensation, *iuris relaxatio facta cum causae cognitione ab eo qui habet ius dispensandi*); the Pope can dispense in the Fathers' constitutions (necessity/utility) but never in the decalogue, to which he is subject.

**Page-split map (mid-page seams, all verified grammatically continuous against the column bands; within each page read Left column top→bottom, then Right column):**
- `<!-- page 512 -->` falls **inside Dub. I** (Respondeo), at the *…verbum fuit verum et pro- | phetia facta fuit Christianis* seam (p.511 R-bottom → p.512 L-top).
- `<!-- page 513 -->` falls **inside Dub. IV** (the close of the Respondeo / *Quod obiicitur* tail), at the *…Quod | obiicitur, quod ideo liberavit etc.* seam (p.512 R-bottom → p.513 L-top).
- `<!-- page 514 -->` falls **inside Dub. VI** (Respondeo, the dispensation definition), at the *…dispensatio ita consuevit definiri: | «Dispensatio est iuris relaxatio…»* seam (p.513 R-bottom → p.514 L-top).
- DUB. I begins at the foot of p.511 L (*In parte ista sunt dubitationes…*), its Respondeo carries into p.511 R-bottom (the *licet ipsius immissionem…Caiphae…duplex intellectus* passage, which the OCR cascade-shatters most badly). DUB. II and DUB. III both open and largely sit on p.512; DUB. IV opens on p.512 R and carries to p.513; DUB. V sits on p.513 (L-bottom into R); DUB. VI opens on p.513 R-bottom and closes on p.514 R.

**Footer ownership (Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; markers re-mapped to a single chunk-wide [^1]–[^20] sequence, anchored by content not OCR digit order; several printed footers carrying multiple variant-clauses were consolidated under one marker per the de-facto corpus convention):**
- **p.511** — 7 printed footers, all under Dub. I. The *Cum esset pontifex* lemma carries [^1] (which folds in the *Extra lib. V* citation plus the *tamen* / *coram-a* / *Ita-supra* variant-notes that the printed footers 2–4 attach to the surrounding Quaestio-II / Caiaphas phrasing; the John 11:49 source-cluster is carried by [^2] on the Dub. I close). Footers 5–7 (Psalm 50,6 + cod. G *potest*; codd. R S bb *intelligendum* + "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest."; Ioan. 11,49 / 18,14) gloss the Quaestio-II Ad-replies and the scholion cross-reference that bracket the dubia header — they are NOT carried by dubia-body anchors here (the Dub. I-relevant John 11:49 reference lives in [^2]).
- **p.512** — 9 printed footers → Dub. II [^3] *Luc. 23,40 / Rom. 2,1*, [^4] *Edd. absolvi* + *poenitenti* variant, [^5] *Benedicti XIV constitutione* (reserved-excommunication note); Dub. III [^6] *Plures codd. omittunt non*; Dub. IV [^7] *Plures codd. omittunt non* (the *non peccat ex hoc* anchor), [^8] *Correctio fraterna…Aristot. X. Ethic.* (the long fraternal-correction definition), [^9] *Matth. 7,5* (the *trabem eiicere* anchor).
- **p.513** — 11 printed footers → Dub. IV tail [^10] *Codd. R S T omittunt quod debeat* + Augustine *de Serm. Domini* / commentator list (this is a SINGLE printed footer combining the *quod debeat* variant with the fraternal-correction source-gloss); Dub. V [^11] *Psalm. 63,7 / Deut. 24*, [^12] *Iob 29 / diligenter-libenter variant*, [^13] *Prov. 11,27*, [^14] *Iudith 8 / Hieron.*, [^15] *Iob 26,13*, [^16] *Prov. 18,17*, [^17] *Prov. 28,11*; Dub. VI [^18] *Comessationes etc. canons* (the *rigori detrahere* maxim), [^19] *Si lapsis canon* (the *amovendos* anchor), [^20] *Glossa in Gratian. / Bernard de Considerat.* (the dispensation definition). (The OCR shows ~11 number-slots on p.513; the dubia-body content maps to these 11 entries, three of which — the cross-column *De secundo* marginalia and a stray "Vers." fragment — are marginal-notandum labels, not footnote text.)
- **p.514** — its footer block is headed **NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM** and glosses the *De his qui in fine poenitent* Littera / Dubia of **Distinctio XX** (Glossa in Gratian. super C. *Requiritis de iis*; Epist. 167; Serm. 393; Psalm 140,2; etc.) — those belong to the d.20 Pars-I Littera chunk, NOT to this dubia chunk. Dub. VI's tail on p.514 carries no footer of its own (its notes were [^18]–[^20] on p.513).

**[?] flags:** None at the body level — all six dubia bodies read cleanly from the column bands. The Quaracchi footnote *numbers* in the cascade-shattered OCR are unreliable (the IA djvu OCR fragments every footer block diagonally and bleeds the two columns together), so the [^N] anchors were placed by *content* (the lemma each footer glosses) against the printed footer text read off the L-2/R-2 band crops, not by trusting OCR digit order. The chunk-wide sequence [^1]–[^20] consolidates a few multi-clause printed footers (notably [^1] on p.511, which gathers the *Extra lib. V* citation with three short variant-notes, and [^10] on p.513, a single printed footer combining the *quod debeat* codex-variant with the Augustine *de Serm. Domini* fraternal-correction source-list); per-page printed footer-slot counts (≈7/9/11 across pp.511–513) reconcile with these 20 entries once the marginal *Notandum / De secundo / Subdistinctio / Duplex intellectus / Definitio dispensationis* labels (which the OCR interleaves as pseudo-footnotes) are excluded.

**Distinctio XX boundary confirmed:** Dub. VI is the last dubium of Distinction XIX; it closes on p.514 (*…Et in talibus loquitur auctoritas prius posita.*). The next thing on p.514 is the centered **DISTINCTIO XX. / PARS I.** header, followed by the Lombard Littera **CAP. I. *De his qui in fine poenitent*** and its *Dubium 1/2/3* (a separate d.20 chunk). This dubia chunk ends cleanly above the DISTINCTIO XX header. Hand-off to d.20: p.514's NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM footer block (Glossa in Gratian. super C. *Requiritis de iis*; Epist. 167; Serm. 393 alias 41; Psalm 140,2; Ezech. 18) belongs to the d.20 Littera chunk, not here.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 20, Part 1

title_alt: De poenitentia in fine vitae et de satisfactione differenda (Littera Magistri, Caps. I–VII, pp. 514–516)

title_alt: On penance at the end of life and on satisfaction deferred (the Master's text, Chaps. I–VII, pp. 514–516)

source_text:
<!-- page 514 -->

### Pars I.

### Cap. I. *De his qui in fine poenitent.*

Sciendum est etiam, quod tempus poenitentiae est usque in extremum articulum vitae. Unde Leo Papa[^1]: «Nemo est desperandus, dum in hoc corpore constitutus est, quia nonnunquam quod diffidentia aetatis differtur consilio maturiore perficitur». Augustinus tamen de poenitentiam differentibus ita scribit: «Si quis positus in ultima necessitate voluerit accipere poenitentiam et accipit et mox reconciliatur et hinc vadit; fateor vobis, non illi negamus quod petit, sed non praesumimus, quia bene hinc exit; si securus hinc exierit, ego nescio. Poenitentiam dare possumus, securitatem vero non. Nunquid dico: damnabitur? Sed nec dico: liberabitur. Vis ergo a dubio liberari? Age poenitentiam, dum sanus es. Si sic agis, dico tibi, quod securus es, quia poenitentiam egisti eo tempore, quo peccare potuisti. Si vis agere poenitentiam, quando iam peccare non potes, peccata te dimiserunt, non tu illa». Item[^2]: «Duae res sunt: aut ignoscitur tibi, aut non ignoscitur; quid horum tibi sit futurum, nescio: ergo tene certum et dimitte incertum». Sed quare hoc dixit Augustinus, cum poenitentia, quae in fine agitur, in Psalmo appelletur sacrificium vespertinum[^3] «quod erat acceptabilius in Lege», et cum, in quacumque die invocetur Deus, adsit, et quacumque hora ingemuerit et conversus fuerit peccator, vita vivet et non morietur? Sed illa dixit Augustinus propter illos qui poenitentiam usque in finem vitae protrahunt et tunc non ex Dei amore videntur poenitere, sed timore mortis, quasi ex necessitate. Unde idem[^4], quasi aperiens, quare superiora dixerit, ait: «Nullus exspectet, quando peccare non potest. Arbitrii enim libertatem quaerat, ut delere possit commissa, non necessitatem; caritatem non tantum timorem, quia non in solo timore vivit homo. Quem ergo sero poenitet, oportet non solum timere iudicem, sed diligere, quia sine caritate nemo potest salvus esse. Non ergo tantum timeatur pro poena, sed ametur[^5] pro gloria. Quae conversio si contigerit alicui etiam in fine, desperandum non est de eius remissione. Sed quoniam vix vel raro est tam iusta conversio, timendum est de poenitente sero, maxime cum filii, quos illicite dilexit, sint praesentes, uxor et mundus ad se vocent. Multos solet serotina poenitentia decipere. Sed quoniam Deus semper potens est, semper etiam in morte iuvare valet quibus placet. Cum igitur opus sit non hominis, sed Dei, fructifera poenitentia; inspirare eam potest, quandocumque vult sua misericordia, et remunerare ex misericordia quos damnare potest ex iustitia. Sed quoniam multa sunt, quae impediunt et languentem retrahunt, periculosissimum est et interitui vicinum ad mortem protrahere poenitentiae remedium. Sed magnum est, cui Deus tunc inspirat, si quis est, veram poenitentiam». «Sed si etiam sic conversus vita vivat et non moriatur; non promittimus, quod evadat omnem poenam. Nam prius purgandus est igne purgationis qui in aliud saeculum distulit fructum conversionis. Hic autem ignis, etsi aeternus non sit, miro tamen modo est gravis; excellit enim omnem poenam, quam unquam passus sit aliquis in hac vita. Nunquam in carne tanta inventa est poena, licet mirabilia Martyres passi sint tormenta; et multi nequiter iniqui[^6] quanta saepe sustinuerunt supplicia»! — Ex his satis ostenditur, quam periculosum sit differre poenitentiam usque in finem vitae. Si tamen etiam tunc vera habeatur poenitentia, hominem liberat et vitam mortuo impetrat, non sic tamen, ut nullam sentiat poenam, nisi forte tanta sit vehementia gemitus et contritionis, quae sufficiat ad delicti punitionem.

<!-- page 515 -->

«Licet ergo sit difficile, ut tunc sit vera poenitentia, quando tam sera venit, quando cruciatus membra ligat, et dolor sensum opprimit, ut vix homo aliquid cogitare valeat; melior est tamen sera quam nulla[^7]». «Poenitentia enim, si in extremo vitae hiatu advenit, sanat et liberat[^8]». «Multum sera fuit latronis poenitentia, sed non fuit sera indulgentia». Sed «licet latro veniam meruisset in fine de omni crimine, non tamen dedit baptizatis peccandi et perseverandi auctoritatem».

### Cap. II. *De his qui poenitentiam non complent.*

Si vero quaeritur de illis qui in hac vita poenitentiam non complent, utrum transituri sint per ignem[^9], ut ibi quasi compleant quod hic minus fecerunt; idem dicimus et de istis esse sentiendum, et de his qui in extremis poenitent. Si enim tanta fuerit cordis contritio et delicti exprobratio, ut sufficiat ad puniendum peccatum; liberi ab aliis poenis transeunt ad vitam, etsi inexpleta fuerit poenitentia, quia perfecte poenituerunt et ingemuerunt corde. Qui vero non adeo conteruntur corde et ingemiscunt pro peccato; si ante expletionem poenitentiae decesserint, ignem purgatorium sentient et gravius punientur, quam si hic implessent poenitentiam; horrendum est enim incidere in manus Dei viventis. Deus enim, cum sit misericors et iustus, ex misericordia poenitenti ignoscit, non reservans peccatum ad poenam aeternam ex iustitia, vero impunitum non dimittit delictum. Aut enim punit homo, aut Deus. Homo autem punit poenitendo, Deus autem poenam exigendo. Et est poenitentia interior et exterior. Si ergo interior poenitudo tanta fuerit, ut sit sufficiens ultio peccati; Deus, qui hoc novit, ab illo qui taliter poenitet, ulterius poenam non exigit. Si vero interior poenitudo non sufficit in vindictam peccati, nec exterior poenitentia impletur; Deus, qui modos et mensuras peccatorum et poenarum novit, addit poenam sufficientem. «Studeat ergo quisque sic delicta corrigere, ut non oporteat post mortem poenam tolerare. Quaedam enim peccata mortalia in poenitentia fiunt venialia, non tamen mox sanantur. Saepe enim infirmus moreretur, si non medicaretur; non tamen statim medicatus sanatur: languet victurus, qui prius erat moriturus. Qui autem impoenitens moritur omnino moritur et aeternaliter cruciatur. Si enim semper viveret, semper peccaret[^11]».

### Pars II.

### Cap. III. *De illo cui sacerdos indiscretus iniungit poenitentiam.*

Si vero de illo quaeritur, qui satisfactionem iniunctam impleverit, quae ignorantia vel negligentia sacerdotis peccato condigna non fuit, utrum de vita migrans ab omni poena liber sit; idem respondeo, quod supra[^10] de illo qui poenitentiam non complevit, dixi, quod si tantum est lamentum interioris doloris, ut sufficiat in vindictam peccati, omnino liberatus est; si vero non sufficit dolor interior simul cum poena iniuncta, addet Deus poenam. Quod autem interdum sufficiat dolor interior ad vindictam peccati; certum documentum habemus in illo latrone[^12], qui sola mentis contritione et confessione statim, ut conversus fuit, paradisum ingredi meruit. Sed quia dispensatores Ecclesiae contritionis quantitatem non perpendunt, quibus non est datum intelligere occulta cordium; omnibus leges poenitentiae constituunt, tam magis quam minus de peccato dolentibus. Quorum studium ad hoc praecipue tendere debet, ut cordis dolorem, quantum fas est, cognoscant et secundum ipsius modum satisfactionem iniungant. Unde Augustinus[^13]: «In actione poenitentiae, ubi tale commissum est, ut is qui commisit, a Christi etiam corpore separetur; non tam consideranda est mensura temporis quam doloris: Cor enim contritum et humiliatum Deus non despicit. Verum quia plerumque dolor alterius cordis occultus est alteri nec in aliorum notitiam nisi per verba vel alia quaecumque signa procedit, cum sit coram illo cui dicitur: Gemitus meus a te non est absconditus; recte constituuntur ab his qui in Ecclesiis praesunt, tempora poenitentiae, ut satisfiat etiam Ecclesiae, in qua peccata ipsa remittuntur; extra eam quippe non remittuntur. Ipsa enim Spiritum sanctum pignus accepit, sine quo non remittuntur ulla peccata». Item Hieronymus[^14]: «Mensuram temporis in agenda poenitentia ideo non satis aperte praefigunt canones pro unoquoque crimine, ut de singulis dicant, qualiter unumquodque emendandum sit; sed magis in arbitrio sacerdotis intelligentis relinquendum statuunt, quia apud Deum non tam valet mensura temporis quam doloris, nec abstinentia tantum ciborum, quantum mortificatio vitiorum. Ideoque tempora poenitentiae pro fide et conversatione poenitentium abbrevianda praecipiunt et pro negligentia prolatanda; pro quibusdam tamen culpis modi poenitentiae sunt impositi».

<!-- page 516 -->

### Cap. IV. *Quod morientibus non sit imponenda satisfactio, sed innotescenda.*

Solet etiam quaeri, utrum satisfactionis lex morituris sit imponenda. De quo Theodorus Cantuariensis episcopus[^15] in poenitentiali suo sic ait: «Ab infirmis in periculo mortis positis pura inquirenda est confessio peccatorum, non tamen est illis imponenda quantitas poenitentiae, sed innotescenda, et cum amicorum orationibus et eleemosynarum largitionibus pondus poenitentiae sublevandum, si forte migraverint. Si vero convaluerint, poenitentiae modum a sacerdote impositum diligenter observent». Aliis vero pro qualitate peccati praesidentium arbitrio poenitentia decernenda est. Unde Leo Papa[^16]: «Tempora poenitudinis, habita moderatione, constituenda sunt tuo iudicio, prout conversorum animos perspexeris esse devotos. Pariter etiam habere debes aetatis senilis intuitum et respicere periculorum quorumcumque vel aegritudinum necessitates».

### Cap. V. *Quod non est poenitentia neganda vel reconciliatio in necessitate.*

Sciendum est etiam, quod tempore necessitatis non est neganda poenitentia vel reconciliatio poenitentibus. Unde Leo Papa[^17]: «His qui tempore necessitatis et periculi urgentis instantia praesidium poenitentiae et mox reconciliationis implorant, nec satisfactio interdicenda est nec reconciliatio deneganda, quia misericordiae Dei nec mensuras possumus ponere nec tempora definire». «Quodsi ita aliqua aegritudine aggravati sunt, ut quod paulo ante poscebant sub praesenti significare non valeant; testimonia eis fidelium circumstantium prodesse debebunt, simulque poenitentiae et reconciliationis consequantur beneficium». Item Iulius Papa[^18]: «Si presbyter poenitentiam abnegaverit morientibus, reus erit animarum, quia Dominus ait: Cum conversus fuerit, tunc salvus erit. Vera enim confessio ultimo tempore potest esse, quia non modo temporis, sed etiam cordis Deus inspector est, sicut latro probat».

### Cap. VI. *Quod presbyter non reconciliet aliquem, inconsulto episcopo, nisi in necessitate.*

Non debet tamen presbyter poenitentem reconciliare, inconsulto episcopo, nisi ultima necessitas cogat. Unde in Carthaginensi Concilio[^19]: «Presbyter, inconsulto episcopo, non reconciliet poenitentem, nisi, absente episcopo, ultima necessitas cogat. Cuiuscumque poenitentis publicum crimen est, quod universam commoverit urbem, ante absidam, scilicet introitum ecclesiae, manus ei imponatur». Item: «Aurelius episcopus dixit: Si quis in periculo fuerit constitutus et se reconciliari divinis altaribus petierit; si episcopus absens fuerit, debet presbyter consulere episcopum et sic periclitantem eius praecepto reconciliare». Inconsulto vero episcopo, non potest excommunicatos vel publice poenitentes presbyter reconciliare. Unde in Carthaginensi Concilio secundo[^20] statutum est, «ut chrisma, vel reconciliatio poenitentium et puellarum consecratio a presbyteris non fiat». Item: «Reconciliare quemquam in publica Missa presbytero non liceat». Puellarum tamen consecratio, consulto episcopo, per presbyterum fieri valet. Unde in Carthaginensi Concilio secundo[^21]: «Presbyter, inconsulto episcopo, virgines non consecret, chrisma vero nunquam conficiat». Sicut praecepto episcopi potest presbyter consecrare virgines, sic et reconciliare poenitentes.

### Cap. VII. *An oblatio eius sit recipienda, qui currens ad poenitentiam praevenitur morte.*

Si autem quaeritur de illo qui ad poenitentiam festinans sacerdotem invenire non potuit et ita decessit, utrum oblatio eius sit recipienda; dicimus, quia est. Unde in Concilio Epaunensi[^22]: «Si aliquis fuerit mortuus, qui non sit confessus, et testimonium habet bonum, et non poterat venire ad sacerdotem, sed praeoccupavit eum mors in domo vel in via, faciant pro eo parentes eius oblationem ad altare et dent redemptionem pro captivis».

---

english:
<!-- page 514 -->

### Part I.

### Chap. I. *On those who repent at the end.*

It is also to be known that the time of penance is right up to the last moment of life. Whence Leo the Pope[^1]: «No one is to be despaired of, while he is constituted in this body, because sometimes what is deferred through the diffidence of [his] age is accomplished by maturer counsel». Augustine, however, writes thus concerning those who defer penance: «If anyone placed in the last necessity wishes to receive penance and does receive it and is at once reconciled and departs hence; I confess to you, we do not deny him what he asks, but we do not presume that he goes hence well; whether he go hence secure, I know not. We can give penance, but not security. Do I say: he will be damned? But neither do I say: he will be freed. Do you wish therefore to be freed from doubt? Do penance while you are healthy. If you so do, I tell you that you are secure, because you did penance at the time when you were able to sin. If you wish to do penance when you can no longer sin, [your] sins have dismissed you, not you them». Likewise[^2]: «There are two things: either you are pardoned, or you are not pardoned; which of these will befall you, I know not: therefore hold the certain and let go the uncertain». But why did Augustine say this, since the penance that is done at the end is called in the Psalm the evening sacrifice[^3] «which was more acceptable under the Law», and since, on whatever day God be invoked, He is present, and at whatever hour the sinner has groaned and been converted, he shall live and not die? But Augustine said those things on account of those who protract penance until the end of life and then seem to repent not from the love of God, but from the fear of death, as if from necessity. Whence the same[^4], as it were disclosing why he had said the foregoing, says: «Let no one wait until he cannot sin. For let him seek the liberty of choice, that he may be able to blot out the things committed, not necessity; charity, not only fear, because man does not live in fear alone. Whom therefore it grieves [to repent] late, it behooves not only to fear the judge, but to love [Him], because without charity no one can be saved. Let Him therefore not only be feared for the penalty, but be loved[^5] for the glory. If this conversion happen to anyone even at the end, one is not to despair of his remission. But since rarely if ever is a conversion so just, one is to fear concerning the late penitent, especially when the children whom he unlawfully loved are present, [and] wife and world call him to themselves. A late penance is wont to deceive many. But since God is always powerful, He is always able even in death to help those whom He pleases. Since therefore fruitful penance is the work not of man but of God; He can inspire it whenever His mercy wills, and reward out of mercy those whom He could damn out of justice. But since there are many things which impede and draw back the languishing [man], it is most perilous and near to ruin to protract the remedy of penance to death. But great is he, if any there be, to whom God then inspires true penance». «But even if, [being] thus converted, he live in life and not die; we do not promise that he will escape all penalty. For first he must be purged by the fire of purgation who has deferred to another age the fruit of conversion. But this fire, although it be not eternal, is yet wondrously grievous; for it exceeds every penalty that anyone ever suffered in this life. Never in the flesh was so great a penalty found, although the Martyrs suffered marvelous torments; and how great punishments have the wickedly unjust[^6] often endured»! — From these things it is sufficiently shown how perilous it is to defer penance until the end of life. Yet if even then true penance be had, it frees the man and obtains life for the dead, not however so that he feel no penalty, unless perhaps the vehemence of [his] groaning and contrition be so great as to suffice for the punishment of the fault.

<!-- page 515 -->

«Although therefore it be difficult that there be true penance then, when it comes so late, when torment binds the limbs, and pain oppresses the sense, so that man can scarcely think anything; yet better is late than none[^7]». «For penance, if it comes in the last gasp of life, heals and frees[^8]». «Very late was the thief's penance, but the indulgence was not late». But «although the thief merited pardon at the end for every crime, yet he did not give to the baptized authority for sinning and persevering».

### Chap. II. *On those who do not complete their penance.*

But if it is asked concerning those who do not complete their penance in this life, whether they are to pass through fire[^9], so that there they may as it were complete what they did less [here]; I say that the same is to be held of these as of those who repent at the very end. For if the contrition of heart and the upbraiding of the fault be so great as to suffice to punish the sin; free from other penalties they pass to life, even if the penance was unfinished, because they perfectly repented and groaned in heart. But those who are not so contrite in heart and groan for sin; if they depart before the completion of penance, they will feel the purgatorial fire and will be more grievously punished than if they had here fulfilled the penance; for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. For God, since He is merciful and just, out of mercy pardons the penitent, not reserving the sin for eternal penalty out of justice, yet does not leave the fault unpunished. For either man punishes, or God. But man punishes by repenting, God by exacting the penalty. And there is interior and exterior penance. If therefore the interior penitence be so great as to be a sufficient avenging of the sin; God, who knows this, exacts no further penalty from him who so repents. But if the interior penitence does not suffice for the avenging of the sin, nor is the exterior penance fulfilled; God, who knows the modes and measures of sins and penalties, adds a sufficient penalty. «Let each one therefore study so to correct [his] faults, that it be not necessary to endure penalty after death. For certain mortal sins become venial in penance, yet are not at once healed. For often the sick man would die if he were not treated; yet, [though] treated, he is not at once healed: he languishes [though] going to live, who before was going to die. But he who dies impenitent dies wholly and is eternally tormented. For if he were always to live, he would always sin[^11]».

### Part II.

### Chap. III. *On him to whom an indiscreet priest enjoins penance.*

But if it is asked concerning him who has fulfilled the satisfaction enjoined, which through the ignorance or negligence of the priest was not condign to the sin, whether departing from life he be free from all penalty; I answer the same that I said above[^10] concerning him who did not complete [his] penance, that if there be so much lamentation of interior grief as to suffice for the avenging of the sin, he is wholly freed; but if the interior grief together with the penalty enjoined does not suffice, God will add penalty. But that the interior grief sometimes suffices for the avenging of the sin; we have a sure proof in that thief[^12], who by contrition of mind and confession alone, as soon as he was converted, merited to enter paradise. But because the dispensers of the Church do not weigh the quantity of contrition, to whom it is not given to understand the secrets of hearts; they establish laws of penance for all, whether grieving more or less for the sin. Their zeal ought to tend chiefly to this, that they may know, as far as is lawful, the grief of the heart, and according to its measure enjoin satisfaction. Whence Augustine[^13]: «In the action of penance, where such a thing has been committed that he who committed it is separated even from the body of Christ; not so much is the measure of time to be considered as of grief: For God does not despise a contrite and humbled heart. But because for the most part the grief of one heart is hidden from another and does not come into the knowledge of others except through words or any other signs whatsoever, since it is in the presence of Him to whom it is said: My groaning is not hidden from Thee; rightly are times of penance established by those who preside in the Churches, that satisfaction be made also to the Church, in which the sins themselves are remitted; for outside her indeed they are not remitted. For she has received the Holy Spirit as a pledge, without whom no sins are remitted». Likewise Jerome[^14]: «The canons therefore do not prefix the measure of time in performing penance plainly enough for each crime, so as to say of each [case] how each thing is to be amended; but rather establish that it is to be left to the judgment of an understanding priest, because with God the measure of time avails not so much as [that] of grief, nor the abstinence so much from foods as the mortification of vices. And therefore they bid the times of penance to be shortened according to the faith and conduct of the penitents and to be lengthened for negligence; yet for certain faults the modes of penance are imposed».

<!-- page 516 -->

### Chap. IV. *That satisfaction is not to be imposed on the dying, but made known.*

It is also wont to be asked whether the law of satisfaction is to be imposed on the dying. Concerning which Theodore the bishop of Canterbury[^15] in his penitential thus says: «From the sick placed in danger of death a pure confession of sins is to be sought, yet the quantity of penance is not to be imposed on them, but made known, and with the prayers of friends and the bestowals of alms the weight of penance is to be lightened, if perchance they depart. But if they recover, let them diligently observe the mode of penance imposed by the priest». But upon others, according to the quality of the sin, penance is to be decreed at the judgment of those presiding. Whence Leo the Pope[^16]: «The times of penitence, with moderation kept, are to be established by your judgment, according as you have perceived the souls of the converted to be devout. Likewise also you ought to have regard for [their] aged years and to consider the necessities of any perils or sicknesses».

### Chap. V. *That penance or reconciliation is not to be denied in necessity.*

It is also to be known that in time of necessity penance or reconciliation is not to be denied to penitents. Whence Leo the Pope[^17]: «To those who in time of necessity and the urgent pressure of imminent peril implore the help of penance and of reconciliation forthwith, neither is satisfaction to be forbidden nor reconciliation to be denied, because to the mercy of God we can set neither measures nor define times». «But if they are so weighed down by some sickness that they cannot signify under the present [circumstance] what a little before they were asking; the testimonies of the faithful standing around will have to profit them, and at the same time let them obtain the benefit of penance and of reconciliation». Likewise Julius the Pope[^18]: «If a presbyter deny penance to the dying, he will be guilty of [their] souls, because the Lord says: When he shall be converted, then shall he be saved. For true confession can be at the last time, because God is the inspector not only of the time, but also of the heart, as the thief proves».

### Chap. VI. *That a presbyter may not reconcile anyone, without consulting the bishop, except in necessity.*

Yet a presbyter ought not to reconcile a penitent, without consulting the bishop, unless the last necessity compel [it]. Whence in the Council of Carthage[^19]: «A presbyter, without consulting the bishop, may not reconcile a penitent, unless, the bishop being absent, the last necessity compel [it]. Of whatever penitent the crime is public, such as has stirred up the whole city, let the hand be laid upon him before the apse, that is, the entrance of the church». Likewise: «Aurelius the bishop said: If anyone be placed in danger and seek to be reconciled to the divine altars; if the bishop be absent, the presbyter ought to consult the bishop and so reconcile the imperiled one by his command». But without consulting the bishop, a presbyter cannot reconcile the excommunicated or those publicly doing penance. Whence in the second Council of Carthage[^20] it was established, «that chrism, or the reconciliation of penitents and the consecration of maidens, be not done by presbyters». Likewise: «Let it not be lawful for a presbyter to reconcile anyone in a public Mass». Yet the consecration of maidens, with the bishop consulted, can be done by a presbyter. Whence in the second Council of Carthage[^21]: «A presbyter, without consulting the bishop, may not consecrate virgins, and let him never make chrism». As by the bishop's command a presbyter can consecrate virgins, so also reconcile penitents.

### Chap. VII. *Whether the offering of him is to be received, who, hastening to penance, is prevented by death.*

But if it is asked concerning him who, hastening to penance, could not find a priest and so departed, whether his offering is to be received; we say that it is. Whence in the Council of Epaon[^22]: «If anyone has died who was not confessed, and has a good testimony, and could not come to a priest, but death forestalled him at home or on the way, let his kinsmen make an offering for him at the altar and give a redemption for captives».

---

la: Epist. 167. (alias 92.) ad Rustic. Inquis. 7; C. *Nemo desperandus* (1.), de Poenitent. d. 7. — Seq. locus August. est Sermo 393. (alias 41. inter 50 Homil.); ad litteram vero in C. *Si quis positus* (2.), ibid., ubi codd. et ed. 1 *reconciliabitur* pro *reconciliatur.*

en: Letter 167 (otherwise 92) to Rusticus, Inquiry 7; the canon *Nemo desperandus* (1), de Poenitentia, d. 7. — The following passage of Augustine is Sermon 393 (otherwise 41 among the 50 Homilies); but word-for-word in the canon *Si quis positus* (2), ibid., where the codd. and ed. 1 [have] *reconciliabitur* for *reconciliatur.*

la: Serm. cit. in fine; C. *Si quis autem* (4.), ibid. § 1.

en: The Sermon cited, at the end; the canon *Si quis autem* (4), ibid., § 1.

la: Psalm. 140, 2; cfr. Glossa apud Lyran., ubi verba: *quod erat* etc. Deinde respiciuntur Ps. 35, 10; Ezech. 18, 21.

en: Ps. 140:2; cf. the Gloss in Lyra, where [are] the words: *quod erat* etc. Then Ps. 35:10; Ezech. 18:21 are regarded.

la: De Vera et falsa Poenitent. c. 17. n. 33; seq. locus ibid. c. 18. n. 34; uterque in C. *Nullus exspectet* (6.), ibid. In primo loco edd., excepta 1, legunt: *quaerit Deus, ut deleri possint peccata* pro *quaerat, ut delere possit peccata,* sed refragantibus codd., originali et canone.

en: *De Vera et falsa Poenitentia,* c. 17, n. 33; the following passage ibid., c. 18, n. 34; both in the canon *Nullus exspectet* (6), ibid. In the first place the editions, except 1, read: *quaerit Deus, ut deleri possint peccata* for *quaerat, ut delere possit peccata,* but against the codd., the original, and the canon.

la: In codd. et edd., excepta Vat. et 8, sic habetur: *timeat poenam qui poenitet, sed anxietur pro gloria,* refragante tamen editione originalis et canonis; lectio codd. videtur esse antiqua, sed falsa.

en: In the codd. and edd., except the Vatican and 8, it is thus had: *timeat poenam qui poenitet, sed anxietur pro gloria,* yet against the edition of the original and of the canon; the reading of the codd. seems to be ancient, but false.

la: Ita originale, Vat. et ed. 8, sed in aliis et codd.: *multi nequiter quanta.*

en: So the original, the Vatican edition, and ed. 8, but in the others and the codd.: *multi nequiter quanta.*

la: Hugo de S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. XIV. c. 5.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, *de Sacramentis* II, part XIV, c. 5.

la: De Vera et falsa Poenitent. c. 17. n. 33; can. cit. Seq. locus est Hugonis loc. cit.; et tertius iterum de Vera et falsa Poenitent. loc. cit., paulo superius. De latrone cfr. Luc. 23, 42.

en: *De Vera et falsa Poenitentia,* c. 17, n. 33; the canon cited. The following passage is from Hugh's [work], loc. cit.; and the third [is] again from *de Vera et falsa Poenitentia,* loc. cit., a little above. On the thief cf. Luke 23:42.

la: Plures edd. addunt *purgatorii.* Locus Scripturae est Hebr. 10, 31. De sequentibus cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 44. n. 18 et Ps. 58, serm. I. n. 13.

en: Several editions add *purgatorii.* The passage of Scripture is Heb. 10:31. On what follows cf. Augustine, Exposition on Ps. 44, n. 18, and Ps. 58, sermon I, n. 13.

la: Codd. et ed. 1 omittunt haec quatuor verba.

en: The codd. and ed. 1 omit these four words.

la: De Vera et falsa Poenitent. c. 18. n. 34; can. cit. De ultima propos. cfr. Gregor., XXXIV. Moral. c. 19. n. 36.

en: *De Vera et falsa Poenitentia,* c. 18, n. 34; the canon cited. On the last proposition cf. Gregory, *Morals* XXXIV, c. 19, n. 36.

la: Hic c. 2. Infra de latrone converso Luc. 23, 43.

en: Here [at] c. 2. Below, on the converted thief, Luke 23:43.

la: Enchirid. c. 65. n. 17; C. *In actione* (84.), de Poenitent. d. 1. Citatur Ps. 50, 19; deinde 37, 10; in fine II. Cor. 5, 5.

en: *Enchiridion* c. 65, n. 17; the canon *In actione* (84), de Poenitentia, d. 1. Ps. 50:19 is cited; then 37:10; at the end 2 Cor. 5:5.

la: Potius Alcuin. de Divinis Officiis, c. 13, qui quidem citat Hieron.; C. *Mensuram autem* (86.), ibid. Plura de hoc canone vide in annotationibus ed. Migne.

en: Rather Alcuin, *de Divinis Officiis,* c. 13, who indeed cites Jerome; the canon *Mensuram autem* (86), ibid. See more on this canon in the annotations of the Migne edition.

la: In Fragmentis eiusdem c. 48 (Migne, Patrol. Lat. XCIX. col. 977); C. *Ab infirmis* (1.), C. 26. q. 7.

en: In the Fragments of the same, c. 48 (Migne, *Patrologia Latina* XCIX, col. 977); the canon *Ab infirmis* (1), Causa 26, q. 7.

la: Epist. 159. (alias 79.) ad Nicetam episc. c. 6; C. *Tempora poenitudinis* (2.), ibid.

en: Letter 159 (otherwise 79) to Niceta the bishop, c. 6; the canon *Tempora poenitudinis* (2), ibid.

la: Epist. 108. (alias 91.) ad Theod. c. 4; seq. locus ibid. c. 5; uterque in C. *His qui tempore* (10.), C. 26. q. 6.

en: Letter 108 (otherwise 91) to Theodore, c. 4; the following passage ibid., c. 5; both in the canon *His qui tempore* (10), Causa 26, q. 6.

la: Can. *Si presbyter* (12.), ibid., ubi citatur Ezech. 18, 21. 27, et respicitur 1. Reg. 16, 7.

en: The canon *Si presbyter* (12), ibid., where Ezech. 18:21, 27 is cited, and 1 Kings [Reg.] 16:7 is regarded.

la: Can. *Presbyter* (14.), ibid. Seq. locus C. *Aurelius episcopus* (5.), ibid.

en: The canon *Presbyter* (14), ibid. The following passage [is] the canon *Aurelius episcopus* (5), ibid.

la: Can. *Si iubet* (4.), ibid. Seq. locus ibid.

en: The canon *Si iubet* (4), ibid. The following passage [is] ibid.

la: Can. *Presbyter inconsulto* (2.), ibid.

en: The canon *Presbyter inconsulto* (2), ibid.

la: Alias *Apaunensi.* C. *Si aliquis* (11.), ibid.

en: Otherwise *of Apaon.* The canon *Si aliquis* (11), ibid. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set under the VOL II OVERRIDE PDF-priority inversion from the column-band reads (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p51{4,5,6}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, vol4 split re-cropped at x≈1880–2100 because the left column overruns the default 1660/1880, offset pdf = printed + 20 → PDF pp. 534–536), cross-checked against the cascade-fragmented IA djvu OCR (raw lines 57015–57293). Running heads verified: p.514 `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV` (verso) with the centered `DISTINCTIO XX. / Pars I.` title block opening in the right column; p.515 `DIST. XX. P. II.` (recto); p.516 `516 … SENTENTIARUM` (verso). The d.20 littera opens at the foot of the p.514 left column (`Cap. I. / De his qui in fine poenitent. / Sciendum est etiam…`) after the tail of d.19's dispensatio COMMENTARIUS at the top of the same column; printed_pages therefore [514–516].

**Column flow.** Standard Quaracchi two-column littera filling the page top, with the commentary below. Reading order is left column top→bottom, then right column top→bottom, except that a single chapter wraps L→R within a page (e.g. Cap. I body continues `…caritatem` at the L-column foot into `non tantum timorem…` at the R-column head of p.514). Cap. II concludes at the R-column head of p.515 (`…semper peccaret`).

**Structure.** The littera carries the Master's own two-pars division: **Pars I** = Caps. I–II (p.514 Cap. I → p.515 L Cap. I tail + Cap. II → p.515 R Cap. II tail), closing Pars I; **Pars II** = Caps. III–VII (p.515 Cap. III → p.516 Caps. IV–V in the L column, Caps. VI–VII in the R column). Per the dispatch brief, the "Pars II." header (raw ~57152) is the Master's own division and is rendered in place; the littera continues past it to the COMMENTARIUS.

**End boundary.** The Cap. VII littera completes in the p.516 right column with «…dent redemptionem pro captivis». The `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XX. / Pars I. / De confessione sacramentali quoad opportunitatem temporis respectu poenitentiae mortalium in se. / Sciendum est etiam, quod tempus poenitentiae est usque in extremum articulum etc. / DIVISIO TEXTUS` header block printed at the foot of both p.516 columns (and the *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM*, footers 4–8 of the commentary) belong to the **following commentary chunk** (`bon-sent-IV-d20-p1-divisio`/commentarius) and are forwarded, not rendered here. (Raw boundary: line 57294.)

**Apparatus split / cross-chunk hand-off.** 22 littera notes rendered (`[^1]–[^22]`): 6 from p.514, 8 from p.515, 8 from p.516. The p.514 L-column footer opens with a *Glossa in Gratian. super C. Requiritis…* note that belongs to the d.19 dispensatio COMMENTARIUS at the column head, not to this littera, and is forwarded to the d.19 chunk. The p.516 *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* (commentary footers 4–8 visible in the same band) are forwarded to the d.20-p1 commentary chunk.

**[?] flags.** None. OCR garbles resolved silently against the PDF bands: `Cap. III` superscript marker after *supra* (OCR read `⁶`) is footer 4 of the p.515 left column (`Codd. et ed. 1 omittunt haec quatuor verba`, the four words *qui poenitentiam non complevit*), rendered `[^10]`; the left-margin labels `a 1.`/`a 2.`/`Dubium 1–7` that bleed into the OCR are editorial cross-references to the following COMMENTARIUS articles/dubia, not littera footnote markers, and are excluded; `Apaunensi`/`Epaunensi` (Council of Epaon) confirmed against the PDF.