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

source_text:
<!-- page 565 -->

### Articulus II. *De sigillo confessionis.*[^1]

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de sigillo confessionis. Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum in aliquo casu liceat confessionem revelare.

Secundo, utrum confitens possit sacerdotem licentiare, ut revelet.

Tertio, utrum illud quod dupliciter novit sacerdos, scilicet per confessionem et per aliam viam, teneatur celare.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum in aliquo casu liceat confessionem revelare.*

Quantum ad primum ostenditur, quod non possit revelare.

1. Augustinus, *de Poenitentia,* distinctione sexta[^4][^5]: «Sacerdos ante omnia caveat, ne de his qui ei confitentur peccata sua, alicui recitet»[^2][^3].

<!-- page 566 -->

2. Item, decretalis edita in Concilio generali *de Poenitentiis et remissionibus*[^1a]: «Caveat autem sacerdos, ne verbo vel signo vel alio quovis modo prodat aliquatenus peccatorem».

3. Item, hoc videtur *ratione:* quia peccata in confessione delentur; sed pro peccato, quod Deus remisit, nemo est accusandus: ergo si sacerdos est minister remissionis, non potest accusare vel detegere peccatorem, quin faciat contra officium sacerdotis: ergo omnis talis est deponendus.

4. Item, peccator confitetur sacerdoti, et sacerdos accipit loco Dei; sed Deus peccatum poenitentis occultat et non detegit[^2a]: ergo et sacerdos tenetur occultare.

5. Item, sacerdos, qui audit peccatorem, nescit, utrum dicat sibi verum: ergo nescit, utrum ille sit culpabilis: ergo si nullius peccatum debemus accusare nisi eius, de quo nobis constat: ergo peccatum per confessionem cognitum nullatenus est prodendum.

**Contra:** 1. Ponatur, quod aliquis iuret dicere verum super aliquo facto; nullus potest nec debet mentiri nec falsum iurare nec peierare sive deierare propter aliquod scandalum evitandum[^3a]: ergo magis debet manifestare quam falsum respondere.

2. Item, ponatur, quod audiat haereticum in confessione, qui nolit poenitere, sed alios corrumpere; magis debet fidem Christo servare sacerdos quam ipsi haeretico: ergo magis debet confessionem illius detegere, quam permittat, eum gregem Domini corrumpere.

3. Item, ponatur, quod sacerdos sciat per confessionem, inter duos esse contractam affinitatem per coitum fornicarium, et post eos velle contrahere in facie Ecclesiae; si sacerdos iungit istos, cum isti peccent mortaliter, consentit peccato eorum: ergo mortaliter peccat: ergo si non debet sceleris alieni fieri particeps, debet hoc manifestare. Similis casus est in decano[^4a], qui audivit confessionem habentium irregularitatem, si debet eos praesentare ordinandos ab episcopo, vel revelare confessionem.

4. Item, ponatur, quod aliquis prior de ordine monachorum confiteatur abbati, et quamdiu est in prioratu, habet occasionem trahentem ad peccatum a quo[^5a] non vult desistere; si habet curam animae suae, tenetur inde illum amovere; sed amovendo innotescit, ipsum peccasse: ergo videtur, quod confessio possit aliquo modo revelari.

### Conclusio.

> Pro nullo scandalo, vel causa confessio a sacerdote est revelanda.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc voluerunt aliqui distinguere, quod dupliciter potest quis sacerdoti confiteri: aut tanquam poenitens et volens a peccato absolvi, et tunc sigillum confessionis claudit omne quod dicit, sine apertione; aut ita, quod non vult a peccato desistere, ut si revelat propositum periurandi, vel occidendi hominem, vel aliquod tale, et tunc non tenetur sub sigillo confessionis claudere, sed potest dicere ei[^6a] qui potest prodesse et non obesse.

Sed quamvis illud videatur dici probabiliter, tamen, cum mandatum et institutio de omni culpa dicat *generaliter*[^7a], et poenitens peccatum suum non tanquam homini, sed tanquam Deo revelet, et nesciat sacerdos, utrum ille verum dicat, an eum seducat, nisi noverit per aliam personam; nullatenus debet manifestare personam illam, propter hoc quod sigillum confessionis diligentissime est custodiendum propter scandalum, ne poenitens retrahatur a confessione. Propter quod etiam miraculum magnum in quadam navi contigit, ut narratur de quodam, qui peccata sua publice confessus est in mari, et postquam ventum est ad portum, nemo novit quod dixerat. Unde sacerdos taliter debet noscere, quasi non audierit et quasi non noverit. Et propter hoc dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Gregorius, et habetur in littera[^8a], pro nullo scandalo est confessio revelanda.

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de iuramento, dicendum, quod secure potest dicere: *nescio;* nec periurat, quia iuramentum non obligat illum ad dicendum nisi illud quod novit ut homo, non ut Deus, quia supra Deum nullus est. Unde pro nullo praecepto obedientiae, pro nullo iuramento, vel periculo debet illud dicere.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de haeretico, dicendum, quod debet tacere nec per[^9a] illam cognitionem aliquid dicere specialiter; potest tamen sine revelatione confessionis superiori dicere: *vigila super oves, quia lupus est in grege,* si probabiliter videt, illum qui confessus est, verum dixisse, et periculum ovium imminere. Potest etiam et debet esse sollicitus sine revelatione confessionis, quomodo sciat et

<!-- page 567 -->

gregi dominico provideat; et tunc Domino suo etiam confitenti fidem, quam debet, servat.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de presbytero, dicendum, quod presbyter debet dissuadere ei qui est confessus, et similiter decanus clerico; et si ille petat, debet differre, et nisi ille cogatur per superiorem, vel per scandalum populi, non debet nec matrimonium tale benedicere nec clericos praesentare. Ex tunc autem potest, quia non ipse facit, sed Ecclesia; et Ecclesia iudicat secundum ea quae exterius sunt. Consilium tamen est, quod et sacerdos et decanus faciant per vicarium, tum propter confusionem illorum occultam, tum etiam propter criminis horrorem. Si tamen ipse faciat, non credo, quod peccet, dum non ultro se offerat, sed coactus sustineat.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod quaeritur de subdito, qui non vult a culpa cessare; dicendum, quod superior debet ei persuadere voluntariam cessionem, et quod ipse petat absolvi ab onere officii. Quod si non vult, non debet eum absolvere, sed debet eum sustinere, nisi sit talis religio, in qua subditi possint transmutari et transferri sine nota infamiae.

english:
<!-- page 565 -->

### Article II. *On the seal of confession.*[^1]

Consequently, as regards the second article, inquiry is made concerning the seal of confession. And about this three things are asked.

First it is asked, whether in any case it is licit to reveal a confession.

Second, whether the one confessing can license the priest to reveal it.

Third, whether that which a priest knows in two ways — namely through confession and through another route — he is bound to keep concealed.

### Question I. *Whether in any case it is licit to reveal a confession.*

As regards the first, it is shown that he cannot reveal it.

1. Augustine, *On Penance,* distinction six[^4][^5]: «Let the priest above all things take care that he recount to no one concerning those who confess their sins to him»[^2][^3].

<!-- page 566 -->

2. Likewise, the decretal published in the General Council, *On Penances and Remissions*[^1a]: «But let the priest take care that he in no way betray the sinner by word or by sign or by any other manner whatsoever».

3. Likewise, this seems [to follow] *by reason:* for sins are blotted out in confession; but for a sin which God has remitted, no one is to be accused: therefore if the priest is the minister of remission, he cannot accuse or expose the sinner without acting against the office of a priest: therefore every such priest is to be deposed.

4. Likewise, the sinner confesses to the priest, and the priest receives in the place of God; but God conceals the sin of the penitent and does not expose it[^2a]: therefore the priest too is bound to conceal it.

5. Likewise, the priest who hears the sinner does not know whether he tells him the truth: therefore he does not know whether that man is culpable: therefore if we ought to accuse the sin of no one except him of whom it is established for us [that he is guilty]: therefore a sin known through confession is in no way to be betrayed.

**On the contrary:** 1. Let it be supposed that someone swears to tell the truth concerning some deed; no one can or ought to lie or swear falsely or perjure or forswear himself in order to avoid some scandal[^3a]: therefore he ought rather to make [it] known than to answer falsely.

2. Likewise, let it be supposed that he hears a heretic in confession, who is unwilling to repent, but [wishes] to corrupt others; the priest ought rather to keep faith with Christ than with the heretic himself: therefore he ought rather to expose that man's confession than to permit him to corrupt the Lord's flock.

3. Likewise, let it be supposed that a priest knows through confession that between two people an affinity has been contracted by fornicatory intercourse, and that afterwards they wish to contract [marriage] in the face of the Church; if the priest joins them, since they sin mortally, he consents to their sin: therefore he sins mortally: therefore if he ought not to become a participant in another's crime, he ought to make this known. A like case is in the dean[^4a], who has heard the confession of those having an irregularity, [namely] whether he ought to present them to the bishop as candidates for ordination, or to reveal the confession.

4. Likewise, let it be supposed that some prior of an order of monks confesses to the abbot, and as long as he is in the priorate he has an occasion drawing [him] to a sin from which[^5a] he is unwilling to desist; if [the abbot] has the care of his soul, he is bound to remove him from there; but by removing him it becomes known that he himself has sinned: therefore it seems that a confession can in some way be revealed.

### Conclusion.

> For no scandal, nor cause, is a confession to be revealed by a priest.

**I respond:** On this point some wished to distinguish, that one can confess to a priest in two ways: either as a penitent and willing to be absolved from sin, and then the seal of confession closes everything that he says, without any disclosure; or in such a way that he does not wish to desist from sin, as if he reveals a purpose of perjuring himself, or of killing a man, or some such thing, and then [the priest] is not bound to close [it] under the seal of confession, but can tell it to one[^6a] who can do good and not harm.

But although that seems to be said with probability, nevertheless, since the command and the institution speak *generally*[^7a] of every fault, and the penitent reveals his sin not as to a man, but as to God, and the priest does not know whether the man tells the truth or deceives him, unless he should know it through another person; he ought in no way to make that person known, for this reason: that the seal of confession is to be most diligently guarded on account of scandal, lest the penitent be drawn back from confession. On account of which also a great miracle happened on a certain ship, as is related of a certain man who publicly confessed his sins at sea, and after they came to port, no one knew what he had said. Whence the priest ought so to know [it] as if he had not heard and as if he did not know. And on account of this it must be said that, as Gregory says, and is contained in the text[^8a], for no scandal is a confession to be revealed.

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected concerning the oath, it must be said that he can safely say: *I do not know;* nor does he perjure himself, because the oath does not oblige him to tell anything except that which he knows as a man, not as God, since above God there is no one. Whence for no precept of obedience, for no oath, or peril, ought he to tell it.

*To 2.* To that which is objected concerning the heretic, it must be said that he ought to be silent and to say nothing in particular through[^9a] that knowledge; he can, however, without revealing the confession, say to a superior: *watch over the sheep, for there is a wolf in the flock,* if he probably sees that the man who confessed has told the truth, and that peril threatens the sheep. He can also and ought to be solicitous, without revealing the confession, how he may know [it] and

<!-- page 567 -->

provide for the Lord's flock; and then he keeps faith both with his Lord and also with the one confessing, [the faith] which he owes.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning the presbyter, it must be said that the presbyter ought to dissuade him who has confessed, and likewise the dean [ought to dissuade] the cleric; and if that one asks [for the marriage], he ought to defer it, and unless that one is compelled by a superior, or by the scandal of the people, he ought neither to bless such a marriage nor to present the clerics. But from then on he can, because it is not he himself who does it, but the Church; and the Church judges according to those things which are external. Nevertheless the counsel is that both the priest and the dean should act through a vicar, both on account of the hidden confusion of those people, and also on account of the horror of the crime. If, however, he himself does it, I do not believe that he sins, provided he does not offer himself unbidden, but bears it under compulsion.

*To 4.* To that which is asked concerning the subordinate who does not wish to cease from the fault, it must be said that the superior ought to persuade him to a voluntary cession, and that he himself ask to be absolved from the burden of the office. But if he is unwilling, [the superior] ought not to absolve him, but ought to bear with him, unless it be such a religious [order] in which subordinates can be transmuted and transferred without a note of infamy.

la: Art. 2. q. 1. Cfr. Benedict. XIV. constitutio *Suprema,* ubi decernit, poenitentes nomina complicum non debere revelare; constitut. *Ubi primum,* in qua prohibet confessarios, quod astringant poenitentes ad nomina complicum revelanda. Cfr. etiam ipsius constitut. *Ad eradicandam.*

en: Art. 2, q. 1. Cf. Benedict XIV, constitution *Suprema,* where he decrees that penitents are not to reveal the names of accomplices; [and] the constitution *Ubi primum,* in which he forbids confessors to bind penitents to reveal the names of accomplices. Cf. also his constitution *Ad eradicandam.*

la: Vide Daniel 3, 26. seqq. — Inferius pro *et possit* edd. *ut possit;* et *Et quia sacerdos* pro *Sacerdos autem.*

en: See Daniel 3, 26 ff. — Below, for *et possit* (and he may be able) the editions [read] *ut possit* (that he may be able); and *Et quia sacerdos* (And because the priest) for *Sacerdos autem* (But the priest).

la: Cod. F *veniam.* Mox pro *non iniuriam* codd. L bb *et ei nullam iniuriam* (codd. V W Z *et ei non iniuriam*).

en: Codex F [reads] *veniam* (pardon). Soon, for *non iniuriam* (no injury), codices L bb [read] *et ei nullam iniuriam* (and no injury to him) (codices V W Z [read] *et ei non iniuriam,* and to him no injury).

la: Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.

en: See the scholion on question I of this article.

la: Cap. 2. (correctores Gratiani notant, capitulum hoc esse incerti auctoris; vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 9.). Pro *Augustinus* edd. *Gregorius;* sub Augustini nomine similis canon habetur alibi, nempe C. 3. q. 7. c. 7: *Sacerdos ut sapiens et perfectus medicus primum sciat curare peccata sua, et postea aliena vulnera detergere et sanare, et non publicare* (sumtus ex opere *de Salutaribus Documentis,* c. 32. olim Augustino attributo, quod autem est Paulini Foroiuliensis sive Aquileiensis).

en: Chapter 2. (The correctors of Gratian note that this chapter is of uncertain authorship; see here the text of the Master, c. 9.) For *Augustinus* the editions [read] *Gregorius;* under the name of Augustine a similar canon is found elsewhere, namely C. 3. q. 7. c. 7: *Let the priest, as a wise and perfect physician, first know how to cure his own sins, and afterwards to wipe clean and heal the wounds of others, and not to publish them* (taken from the work *On Salutary Counsels,* c. 32, formerly attributed to Augustine, but which is of Paulinus of Forum Iulii or Aquileia).

la: Extra lib. V. tit. 38. C. *Omnis utriusque sexus* (12.).

en: Decretals, book V, title 38, canon *Omnis utriusque sexus* (12).

la: Cfr. supra pag. 86, nota 6. in fine.

en: Cf. above, p. 86, note 6, at the end.

la: Codd. F G *de decano.*

en: Codices F G [read] *de decano* (concerning the dean).

la: Cod. F (E primitus) addit *tamen,* quod cod. G transponit post *tenetur.* Superius pro *et quamdiu* cod. U *quod quamdiu.*

en: Codex F (E originally) adds *tamen* (nevertheless), which codex G transposes after *tenetur* (is bound). Above, for *et quamdiu* (and as long as) codex U [reads] *quod quamdiu* (that as long as).

la: Cod. X *sed non potest dicere nisi ei,* qua lectione redintegratur lectio mutila quorundam codd. *sed non potest dicere.*

en: Codex X [reads] *sed non potest dicere nisi ei* (but he cannot tell it except to him), by which reading the mutilated reading of certain codices *sed non potest dicere* (but he cannot tell) is restored.

la: Edd. addunt *oppositim.* Inferius pro *nisi noverit* [cod. E *sciverit,* edd. *manifestatum fuerit*] *per aliam personam; nullatenus* [cod. aa *nulli*] non pauci codd. perperam *nisi venerit per illam personam, nullatenus* [plures codd. *nihilominus,* cod. A a secunda manu *nihilominus non*].

en: The editions add *oppositim.* Below, for *nisi noverit* (unless he knows) [codex E *sciverit;* the editions *manifestatum fuerit*] *per aliam personam; nullatenus* [codex aa *nulli*], not a few codices wrongly [read] *nisi venerit per illam personam, nullatenus* [several codices *nihilominus,* codex A by a second hand *nihilominus non*].

la: Hic c. 9.

en: Here c. 9.

la: Mallemus legere *propter.*

en: We would prefer to read *propter* (for the sake of). ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Iure naturali, divino et ecclesiastico confessarius obligatur strictissimo debito sigilli sive secreti observandi de omnibus in confessione sacramentali auditis, quorum revelatio confessionem posset reddere odiosam. Pauci quidem antiqui quasdam exceptiones, praesertim in causa haereseos, statuere voluerunt; sed hunc errorem communissima doctrina semper detestata est. Praeter ea quae in Can. *Omnis utriusque* (hic fundam. 2. citato) stabilita sunt, notanda est quaedam propositio, decreto s. Inquisitionis 18 Nov. 1682 «omnino prohibita», quae ob gravem rationem licitum esse asseruit quendam «usum scientiae ex confessione acquisitae cum *gravamine* poenitentis, seclusa quacumque *revelatione,* atque in casu, quo multo maius gravamen eiusdem poenitentis ex non-usu sequeretur». Obligatio autem sigilli similiter afficit etiam interpretem aliosque, qui materiam sigilli norunt; tamen de quibusdam huiusmodi casibus dubitatur, utrum sit *proprie* obligatio sigilli, vel tantum secreti naturalis, licet strictissimi. — Solutionem plurium dubiorum et casuum vide apud Henricum Gand., Quodl. 8. q. 29. 31. et recentiores moralistas.

De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 19. m. 2. a. 1. et 2. § 1. — Scot., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. in utroque Scripto hic q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 11. a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. 2. — De hac et 2 seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 3; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

**II.** In 2. quaestione affirmanda, dummodo adhibeantur cautelae ad vitandum scandalum, communius theologi consentiunt. Sed Scot. (loc. cit. n. 18.), cui favent Alex. Hal. et Durand., docet, audita formaliter in confessione ne de licentia quidem poenitentis revelari posse, nisi hic explicite protestetur, talia se dicere vel dixisse ut extra confessionem. S. Bonav. solummodo in casu, ubi timetur scandalum, licentiam datam restringere videtur.

De hac quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 2. § 2. — S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 2; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med. hanc et seq. q. tangit loc. cit. q. 3. 4, et a. 5. q. 1-4.

**III.** Quoad 3. quaestionem tenuit opinionem 1. in corp. relatam Guliel. Antissiod.; sed posteriores theologi cum Ss. Bonav. et Thoma 3. opinionem sequuntur.

De 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 3. — S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 3; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** By natural, divine, and ecclesiastical law the confessor is bound by a most strict obligation to observe the seal or secret concerning all things heard in sacramental confession, the revelation of which could render confession odious. A few of the ancients indeed wished to establish certain exceptions, especially in the case of heresy; but the most common doctrine has always detested this error. Besides those things which are established in the canon *Omnis utriusque* (cited here, fundam. 2), a certain proposition is to be noted, «altogether prohibited» by a decree of the Holy Inquisition of 18 Nov. 1682, which asserted that, for a grave reason, a certain «use of knowledge acquired from confession, with *injury* to the penitent, every *revelation* being set aside, and in the case where a much greater injury to the same penitent would follow from the non-use», was licit. But the obligation of the seal likewise affects also the interpreter and others who know the matter of the seal; nevertheless concerning certain cases of this kind it is doubted whether it is *properly* an obligation of the seal, or only of a natural secret, albeit a most strict one. — For the solution of several doubts and cases see Henry of Ghent, Quodl. 8, q. 29, 31, and the more recent moralists.

On question 1: Alex. of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 19. m. 2. a. 1. and 2. § 1. — Scotus, on this and the 2 following questions in both Writings, here q. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 1. quaestiuncula 1; Suppl. q. 11. a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3. a. 1. quaestiuncula 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4. q. 1. 2. — On this and the 2 following questions, Durandus, here q. 3; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.

**II.** As regards the affirming of the 2nd question, provided that precautions be employed for avoiding scandal, theologians more commonly agree. But Scotus (loc. cit. n. 18.), whom Alex. of Hales and Durandus favor, teaches that what has been heard formally in confession cannot be revealed even by the license of the penitent, unless he here explicitly protests that he says or has said such things as outside of confession. St. Bonaventure seems to restrict the license given only in the case where scandal is feared.

On this question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. a. 2. § 2. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. a. 2; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 2. quaestiuncula 1. — Richard of Mediavilla touches this and the following question, loc. cit. q. 3. 4, and a. 5. q. 1-4.

**III.** As regards the 3rd question, William of Auxerre held the 1st opinion related in the body [of the text]; but later theologians, with Saints Bonaventure and Thomas, follow the 3rd opinion.

On the 3rd question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. § 3. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. a. 3; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 1. quaestiuncula 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Page-span correction (IMPORTANT).** The page hint (and the prior frontmatter) said pp. 563–565, but running-head verification against the 450 dpi PDF column bands shows that pp. 563–565 carry **Articulus I** (q. 2 *Utrum confitens possit licentiare...* tail and q. 3 *Utrum in confessione aliena peccata referre*). The running head turns to "DIST. XXI. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. I." only on **printed p. 565** (bottom-left), where the Articulus II opener + QUAESTIO I begin. The true span of this q1 is **pp. 565–567** (pdf 585–587). Offset confirmed: pdf = printed + 20.

**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{565,566,567}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (Vol IV two-column "VOL II OVERRIDE": PDF authoritative in cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/scholion/footers), cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 62113–62284 (note: the OCR's body running-head/page-number digits read 566/567, consistent with the +1 body-vs-frontmatter discrepancy that the band verify resolved).

**Article opener folded in.** Per the chunking convention, the Articulus II opener ("Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de sigillo confessionis. Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur. Primo... Secundo... Tertio...") folds into this q1 (no standalone divisio chunk for this short opener). The three-question listing names q1 (revelare), q2 (licentiare), q3 (dupliciter novit).

**Scholion ownership / coverage.** I OWN the Articulus II scholion. It is printed at the bottom of p. 567 (both columns), rendered here in full (body first, scholion last per the parser rule). Coverage: **§I** = the seal-of-confession doctrine + history of exceptions (frames the whole article) + parallel-author cross-refs for **q1**; **§II** = **q2** (licensing the priest); **§III** = **q3** (twofold knowledge). Sibling questions a2-q2 and a2-q3 render NO scholion and cross-ref back here ("Vide scholion ad I huius articuli quaest." — see p.565 footer note 4).

**Apparatus / page-footer split (14 entries; per-page restart preserved via letter suffix).**
- p. 565: footers 1–5 → rendered `[^1]`–`[^5]`. n.1 (Art. 2 q. 1 / Benedict XIV) anchors the Articulus II opener title; n.2 (Daniel 3; *et possit*/*Sacerdos autem* variants) + n.3 (Cod. F *veniam*) anchor obj.1's «Sacerdos ante omnia...» quote; n.4 ("Vide scholion ad I huius articuli quaest." — the forward pointer the SIBLING questions cite) + n.5 (Cap. 2 / Gratian provenance, *Augustinus*→*Gregorius*) anchor "Augustinus de Poenitentia distinctione sexta". All five sit on p. 565 below the Art-I tail and belong to THIS q1.
- p. 566: footers 1–9 → rendered `[^1a]`–`[^9a]` (letter-suffixed so the two pages' restarting sequences don't collide). 1a = *Omnis utriusque sexus* (obj.2); 2a = Ps. 31/Rom. 4 (obj.4 *non detegit*); 3a = *supra pag. 86* (Contra.1); 4a = *de decano* (Contra.3); 5a = *tamen*/*quod quamdiu* (Contra.4); 6a = the *sed non potest dicere* lacuna restored by cod. X (Respondeo *dicere ei*); 7a = the long *nisi noverit per aliam personam* variant block (Respondeo *generaliter*); 8a = *Hic c. 9* (the in-littera Gregory ref); 9a = *Mallemus legere propter* (Ad 2 *nec per*).
- p. 567: the page-567 footers (q2's notes 1–4 — *Cod. F vel etiam propter;* *Vide quaest. praeced. fundam.;* Gratian C. *Inferior sedes;* the *Secundum...* refs) belong to **QUAESTIO II**, NOT to this q1. q1's replies (Ad 3, Ad 4) at the top of p. 567 carry no footnote markers; the scholion citations (sections I–III) are inline (not footnoted).

**Cross-chunk hand-offs.**
- *Before* (`bon-sent-IV-d21-p2-a1-q2` and a1-q3, on pp. 563–565): the Articulus I tail (q2/q3, *de confessione aliena peccata referre*) occupies pp. 563–565-L. This q1 begins where Art I ends, at p. 565 bottom-left. The Art I footers on p. 565 (its own nn.) belong to those Art-I chunks, not here.
- *After* (`bon-sent-IV-d21-p2-a2-q2`, *Utrum confitens possit licentiare confessarium*): opens at p. 567 bottom-left and carries all of p. 567's apparatus footers (q2 nn. 1–4). q2 (and q3) inherit the shared Articulus II scholion above by reference.

**[?] flags.** None. All readings resolved against the PDF bands. Minor silent OCR corrections per the Vol IV override (e.g. `ARTIGULUS`→*Articulus,* `qnaeritur`→*quaeritur,* `Iria`→*tria,* `conlra`→*contra,* `raanifestare`→*manifestare,* `coufessus`→*confessus*).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 567 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum confitens possit licentiare confessarium, ut peccata revelet.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum confitens possit sacerdotem licentiare. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia ad celandam confessionem arctamur per mandatum superioris, scilicet Papae[^1]; sed inferior a mandato superioris non potest absolvere: ergo nec ad contrarium mandato licentiare.

2. Item, sigillum confessionis institutum est non solum propter vitandum scandalum confitentis, sed etiam totius Ecclesiae unitatis: ergo quantumcumque confitens velit, si revelet, praeiudicium toti Ecclesiae facit: ergo non potest ab eo licentiari.

3. Item, sigillum istud institutum est propter scandalum vitandum; sed si quis revelat per licentiam, potest suscitari[^2] idem scandalum, quod sine licentia, quia confitens poenitere possit de licentiatione et imponere sacerdoti confessionis revelationem; et cum habeat iudicium pro se, idem posset scandalum concitari, quod et sine licentia.

4. Item, si licentiari possunt, ergo cum mali et impii sacerdotes possent praetendere licentiam sibi datam, videretur tunc, quod sub hoc pallio confessionem impune revelare possent; sed hoc est inconveniens: ergo etc.

**Contra:**
1. Celatio confessionis est in favorem confitentis; sed quilibet potest cedere iuri suo[^3]: ergo potest confitens dare licentiam revelandi.

<!-- page 568 -->

2. Item, qui potest dicere peccatum per se ipsum potest per sacerdotem alii sacerdoti denudare: ergo et per ipsum alii revelare[^4].

3. Item, quod dicitur homini ut homini in casu utili potest et debet ab eo dici: sed confitens, qui dicit confessori ut Deo, potest dicere ut homini: ergo potest dare licentiam revelandi alii.

4. Item, constat, quod superior potest mittere ad inferiorem et auctoritatem absolvendi ab aliquo peccato enormi ei praebere; sed hoc non posset, nisi posset per voluntatem confitentis peccatum alii revelare: ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> Confitens potest licentiare confessarium, ut peccata revelet, in casu, in quo non timetur scandalum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut tactum est[^5] revelare sacerdos non debet propter duo, scilicet quia novit solum ut Deus, et iterum, ne populum scandalizet, vel etiam ipsum confitentem. Et quoniam confitens potest facere, quod ipse noverit ut homo; quando facit eum nuntium, potest eum licentiare in casu, in quo non timetur periculum scandali, sicut ostendunt rationes secundo inductae. — Ubi autem periculum scandali formidatur, quantumcumque poenitens licentiet sacerdotem, non debet sacerdos assumere. Tunc autem potest timeri periculum scandali, quando probabiliter posset coniici, quod sacerdos confessionem suam revelaverit. Unde si dicat, quod alii referat peccatum, debet ipse sacerdos poenitentem suum nuntium constituere, non se internuntium[^6] facere; et sic vitatur scandalum, et non rumpitur sigillum confessionis. Et intelligatur hoc cum illa generali suppositione, quod peccatum alicuius nulli est manifestandum, nisi ei qui possit prodesse nec velit obesse; intelligatur etiam hoc de peccatis propriis, non de alienis. Nam aliena peccata dicere non potest nec debet poenitens alicui committere, nisi forte in casu, in quo ipse deberet dicere et melius per alium quam per se posset bonum illius procurare, semper adhibita cautela, ut ex hoc non scandalizetur Ecclesia. Et sic patent obiecta[^7].

---

english:
<!-- page 567 -->

### Question II. *Whether the one confessing can license the confessor to reveal his sins.*

Secondly it is asked whether the one confessing can license the priest. And that he cannot, seems [shown]:

1. Because we are constrained to conceal confession by the mandate of a superior, namely the Pope[^1]; but an inferior cannot absolve [anyone] from the mandate of a superior: therefore neither [can he] license [anything] contrary to the mandate.

2. Likewise, the seal of confession was instituted not only on account of avoiding scandal to the one confessing, but also [scandal] to the unity of the whole Church: therefore however much the one confessing may will it, if [the priest] reveals [it], he does prejudice to the whole Church: therefore he cannot be licensed by him.

3. Likewise, this seal was instituted on account of avoiding scandal; but if someone reveals [it] by license, the same scandal can be aroused[^2] as without license, because the one confessing might repent of the licensing and impose upon the priest the revelation of the confession; and since he has judgment on his own behalf, the same scandal could be stirred up as also [would be] without license.

4. Likewise, if they can be licensed, then since wicked and impious priests might pretend a license [had been] given to them, it would seem then that under this cloak they could reveal a confession with impunity; but this is unfitting: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. The concealment of confession is in favor of the one confessing; but anyone can yield his own right[^3]: therefore the one confessing can give a license to reveal.

<!-- page 568 -->

2. Likewise, he who can tell the sin through his own self can, through the priest, lay it bare to another priest: therefore also through that [priest] reveal [it] to another[^4].

3. Likewise, what is told to a man as to a man, in a case of utility, can and ought to be told by him: but the one confessing, who tells the confessor as [he tells] God, can tell [him] as a man: therefore he can give a license of revealing to another.

4. Likewise, it is established that a superior can send to an inferior and bestow upon him the authority of absolving from some enormous sin; but he could not do this unless he could, through the will of the one confessing, reveal the sin to another: therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> The one confessing can license the confessor to reveal [his] sins, in a case in which no scandal is feared.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was touched upon[^5], a priest ought not to reveal [a confession] on account of two [things], namely because he knows [it] only as God [knows it], and again, lest he scandalize the people, or even the one confessing himself. And since the one confessing can bring it about that [the priest] should know [it] as a man; when he makes him [his] messenger, he can license him in a case in which no danger of scandal is feared, as the reasons adduced in the second [series] show. — But where danger of scandal is feared, however much the penitent may license the priest, the priest ought not to take it up. Now danger of scandal can be feared when it could probably be conjectured that the priest has revealed his confession. Hence if [the penitent] says that he should report the sin to another, the priest himself ought to constitute the penitent his messenger, not to make himself a go-between[^6]; and thus scandal is avoided, and the seal of confession is not broken. And let this be understood with that general supposition, that the sin of anyone is to be made manifest to no one, except to him who can be of profit and does not wish to do harm; let this also be understood of one's own sins, not of another's. For the penitent cannot nor ought to entrust the telling of another's sins to anyone, unless perhaps in a case in which he himself ought to tell [them] and could better procure that [person's] good through another than through himself, caution always being applied, so that from this the Church may not be scandalized. And thus the objections are answered[^7].

---

la: Vide quaest. praeced. fundam. 1. 2. — De minori cfr. Gratian. C. *Inferior sedes* (4.), seqq. d. 21. — Pro *arctamur* edd. *arctatur*.

en: See the preceding question, fundamenta 1 and 2. — Concerning the minor cf. Gratian, canon *Inferior sedes* (4.) and following, dist. 21. — For *arctamur* [we are constrained] the editions [read] *arctatur* [it is constrained].

la: Codd. G K V bb et ed. 1 *suscitare*. Circa finem arg. pro *idem posset* codd. A F H *ideo posset*.

en: Codices G K V bb and the first edition [read] *suscitare*. Near the end of the argument, for *idem posset* [the same could] codices A F H [read] *ideo posset* [therefore could].

la: Secundum Iustinian. D. II. de Pactis (tit. 14.), lex *Pactum* (47.); ibid. IV. de Minoribus (tit. 4.), lex *Si iudex* (42.) et C. II. de Pactis (tit. 3.), lex *Si quis in conscribendo* (29.).

en: According to Justinian, *Digest* II, On Pacts (title 14), the law *Pactum* (47); ibid. IV, On Minors (title 4), the law *Si iudex* (42); and *Code* II, On Pacts (title 3), the law *Si quis in conscribendo* (29).

la: Arg. nititur illa regula iuris in VI: « Potest quis per alium quod potest facere per se ipsum (68.) », quae cum lectione codd. V W Z magis apparet; hi enim codd. post *per se ipsum* prosequuntur: *potest etiam per alium*; ergo cum confitens possit per se ipsum alii dicere, potest per sacerdotem etc. Codd. G X bb omittunt *sacerdoti*.

en: The argument rests on that rule of law in the [Sext]: « One can do through another what he can do through his very self (68) », which appears more clearly with the reading of codices V W Z; for these codices, after *per se ipsum* [through his very self], continue: *he can also [do it] through another*; therefore since the one confessing can tell another through his very self, he can [do it] through the priest, etc. Codices G X bb omit *sacerdoti* [to the priest].

la: Quaest. praeced. — Mox post *revelare*, quod cum non paucis codd. omittunt, cod. aa supplet *confessionem*.

en: The preceding question. — Soon after *revelare* [to reveal], which they omit along with not a few codices, codex aa supplies *confessionem* [the confession].

la: Codd. I K R S T *non se potest nuntium*. Pro *internuntium* edd. *nuntium*, quod ipsae paulo ante omittunt.

en: Codices I K R S T [read] *non se potest nuntium*. For *internuntium* [go-between] the editions [read] *nuntium* [messenger], which they themselves omit a little before.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest. — Ultima regula probatur supra a. 1. q. 3.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. — The last rule is proven above, art. 1, q. 3. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 62285–62356) cross-checked against the vol4 PDF column bands for pp. 567–568 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p56{7,8}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`); two-column "VOL II OVERRIDE" discipline applied, reading each page Left column top→bottom then Right. Running heads verified: p567-R "DIST. XXI. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. II. … 567"; p568-L "568 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV". Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**Page-hint correction.** The dispatch PAGE HINT (printed p.565) was off: p.565 carries Articulus II, **Quaestio I** (the q1 chunk). Quaestio II actually opens at the bottom of the right column of printed **p.567** (after the Art II SCHOLION, which prints with q1) and its Respondeo/Conclusio run onto **p.568**. printed_pages corrected to [567, 568], pdf_pages [587, 588].

**Title correction.** OCR title read *ut revelet*; the printed running title and body title both read *Utrum confitens possit licentiare confessarium, ut peccata revelet* — corrected.

**Apparatus.** 7 footnotes total. **p567** footers **2–4** → [^1]–[^3] (footer 1 on p567 — "Cod. F *vel etiam propter*… *matrimonio tali*… *Consultum*" — anchors to **q1**, not this quaestio, so it is NOT carried here). **p568** footers **1–4** → [^4]–[^7]. The remaining p568 footers (printed 5, 6, 7) anchor to QUAESTIO III ("Utrum sciens aliquid per confessionem et per aliam viam teneatur celare") and are carried by that chunk.

**Scholion disposition.** has_scholion: false; renders NONE. The Articulus II scholion is printed with Quaestio I and is transcribed in `bon-sent-IV-d21-p2-a2-q1`. Quaracchi confirms the cross-reference at the close of this question: footnote [^7], *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* Footer body should read: *Vide scholion ad I huius articuli quaest.*

**[?] flags.** None. The OCR cascade (e.g. "Utruni" → *Utrum*, "confilens" → *confitens*, "mandalura/mandalo" → *mandatum/mandato*, "polesl" → *potest*, "iicen-/licenliari" → *licen-/licentiari*, "reveiare" → *revelare*, "internuntiam" → *internuntium*, "confossionis" → *confessionis*, "Beus" → *Deus*, "obiecla" → *obiecta*) was resolved unambiguously against the PDF column bands.

**Cross-chunk footer hand-offs.**
- *Before (q1, `bon-sent-IV-d21-p2-a2-q1`):* p567 footer **1** ("Cod. F *vel etiam propter*. Inferius pro *matrimonium tale* cod. bb *matrimonio tali*, et pro *Consilium* cod. K *Consultum*.") belongs to q1's body (matrimonium / Consilium), not to this quaestio — verify q1 carries it.
- *Shared page 567:* the Articulus II SCHOLION prints in the right column of p567 (above the Quaestio II title); it belongs to q1's chunk. No body of Quaestio II precedes the scholion on the page.
- *After (q3, `bon-sent-IV-d21-p2-a2-q3`):* p568 footers printed **5–7** belong to q3 — (5) "Extra lib. V. tit. 38. in fine C. *Omnis utriusque sexus* (12.): Qui peccatum in poenitentiali iudicio sibi detectum… agendum perpetuam poenitentiam etc. — In fine argg. substituendum duximus *propter per*."; (6) "Quaest. 1. — Inferius pro *revelare* edd. cum pluribus codd. *revelari*."; (7) "Quia, ut ait Aristot., II. Periherm. c. 4. (c. 14.), simul non contingit eidem inesse contraria." q3 opens "Tertio quaeritur, utrum sciens aliquid per confessionem et per aliam viam teneatur celare" and runs from p568 onward. Page 568's footers are thus split by body anchor: footers 1–4 here, footers 5–7 in q3.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


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

source_text:
<!-- page 568 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum sciens aliquid per confessionem et per aliam viam teneatur celare.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum sciens aliquid per confessionem et per aliam viam teneatur celare. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Primo per quandam decretalem Innocentii, *de Poenitentiis et remissionibus*[^1]: « Qui peccatum sibi in poenitentia detectum praesumserit revelare, non solum a sacerdotali officio deponendum decernimus, verum etiam ad agendum poenitentiam in arctum monasterium detrudendum »: ergo si aliquis novit aliquod peccatum per confessionem, qualitercumque illud noverit aliter, non videtur, quod possit illud idem propter confessionem detegere.

2. Item, confessionis sigillum, ut supra[^2] probatum est, nullo pacto est infringendum; sed tunc infringitur, quando confessio revelatur; impossibile autem est hoc peccatum auditum in confessione revelare[^3], quin reveletur confessio; sed confessio nullo modo est revelanda: ergo nec illud peccatum. Et potest fieri talis syllogismus: nulla confessio est revelanda; hoc peccatum est confessio, vel pars confessionis, quod dupliciter novit: ergo etc.

3. Item, talis, qui scit per confessionem et per aliam viam, novit ut homo et ut Deus; sed in quantum novit ut Deus, tenetur tacere; in quantum ut homo, potest dicere ei qui potest prodesse: ergo istae duae oppositas habent conditiones. Quandocumque autem opposita sunt circa idem, necesse est, quod alterum vel utrumque cadat a sui proprietate[^4]: si ergo maius dominatur supra minus et dominando vincit, et cognitio, qua cognoscit per modum Dei, simpliciter maior est; ergo videtur, quod illam tenetur sequi et ita celare.

4. Item, sigillum confessionis ita arcte institutum est propter scandalum, et ne mali sacerdotes malignari possint, et fideles per hoc a confessione retrahi; sed si ita esset, quod posset aliquis revelare quod per aliam viam novit, quilibet sub hoc praetextu posset omnia vel pro magna parte reve-

<!-- page 569 -->

lare, dicens, se aliter nosse, et sic nullus malus posset convinci nec in malitia deprehendi.

5. Item, sigillum confessionis ita annexum est confessioni, ut, quicumque confessiones audit, hoc ipso, quod audit, se obliget ad secreti habitionem; sed si tu scires aliquid et postmodum promitteres referenti illud, quod nunquam illud diceres, tenereris omnino celare: tunc ergo videtur similiter, quod tenetur celare illud quod aliter quam per confessionem noverat.

**Contra** hoc arguitur sic, et suppono hic quinque, quae sunt per se nota. Prima suppositio est, quod nihil statuendum est neque servandum, in quo fiat praeiudicium veritati[^5]. — Secunda est, quod « fraus et dolus nemini debet patrocinari ». — Tertia est haec, quod nullus pro aliquo tenetur mentiri. — Quarta est haec, quod nullus scienter reddit se impotentem ad id, ad quod tenetur, sine peccato mortali. — Quinta est haec, quod nihil debet statui nec servari, unde innocens possit rationabiliter accusari et condemnari, et alii de ipso scandalizari.

1. Ex prima arguo sic. Nihil servandum est, in quo fiat praeiudicium veritati; sed aliquis sacerdos potest in causa[^6] testificari, utpote qui cum alio vidit furem vel aliquod simile, cuius testificatione subtracta, latebit veritas, et regnabit falsitas: si ergo talis confessionem de culpa audiat et hoc ipso testificari non velit, fit praeiudicium veritati: ergo si hoc non debet fieri, non obligatur ad retinendum.

2. Ex secunda sic. « Fraus et dolus nemini debet patrocinari »; sed aliquis peccator sciens, se esse reum et accusatione dignum, hoc solo[^7] confitetur, ut os sacerdotis claudat: si ergo claudit ac per hoc remanet impunitus, fraus et dolus sibi patrocinatur: ergo si hoc est inconveniens, patet etc.

3. Ex tertia sic. Nullus pro aliquo tenetur mentiri; sed iste qui novit aliter quam per confessionem, non potest dicere: nescio, quin mentiatur, quia novit ut homo et ut Deus: si ergo iuravit veritatem dicere, tenetur quod novit ut homo revelare, cum ad hoc posset iuramentum ipsum arctare.

4. Ex quarta sic. Esto quod aliquis teneatur accusare proximum apud praelatum tum ex mandato divino, tum ex mandato praelati sui; iste vidit eum peccantem et audivit confitentem: si ergo tenebatur ex visu dicere et ex audito confessionis reddidit se impotentem, ergo quando audivit eius confessionem, peccavit mortaliter; quod nullo modo videtur probabile.

5. Ex quinta sic. Nihil debet servari, unde innocens possit rationabiliter condemnari; sed ita est in proposito, si tenetur celare quod alias novit: ergo etc. *Probatio*: ponatur casus, quod quatuor vadant per viam; unus peccat in conspectu omnium, unde accusandus est coram praelato et puniendus; confitetur uni de tribus; duo alii accusant illum qui peccavit et testificantur contra eum et ad maius robur testimonii advocant tertium; tertio praecipitur, quod dicat, et illi eum accusant, nisi dicat[^8], tanquam fautor sit in aliena culpa, et praelatus rationabiliter punit ipsum ad duorum testimonium de inobedientia: si ergo hoc totum iniquum est, videtur, quod non tenetur celare. *Si tu dicas mihi*, quod sacerdos debet confitenti protestari, quod non accipit sub sigillo confessionis; *contra*: quaero, quando; aut antequam confiteatur, aut postquam confessus est. Sed *ante* non tenetur, quia nescit, quid sibi velit dicere; si *postquam* confessio audita est, hoc nihil est, quia ex quo confessio fuit, sigillum habuit: ergo per suam protestationem non potest illud infringere. Et iterum, quilibet sacerdos posset dicere confitenti: nolo illud sub sigillo accipere. *Praeterea*, esto quod obliviscatur illud dicere et habeat in corde, quamvis non in ore; videtur, quod idem debeat accidere.

### Conclusio

> Peccatum quod scitur per confessionem et per aliam viam, revelari potest sine fractione sigilli, secluso tamen scandalo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod triplex est hic modus dicendi.

Primus est hic. Dicunt quidam, quod ex quo aliquis scit aliquid per confessionem, qualitercumque sciat et quandocumque sciat, illud vere non potest revelare[^9]; quia non potest tale quid revelari, cum sit pars confessionis, quin fiat sigillo confessionis praeiudicium, quod maxime et praecipue servandum est integrum. Ad obiecta respondent, sicut tactum[^10] est, quod si videatur generari praeiudicium, vel sequi malum, non debet recipere sub sigillo confessionis, sed cum protestatione, quod nolit tenere secretum. — Etsi ista opinio pia videatur, pro eo quod multum tribuit sigillo confessionis, tamen posset ducere in magnum periculum, scilicet quod fieret veritati et in-

<!-- page 570 -->

nocentiae et obedientiae praeiudicium, et fraudi praestaretur patrocinium, sicut ostensum est. Et constat, quod sigillum confessionis institutum est ad vitandum scandalum; « veritas autem propter scandalum dimittenda non est[^11] ». Et iterum, illa protestatio non facit, ut possit revelare quod alias tenetur celare. Et iterum, si aliquis audivit confessionem alicuius, et ille de illo peccato sit infamis; nunquid fractor sigilli dicitur, si de hac materia cum aliquibus loquitur? Hoc videtur nimis durum et impium.

Et ideo est secunda positio, quae videtur esse temperantior, quod confessio claudit os respectu cognitionis praecedentis, non respectu sequentis. Et ratio huius est: quia ille qui prius novit et illud in confessione recipit, os sibi claudit respectu praecedentis; sed non respectu sequentis. — Sed haec positio minus est rationabilis quam prima, quamvis videatur magis sobria: primum, quia ex hac positione ita generatur veritati praeiudicium[^12], sicut ex prima. Ulterius dicit, quod sigillum confessionis potest omnem cognitionem antecedentem claudere, et post cognitio superveniens potest illud aperire. Si enim confessio ideo claudit prius scitum, quia revelare scitum est frangere sigillum; cum illud contineatur sub sigillo, quomodo cognitio sequens dabit potentiam loquendi vel manifestandi illud quod sub sigillo erat clausum? Aut si revelare quod post scitur, in quantum post scitur, non praeiudicat confessionis sigillo; quare revelare prius scitum, cum unum et idem possit sciri per visum, deinde per confessionem, tertio per aliorum revelationem[^13]?

Et ideo est tertius modus dicendi magis consonus veritati et rationi, quod illud quod scitur duplici via, duplici cognitione scitur. Et sicut duplici cognitione scitur, ita potest homo oblivisci unum modum sciendi et memorari alterum, sicut patet, quia aliquando obliviscitur homo, se vidisse, et recordatur, se audisse; vel obliviscitur, se audisse per relationem, et meminit, se audisse in confessione. Et sicut duplex est scientia sive modus sciendi, sic duplex est modus revelandi; nec unus praeiudicat alteri, ut si quis dicat: ego vidi, vel: ego in confessione didici; nec unus modus alteri praeiudicat, et sine sigilli fractione et praeiudicio et absque praeiudicio veritatis potest quod scitum est per confessionem et per alium modum revelari, ita tamen quod modus sciendi per confessionem semper maneat in occulto. Quia tamen posset ex hoc scandalum generari, maxime apud poenitentem et apud alios, credo, quod de bono et aequo magis debet celare[^14] quam unus alius. Et ideo propter vitandum scandalum poenitentis debet ei protestari in confessione, quod non debet illud celare, non quia illa protestatio acquirat ius revelandi, sed quia proximo aufert rationem scandali. Debet etiam permittere, se cogi ad dicendum; cogitur autem, sive quia veritati generatur praeiudicium, sive per mandatum; et ex tunc potest dicere absque omni remorsu. Cum magna enim maturitate revelandum est alienum peccatum, etiam ubi non est annexum confessionis sigillum. — Et haec positio rationabilior et securior videtur, et iurisperiti[^15] in hanc magis consentiunt.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de decretali, dicendum, quod loquitur de revelatione peccati eatenus, qua per confessionem scitum est; unde gravem imponit poenam, in qua poena dicitur, quod debet intrudi[^16] « in monasterium arctum »; et hoc intelligitur, non quia cogat ad emittendum votum, sed quia pro tanto crimine compellit ad perpetuo puniendum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nulla confessio est revelanda; sed hoc peccatum etc.; dicendum, quod ibi est sophisma secundum accidens[^17], pro eo quod isti peccato, in quantum revelandum, extranea est confessio. Cum enim dupliciter sciatur, secundum unum modum revelari potest et debet, secundum alium vero minime; et ideo primum, quod proponit, est falsum: non potest hoc peccatum revelari, quin reveletur confessio.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod istae cognitiones habent oppositionem et gradum; dicendum, quod verum est, quod gradum habent; sed tamen non habent oppositionem, pro eo quod secundum diversas vias sunt; unde idem potest esse scitum et creditum[^18]; sic in proposito est intelligendum.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod malis auferenda est occasio malignandi; dicendum, quod nunquam omnino potest malis claudi aditus malefaciendi; nec adeo debet claudi, quod ex hoc claudatur bo-

<!-- page 571 -->

nis via recte agendi; nec debet claudi aditus uni malo, ut aperiatur alteri: et ideo ratio illa non concludit, quod illud quod dupliciter est cognitum, necessario oporteat celari.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod promittit habere secretum, cum audit; verum est, ipsam *confessionem*, et illud eatenus, qua sic scitur; aliter non promittit, et si etiam promitteret, ubi veritas vel obedientia praeciperet[^19], revelari potest, et promissio vel iuramentum nullum esset — unde si vidissem proximum peccantem tali peccato, quod tenear dicere superiori, immo solvor, immo iuravi: et sic non solum est, ut tollatur contemptus.

---

english:
<!-- page 568 -->

### Question III. *Whether one who knows something both through confession and through another way is bound to conceal it.*

Thirdly it is asked whether one who knows something through confession and through another way is bound to conceal it. And that he is, seems [shown]:

1. First, by a certain decretal of Innocent, *On Penances and Remissions*[^1]: « Whoever shall have presumed to reveal a sin disclosed to him in penance, we decree that he be not only deposed from the sacerdotal office, but also thrust into a strict monastery to do penance »: therefore if anyone knows some sin through confession, in whatever way he otherwise knew it, it does not seem that he can disclose that same thing on account of the confession.

2. Likewise, the seal of confession, as was proved above[^2], is in no way to be broken; but it is broken when the confession is revealed; but it is impossible to reveal[^3] this sin heard in confession without the confession being revealed; but a confession is in no way to be revealed: therefore neither [is] that sin. And such a syllogism can be made: no confession is to be revealed; this sin is a confession, or a part of a confession, which he knows in two ways: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, such a one, who knows through confession and through another way, knows as a man and as God; but insofar as he knows as God, he is bound to be silent; insofar as [he knows] as a man, he can tell him who can be helped: therefore these two have opposed conditions. But whenever opposites are about the same thing, it is necessary that one or both fall away from its property[^4]: if therefore the greater dominates over the lesser and by dominating conquers, and the cognition by which he knows after the mode of God is simply greater; therefore it seems that he is bound to follow that one and so to conceal.

4. Likewise, the seal of confession is so strictly instituted on account of scandal, and lest evil priests be able to act malignantly, and the faithful thereby be drawn back from confession; but if it were so, that someone could reveal what he knows through another way, anyone under this pretext could reveal everything or for the most part,

<!-- page 569 -->

saying that he knows it otherwise, and so no evil-doer could be convicted nor caught in his malice.

5. Likewise, the seal of confession is so annexed to confession that whoever hears confessions, by this very [fact] that he hears, binds himself to the keeping of the secret; but if you knew something and afterwards promised to the one reporting it that you would never tell it, you would be bound altogether to conceal [it]: then therefore it seems likewise that he is bound to conceal that which he knew otherwise than through confession.

**On the contrary** it is argued thus, and I here suppose five things which are known of themselves. The first supposition is that nothing is to be established nor observed in which prejudice is done to the truth[^5]. — The second is that « fraud and deceit ought to patronize no one ». — The third is this, that no one is bound to lie for the sake of anyone. — The fourth is this, that no one knowingly renders himself incapable of that to which he is bound, without mortal sin. — The fifth is this, that nothing ought to be established nor observed whereby an innocent person can reasonably be accused and condemned, and others be scandalized concerning him.

1. From the first I argue thus. Nothing is to be observed in which prejudice is done to the truth; but some priest can testify in a case[^6], as one who together with another saw a thief or some such thing, by the withdrawal of whose testimony the truth will lie hidden and falsehood will reign: if therefore such a one hears a confession of the fault and on this very account is unwilling to testify, prejudice is done to the truth: therefore if this ought not to be done, he is not obliged to keeping silent.

2. From the second thus. « Fraud and deceit ought to patronize no one »; but some sinner, knowing himself to be guilty and worthy of accusation, confesses for this alone[^7], that he may shut the priest's mouth: if therefore he shuts [it] and thereby remains unpunished, fraud and deceit patronize him: therefore if this is unfitting, it is evident etc.

3. From the third thus. No one is bound to lie for the sake of anyone; but this man who knows otherwise than through confession cannot say: I do not know, without lying, because he knows as a man and as God: if therefore he swore to tell the truth, he is bound to reveal what he knows as a man, since to this the oath itself could constrain him.

4. From the fourth thus. Suppose that someone is bound to accuse his neighbor before the prelate, both by divine command and by the command of his prelate; this man saw him sinning and heard him confessing: if therefore he was bound from sight to tell and from the hearing of the confession rendered himself incapable, then when he heard his confession he sinned mortally; which in no way seems probable.

5. From the fifth thus. Nothing ought to be observed whereby an innocent person can reasonably be condemned; but so it is in the matter at hand, if he is bound to conceal what he knows otherwise: therefore etc. *Proof*: let the case be put that four go along the way; one sins in the sight of all, whence he is to be accused before the prelate and punished; he confesses to one of three; the two others accuse the one who sinned and testify against him and for the greater strength of testimony summon the third; the third is commanded to speak, and they accuse him unless he speaks[^8], as though he were an abettor in another's fault, and the prelate reasonably punishes him on the testimony of two for disobedience: if therefore this whole is iniquitous, it seems that he is not bound to conceal. *If you say to me* that the priest ought to protest to the one confessing that he does not receive [it] under the seal of confession; *on the contrary*: I ask, when; either before he confesses, or after he has confessed. But *before* he is not bound, because he does not know what [the man] wishes to say to him; if *after* the confession has been heard, this is nothing, because from the [moment] the confession was [made], it had the seal: therefore by his protestation he cannot break it. And again, any priest could say to the one confessing: I do not wish to receive that under the seal. *Furthermore*, suppose that he forgets to tell that and holds [it] in his heart, although not in his mouth; it seems that the same ought to happen.

### Conclusion

> A sin which is known through confession and through another way can be revealed without breaking the seal, scandal nevertheless being set aside.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is here a threefold manner of speaking.

The first is this. Some say that, from [the moment] someone knows something through confession, in whatever way he knows it and whenever he knows it, he truly cannot reveal[^9] it; because such a thing cannot be revealed, since it is a part of the confession, without prejudice being done to the seal of confession, which most of all and chiefly is to be kept intact. To the objections they reply, as has been touched on[^10], that if prejudice seems to be generated, or evil to follow, he ought not to receive [it] under the seal of confession, but with a protestation that he does not wish to keep the secret. — Although this opinion seems pious, in that it attributes much to the seal of confession, nevertheless it could lead into great danger, namely that prejudice would be done to the truth and to in-

<!-- page 570 -->

nocence and to obedience, and patronage would be furnished to fraud, as has been shown. And it is established that the seal of confession was instituted for avoiding scandal; « but truth ought not to be set aside on account of scandal[^11] ». And again, that protestation does not bring it about that he can reveal what he is otherwise bound to conceal. And again, if someone has heard the confession of another, and that man is of ill repute concerning that sin; is he called a breaker of the seal if he speaks of this matter with some persons? This seems too harsh and impious.

And therefore there is a second position, which seems to be more temperate, that confession shuts the mouth with respect to preceding cognition, not with respect to subsequent. And the reason for this is: because he who first knows and receives that in confession, shuts his mouth with respect to the preceding; but not with respect to the subsequent. — But this position is less reasonable than the first, although it seems more sober: first, because from this position prejudice is generated to the truth[^12] just as from the first. Further it says that the seal of confession can shut every antecedent cognition, and a subsequently supervening cognition can open it. For if confession therefore shuts what was first known, because to reveal what is known is to break the seal; since that is contained under the seal, how will subsequent cognition give the power of speaking or manifesting that which was shut under the seal? Or if to reveal what is known afterwards, insofar as it is known afterwards, does not prejudice the seal of confession; why [does it prejudice it] to reveal what was first known, since one and the same thing can be known by sight, then through confession, thirdly through others' revelation[^13]?

And therefore there is a third manner of speaking more consonant with truth and reason, that what is known by a twofold way is known by a twofold cognition. And just as it is known by a twofold cognition, so a man can forget one mode of knowing and remember the other, as is evident, because a man sometimes forgets that he saw, and recollects that he heard; or forgets that he heard through a report, and remembers that he heard in confession. And just as knowledge or the mode of knowing is twofold, so the mode of revealing is twofold; nor does the one prejudice the other, as if someone say: I saw, or: I learned in confession; nor does the one mode prejudice the other, and without breaking of the seal and without prejudice and without prejudice to the truth, that which is known through confession and through another mode can be revealed, in such a way nevertheless that the mode of knowing through confession always remains hidden. Yet because scandal could arise from this, especially with the penitent and with others, I believe that out of [a sense of] the good and the equitable he ought rather to conceal[^14] than anyone else. And therefore, for the avoiding of scandal to the penitent, he ought to protest to him in confession that he ought not to conceal that — not because that protestation acquires a right of revealing, but because it removes from the neighbor the ground of scandal. He ought also to permit himself to be compelled to speak; and he is compelled either because prejudice is generated to the truth, or by command; and from then on he can speak without any remorse. For another's sin is to be revealed with great maturity, even where the seal of confession is not annexed. — And this position seems more reasonable and safer, and the jurists[^15] more agree with this one.

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning the decretal, it must be said that it speaks of the revelation of a sin insofar as it is known through confession; whence it imposes a grave penalty, in which penalty it is said that he ought to be thrust[^16] « into a strict monastery »; and this is understood, not because it compels [him] to emit a vow, but because for so great a crime it compels [him] to be punished perpetually.

2. To that which is objected, that no confession is to be revealed; but this sin etc.; it must be said that there is there a fallacy of accident[^17], in that to this sin, insofar as it is to be revealed, the confession is extraneous. For since it is known in two ways, according to one mode it can and ought to be revealed, but according to the other not at all; and therefore the first thing it proposes is false: this sin cannot be revealed without the confession being revealed.

3. To that which is objected, that these cognitions have opposition and degree; it must be said that it is true that they have degree; but nevertheless they do not have opposition, in that they are according to diverse ways; whence the same thing can be known and believed[^18]; so it is to be understood in the matter at hand.

4. To that which is objected, that occasion of acting malignantly is to be taken away from the wicked; it must be said that the approach of doing evil can never be entirely shut off from the wicked; nor ought it to be so shut off that thereby the way of acting rightly be shut off from

<!-- page 571 -->

the good; nor ought the approach to be shut off from one evil, so that it be opened to another: and therefore that argument does not conclude that what is known in two ways must necessarily be concealed.

5. To that which is objected, that he promises to keep the secret when he hears [it]; it is true [that he promises] the *confession* itself, and that insofar as it is thus known; otherwise he does not promise, and even if he did promise, where truth or obedience should command[^19], it can be revealed, and the promise or oath would be null — whence if I had seen my neighbor sinning in such a sin, [it is the case] that I am bound to tell the superior, nay I am loosed [from the promise], nay I have sworn: and so it is not only that contempt may be removed.

---

la: Extra lib. V. tit. 38. in fine, C. *Omnis utriusque sexus* (12.): Qui peccatum in poenitentiali iudicio sibi detectum... ad agendum perpetuam poenitentiam etc. — In fine argg. substituendum duximus *propter* pro *per*.

en: *Decretals*, book V, title 38, at the end, c. *Omnis utriusque sexus* (12): Whoever [reveals] a sin disclosed to him in the penitential judgment... to do perpetual penance, etc. — At the end of the arguments we have judged that *propter* should be substituted for *per*.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. — The last rule is proved above, a. 1, q. 3.

la: Quaest. I. — Inferius pro *revelare* edd. cum pluribus codd. *revelari*.

en: [See] Question I. — Below, for *revelare* the editions with several codices [read] *revelari*.

la: Quia, ut ait Aristot., II. *Periherm.* c. 4. (c. 14.), simul non contingit eidem inesse contraria.

en: Because, as Aristotle says, *On Interpretation* II, c. 4 (c. 14), contraries cannot be present in the same [subject] at the same time.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 86, nota 6. in fine. — Secunda suppositio habetur in C. *Ex tenore* (10.), X. *de Rescriptis* (lib. I. tit. 3.); cfr. tom. III. pag. 413, nota 2. alii loci allegati. — Superius pro *hic* plures codd. *haec*. Inferius in fine quintae suppositionis pro *de ipso* edd. *de peccato*.

en: Cf. above, p. 86, note 6, at the end. — The second supposition is found in c. *Ex tenore* (10), X, *On Rescripts* (book I, title 3); cf. vol. III, p. 413, note 2, [where] other passages are cited. — Above, for *hic* several codices [read] *haec*. Below, at the end of the fifth supposition, for *de ipso* the editions [read] *de peccato*.

la: Codd. R S T *in casu*. Inferius pro *non velit* cod. H *non obligatur*, et pro *ad retinendum* (*reticendum*?) edd. *ad tacendum*.

en: Codices R S T [read] *in casu*. Below, for *non velit* codex H [reads] *non obligatur*, and for *ad retinendum* (*reticendum*?) the editions [read] *ad tacendum*.

la: Cod. U supplet *intuitu*.

en: Codex U supplies *intuitu* [with a view].

la: Cod. K (I a secunda manu) *quod, si non dicat*. Mox pro *punit* cod. U *possit punire*, codd. R T X *possit reprehendere*.

en: Codex K (I in a second hand) [reads] *quod, si non dicat*. Soon, for *punit* codex U [reads] *possit punire*, codices R T X *possit reprehendere*.

la: Ex codd. K V W Z substituimus *revelare* pro *revelari*. Post pauca verbo *revelari* cod. U praemittit *per se*.

en: From codices K V W Z we have substituted *revelare* for *revelari*. A little after, to the word *revelari* codex U prefixes *per se*.

la: Hic in ultimo fundam. — Edd. et plures codd. addunt *supra*.

en: Here in the last fundamentum. — The editions and several codices add *supra*.

la: Ut dicit regula iuris supra pag. 86, nota 6. in fine allegata. — Inferius pro *confessionem* cod. U *peccatum*.

en: As the rule of law says, cited above, p. 86, note 6, at the end. — Below, for *confessionem* codex U [reads] *peccatum*.

la: Codd. P Q *et post* [i.e. *postea*]. Mox pro *claudit* edd. *clauditur*.

en: Codices P Q [read] *et post* [i.e. *afterwards*]. Soon, for *claudit* the editions [read] *clauditur*.

la: Cod. aa supplet *praeiudicat confessionis sigillo*. Ante *tertio* Vat. ponit *didicit*, ed. 1 *quia didicit*; pro *tertio*, quod plures codd. omittunt, cod. H *et sic*, codd. V W *et ideo*.

en: Codex aa supplies *praeiudicat confessionis sigillo*. Before *tertio* the Vatican [edition] puts *didicit*, edition 1 *quia didicit*; for *tertio*, which several codices omit, codex H [reads] *et sic*, codices V W *et ideo*.

la: Supple: *sacerdos*. Codd. V W autem legunt, terminis transpositis, *celare unus quam alius*, cod. K *unus et alius* (*unus alius* in nostra lectione idem est ac *quilibet alius*). Inferius pro *quod non debet* [scil. sacerdos] non pauci codd. *quando* [cod. G *quin*] *non debet*.

en: Supply: *the priest*. The codices V W, however, read, with the terms transposed, *celare unus quam alius*, codex K *unus et alius* (*unus alius* in our reading is the same as *quilibet alius*). Below, for *quod non debet* [namely, the priest] not a few codices [read] *quando* [codex G *quin*] *non debet*.

la: Cod. F *viri periti*.

en: Codex F [reads] *viri periti* [men skilled in law].

la: Codd. A G aa *trudi*, codd. E K bb *tradi*. Mox pro *intelligitur* codd. R S T U *dicitur*.

en: Codices A G aa [read] *trudi*, codices E K bb *tradi*. Soon, for *intelligitur* codices R S T U [read] *dicitur*.

la: Petr. Hispan., *Summul.* tr. *de Fallaciis*, exponens hanc fallaciam ait: Accidens, ut hic sumitur, idem est quod extraneum in parte idem et in parte diversum, ut hic: homo est species; Socrates est homo: ergo Socrates est species. Homo enim est in parte idem cum specie, scil. quando sumitur pro re universali, in parte diversum a specie, scil. quando sumitur pro suppositis [i. e. individuis]. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 870, nota 8. verba Aristot. — Superius pro *nulla* codd. F G I K, pro *nullo* edd., *nullo modo*, plures codd. *nullo*.

en: Peter of Spain, *Summulae*, treatise *On Fallacies*, expounding this fallacy says: Accident, as it is taken here, is the same as the extraneous which is in part the same and in part diverse, as here: man is a species; Socrates is a man: therefore Socrates is a species. For man is in part the same as the species, namely when taken for the universal thing, in part diverse from the species, namely when taken for the supposits [i.e. individuals]. Cf. vol. II, p. 870, note 8, the words of Aristotle. — Above, for *nulla* codices F G I K, for *nullo* the editions, *nullo modo*, several codices *nullo*.

la: Vide III. *Sent.* d. 24. a. 2. q. 3.

en: See III *Sentences*, d. 24, a. 2, q. 3.

la: Codd. M O V W Z (L primitus, X a secunda manu) et ed. 1 addunt: *quod per aliam viam sciret, quia illud solum... nullum esse*. Post *sic scitur* cod. U addit *per confessionem*.

en: Codices M O V W Z (L originally, X in a second hand) and edition 1 add: *that he knew it through another way, because that alone... is null*. After *sic scitur* codex U adds *per confessionem*. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 62357–62582) cross-checked against the vol4 PDF column bands for pp. 568–571 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p56{8,9}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p57{0,1}-...`); two-column "VOL II OVERRIDE" discipline applied, reading each page Left column top→bottom then Right. Offset pdf = printed + 20. **PAGE-HINT CORRECTION:** the brief's page hint (pp. 565–567) was off by ~3 — the running heads read `b69`/`b70`/`571` (= 569/570/571), and Quaestio III actually *opens* on p. 568 R-column (after Articulus II / Quaestio I–II occupy pp. 565–568). Verified running heads: p. 568 "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV"; p. 569 "DIST. XXI. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. III. … 569"; p. 570 "570 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV"; p. 571 "DIST. XXI. P. II. DUBIA … 571". Chunk text runs p. 568 R (mid-page) → p. 571 L (the tail of Ad 5), ending immediately before "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI".

**Scholion disposition.** has_scholion: false. The Articulus II scholion lives with this article's q1 (`bon-sent-IV-d21-p2-a2-q1`); a footer here confirms the cross-reference — [^2], *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* render none.

**Apparatus.** 19 footnotes total, body-anchor order. Per-page split: **p. 568 footers 4–7 → [^1]–[^4]** (footers 1–3 on p. 568 belong to the preceding Quaestio II and are carried there); **p. 569 footers 1–6 → [^5]–[^10]**; **p. 570 footers 1–8 → [^11]–[^18]**; **p. 571 footer 1 → [^19]**. The remaining p. 571 footers (printed 2–6) belong to Dub. I / Dub. II of the Pars II dubia, not this chunk.

**Cross-chunk hand-offs.**
- *Before* (`bon-sent-IV-d21-p2-a2-q2`): p. 568 L-column + p. 568 footers 1–3 belong to Quaestio II; this chunk picks up at the Quaestio III opener on p. 568 R-column. No q3 footer is stranded in q2.
- *After* (`bon-sent-IV-d21-p2-dubia`): p. 571's shared page splits by body anchor — footer 1 here (q3's Ad 5), footers 2–6 belong to Dub. I/II. The dubia chunk begins "In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram… quod omnia criminalia saltem semel oportet in confessione exprimi" at raw line 62583.

**[?] flags.** None. The OCR cascade in the two-column body (e.g. "horao"→*homo*, "Itera"→*Item*, "ahquod"→*aliquod*, "proprielate"→*proprietate*, "iuramentum"/"arctare" garbles, "Rkspdndeo"→*Respondeo*, "sigilluna"→*sigillum*, "praeiudicitmi"→*praeiudicium*) was resolved unambiguously against the PDF column bands; no genuinely ambiguous reading remained. The tail of Ad 5 ("immo solvor, immo iuravi: et sic non solum est, ut tollatur contemptus") is grammatically compressed in both OCR and the printed band but reads continuously to the DUBIA break.


title: Dist. 21, Part 1, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master, Part I

source_text:
<!-- page 558 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Magister: *De illis etiam, qui aedificant ligna et stipulas*[^1] etc. Videtur enim per hoc intelligere venialia. Sed contra: Isaiae quinto: *Vae qui coniungitis domum ad domum* etc. Glossa Hieronymi[^2]: «Haeretici dogmata dogmatibus coniungunt; et qui supra fundamentum debuerunt aedificare aurum, argentum et lapides pretiosos, econtra aedificant lignum, foenum et stipulam»; sed constat, quod haeretici in fictione dogmatum suorum mortaliter peccant: ergo illud non intelligitur de venialibus.

Item, quaeritur, quo tropo dicantur venialia lignum et foenum et stipula; et cum multae sint venialium differentiae, quomodo ad tres possunt reduci?

Et respondendum est ad hoc, quod una scriptura multis modis potest exponi; unus tamen est principalis et litteralis intellectus, plures tamen esse possunt per adaptationem. Litteralis autem intellectus, secundum quod patet ex Glossa et littera sequenti, est de venialibus; Hieronymus vero per quandam adaptationem exponit.

Si quaeratur ratio huius intellectus; dicendum, quod Apostolus loquitur de venialibus, in quantum sunt cremabilia. Cremabile autem, quod praestat pabulum et consumitur ab igne, in triplici differentia est.

<!-- page 559 -->

Quoddam enim est, quod durat diutius, quoddam, quod citissime consumitur, quoddam, quod medio modo. Primo modo dicitur lignum, secundo modo dicitur stipula, et tertio modo dicitur foenum, quod tenet medium inter utrumque extremum[^3].

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Non frustra distinxit illa tria Apostolus: lignum et foenum et stipulam, quae illi aedificant.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia supra fidem nihil aedificatur nisi bonum: ergo nullum peccatum; sed venialia sunt peccata: ergo nullo modo superaedificantur. — Item, nihil comburitur, quod est de spirituali aedificio; sed lignum et foenum et stipula superaedificantur: ergo non cremantur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod lignum et foenum et stipula superaedificari dicuntur dupliciter, secundum quod dupliciter possumus exponere. Potest enim per lignum intelligi opus bonum, cui tamen est annexum aliquod veniale peccatum, sicut patet in multis actibus; et tale opus ex alio habet, quod sit de aedificio, ex alio habet, quod sit cremabile. Nam superaedificatur ea ratione, qua bonum est propter principalem intentionem, sed crematur ea ratione, qua habet amorem terrenis annexum; et vix contingit nisi in perfectis, quin in bonis operibus cadat aliquid a latere reprehensibile. — Aliter potest exponi, ut per lignum, foenum et stipulam recte intelligantur venialia, et ita dicuntur superaedificari, non ut sint de aedificio, sed quoniam fundamentum aedificii non subvertunt, sed simul stant cum illo — non sic in mortalibus peccatis — et pro tanto dicuntur superaedificari[^4], tamen nihilominus cremabuntur.

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Qui vero superaedificant aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosos de utroque igne securi sunt.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia in auro intelligitur contemplatio Dei, in argento dilectio proximi, in lapidibus pretiosis bona opera[^5]; sed omnes iusti haec superaedificant: ergo nullus iustus transibit per ignem purgatorium. — Si tu dicas, quod intelligitur cum praecisione; contra: Ecclesiastis septimo[^6]: *Non est qui faciat bonum et non peccet*: ergo nullus praecise haec superaedificat.

Item quaeritur de sufficientia horum trium, et quomodo distinguuntur. Videtur enim, quod aurum potius deberet attribui dilectioni quam contemplationi, quia dilectio est pretiosissima.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod superaedificatio contemplationis, dilectionis et bonae actionis intelligitur per aedificationem auri et argenti et lapidum cum praecisione, ita quod alia non superaedificentur[^7]. Tunc autem dicuntur venialia superaedificari non quando committuntur, sed quando in usum et in habitum convertuntur, sicut in dilectione filiorum et uxoris et huiusmodi; et sine tali habitu et usu bene potest homo esse, quamvis non possit peccata aliqua quantum ad actum vitare, ut puta quae ex subreptione, vel ignorantia oriuntur. Solis ergo perfectis competit superaedificatio auri etc., et hi securi sunt.

Quod quaeritur de distinctione istorum, dicendum, quod est loqui de ordinatione mentis quantum ad partem superiorem, et sic intelligitur contemplatio Dei; et quoniam haec dicit eminens in anima, recte intelligitur per aurum[^8]. Quantum vero ad partem inferiorem, dupliciter: aut prout dirigit voluntatem in se, et sic est dilectio proximi; aut prout contingit, voluntatem dirigi in opere, et sic est bona operatio. Et dilectio proximi comparatur ad bonam operationem sicut argentum ad lapides pretiosos, pro eo quod, sicut argentum substernitur lapidibus pretiosis et per illos ornatur, sic dilectio per bonos effectus. — Et nota, quod in contemplatione Dei clauditur dilectio. Et sic patet responsio ad obiecta[^9].

english:
<!-- page 558 -->

### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that the Master says: *Concerning those also, who build wood and stubble*[^1] etc. For it seems through this to understand venial [sins]. But on the contrary: Isaiah five: *Woe to you that join house to house* etc. The Gloss of Jerome[^2]: «Heretics join doctrines to doctrines; and those who upon the foundation ought to have built gold, silver, and precious stones, on the contrary build wood, hay, and stubble»; but it is established that heretics in the fabrication of their doctrines sin mortally: therefore that [text] is not understood of venial [sins].

Likewise, it is asked by what trope wood and hay and stubble are called venial [sins]; and since there are many differences of venial [sins], how can they be reduced to three?

And it must be answered to this, that one Scripture can be expounded in many ways; yet there is one principal and literal sense, but there can be several by adaptation. But the literal sense, according to what is clear from the Gloss and the following text, is of venial [sins]; Jerome, however, expounds it by a certain adaptation.

If the ground of this sense be asked; it must be said that the Apostle speaks of venial [sins], inasmuch as they are combustible. But the combustible, which furnishes fuel and is consumed by fire, is of a threefold difference.

<!-- page 559 -->

For there is something which lasts longer, something which is most quickly consumed, something [which is consumed] in a middle manner. In the first manner it is called wood, in the second manner it is called stubble, and in the third manner it is called hay, which holds the middle between either extreme[^3].

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Not without reason did the Apostle distinguish those three: the wood and hay and stubble which they build.* For it seems to be said badly, because upon the faith nothing is built except the good: therefore no sin; but venial [sins] are sins: therefore they are in no way built upon [it]. — Likewise, nothing is burned up which is of the spiritual building; but wood and hay and stubble are built upon [it]: therefore they are not burned.

**I respond:** It must be said that wood and hay and stubble are said to be built upon [the foundation] in a twofold way, according as we can expound [it] in two ways. For by wood can be understood a good work, to which nevertheless is annexed some venial sin, as is clear in many acts; and such a work has from one [aspect] that it is of the building, and has from another [aspect] that it is combustible. For it is built upon by that ground by which it is good on account of the principal intention, but it is burned by that ground by which it has love annexed to earthly things; and it scarcely happens, except in the perfect, that in good works something reprehensible does not fall in from the side. — Otherwise it can be expounded, so that by wood, hay, and stubble venial [sins] are rightly understood, and thus they are said to be built upon [the foundation], not as being of the building, but because they do not subvert the foundation of the building, but stand together with it — not so in mortal sins — and to that extent they are said to be built upon[^4], yet nonetheless they will be burned.

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *But those who build gold, silver, precious stones are secure from either fire.* For it seems to be said badly, because in gold is understood the contemplation of God, in silver the love of neighbor, in precious stones good works[^5]; but all the just build these: therefore no just one will pass through the purgatorial fire. — If you say that it is understood with precision [i.e. exclusively]; on the contrary: Ecclesiastes seven[^6]: *There is none that doeth good and sinneth not*: therefore no one builds these precisely [i.e. exclusively].

Likewise it is asked about the sufficiency of these three, and how they are distinguished. For it seems that gold ought rather to be attributed to love than to contemplation, because love is most precious.

**I respond:** It must be said that the building-up of contemplation, love, and good action is understood through the building of gold and silver and stones with precision, so that the others are not built up[^7]. But then venial [sins] are said to be built up not when they are committed, but when they are converted into use and into habit, as in the love of children and of a wife and the like; and without such habit and use a man can well be, although he cannot avoid certain sins as to the act, as for instance those which arise from stealth or ignorance. Therefore to the perfect alone belongs the building of gold etc., and these are secure.

As to what is asked about the distinction of these, it must be said that one may speak of the ordering of the mind as to the superior part, and thus is understood the contemplation of God; and since this names what is eminent in the soul, it is rightly understood by gold[^8]. But as to the inferior part, in two ways: either as it directs the will into itself, and thus it is the love of neighbor; or as it happens that the will is directed into a work, and thus it is good operation. And the love of neighbor is compared to good operation as silver to precious stones, for the reason that, just as silver is laid under precious stones and is adorned by them, so love [is adorned] by good effects. — And note that in the contemplation of God love is enclosed. And thus the response to the objections is clear[^9].

la: Textus huius dubii respicit verba Apostoli I. Cor. 3, 12: «Si quis autem superaedificat super fundamentum hoc, aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosos, ligna, foenum, stipulam». In seqq. ostendit, quod «uniuscuiusque opus quale sit, ignis probabit... Si cuius opus arserit, detrimentum patietur; ipse autem salvus erit; sic tamen quasi per ignem [purgatorium]». Glossa ordinaria in hunc loc. est secundum August., XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 26. n. 1. seqq. [Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.]. Cfr. Gregor., IV. Dialog. c. 39. — Mox post *exponit* cod. aa addit *de mortalibus*.

en: The text of this doubt regards the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 3:12: «But if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble». In what follows he shows that «every man's work, of what sort it is, the fire shall try... If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire [purgatory]». The ordinary Gloss on this passage is according to Augustine, *On the City of God* XXI, c. 26, nn. 1 ff. [See here the Master's text, c. 2.]. Cf. Gregory, *Dialogues* IV, c. 39. — Soon after *exponit* codex aa adds *de mortalibus*.

la: Vers. 8. — Glossa sumta est ex Hieron. Commentario in hunc loc.; textus originalis post *coniungunt* plura addit. Verbis allegatis praemittitur: Iuxta tropologiam contra haereticos quidam hoc dictum arbitrantur etc.

en: Verse 8. — The Gloss is taken from Jerome's Commentary on this passage; the original text after *coniungunt* adds more. Before the words alleged there is prefixed: According to the tropology certain ones think this was said against heretics, etc.

la: Idem dub. solvitur ab Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 15. m. 4. a. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 2; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2, ubi etiam duo seqq. dubia tanguntur; Petr. a Tar. (de hoc et 2. seqq. dubiis), hic q. 2. a. 1; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 4.

en: The same doubt is solved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV, q. 15, m. 4, a. 1; Blessed Albert, here a. 2; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, where also the two following doubts are touched upon; Peter of Tarentaise (concerning this and the 2 following doubts), here q. 2, a. 1; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 4.

la: Communissima, sed minus congrua lectio codd. substituit *aedificari*. — Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. seq.; Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 15. m. 4. a. 3. § 1. seq.; B. Albert., hic a. 3.

en: The most common, but less fitting, reading of the codices substitutes *aedificari*. — Cf. here the Master's text, c. 1 f.; Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV, q. 15, m. 4, a. 3, § 1 f.; Blessed Albert, here a. 3.

la: Secundum Glossam ordinariam apud Petr. Lombard. [cfr. etiam hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.] et Lyranum, de qua vide August., de Fide et operibus, c. 16. n. 27 et Enchirid. c. 68. n. 18.

en: According to the ordinary Gloss in Peter Lombard [cf. also here the Master's text, c. 4] and Lyra, concerning which see Augustine, *On Faith and Works* c. 16, n. 27, and *Enchiridion* c. 68, n. 18.

la: Vers. 21: Non est enim homo iustus in terra, qui faciat etc.

en: Verse 21: For there is no just man upon earth, that doeth etc.

la: Edd. cum non paucis codd. *superaedificent*.

en: The editions, with not a few codices, [read] *superaedificent*.

la: Cod. aa subiungit: *quod est eminens circa metalla.* Mox post *inferiorem* edd. cum uno alteroque cod. addunt *ordinatur*.

en: Codex aa subjoins: *which is eminent among metals.* Soon after *inferiorem* the editions, with one or another codex, add *ordinatur*.

la: Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 15. m. 4. a. 1. in fine et a. 3. § 2; B. Albert., hic a. 6.

en: The same doubt is solved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV, q. 15, m. 4, a. 1, at the end, and a. 3, § 2; Blessed Albert, here a. 6.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Vol IV two-column PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p558..p559-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, split x=1880), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 61437–61584). Running heads verified: p.558 = "558 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." and p.559 = "DIST. XXI. P. I. DUBIA. 559" (OCR'd "Sb9"). Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**Page span correction.** The page hint (pp.557–559) was off by one. p.557 is entirely the prior chunk (a3-q2, QUAESTIO II, running head "DIST. XXI. P. I. ART. III. QUAEST. II."). The DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI header begins low in the **p.558** left column, after a3-q2's Solutio nn. 1–6 (the a3-q2 frontmatter `printed_pages: [555,556,557]` is itself short by one page — a3-q2 actually runs onto p.558; it remains an auto-rechunked skeleton, not yet Tier 2). The dubia run p.558–559 only; p.560 opens "COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXI. Pars II."

**Scope.** Three dubia (Dub. I–III). Dub. I (p.558 L+R) continues onto p.559 L ("…in triplici differentia est. Quoddam enim est…extremum"); Dub. II and Dub. III are wholly on p.559. The chunk ends at Dub. III's "Et sic patet responsio ad obiecta" on p.559 R, immediately before the p.560 Pars II COMMENTARIUS.

**Apparatus split (cross-chunk footer hand-off).** p.558's footer block carries seven notes, but notes 1–4 belong to the prior chunk a3-q2 (note 1 = the "In qua requie securus…Col. 2, 15" Augustine/Colossians note; note 2 = "Petr. Lombard. in hunc loc.: Vel illi priores non acceperunt…"; note 3 = "Codd. Naa addunt: ideo universaliter…suscitatam"; note 4 = "Cfr. infra d. 43. a. 1. q. 3. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.", anchoring a3-q2's "suo loco habetur infra"). Only **p.558 footers 5–6** belong to this chunk: footer 5 = the Isaiah/Jerome Gloss note (→ `[^2]`); footer 6 = the I Cor. 3, 12 "textus huius dubii" note (→ `[^1]`). All seven **p.559 footers (1–7)** belong to this chunk (Dub. I close + Dub. II + Dub. III → `[^3]`–`[^9]`). Total apparatus = 9 entries (p.558: 2; p.559: 7). When a3-q2 is promoted to Tier 2 it must pick up p.558 footers 1–4.

**Hand-offs.** Before: the prior chunk a3-q2 (p1, a. 3, q. 2) owns p.558 footers 1–4 — a still-skeleton chunk, flagged here for its eventual build. After: the next chunk (Dist. XXI, Pars II — COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS) begins at "COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXI. Pars II." on p.560; no footer crosses the p.559→p.560 boundary (p.559's footers 1–7 are fully consumed by Dub. I–III above).

**[?] flags.** None. OCR cascade garbles (e.g. `quaerilur`/`tropo`/`venialia li-gnum`, `Sedcontra`, `coraburitur` for *comburitur*, `creraantur` for *cremantur*, `Aposlolus`, `slipula`) were all resolved unambiguously against the clean PDF column bands.