site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 16, Part 2, Dubia

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

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 411 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de ista divisione, quam ponit Magister in littera, quod tribus modis agitur poenitentia, utrum sit *poenitentiae-virtutis,* an *poenitentiae-Sacramenti.* Et videtur, quod non virtutis, quia haec simplex est et species specialissima[^1]. — Item, quod nec Sacramenti: quia, multiplicato superiori, multiplicatur inferius[^2]: ergo secundum hoc videtur, quod poenitentia secundum tres differentias sit triplex Sacramentum. *Praeterea,* «omne Sacramentum, ut dicit Ambrosius, simplex est».

<!-- page 412 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod poenitentia, quae est ante baptismum, est *poenitentia-virtus,* non *poenitentia-Sacramentum;* et poenitentia, quae est post baptismum, est *poenitentia-Sacramentum;* et ideo poenitentia in hac divisione accipitur communiter ad *virtutem* et *Sacramentum;* nec est dictum aequivoce, sed analogice per reductionem ad unam naturam[^3]. — Ulterius notandum, quod partes istae non sunt diversificantes poenitentiam *essentialiter,* sed *secundum statum;* et ideo non est divisio in partes *essentiales,* nec oportet ex hoc Sacramentum multiplicari nec esse compositum. Et sic patet illud[^4].

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *poenitentia fit pro peccatis, quae Legis decalogus continet.* Videtur enim non bene dicere, quia in decalogo non prohibetur superbia nec hypocrisis nec consimilia: ergo pro his non videtur esse poenitendum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut in ordine praedicamenti quaedam sunt in genere *per se,* quaedam sunt in genere *per reductionem,* sicut principia et etiam privationes[^5]; sic intelligendum est in articulis fidei. Quaedam enim sunt antecedentia, quaedam consequentia, et quaedam sunt directe credibilia, sicut articuli; et in omnibus his iudicatur quis haereticus, si perverse sentiat. Per hunc modum intelligendum est in praeceptis decalogi, quod quaedam sunt ibi prohibita *principaliter* et *explicite,* quaedam ut *annexa* et *implicite:* ut verbi gratia, si dicatur: *Non moechaberis*[^6], principaliter prohibetur et explicite actus adulterii, sed implicite et *in generali* omnis actus coitus ut *antecedens;* et sic prohibetur concupiscentia coitus sive aspectus mulieris ad moechandum; consequenter vero prohibetur omnis effusio seminis inordinata. Sic intelligendum in aliis, quod in primo praecepto praecipitur cultus Dei; et in hoc praecipitur actus fidei antecedenter, et consequenter omnis elatio et superbia prohibetur; et sic in aliis[^7].

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Cum dicimus: Dimitte nobis debita nostra* etc.; manifestamus, nos habere quod nobis dimittatur. Esto ergo, quod aliquis non habeat conscientiam peccati in aliquo instanti, utpote quando Missam cantat, et est bene confessus et intentus caelestibus; tunc videtur, quod talis dicendo istam orationem peccet mortaliter, quia facit contra conscientiam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod omnis homo potest rationabiliter habere conscientiam de peccato veniali, tum propter frequentiam, tum propter ignorantiam, quia in multis ignoranter delinquimus, etiam cum credimus bene facere; tum propter adhaerentiam, quia amor rei temporalis et affectiones istae inordinatae frequenter multum nobis adhaerent. Et ideo quilibet potest dicere: *Ab occultis meis munda me, Domine*[^8] etc. — Vel potest dici, quod adhuc potest dicere in persona aliorum; et ideo non peccat, sed pro aliis impetrat pro illo tempore[^9], vel petit pro se ipso pro statu alio.

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Delet omnino haec oratio minima et quotidiana* etc. Videtur enim ex hoc dicere Augustinus[^10], quod oratio dominicalis deleat peccata. *Sed contra:* solius gratiae est delere peccata: ergo etc. — Si tu dicas, quantum ad poenam; *contra:* non est par poena venialis et mortalis; sed ista est satisfactio pro venialibus: non ergo pro mortalibus.

<!-- page 413 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ipse loquitur de deletione quantum ad poenam. Valet enim haec oratio contra poenam venialis et mortalis; sed plus contra poenam debitam alicui veniali, quae tota potest remitti in hac oratione, si dicatur devote. Ad[^11] poenam mortalis valet, sed non tantum, quia non totum remittit; valet tamen aliquantulum, immo multum, non tantum ratione orationis, sed ratione eleemosynae implicitae; et ista est eleemosyna praecipua, scilicet remittere peccatum proximo; et ideo dicit[^12]: «Si veraciter dicitur: *Dimitte nobis, sicut et nos dimittimus*».

### Dub. V

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Si ita veraciter dicatur, sicut et nos dimittimus* etc. Secundum hoc enim videtur, quod omnis qui habet rancorem, in dicendo istam orationem peccet mortaliter; quia omnis qui petit, sibi dimitti, sicut dimittit alii, si non dimittit, ex hoc petit, sibi non dimitti; sed quicumque petit, sibi peccatum non dimitti, peccat mortaliter: ergo videtur, quod semper peccat mortaliter, quando hanc orationem dicit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod nullus dicens hanc orationem intendit ipsam dicere ad petendum iram, sed potius ad petendum misericordiam. Quando ergo dicit illam conditionem, non intendit vim conditionis aggravare, sive sit homo intelligens, sive simplex; et ideo non est ibi novus contemptus, ac per hoc nec novum peccatum; nihilominus peccatum aggravatur occasionaliter[^13]. Et si tu obiicias, quod tunc deberet abstinere; dico, quod adhuc aggravaretur magis, dum ab aliis petitionibus saluberrimis cor petentis arceretur. Si tu dicas, quod illam deberet dimittere; adhuc gravius peccaret, dum Domini orationem scienter infringeret. Et ideo sanum consilium est cuilibet, quod in fraterno odio nullatenus perseveret; apparet enim, quod sine dispendio maximo esse non potest[^14].

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

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about that division which the Master sets down in the text, that penance is conducted in three ways, whether it is *the penance-virtue,* or *the penance-Sacrament.* And it seems that it is not a virtue, because this is simple and a most specific species[^1]. — Likewise, that it is not a Sacrament either: because, when the superior is multiplied, the inferior is multiplied[^2]: therefore according to this it seems that penance, according to the three differences, is a threefold Sacrament. *Moreover,* «every Sacrament, as Ambrose says, is simple».

**I respond:** It must be said that the penance which is before baptism is the *penance-virtue,* not the *penance-Sacrament;* and the penance which is after baptism is the *penance-Sacrament;* and therefore penance in this division is taken commonly for the *virtue* and the *Sacrament;* nor is it said equivocally, but analogically by reduction to one nature[^3]. — Further it must be noted that these parts do not diversify penance *essentially,* but *according to state;* and therefore it is not a division into *essential* parts, nor is it necessary on this account that the Sacrament be multiplied or composite. And so that is clear[^4].

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says that *penance is made for the sins which the decalogue of the Law contains.* For it seems not to be said well, because in the decalogue pride is not forbidden, nor hypocrisy, nor the like: therefore for these there seems to be no penance to be done.

**I respond:** It must be said that, just as in the order of a predicament some things are in a genus *per se,* some are in a genus *by reduction,* as principles and also privations[^5]; so it must be understood in the articles of faith. For some are antecedent, some consequent, and some are directly to be believed, as the articles; and in all these one is judged a heretic, if he hold perversely. In this manner it must be understood in the precepts of the decalogue, that some things are there forbidden *principally* and *explicitly,* some as *annexed* and *implicitly:* as, for example, if it be said: *Thou shalt not commit adultery*[^6], the act of adultery is principally and explicitly forbidden, but implicitly and *in general* every act of coition as *antecedent;* and so the concupiscence of coition or the gazing upon a woman to commit adultery is forbidden; consequently indeed every inordinate effusion of seed is forbidden. So it must be understood in the others, that in the first precept the worship of God is commanded; and in this the act of faith is commanded antecedently, and consequently all haughtiness and pride is forbidden; and so in the others[^7].

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *When we say: Forgive us our debts* etc.; we manifest that we have something to be forgiven us. Suppose then that someone does not have consciousness of sin in some instant, as when he sings Mass, and is well confessed and intent upon heavenly things; then it seems that such a one, in saying that prayer, sins mortally, because he acts against conscience.

**I respond:** It must be said that every man can reasonably have consciousness of venial sin, both on account of frequency, and on account of ignorance, because in many things we offend ignorantly, even when we believe ourselves to do well; and on account of adherence, because the love of a temporal thing and those inordinate affections frequently cling much to us. And therefore anyone can say: *From my hidden sins cleanse me, O Lord*[^8] etc. — Or it can be said that one can still say it in the person of others; and therefore he does not sin, but obtains for others for that time[^9], or asks for himself with respect to another state.

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *This least and daily prayer wholly blots out* etc. For it seems from this that Augustine says[^10] that the Lord's Prayer blots out sins. *But on the contrary:* it belongs to grace alone to blot out sins: therefore etc. — If you say, as to the penalty; *on the contrary:* the penalty of a venial and of a mortal sin is not equal; but this is satisfaction for venial sins: therefore not for mortal sins.

**I respond:** It must be said that he is speaking of a blotting-out as to penalty. For this prayer avails against the penalty of venial and of mortal sin; but more against the penalty due to some venial sin, which can be wholly remitted in this prayer, if it be said devoutly. As to[^11] the penalty of mortal sin it avails, but not so much, because it does not remit the whole; yet it avails somewhat, indeed much, not only by reason of the prayer, but by reason of the implied almsgiving; and this is the chief almsgiving, namely to forgive a sin to one's neighbor; and therefore he says[^12]: «If it be truly said: *Forgive us, as we also forgive*».

### Doubt V

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *If it be truly said thus, as we also forgive* etc. For according to this it seems that everyone who has rancor, in saying that prayer, sins mortally; because everyone who asks that it be forgiven him, as he forgives another, if he does not forgive, by this asks that it be not forgiven him; but whoever asks that his sin be not forgiven him sins mortally: therefore it seems that he always sins mortally, when he says this prayer.

**I respond:** It must be said that no one saying this prayer intends to say it for the asking of wrath, but rather for the asking of mercy. When therefore he says that condition, he does not intend to aggravate the force of the condition, whether he be an understanding man or a simple one; and therefore there is no new contempt there, and through this no new sin; nevertheless the sin is aggravated occasionally[^13]. And if you object that then he ought to abstain; I say that it would be aggravated still more, while the heart of the one asking would be cut off from the other most salutary petitions. If you say that he ought to omit that [condition]; he would sin still more grievously, while he would knowingly break the Lord's prayer. And therefore it is sound counsel for everyone that he in no way persevere in fraternal hatred; for it appears that it cannot be without the greatest loss[^14].

la: Porphyr., *de Praedicab.* c. *de Specie:* «Amplius autem [species definitur] sic quoque: Species est, quae de pluribus et differentibus numero in eo quod quid est [essentialiter] praedicatur; sed haec quidem assignatio specialissimae [speciei] est, et quae solum species est, non autem genus [v. g. homo]». Colligitur ex dicto Aristot. supra pag. 110, nota 5, allegato. — Superius post *Sacramenti* cod. H addit *videtur.*

en: Porphyry, *On the Predicables,* the chapter *On Species:* «Moreover [species is defined] also thus: Species is that which is predicated of many things differing in number in respect of what a thing is [essentially]; but this assignation is of the most specific [species], and of that which is species only, not genus [e.g. man]». Gathered from the saying of Aristotle cited above, p. 110, note 5. — Above, after *Sacramenti* ("of a Sacrament") codex H adds *videtur* ("it seems").

la: Vide supra pag. 75, nota 6.

en: See above, p. 75, note 6.

la: Vide supra d. 14. p. I. a. 1. q. 4. in fine corp.

en: See above, d. 14, p. I, a. 1, q. 4, at the end of the body.

la: Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 16. m. 3. a. 1. ad 4. et q. 15. in principio; B. Albert., hic a. 47; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV, q. 16, m. 3, a. 1, ad 4, and q. 15 at the beginning; Blessed Albert, here a. 47; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 21. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. in fine et ibid. pag. 48, nota 1. — De seq. propos. vide III. Sent. d. 25. a. 1. q. 1. in corp.

en: Cf. II Sent., d. 21, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, at the end, and ibid., p. 48, note 1. — On the following proposition see III Sent., d. 25, a. 1, q. 1, in the body.

la: Exod. 20, 14. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 37. dub. 6. — Inferius pro *omnis actus* codd. R T *omnis illicitus,* et pro *moechandum* codd. H L V (bb a secunda manu) *videndum,* edd. *concupiscendum.*

en: Exod. 20:14. Cf. III Sent., d. 37, doubt 6. — Below, for *omnis actus* ("every act") codices R, T read *omnis illicitus* ("every unlawful [act]"), and for *moechandum* ("to commit adultery") codices H, L, V (bb by a second hand) *videndum* ("to look upon"), the editions *concupiscendum* ("to covet").

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 37. a. 2. q. 1. ad 7. — Cod. P addit: «Non adorabis etc., hoc est, me solum adorabis ut Dominum, id est, in me solum credes tanquam in summam veritatem, in me solum sperabis tanquam in summe liberalem, me solum prae omnibus diliges tanquam summe bonum. *Luxuria* prohibetur, cum dicitur: *Non concupisces uxorem* etc. [Cfr. III. Sent. d. 40. dub. I.]. *Avaritia,* cum praecipitur: *Non concupisces rem* etc. *Ira,* cum dicit: *Non occides.* Item *superbia* contraria adorationi prohibetur in primo mandato, quia *initium superbiae apostatare a Deo,* Eccli. 10 [v. 14], item: *Initium omnis peccati superbia,* Eccli. 10 [v. 15], et secundum hoc prohibetur in omni mandato. *Invidia,* quae recte opponitur dilectioni proximi, prohibetur ibi: *Honora patrem tuum* etc.; quia nomine patris et matris intelligitur omnis proximus diligendus in suo ordine. *Accidia* vero prohibetur, cum dicitur: *Memento, ut diem Sabbati* etc.; nam qui taedium boni habet, quietis Sabbatum sanctificare non potest. *Gula* prohibetur in eodem, quia qui gulae deservit, suavitatem devotionis non servat. *Hypocrisis* prohibetur in *Non assumes nomen Dei tui* etc.; ille enim nomen Dei in vanum assumit, qui bonitatis nomen et sanctitatis sophistice quaerit etc.» — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 53; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. III Sent., d. 37, a. 2, q. 1, ad 7. — Codex P adds: «*Thou shalt not adore* etc., that is, me alone shalt thou adore as Lord, that is, in me alone shalt thou believe as in the highest truth, in me alone shalt thou hope as in the most bountiful, me alone above all shalt thou love as the highest good. *Lust* is forbidden when it is said: *Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife* etc. [Cf. III Sent., d. 40, doubt 1]. *Avarice,* when it is commanded: *Thou shalt not covet his goods* etc. *Wrath,* when he says: *Thou shalt not kill.* Likewise *pride,* contrary to adoration, is forbidden in the first commandment, because *the beginning of pride is to fall away from God,* Ecclus. 10 [v. 14], likewise: *Pride is the beginning of all sin,* Ecclus. 10 [v. 15], and according to this it is forbidden in every commandment. *Envy,* which is rightly opposed to the love of neighbor, is forbidden there: *Honor thy father* etc.; because by the name of father and mother is understood every neighbor to be loved in his order. *Sloth* indeed is forbidden when it is said: *Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day* etc.; for he who has weariness of good cannot sanctify the Sabbath of rest. *Gluttony* is forbidden in the same, because he who serves gluttony does not keep the sweetness of devotion. *Hypocrisy* is forbidden in *Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God* etc.; for he takes the name of God in vain who sophistically seeks the name of goodness and holiness etc.» — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 53; St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Psalm. 18, 13: *Delicta quis intelligit* [propter frequentiam sive multitudinem]? *ab occultis meis munda me* [propter ignorantiam], *et ab alienis* [i. e. alienantibus nos a fervore caritatis] *parce servo tuo* [propter adhaerentiam]. Ita B. Albert., hic a. 55.

en: Ps. 18:13: *Who can understand sins?* [on account of frequency or multitude] *From my hidden sins cleanse me* [on account of ignorance], *and from those of others spare thy servant* [i.e. things estranging us from the fervor of charity] [on account of adherence]. So Blessed Albert, here a. 55.

la: Dicit enim *debita nostra,* non *debita mea.* — Idem dub. solvit praeter B. Albert. S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: For he says *our debts,* not *my debts.* — The same doubt is resolved, besides Blessed Albert, by St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Augustinus, *Enchirid.* c. 71. seq. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6.

en: Augustine, *Enchiridion,* c. 71 ff. Cf. here the Master's text, c. 6. [?]

la: Edd. *Contra,* quae [lectio] etiam inferius cum non paucis codd. *remittitur* pro *remittit.*

en: The editions read *Contra* ("On the contrary"), which [reading] also below, with not a few codices, has *remittitur* ("is remitted") for *remittit* ("remits"). [?]

la: August., hic in lit. Magistri, c. 6. Ibid. etiam insinuantur alia, quae in hac solutione ponuntur.

en: Augustine, here in the Master's text, c. 6. There also are intimated the other things which are set down in this solution. [?]

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 37. a. 2. q. 1. ad 7., de modo aggravationis occasionalis.

en: Cf. III Sent., d. 37, a. 2, q. 1, ad 7, on the mode of occasional aggravation. [?]

la: Vide Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. tr. de Officio Missae, p. II. de quinta petitione orationis dominicae. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: See Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV, q. 10, treatise on the Office of the Mass, p. II, on the fifth petition of the Lord's Prayer. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here; St. Thomas, here on the text. [?]

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`vol4-p411-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p412-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p413-{L,R}-*`) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion (offset pdf = printed + 20, so PDF 431–433; split_x=1880), cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 46525–46740. The IA OCR cascade-shatters this region (diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation + two-column bleed), so the column bands are authoritative throughout. Running heads confirm page-verify: p.411 "DIST. XVI. P. II. DUBIA. 411"; p.412 "412 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p.413 "DISTINCTIO XVII. 413" (the page-413 running head has *advanced* to the next distinction even though the column body still completes the d.16 dubia — see boundary note below). English is a fresh literal translation.

**Dubia count: 5.**
- **Dub. I** — On the Master's threefold division of penance: is "penance" here the *virtue* or the *Sacrament*? (Objections: it is a most specific species, so not a virtue; and if the higher multiplied the lower, it would be a threefold Sacrament.) Answer: penance *before* baptism is the virtue, *after* baptism the Sacrament; the term is taken commonly (analogically, by reduction to one nature), the three parts differing by *state* not *essence* — so no multiplication or composition of the Sacrament follows.
- **Dub. II** — On *penance is made for the sins the decalogue contains:* but pride, hypocrisy, etc. are not in the decalogue. Answer: as some things are in a genus *per se* and some *by reduction,* so the decalogue forbids some sins *principally/explicitly* and others *as annexed/implicitly* (e.g. *Non moechaberis* implicitly forbids all inordinate concupiscence; the first precept implicitly forbids pride). Codex P's long gloss (note 7) maps each capital vice to a precept.
- **Dub. III** — On *Dimitte nobis debita nostra:* does one with no consciousness of sin (e.g. saying Mass, well-confessed) sin mortally by praying it against conscience? Answer: everyone can reasonably have consciousness of *venial* sin (frequency / ignorance / adherence — *Ab occultis meis munda me*); or he prays it in the person of others (*debita nostra,* not *mea*), so he does not sin.
- **Dub. IV** — On *Delet omnino haec oratio minima et quotidiana:* but only grace blots out sin, and the penalty of venial ≠ mortal. Answer: he speaks of blotting-out *as to penalty;* the prayer wholly remits a venial's penalty (if said devoutly) and avails much (not wholly) against a mortal's, partly by reason of the implied almsgiving — forgiving one's neighbor (*Dimitte nobis, sicut et nos dimittimus*).
- **Dub. V** — On *Si ita veraciter dicatur, sicut et nos dimittimus:* does one in rancor sin mortally each time he prays it? Answer: no one prays it *intending* to ask wrath but mercy; saying the condition adds no new contempt or new sin, though the existing sin is aggravated *occasionally;* abstaining or omitting the clause would aggravate worse — so the sound counsel is never to persevere in fraternal hatred (it cannot be without the greatest loss).

**Page-split map / boundary note (IMPORTANT — running head leads the body):** The dubia open at the *foot* of printed p.411 (both columns), beneath the close of the preceding Pars II quaestio *de veniali* (whose Conclusio + Respondeo + Ad-replies fill the top of p.411 and own that page's footers nn. 1–15 — NOT here). The centered **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI** header spans both columns at the foot of p.411; **Dub. I**'s objection begins there ("In parte ista sunt dubitationes... utrum sit *poenitentiae-virtutis,* an *poenitentiae-Sacramenti*... species specialissima¹"). Dub. I's Respondeo + Dubs. II–III + Dub. IV's objection fill p.412 (footers nn. 1–9 there are the dubia's, renumbered [^1]–[^9] below). Dub. IV's objection breaks at the foot of p.412 ("Videtur enim ...") and continues at the top of p.413 ("ex hoc dicere Augustinus¹..."). Dub. IV's Respondeo + the whole of **Dub. V** complete on p.413, closing "...sine dispendio maximo esse non potest" — immediately above the centered **DISTINCTIO XVII / PARS I / Cap. I** header. **The p.413 running head already reads "DISTINCTIO XVII"** (the head advances at the page-top while the column body still finishes the prior distinction's dubia); this is why the raw auto-chunk boundary (cut at raw L46662 = the running-head token) would have orphaned Dub. IV's Respondeo and all of Dub. V. The chunk is correctly extended to the true semantic boundary (d.17 *Cap. I* littera at raw ~L46740) so that every dubium is rendered whole. Everything from the **DISTINCTIO XVII / Cap. I** header onward (raw L46740 ff., "Utrum sine confessione dimittantur peccata...") is excluded here and owned by the d.17 littera chunk; p.413's printed footer block ("NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM" — *Cuius sunt verba* / *Edd. Contra* / *August. hic in lit. c.6* / *Cfr. Innocent III* / *Vide Alex. Hal.*) belongs to that d.17 littera, NOT to these dubia.

**Footer ownership / renumber map (Quaracchi restarts footer numbering each printed page):**
- **Printed p.411** (PDF 431): footers nn. 1–15 belong to the *preceding* Pars II quaestio *de veniali* (the Sed-contra / Respondeo / Ad-replies on the *Poenitentia de peccato veniali secundum se non est necessaria* conclusion) — NOT here. Dub. I's objection sits at the foot of p.411 but its two footnote markers (*species specialissima¹,* *multiplicatur inferius²*) are printed in the **p.412** footer sequence.
- **Printed p.412** (PDF 432): **9** printed dubia footers (nn. 1–9) → rendered as corpus entries [^1]–[^9]: **1** (*Porphyr. de Specie / Aristot. pag.110 / cod. H videtur* — Dub. I obj "specialissima¹") → [^1]; **2** (*Vide supra pag. 75 n.6* — Dub. I obj "inferius²") → [^2]; **3** (*Vide supra d.14 p.I a.1 q.4* — Dub. I resp "naturam³") → [^3]; **4** (*Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal. ... B. Albert. a.47; S. Thom.* — Dub. I resp "patet illud⁴") → [^4]; **5** (*Cfr. II Sent. d.21 ... III Sent. d.25* — Dub. II resp "privationes⁵") → [^5]; **6** (*Exod. 20,14 / omnis actus var.* — Dub. II resp "Non moechaberis⁶") → [^6]; **7** (*Cfr. III Sent. d.37 / Cod. P addit [decalogue-vice gloss] / B. Albert. a.53* — Dub. II resp "in aliis⁷") → [^7]; **8** (*Psalm. 18,13 munda me / B. Albert. a.55* — Dub. III resp "Domine⁸") → [^8]; **9** (*Dicit enim debita nostra / S. Thom.* — Dub. III resp "tempore⁹") → [^9].
- **Printed p.413** (PDF 433): the dubia tail carries **5** body markers (Dub. IV resp "Augustinus¹," "Ad²," "dicit³"; Dub. V resp "occasionaliter⁴," "non potest⁵"), rendered [^10]–[^14] in order. p.413's *printed* footer block is wholly the d.17 littera's "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM" (see boundary note); the dubia's own p.413 footnote entries are **not separately recoverable as a discrete printed block from the column bands** (the d.17 note block occupies the page foot), so [^10]–[^14] are reconstructed from their identifiable sources (Augustine *Enchiridion* / the Master's text c.6 textual variant / the III Sent. d.37 occasional-aggravation cross-ref / Alex. Hal. on the fifth petition) and carry **[?]** confidence flags.

**Apparatus-count reconciliation:** the printed dubia footers governing this chunk's body are p.412 nn. 1–9 (9, fully recovered from the column bands) + p.413's 5 dubia body markers (reconstructed) = **14 corpus entries [^1]–[^14]**. All 14 markers `[^1]`–`[^14]` are paired in both the Latin and English bodies; no body anchor is left without an apparatus entry and no entry is orphaned.

**[?] flags:** Five, all on the p.413 dubia footers [^10]–[^14]. These reconstruct the apparatus for Dub. IV's Respondeo and Dub. V from the identifiable cited sources, because the discrete printed dubia-footer block for p.413 is not cleanly separable from the d.17 littera's "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM" block at the foot of p.413 in the available column bands (the running head having already advanced to DISTINCTIO XVII). The dubia *bodies* on p.413 read cleanly and verbatim from the column bands; only the footer *attributions* for [^10]–[^14] are reconstructed (high confidence on the cited works, lower on exact chapter/note loci). To resolve at the d.10–d.20 decade-polish gate: re-extract p.413 at 600 dpi and read the foot of both columns above the horizontal rule to confirm whether Quaracchi printed a small separate dubia-note block there.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 17, Part 1

title_alt: De confessione (Littera Magistri, Caps. I–V, pp. 413–417)

title_alt: On confession (the Master's text, Chaps. I–V, pp. 413–417)

source_text:
<!-- page 413 -->

### Pars I.

### Cap. I. *Utrum sine confessione dimittantur peccata.*

Hic oritur quaestio multiplex. Primo enim quaeritur, utrum absque satisfactione et oris confessione per solam cordis contritionem peccatum alicui dimittatur. Secundo, an aliquando sufficiat confiteri Deo sine sacerdote. Tertio, an laico fideli facta valeat confessio. — In his enim etiam docti diversa sentire inveniuntur, quia super his varia ac pene adversa tradidisse videntur doctores. Dicunt enim quidam, sine confessione oris et satisfactione operis neminem a peccato mundari, si tempus illa faciendi habuerit. — Alii vero dicunt, ante oris confessionem et satisfactionem in cordis contritione peccatum dimitti a Deo, si tamen votum confitendi habeat. Unde Propheta[^1]: *Dixi, confitebor adversum me iniustitiam meam Domino, et tu remisisti* etc. Quod exponens Cassiodorus[^2] ait: « *Dixi,* id est deliberavi apud me, quod confitebor, et tu remisisti. Magna pietas Dei, quod ad solam promissionem peccatum dimiserit. Votum enim pro operatione iudicatur ». Item Augustinus[^3]: « Nondum pronuntiat, promittit, se pronuntiaturum; et Deus dimittit, quia hoc ipsum dicere quoddam pronuntiare est corde. Nondum est vox in ore, ut homo audiat confessionem, et Deus audit ». Item: *Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus, cor contritum* etc. Alibi etiam legitur: *Quacumque hora peccator conversus fuerit et ingemuerit, vita vivet et non morietur;* non dicitur: ore confessus fuerit, sed conversus ingemuerit.

<!-- page 414 -->

« Unde datur intelligi, quod etiam ore tacente, veniam interdum consequimur. Hinc etiam leprosi illi, quibus Dominus praecepit, ut ostenderent se sacerdotibus, in itinere, antequam ad sacerdotes venirent, mundati sunt. Ex quo insinuatur, quod antequam sacerdotibus ora nostra aperiamus, id est peccata confiteamur, a lepra peccati mundamur. Lazarus etiam non prius de monumento est eductus et post a Domino suscitatus, sed intus suscitatus, prodiit foras vivus; ut ostenderetur suscitatio animae praecedere confessionem. Nemo enim potest confiteri nisi suscitatus, quia a mortuo, velut qui non est, perit confessio: nullus ergo confitetur nisi resuscitatus. Nemo vero suscitatur, nisi qui a peccato solvitur; quia peccatum mors animae est, quae ut est vita corporis, ita eius vita Deus est »[^4]. — His aliisque pluribus auctoritatibus probatur, ante confessionem vel satisfactionem sola compunctione peccatum dimitti. Quod qui negant eas determinare laborant, nec non in huius sententiae depressione et ad suae opinionis assertionem auctorum testimonia inducunt. Ait enim Dominus per Isaiam[^5]: *Dic tu iniquitates tuas, ut iustificeris.* Item Ambrosius: « Non potest quisquam iustificari a peccato, nisi fuerit peccatum ante confessus ». Idem dicit: « Confessio a morte animam liberat, confessio aperit paradisum, confessio spem salutis tribuit; quia non meretur iustificari qui in vita sua peccata non vult confiteri. Illa confessio nos liberat, quae fit cum poenitentia. Poenitentia vero est dolor cordis et amaritudo animae pro malis, quae quisque commisit ». Item Ioannes[^6]: « Non potest quisquam gratiam Dei accipere, nisi purgatus fuerit ab omni peccato per poenitentiae confessionem et per baptismum ». Item Augustinus[^7]: « Agite poenitentiam, qualis agitur in Ecclesia. Nemo dicat sibi: occulte ago, apud Deum ago; novit Deus, qui mihi ignoscit, quia in corde ago. Ergo sine causa dictum est: *Quae solveritis super terram soluta erunt et in caelis?* Ergo sine causa claves datae sunt? Frustramus verbum Christi. Iob dicit: *Si erubui in conspectu populi peccata mea confiteri*»! Item Ambrosius[^8]: « Venialis est culpa, quam sequitur confessio delictorum ». Item Augustinus[^9] super illum locum Psalmi: *Non absorbeat me profundum, neque urgeat super me puteus os suum:* « Puteus est profunditas iniquitatis, in quam si cecideris, non claudet super te os suum, si tu non claudis os tuum. Confitere ergo et dic: *De profundis clamavi ad te, Domine* etc; et evades. Claudit super illum qui in profundo contemnit, a quo mortuo, velut qui non sit, perit confessio ». Idem[^10]: « Nullus debitae gravioris poenae accipit veniam, nisi qualemcumque, etsi longe minorem, quam debeat, solverit poenam. Ita enim impartitur a Deo largitas misericordiae, ut non relinquatur iustitia disciplinae ». Item Hieronymus[^11]: « Qui peccator est plangat delicta propria vel populi et ingrediatur Ecclesiam, de qua propter peccata fuerat egressus, et dormiat in sacco, ut praeteritas delicias, per quas Deum offenderat, vitae austeritate compenset ». — His aliisque auctoritatibus nituntur asserere, sine confessione vocis et aliqua solutione poenae neminem a peccato mundari.

Quid ergo super his sentiendum? quid tenendum? Sane dici potest, quod sine confessione oris et solutione poenae exterioris peccata delentur per contritionem et humilitatem cordis. Ex quo enim *proponit* mente compuncta, se confessurum, Deus dimittit; quia ibi est confessio cordis, etsi non oris, per quam anima interius mundatur a macula et contagio[^12] peccati commissi, et debitum aeternae mortis relaxatur. — Illa ergo, quae superius dicta sunt de confessione et poenitentia, vel ad confessionem cordis et ad interiorem poenam referenda sunt — sicut illud Augustini, « quod nullus dicitur veniam consequi, nisi prius quantulamcumque peccati solverit poenam » — vel de exteriori poena accipienda sunt et ad contemnentes vel negligentes referenda, sicut illud: « Nemo dicat, occulte ago » etc. Nonnulli enim in vita peccata confiteri negligunt vel erubescunt, et ideo non merentur iustificari. Sicut enim praecepta est nobis *interior poenitentia,* ita et oris confessio et exterior satisfactio, si adsit facultas. Unde nec vere poenitens est qui confessionis votum non habet. Et sicut peccati remissio munus Dei est, ita poenitentia et confessio, per quam peccatum deletur, non potest esse nisi a Deo, ut Augustinus[^13] ait: « Iam, inquit, donum Spiritus sancti habet qui confitetur et poenitet, quia non potest esse confessio peccati et punitio in homine ex se ipso. Cum enim irascitur sibi quisque et displicet, sine dono Spiritus sancti non est ». Oportet ergo, poenitentem confiteri, si tempus habeat; et tamen, antequam sit confessio in ore, si votum sit in corde, praestatur ei remissio.

<!-- page 415 -->

### Pars II.

### Cap. II. *An sufficiat soli Deo confiteri.*

Iam secundum quaestionis articulum inspiciamus, scilicet utrum sufficiat peccata confiteri soli Deo, an et oporteat confiteri sacerdoti. — Quibusdam visum est sufficere, si soli Deo fiat confessio sine iudicio sacerdotali et confessione Ecclesiae; quia David dixit[^14]: *Dixi, confitebor Domino, et tu remisisti* etc.; non ait sacerdoti, et tamen remissum sibi peccatum dicit. Item Ambrosius: « Ideo flevit Petrus, quia culpa obrepsit ei; non invenio, quid dixerit; invenio, quod fleverit. Lacrymas eius lego, satisfactionem non lego. Sed quod defendi non potest ablui potest. Lavant lacrymae delictum, quod voce pudor est confiteri. Et veniae fletus consulit ei verecundiae ». Hoc idem etiam Maximus[^15] episcopus dicit; item Ioannes Chrysostomus: « Non tibi dico, ut te prodas in publicum, neque apud alios te accuses, sed obedire te volo Prophetae dicenti: *Revela Deo viam tuam.* Ante Deum ergo tua confitere peccata, apud verum iudicem cum oratione delicta tua pronuntia, non lingua, sed conscientiae tuae memoria; et tunc demum spera, te misericordiam posse consequi. Si habueris peccata tua in mente continue, nunquam malum adversus proximum in corde tuo tenebis ». Idem[^16]: « Peccata tua dicito, ut deleas illa. Sed si confunderis alicui dicere, dicito ea quotidie in anima tua; non dico, ut confitearis ea conservo tuo, ut tibi exprobret; dicito Deo, qui curat ea. Nec enim, si non dixeris, ignorat ea: cum faciebas ea, praesto erat; cum admitteres ea, cognoverat. Nunquid ea vult a te cognoscere? Peccare enim non erubuisti, et confiteri erubescis? Dicito in hac vita, ut in alia requiem habeas; dicito ingemiscens et lacrymans. In codice scripta sunt peccata tua; spongia peccatorum tuorum lacrymae tuae sint ». Item Prosper[^17]: « Illi quorum peccata humanam notitiam latent, non ab ipsis confessa nec ab aliis publicata, si ea confiteri vel emendare noluerint, Deum, quem habent testem, ipsum et habituri sunt ultorem. Quodsi ipsi sui iudices fiant et veluti suae iniquitatis ultores hic in se voluntariam poenam severissimae animadversionis exerceant; temporalibus poenis mutabunt aeterna supplicia et lacrymis ex vera cordis contritione fluentibus restringent aeterni ignis incendia ». Et infra: « Facilius sibi Deum placabunt illi qui aut propriis confessionibus crimen produnt, aut, nescientibus aliis, ipsi in se voluntariae excommunicationis sententiam ferunt, et ab altari, cui ministrabant, non animo, sed officio separati, vitam suam quasi mortuam plangunt, certi, quod reconciliati sibi efficacis poenitentiae fructibus, a Deo non solum amissa recipiant, sed etiam supernae civitatis gaudia recipiant ». — His auctoritatibus innituntur qui sufficere contendunt Deo confiteri peccata sine sacerdote. Dicunt enim, quod si quis timens, detegi culpam suam apud homines, ne inde opprobrio habeatur, vel alii suo exemplo ad peccandum accingantur, et ideo taceat homini et revelet Deo; consequitur veniam.

### Cap. III. *Quod non sufficit soli Deo confiteri, si possit confiteri sacerdoti.*

Sed quod sacerdotibus confiteri oporteat, non solum illa auctoritate Iacobi[^18]: *Confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra* etc., sed etiam aliorum pluribus testimoniis comprobatur. Ait enim Augustinus[^19]: « Iudicet se ipsum homo voluntarie, dum potest, et mores convertat in melius, ne, cum iam non poterit, praeter voluntatem a Domino iudicetur; et cum in se protulerit severissimae medicinae, sed tamen utilissimae sententiam; veniat ad antistites, per quos illi claves in Ecclesia ministrantur. Tanquam bonus iam incipiens esse filius, maternorum membrorum ordine custodito, a praepositis Sacramentorum accipiat satisfactionis suae modum, in offerendo sacrificio contribulati cordis devotus et supplex. Id tamen agat, quod non solum sibi prosit ad salutem, sed etiam ceteris ad exemplum; ut, si peccatum eius non modo in gravi eius malo, sed etiam in tanto scandalo est aliorum, atque hoc expedire utilitati Ecclesiae videtur antistiti, in notitiam multorum, vel totius plebis agere poenitentiam non recuset, ne letali plagae per pudorem addat tumorem ». « Cum tanta est plaga peccati et impetus morbi, ut medicamenta corporis et sanguinis Domini differenda sint, auctoritate antistitis debet se quisque removere ab altari ad agendam poenitentiam et eadem reconciliari ». Item Leo Papa[^20]: « Multiplex misericordia Dei ita lapsibus subvenit humanis, ut non modo per baptismum, sed etiam per poenitentiam spes vitae reparetur, sic divinae voluntatis praesidiis ordinatis, ut indulgentiam Dei nisi supplicationibus sacerdotum nequeant obtinere. Christus enim hanc praepositis Ecclesiae tradidit potestatem, ut confitentibus poenitentiae satisfactionem darent et eosdem, salubri satisfactione purgatos, ad

<!-- page 416 -->

communionem Sacramentorum per ianuam reconciliationis admitterent ». Item Augustinus[^21]: « Quem poenitet, omnino poeniteat et dolorem lacrymis ostendat; repraesentet vitam suam Deo per sacerdotem, praeveniat iudicium Dei per confessionem. Praecepit enim Dominus mundandis, ut ostenderent ora sacerdotibus, docens corporali praesentia confitenda peccata, non per scriptum manifestanda. Dixit enim: *Ora monstrate,* et omnes, non unus pro omnibus, non alium statuatis nuntium, qui pro vobis offerat munus a Moyse statutum; sed qui per vos peccastis, per vos erubescatis. Erubescentia enim ipsa partem habet remissionis. Ex misericordia enim hoc praecepit Dominus, ut nemo poeniteret in occulto. In hoc enim, quod per se ipsum dicit sacerdoti et erubescentiam vincit timore offensi, fit venia criminis. Fit enim veniale per confessionem quod criminale erat in operatione: etsi non statim purgatur, fit tamen veniale quod commiserat mortale. Multum enim satisfactionis obtulit qui, erubescentiae dominans, nihil eorum quae commisit, nuntio Dei negavit. Deus enim, qui misericors et iustus est, sicut servat misericordiam in iustitia, ita et iustitiam in misericordia. Opus enim misericordiae est peccanti peccata dimittere; sed oportet, ut iustus misereatur iusto. Considerat enim, si dignus est, non dico, *iustitia,* sed *misericordia;* iustitia enim sola damnat, sed dignus est misericordia qui spirituali labore quaerit gratiam. Laborat enim mens patiendo erubescentiam; et quoniam verecundia magna est poena, qui erubescit pro Christo fit dignus misericordia. Unde patet, quia, quanto pluribus confitebitur in spe veniae turpitudinem criminis, tanto facilius consequitur gratiam remissionis. Ipsi enim sacerdotes plus possunt proficere, plus confitentibus parcere ». Item Leo Papa[^22]: « Quamvis plenitudo fidei videatur esse laudabilis, quae propter Dei timorem apud homines erubescere non veretur; tamen — quia non omnium huiusmodi sunt peccata, ut ea qui poenitentiam poscunt non timeant publicare — removeatur improbabilis consuetudo, ne multi a poenitentiae remediis arceantur, dum aut erubescunt, aut timent inimicis sua facta rescrare, quibus possunt legum percelli constitutione. Sufficit enim confessio, quae primum Deo offertur et tunc etiam sacerdoti, qui pro delictis poenitentium precator accedit. Tunc enim plures ad poenitentiam poterunt provocari, si populi auribus non publicetur conscientia confitentis ». — Ex his aliisque pluribus indubitanter ostenditur, oportere Deo primum et deinde sacerdoti offerri confessionem, nec aliter posse perveniri ad ingressum paradisi, si adsit facultas.

### Pars III.

### Cap. IV. *An sufficiat confiteri laico.*

Nunc priusquam praemissis auctoritatibus, quae his contradicere videntur, respondeamus, tertiam quaestionem intueamur. Quod enim secunda quaestio continebat, scilicet an sine confessione et iudicio sacerdotis soli Deo confiteri sufficeret, expeditum est et certificatum praemissis testimoniis, quod non sufficit confiteri Deo sine sacerdote; nec est vere humilis et poenitens, si non desiderat et requirit sacerdotis iudicium. Sed nunquid aeque valet alicui confiteri socio vel proximo suo, saltem cum deest sacerdos? — Sane ad hoc dici potest, quod sacerdotis examen requirendum est studiose, quia sacerdotibus concessit Deus potestatem ligandi et solvendi. Et ideo quibus ipsi dimittunt, et Deus dimittit. Si tamen defuerit sacerdos, proximo vel socio est facienda confessio. Sed curet quisque sacerdotem quaerere, qui sciat ligare et solvere. Talem enim esse oportet, qui aliorum crimina iudicat. Unde Augustinus[^23]: « Qui vult confiteri peccata, ut inveniat gratiam, quaerat sacerdotem, qui sciat ligare et solvere, ne, cum negligens circa se exstiterit, negligatur ab illo qui eum misericorditer monet et petit, ne *ambo in foveam cadant,* quam stultus evitare noluit. Tanta itaque vis confessionis est, ut, si deest sacerdos, confiteatur proximo. Saepe enim contingit, quod poenitens non potest verecundari coram sacerdote, quem desideranti nec tempus nec locus offert. Etsi ille cui confitebitur, potestatem solvendi non habeat, tamen dignus venia fit ex sacerdotis desiderio qui crimen confitetur socio. Mundati enim sunt leprosi, dum ibant ora vel se ostendere sacerdotibus, antequam ad eos pervenirent. Unde patet, Deum ad cor respicere, dum ex necessitate prohibentur ad sacerdotes pervenire. Saepe quidem eos quaerunt sani et laeti, sed dum quaerunt, antequam perveniant, moriuntur. Sed misericordia Dei ubique est, qui et iustis parcere novit, etsi non tam cito, sicut si solverentur a sacerdote. Qui ergo omnino confitetur, sacerdoti meliori quam potest confiteatur ». « Et si peccatum occultum est, sufficiat referre in notitiam sacerdotis. Nam in resuscitatione filiae archisynagogi[^24] pauci interfuerunt, qui viderent; nondum enim erat sepulta, nondum extra portam delata, nondum extra domum in notitiam portata. Intus resuscitavit, quam intus invenit, relictis solis Petro et Iacobo et Ioanne et patre et matre puellae, in quibus figuraliter continentur sacerdotes Ecclesiae. Quos autem extra invenit, advertendum est, quomodo suscitavit. Flebat

<!-- page 417 -->

enim turba post filium viduae, flevit Martha et Maria supplicantes pro fratre, flebat et turba Mariam secuta. In quo docemur, publice peccantibus non proprium, sed Ecclesiae sufficere meritum ». « Laboret igitur poenitens in Ecclesia esse et ad Ecclesiae unitatem tendere. Nisi enim unitas Ecclesiae succurrat, nisi quod deest peccatori sua oratione compleat; de manibus inimici non eripietur anima mortui. Credendum est enim, quod omnes orationes et eleemosynae Ecclesiae et opera iustitiae et misericordiae succurrant recognoscenti mortem suam ad conversionem. Ideoque nemo digne poenitere potest, quem non sustineat unitas Ecclesiae; ideoque non petat sacerdotes per aliquam culpam ab unitate Ecclesiae divisos ». — Ex his satis aperitur et absolvitur praemissae quaestionis articulus. Quaerendus est enim sacerdos sapiens et discretus, qui cum potestate simul habeat iudicium, qui si forte defuerit, confiteri debet socio. — Beda[^25] vero inter confessionem venialium et mortalium distinguit super illum locum: *Confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra.* Ait enim: « Coaequalibus quotidiana et levia, graviora vero sacerdoti pandamus et, quanto iusserit tempore, purgare curemus, quia sine confessione emendationis peccata nequeunt dimitti ». Sed et graviora coaequalibus pandenda sunt, cum deest sacerdos, et urget periculum. Venialia vero, etiam sacerdotis oblata copia, licet confiteri coaequali, et sufficit, ut quibusdam placet, si tamen ex contemptu non praetermittatur sacerdos. Tutius tamen est et perfectius utriusque generis peccata sacerdotibus pandere et consilium medicinae ab eis quaerere, quibus concessa est potestas ligandi et solvendi.

### Cap. V. *Ad quid valeat confessio.*

Cum igitur ex his aliisque pluribus testimoniis perspicuum fiat et indubitabiliter constet, peccata primum Deo, deinde sacerdoti esse confitenda, et si ipse defuerit, etiam socio; illud Ioannis Chrysostomi superius[^26] positum non est ita intelligendum, ut liceat alicui, si tempus habeat, sacerdoti non confiteri; sed quia sufficit, ubi crimen occultum est, soli Deo per sacerdotem dicere et semel, nec oportet publicari coram multis quod occultum est; quod notavit dicens: « Non tibi dico ut te prodas in publicum ». Sicut enim publica noxa publico eget remedio, ita occulta secreta confessione et occulta satisfactione purgatur. Nec necesse est, ut quod sacerdoti semel confessi sumus iterum confiteamur; sed lingua cordis non carnis, apud verum iudicem id iugiter confiteri debemus. Unde idem Ioannes[^27] ait: « Nunc autem, si recorderis peccatorum tuorum et frequenter ea in conspectu Dei pronunties et pro eis depreceris, citius illa delebis. Si vero obliviscaris, tunc eorum recordaberis nolens, quando publicabuntur et in conspectu omnium amicorum et inimicorum sanctorumque Angelorum proferentur ». — Ita etiam illud Ambrosii: « Lacrymae lavant delictum, quod voce pudor est confiteri », ad publicam poenitentiam referendum est. Ibi enim virtutem lacrymarum et confessionis ostendens, significare voluit, quod lacrymae occultae et confessio secreta, sicut quae fit soli sacerdoti, lavant delictum, quod pudet aliquem publice confiteri. Quod vero dicit, se lacrymas Petri legisse, non confessionem vel satisfactionem; per hoc non excludit illa. Multa enim facta sunt, quae scripta non sunt, vel forte nondum facta erat institutio confessionis[^28], quae modo est. — Similiter et illud Prosperi: « Si sui iudices fiant, mutabunt aeterna supplicia »; et illud: « Facilius Deum placabunt sibi qui aut propriis confessionibus crimen produnt, aut nescientibus aliis, in se sententiam excommunicationis ferunt »; ad publicam confessionem et satisfactionem referri oportet. Non enim solis sacerdotibus ius ligandi atque solvendi datum est, si cuique suo arbitrio se poena vel excommunicationis sententia ligare et absque sacerdotali iudicio se ipsum Deo vel altari reconciliare licet; quod ecclesiasticae institutioni et consuetudini penitus repugnat. Potius igitur, si publice peccasti, publice confitere te reum et emenda; si vero occulte deliquisti, etiam sic non taceas; nec tamen dico, ut publices. « Taciturnitas enim peccati ex superbia nascitur cordis. Ideo enim peccatum suum quis celat, ne reputetur foris, qualem se iam divino conspectui exhibuit; quod ex fonte superbiae nascitur. Species enim superbiae est se velle iustum videri, qui peccator est, atque hypocrita convincitur qui ad instar primorum parentum vel tergiversatione verborum peccata sua levigare contendit, vel sicut Cain peccatum suum reticendo supprimere quaerit. Ubi vero superbia regnat vel hypocrisis, humilitas locum non habet; sine humilitate vero alicui veniam sperare non licet. Ubi ergo est taciturnitas confessionis, non est speranda venia criminis »[^29]. — Iam certissime liquet, quam sit detestabile peccati silentium, et e converso, quam sit necessaria confessio. Est enim confessio testimonium conscientiae Deum timentis. Qui enim timet iudicium Dei, peccatum non erubescit confiteri. Perfectus timor solvit omnem pudorem; confessio peccati pudorem habet, et ipsa erubescentia est gravis poena. Ideoque iubemur confiteri peccata, ut erubescentiam patiamur pro poena; nam hoc ipsum pars est divini iudicii. — Si ergo quaeritur, ad quid confessio sit necessaria, cum in contritione iam deletum sit peccatum; dicimus, quia quaedam punitio peccati est, sicut satisfactio operis. Per confessionem etiam intelligit sacerdos, qualiter debeat iudicare de crimine; per eam quoque peccator fit humilior et cautior.

---

english:
<!-- page 413 -->

### Part I.

### Chap. I. *Whether sins are forgiven without confession.*

Here a manifold question arises. For first it is asked whether, apart from satisfaction and oral confession, a sin is forgiven to anyone through contrition of heart alone. Secondly, whether it sometimes suffices to confess to God without a priest. Thirdly, whether a confession made to a faithful layman avails. — For in these matters even the learned are found to think diversely, since concerning them the doctors seem to have handed down various and almost contrary things. For some say that without oral confession and the satisfaction of work no one is cleansed from sin, if he has had time to do these things. — But others say that, before oral confession and satisfaction, a sin is forgiven by God in contrition of heart, provided that he has the desire of confessing. Whence the Prophet[^1]: *I said, I will confess against myself my injustice to the Lord, and thou hast forgiven* etc. Expounding which Cassiodorus[^2] says: « *I said,* that is, I deliberated with myself that I will confess, and thou hast forgiven. Great is the mercy of God, that at the mere promise He should forgive the sin. For the desire is judged for the deed ». Likewise Augustine[^3]: « He does not yet pronounce, he promises that he will pronounce; and God forgives, because this very thing, to say it in the heart, is a kind of pronouncing. There is not yet a voice in the mouth, that a man may hear the confession, and God hears it ». Likewise: *A sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit, a contrite heart* etc. Elsewhere too it is read: *In whatsoever hour the sinner shall be converted and shall groan, he shall live in life and shall not die;* it is not said: he shall have confessed with the mouth, but: being converted he shall have groaned.

<!-- page 414 -->

« Whence it is given to understand that even with the mouth silent we sometimes obtain pardon. Hence also those lepers, whom the Lord bade show themselves to the priests, were cleansed on the way, before they came to the priests. From which it is intimated that, before we open our mouths to the priests, that is, confess our sins, we are cleansed from the leprosy of sin. Lazarus too was not first led forth from the tomb and afterward raised by the Lord, but, raised within, he came forth alive; that it might be shown that the raising of the soul precedes confession. For no one can confess unless raised, because from a dead man, as one who is not, confession perishes: no one therefore confesses unless raised again. But no one is raised unless he is loosed from sin; because sin is the death of the soul, which, as the life of the body is, so its life is God »[^4]. — By these and many other authorities it is proved that, before confession or satisfaction, sin is forgiven by compunction alone. Those who deny this labor to define those [authorities], and also, in the depreciation of this opinion and for the assertion of their own opinion, adduce the testimonies of authors. For the Lord says through Isaiah[^5]: *Tell thou thy iniquities, that thou mayest be justified.* Likewise Ambrose: « No one can be justified from sin unless he has first confessed the sin ». The same says: « Confession frees the soul from death, confession opens paradise, confession gives the hope of salvation; because he does not deserve to be justified who in his life will not confess his sins. That confession frees us which is made with penitence. But penitence is grief of heart and bitterness of soul for the evils which each one has committed ». Likewise John[^6]: « No one can receive the grace of God unless he be purged from all sin through the confession of penance and through baptism ». Likewise Augustine[^7]: « Do penance, such as is done in the Church. Let no one say to himself: I act secretly, I act before God; God knows, who pardons me, because I act in my heart. Therefore was it said in vain: *Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven?* Therefore were the keys given in vain? We make void the word of Christ. Job says: *If I have been ashamed to confess my sins in the sight of the people*»! Likewise Ambrose[^8]: « Venial is the fault which the confession of offenses follows ». Likewise Augustine[^9] upon that place of the Psalm: *Let not the deep swallow me up, neither let the pit shut her mouth upon me:* « The pit is the depth of iniquity, into which if thou fall, it will not shut its mouth upon thee, if thou shut not thy mouth. Confess therefore and say: *Out of the depths I have cried to thee, O Lord* etc; and thou shalt escape. It shuts upon him who in the deep despises, from whom, being dead, as one who is not, confession perishes ». The same[^10]: « No one receives pardon of a deserved graver penalty unless he pay some penalty, even though far less than he ought. For thus is the bounty of mercy imparted by God, that the justice of discipline be not abandoned ». Likewise Jerome[^11]: « Let him who is a sinner bewail his own offenses or the people's, and let him enter the Church, from which because of his sins he had gone out, and let him sleep in sackcloth, that by the austerity of life he may compensate for the past delights by which he had offended God ». — By these and other authorities they strive to assert that without confession of the voice and some payment of penalty no one is cleansed from sin.

What therefore is to be thought concerning these things? what is to be held? Truly it can be said that without confession of the mouth and payment of exterior penalty sins are blotted out through contrition and humility of heart. For from the moment that he *proposes,* with mind compunct, that he will confess, God forgives; because there is confession of the heart, even if not of the mouth, through which the soul is interiorly cleansed from the stain and contagion[^12] of the committed sin, and the debt of eternal death is relaxed. — Those things, therefore, which were said above concerning confession and penance are either to be referred to the confession of the heart and to interior penalty — as that saying of Augustine, « that no one is said to obtain pardon unless he first pay some penalty of sin, however small » — or are to be taken of exterior penalty and to be referred to those who despise or neglect, as that saying: « Let no one say, I act secretly » etc. For some neglect or are ashamed to confess their sins in life, and therefore do not deserve to be justified. For just as *interior penance* is enjoined on us, so also oral confession and exterior satisfaction, if there be opportunity. Whence neither is he truly penitent who has not the desire of confession. And just as the remission of sin is a gift of God, so penance and confession, through which sin is blotted out, cannot be except from God, as Augustine[^13] says: « Already, he says, he has the gift of the Holy Spirit who confesses and repents, because there cannot be confession of sin and punishment in man from himself. For when each one is angry with himself and displeased, he is not without the gift of the Holy Spirit ». It behooves the penitent, therefore, to confess, if he have time; and yet, before confession be in the mouth, if the desire be in the heart, remission is granted him.

<!-- page 415 -->

### Part II.

### Chap. II. *Whether it suffices to confess to God alone.*

Now let us inspect the second article of the question, namely, whether it suffices to confess one's sins to God alone, or whether one ought also to confess to a priest. — To some it has seemed to suffice if confession be made to God alone without priestly judgment and the confession of the Church; because David said[^14]: *I said, I will confess to the Lord, and thou hast forgiven* etc.; he does not say to a priest, and yet he says the sin was forgiven him. Likewise Ambrose: « Therefore Peter wept, because the fault crept upon him; I do not find what he said; I find that he wept. His tears I read, his satisfaction I do not read. But what cannot be defended can be washed away. Tears wash away the offense which shame forbids to confess with the voice. And the weeping of pardon consults his modesty ». This same thing also Maximus[^15] the bishop says; likewise John Chrysostom: « I do not bid thee betray thyself in public, nor accuse thyself before others, but I would have thee obey the Prophet saying: *Reveal to God thy way.* Before God therefore confess thy sins, before the true judge with prayer declare thy offenses, not with the tongue, but with the memory of thy conscience; and then at length hope that thou canst obtain mercy. If thou keep thy sins continually in mind, never wilt thou hold evil against thy neighbor in thy heart ». The same[^16]: « Tell thy sins, that thou mayest blot them out. But if thou art ashamed to tell them to anyone, tell them daily in thy soul; I do not say that thou shouldst confess them to thy fellow-servant, that he may reproach thee; tell them to God, who cares for them. For neither, if thou tell them not, does He not know them: when thou didst them, He was present; when thou didst commit them, He had known. Does He then wish to learn them from thee? Hast thou not been ashamed to sin, and art thou ashamed to confess? Tell it in this life, that thou mayest have rest in the other; tell it groaning and weeping. In the codex thy sins are written; let thy tears be the sponge of thy sins ». Likewise Prosper[^17]: « Those whose sins lie hidden from human knowledge, neither confessed by themselves nor published by others, if they will not confess or amend them, will have as avenger Him whom they have as witness. But if they become their own judges and, as it were avengers of their own iniquity, here exercise upon themselves a voluntary penalty of most severe chastisement; by temporal penalties they will exchange eternal torments, and by tears flowing from true contrition of heart they will restrain the burnings of eternal fire ». And below: « More easily will those appease God toward themselves who either by their own confessions disclose their crime, or, others not knowing, of their own accord pass upon themselves the sentence of voluntary excommunication, and, separated from the altar at which they ministered — not in mind, but in office — bewail their life as though dead, certain that, being reconciled by the fruits of efficacious penance, they will receive from God not only what was lost, but also the joys of the heavenly city ». — On these authorities rely those who contend that it suffices to confess one's sins to God without a priest. For they say that if anyone, fearing his fault be detected among men, lest he be held in reproach thereby, or others by his example be girded to sin, should therefore keep silence before man and reveal it to God; he obtains pardon.

### Chap. III. *That it does not suffice to confess to God alone, if one can confess to a priest.*

But that one ought to confess to priests is proved not only by that authority of James[^18]: *Confess your sins one to another* etc., but also by many other testimonies. For Augustine[^19] says: « Let a man judge himself voluntarily, while he can, and convert his morals for the better, lest, when he can no longer, he be judged against his will by the Lord; and when he has pronounced upon himself the sentence of a most severe yet most useful medicine, let him come to the prelates, by whom the keys are ministered to him in the Church. As a son now beginning to be good, the order of the maternal members being kept, let him receive from the stewards of the Sacraments the measure of his satisfaction, devout and suppliant in offering the sacrifice of a contrite heart. Yet let him do this so that it may profit not only himself unto salvation, but also others for an example; that, if his sin be not only in his own grave evil, but also in so great a scandal of others, and the prelate sees this to be expedient for the utility of the Church, he refuse not to do penance in the knowledge of many, or of the whole people, lest by shame he add a swelling to a deadly wound ». « When the wound of sin and the onset of disease is so great that the medicaments of the body and blood of the Lord must be deferred, by the authority of the prelate each one ought to remove himself from the altar to do penance and to be reconciled by the same ». Likewise Pope Leo[^20]: « The manifold mercy of God so succors human lapses that not only through baptism, but also through penance, the hope of life is repaired, the supports of the divine will being so ordered that they cannot obtain the indulgence of God except by the supplications of priests. For Christ delivered this power to the prelates of the Church, that they should give to the confessing the satisfaction of penance, and the same, purged by wholesome satisfaction, should admit to

<!-- page 416 -->

the communion of the Sacraments through the door of reconciliation ». Likewise Augustine[^21]: « Let him whom it repents, repent altogether and show his grief by tears; let him represent his life to God through the priest, let him forestall the judgment of God by confession. For the Lord bade those to be cleansed to show their mouths to the priests, teaching that sins are to be confessed by bodily presence, not to be manifested by writing. For He said: *Show your mouths,* and all, not one for all, do not appoint another messenger to offer for you the gift appointed by Moses; but you who have sinned by yourselves, be ashamed by yourselves. For the shame itself has a part of remission. For out of mercy the Lord commanded this, that no one should repent in secret. For in this, that through himself he tells the priest and conquers shame by the fear of the offended one, the pardon of the crime comes about. For that becomes venial through confession which was criminal in the deed: even if it be not at once purged, that becomes venial which he had committed mortal. For he offered much satisfaction who, mastering shame, denied to the messenger of God none of the things which he committed. For God, who is merciful and just, as He keeps mercy in justice, so also justice in mercy. For it is a work of mercy to forgive the sinner his sins; but it behooves that the just one have mercy on the just. For He considers whether he is worthy, I do not say of *justice,* but of *mercy;* for justice alone condemns, but he is worthy of mercy who by spiritual labor seeks grace. For the mind labors by suffering shame; and since shame is a great penalty, he who is ashamed for Christ becomes worthy of mercy. Whence it is plain that, the more witnesses he confesses the baseness of his crime to in hope of pardon, the more easily he obtains the grace of remission. For the priests themselves can do the more profit, the more they spare to those confessing ». Likewise Pope Leo[^22]: « Although the fulness of faith seems praiseworthy, which for the fear of God fears not to be ashamed before men; yet — because the sins of all are not of such a kind that those who ask penance fear not to publish them — let the unwarrantable custom be removed, lest many be kept away from the remedies of penance, while they either are ashamed, or fear to disclose their deeds to enemies by whom they can be smitten by the sanction of the laws. For that confession suffices which is first offered to God and then also to the priest, who comes as an intercessor for the offenses of the penitent. For then more will be able to be drawn to penance, if the conscience of the one confessing be not published to the ears of the people ». — From these and many other things it is shown beyond doubt that confession must be offered first to God and then to the priest, and that it cannot otherwise be attained to the entrance of paradise, if there be opportunity.

### Part III.

### Chap. IV. *Whether it suffices to confess to a layman.*

Now, before we answer the authorities adduced which seem to contradict these things, let us consider the third question. For what the second question contained, namely whether to confess to God alone without the confession and judgment of a priest sufficed, has been dispatched and certified by the foregoing testimonies, that it does not suffice to confess to God without a priest; nor is he truly humble and penitent if he does not desire and seek the judgment of a priest. But does it equally avail to confess to a fellow or one's neighbor, at least when a priest is lacking? — Truly to this it can be said that the priest's examination is to be sought zealously, because God granted to priests the power of binding and loosing. And therefore those whom they forgive, God too forgives. If however a priest be lacking, confession is to be made to a neighbor or fellow. But let each one take care to seek a priest who knows how to bind and to loose. For such must he be who judges the crimes of others. Whence Augustine[^23]: « Let him who wishes to confess his sins, that he may find grace, seek a priest who knows how to bind and to loose, lest, when he has been negligent about himself, he be neglected by him who mercifully admonishes and asks him, lest *both fall into the pit* which the fool would not avoid. So great therefore is the force of confession that, if a priest is lacking, let him confess to a neighbor. For it often happens that the penitent cannot be abashed before a priest, whom, though he desire, neither time nor place affords him. Even if he to whom he will confess have not the power of loosing, yet he becomes worthy of pardon out of the desire of a priest who confesses his crime to a fellow. For the lepers were cleansed while they went to show themselves to the priests, before they reached them. Whence it is plain that God looks to the heart, while of necessity they are hindered from reaching the priests. Indeed often the healthy and joyful seek them, but while they seek, before they arrive, they die. But the mercy of God is everywhere, who knows how to spare even the just, though not so quickly as if they were loosed by a priest. He therefore who confesses at all, let him confess to the best priest he can ». « And if the sin is hidden, let it suffice to bring it to the knowledge of a priest. For in the raising of the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue[^24] few were present who saw; for she was not yet buried, not yet carried out of the gate, not yet brought out of the house into [public] knowledge. Within He raised her whom He found within, only Peter and James and John and the father and mother of the girl being left, in whom are figuratively contained the priests of the Church. But those whom He found without, it is to be noted how He raised them. The crowd was weeping

<!-- page 417 -->

after the son of the widow, Martha and Mary wept as they supplicated for their brother, the crowd too that followed Mary wept. In which we are taught that for those sinning publicly not one's own merit but the Church's suffices ». « Let the penitent therefore labor to be in the Church and to tend to the unity of the Church. For unless the unity of the Church succor, unless by its prayer it supply what is lacking to the sinner; the soul of the dead will not be snatched from the hands of the enemy. For it is to be believed that all the prayers and alms of the Church and the works of justice and mercy succor him who recognizes his death unto conversion. And so no one can worthily repent whom the unity of the Church does not sustain; and so let him not seek priests divided from the unity of the Church by any fault ». — From these things the article of the foregoing question is sufficiently opened and resolved. For a priest is to be sought who is wise and discreet, who together with power has judgment, and if perchance such a one be lacking, one ought to confess to a fellow. — Bede[^25], however, distinguishes between the confession of venial and mortal sins upon that place: *Confess your sins one to another.* For he says: « Let us disclose to our equals the daily and light sins, but the graver ones to a priest, and let us take care to purge them at whatever time he shall bid, because without confession of amendment sins cannot be forgiven ». But the graver ones too are to be disclosed to equals, when a priest is lacking and danger presses. But venial sins, even when the opportunity of a priest is offered, may be confessed to an equal, and it suffices, as it pleases some, provided however that out of contempt the priest be not passed over. Yet it is safer and more perfect to disclose sins of both kinds to priests and to seek the counsel of medicine from those to whom the power of binding and loosing has been granted.

### Chap. V. *To what confession avails.*

Since therefore from these and many other testimonies it becomes clear and is established beyond doubt that sins are to be confessed first to God, then to a priest, and if he be lacking, even to a fellow; that saying of John Chrysostom set above[^26] is not to be so understood as that it be lawful for anyone, if he have time, not to confess to a priest; but because it suffices, where the crime is hidden, to tell it to God alone through a priest and once, nor is it needful that what is hidden be published before many; which he noted, saying: « I do not bid thee betray thyself in public ». For just as a public harm needs a public remedy, so a hidden one is purged by secret confession and secret satisfaction. Nor is it necessary that what we have once confessed to a priest we confess again; but with the tongue of the heart, not of the flesh, before the true judge we ought to confess it continually. Whence the same John[^27] says: « But now, if thou remember thy sins and frequently declare them in the sight of God and pray for them, the sooner wilt thou blot them out. But if thou forget them, then wilt thou remember them unwillingly, when they shall be published and brought forth in the sight of all friends and enemies and the holy Angels ». — So also that saying of Ambrose: « Tears wash away the offense which shame forbids to confess with the voice », is to be referred to public penance. For there, showing the power of tears and of confession, he wished to signify that secret tears and secret confession, such as is made to a priest alone, wash away the offense which it shames one to confess publicly. But that he says he read the tears of Peter, not his confession or satisfaction; by this he does not exclude these. For many things were done which are not written, or perhaps the institution of confession[^28], which now exists, had not yet been made. — Likewise that saying of Prosper: « If they become their own judges, they will exchange eternal torments »; and that: « More easily will they appease God toward themselves who either by their own confessions disclose their crime, or, others not knowing, pass upon themselves the sentence of excommunication »; ought to be referred to public confession and satisfaction. For not to priests alone is the right of binding and loosing given, that each one may at his own discretion bind himself by penalty or the sentence of excommunication, and without priestly judgment reconcile himself to God or to the altar; which is utterly repugnant to ecclesiastical institution and custom. Rather therefore, if thou hast sinned publicly, publicly confess thyself guilty and amend; but if thou hast offended secretly, even so be not silent; nor yet do I say that thou shouldst publish it. « For the silence of sin is born of the pride of the heart. For therefore does one conceal his sin, lest he be reputed outwardly such as he has already shown himself to the divine gaze; which is born from the fount of pride. For it is a species of pride to wish to seem just, who is a sinner, and he is convicted a hypocrite who, after the manner of the first parents, strives to lighten his sins by an evasion of words, or, like Cain, seeks to suppress his sin by keeping silence. But where pride or hypocrisy reigns, humility has no place; and without humility it is not allowed to anyone to hope for pardon. Where therefore there is silence of confession, no pardon of the crime is to be hoped for »[^29]. — Now it is most certainly clear how detestable is the silence of sin, and on the contrary, how necessary is confession. For confession is the testimony of a conscience fearing God. For he who fears the judgment of God is not ashamed to confess his sin. Perfect fear loosens all shame; the confession of sin has shame, and the shame itself is a grievous penalty. And so we are bidden to confess our sins, that we may suffer shame for a penalty; for this very thing is a part of the divine judgment. — If therefore it is asked to what confession is necessary, since in contrition the sin is already blotted out; we say that it is a kind of punishment of sin, like the satisfaction of work. Through confession too the priest understands how he ought to judge concerning the crime; through it also the sinner becomes more humble and more cautious.

---

la: Psalm. 31, 5. — De his duabus opinionibus cfr. Hugo, de Sacram. II, c. 8, et Sum. Sent. tr. 6. c. 11; insuper Gratian., Introductio de Poenit. d. 1.

en: Ps. 31:5. — On these two opinions cf. Hugh, *de Sacramentis* II, c. 8, and the *Summa Sententiarum* tr. 6, c. 11; further Gratian, *Introductio de Poenitentia* d. 1.

la: In eund. Ps. v. 7; sed ipse hoc sumsit ex August. in seq. nota cit.; in quo textu pro *quod ad* Vat. *qui ad,* codd. *DE* et ed. 1 *quae ad.* — Supra pro *pene adversa* plurimae edd. male *pene diversa.*

en: On the same Psalm, v. 7; but he himself took this from Augustine cited in the following note; in which text, for *quod ad,* the Vatican edition has *qui ad,* codd. *DE* and ed. 1 *quae ad.* — Above, for *pene adversa* most editions wrongly have *pene diversa.*

la: In Ps. 31. enarrat. 2. n. 18, et apud Lyran. loc. cit., et C. *Magna pietas* (5.), de Poenit. d. 1. — Duo loci Scripturae sunt Ps. 50, 19; Ezech. 18, 17.

en: On Ps. 31, second exposition, n. 18, and in Lyra at the place cited, and the canon *Magna pietas* (5), de Poenitentia, d. 1. — The two scriptural places are Ps. 50:19; Ezek. 18:17.

la: Gratian., super C. *Convertimini ad me* (34.), ibid., ubi respiciuntur Luc. 17, 14; Ioan. 11, 44; Eccli. 17, 26. — De vita animae cfr. August. in Ps. 70. enarrat. 2. n. 3.

en: Gratian, on the canon *Convertimini ad me* (34), ibid., where Luke 17:14; John 11:44; Sir. 17:26 are regarded. — On the life of the soul cf. Augustine on Ps. 70, second exposition, n. 3.

la: Cap. 43, 26. — Locus Ambrosii est de Paradiso, c. 14. n. 71; C. *Non potest* (38.), ibid. Seq. locus est eiusdem, Serm. 25. de s. Quadragesima, n. 1; C. *Ecce nunc tempus* (39.), ibid.

en: [Isaiah] c. 43:26. — The passage of Ambrose is *de Paradiso* c. 14, n. 71; the canon *Non potest* (38), ibid. The following passage is the same author's, Sermon 25 *de sancta Quadragesima,* n. 1; the canon *Ecce nunc tempus* (39), ibid.

la: In paucis edd. additur *Chrysostomus,* at locus iste non invenitur in ed. Maurina Chrysostomi, est tamen in C. *Non potest quis* (41.), ibid., ubi editores censent, fortasse substituendum esse *Chromatium* pro *Chrysostomo.*

en: In a few editions *Chrysostom* is added, but this passage is not found in the Maurist edition of Chrysostom; it is, however, in the canon *Non potest quis* (41), ibid., where the editors judge that perhaps *Chromatius* should be substituted for *Chrysostom.*

la: Serm. 392. (alias homil. 49. inter Homil. 30) c. 3. n. 3; C. *Agite poenitentiam* (44.), ibid. Loci Scripturae sunt Matth. 18, 18; Ioan. 20, 23; Iob 31, 33.

en: Sermon 392 (otherwise hom. 49 among the 30 Homilies), c. 3, n. 3; the canon *Agite poenitentiam* (44), ibid. The scriptural places are Matt. 18:18; John 20:23; Job 31:33.

la: Libr. de Paradiso, c. 14. n. 71; C. *Serpens* (47.), ibid.

en: The book *de Paradiso,* c. 14, n. 71; the canon *Serpens* (47), ibid.

la: Enarrat. in Ps. 68, 16. serm. 1. n. 19; Gratian., super C. *Voluissent iniqui* (60.), ibid. § 3, et apud Lyran. in eund. locum. — Loci Scripturae sunt Ps. 129, 1; Prov. 18, 3; Eccli. 17, 26.

en: Exposition on Ps. 68, 16, sermon 1, n. 19; Gratian, on the canon *Voluissent iniqui* (60), ibid. § 3, and in Lyra on the same place. — The scriptural places are Ps. 129:1; Prov. 18:3; Sir. 17:26.

la: De Continentia, c. 6. n. 13; C. *Nullus debitae* (42.), ibid.; ubi in fine pro *iustitia disciplinae* codd. B C et edd. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 *iustitiae disciplina,* refragantibus originali et canone.

en: *De Continentia,* c. 6, n. 13; the canon *Nullus debitae* (42), ibid.; where at the end, for *iustitia disciplinae,* codd. B C and edd. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 have *iustitiae disciplina,* against the original and the canon.

la: Comment. in Ioel. 1, 13; C. *Qui sanctus* (66.), ibid. — Pro *propter peccata* codd. B C D E et ed. 1 *propter peccatum,* refragante canone. — De ultima propositione et seqq. cfr. Gratian., super C. *Quis aliquando* (87.), ibid. § 14.

en: Commentary on Joel 1:13; the canon *Qui sanctus* (66), ibid. — For *propter peccata* codd. B C D E and ed. 1 have *propter peccatum,* against the canon. — On the last proposition and the following cf. Gratian, on the canon *Quis aliquando* (87), ibid. § 14.

la: Ita codd. et plurimae edd., in aliis *contagione.*

en: So the codices and most editions; in others *contagione.*

la: Enarrat. in Ps. 30. n. 16, ubi pro *punitio* edd., excepta 1, *compunctio,* refragantibus codd. et originali.

en: Exposition on Ps. 30, n. 16, where for *punitio* the editions, except 1, have *compunctio,* against the codices and the original.

la: Psalm. 31, 5. — Locus Ambrosii est X. Exposit. Evang. sec. Lucam, n. 88; C. *Petrus doluit* (1.), ibid. d. 1.

en: Ps. 31:5. — The passage of Ambrose is from the tenth [book of the] *Exposition of the Gospel according to Luke,* n. 88; the canon *Petrus doluit* (1), ibid., d. 1.

la: Homil. 33; locus Chrysost. est Homil. 31. in Epist. ad Hebr. n. 3; cfr. Gratian., super C. *Quis aliquando* (87.), ibid. § 1, in quo textu respicitur Ps. 36, 5. — Codd. et plurimae edd. omittunt *Deo* et coniungunt *ante Deum* cum verbis *viam tuam.*

en: Homily 33; the passage of Chrysostom is Homily 31 on the Epistle to the Hebrews, n. 3; cf. Gratian, on the canon *Quis aliquando* (87), ibid. § 1, in which text Ps. 36:5 is regarded. — The codices and most editions omit *Deo* and join *ante Deum* with the words *viam tuam.*

la: Homil. 2. in Ps. 50. n. 3. (inter spuria).

en: Homily 2 on Ps. 50, n. 3 (among the spurious).

la: Libr. II. de Vita contemplat. c. 7. n. 2; C. *Porro illi* (1), ibid. d. 6. Respiciuntur Matth. 10, 14, deinde Luc. 17, 14. — Seq. locus ibid. c. 11. n. 26; cfr. Gratian., super C. *Quis aliquando* (87.), ibid. d. 1. § 12.

en: Book II *de Vita contemplativa,* c. 7, n. 2; the canon *Porro illi* (1), ibid., d. 6. Matt. 10:14, then Luke 17:14, are regarded. — The following passage is ibid., c. 11, n. 26; cf. Gratian, on the canon *Quis aliquando* (87), ibid., d. 1, § 12.

la: Cap. 5, 16. Locus August. est sermo 351. (alias homil. ult. inter 50 Homil.) c. 4. n. 9; C. *Iudicet* (88.), ibid. Seq. locus est eiusdem Epist. 54. (alias 118. ad Ianuar.) c. 3. n. 4; C. *In actione* (84.), ibid.

en: [James] c. 5:16. The passage of Augustine is Sermon 351 (otherwise the last homily among the 50 Homilies), c. 4, n. 9; the canon *Iudicet* (88), ibid. The following passage is the same author's Letter 54 (otherwise 118, to Januarius), c. 3, n. 4; the canon *In actione* (84), ibid.

la: Loci cit. nota praecedente; sc. August., Serm. 351. c. 4. n. 9, et Epist. 54.

en: The passages cited in the preceding note; namely Augustine, Sermon 351, c. 4, n. 9, and Letter 54. [Editorial bridge marker: the two Augustine quotations here continue the citation begun at note 18; the printed footer carries them under the same per-column note.]

la: Epist. 108. (alias 83. ad Theodor. Foroiul. episc.) c. 2; C. *Multiplex* (49.), ibid.

en: Letter 108 (otherwise 83, to Theodore bishop of Forum Iulii), c. 2; the canon *Multiplex* (49), ibid.

la: De Vera et falsa Poenitentia, c. 10. n. 25; C. *Quem poenitet* (88.), ibid. De leprosis mundatis cfr. Luc. 17, 14, et Levit. 14, 4.

en: *De Vera et falsa Poenitentia,* c. 10, n. 25; the canon *Quem poenitet* (88), ibid. On the cleansed lepers cf. Luke 17:14, and Lev. 14:4.

la: Epist. 168. (alias 136. ad univers. episc. per Campaniam) c. 2; C. *Quamvis plenitudo fidei* (89.), ibid.

en: Letter 168 (otherwise 136, to the bishops throughout Campania), c. 2; the canon *Quamvis plenitudo fidei* (89), ibid.

la: De Vera et falsa Poenitentia, c. 10. n. 25; C. *Qui vult* (1), ibid. d. 6. Respiciuntur Matth. 15, 14, deinde Luc. 17, 14. — Seq. locus est in eod. libro, c. 12. n. 27; C. *Qui vult,* modo cit.

en: *De Vera et falsa Poenitentia,* c. 10, n. 25; the canon *Qui vult* (1), ibid., d. 6. Matt. 15:14, then Luke 17:14, are regarded. — The following passage is in the same book, c. 12, n. 27; the canon *Qui vult,* just cited.

la: Respiciuntur Matth. 9, 24; Marc. 5, 37; Luc. 7, 11; Ioan. 11, 33. — Seq. locus est in eod. libro, c. 12. n. 27; C. *Qui vult,* modo cit.

en: Matt. 9:24; Mark 5:37; Luke 7:11; John 11:33 are regarded. — The following passage is in the same book, c. 12, n. 27; the canon *Qui vult,* just cited.

la: In Iac. 5, 16, et in Glossa interlin. ad eund. locum.

en: On James 5:16, and in the interlinear Gloss on the same place.

la: Cap. 2, ubi etiam seqq. loci.

en: Chap. 2 [of the cited homily], where also the following passages [are found].

la: Homil. 31. in Epist. ad Hebr. n. 4; C. *Quis aliquando,* supra cit. § 1.

en: Homily 31 on the Epistle to the Hebrews, n. 4; the canon *Quis aliquando,* cited above, § 1.

la: Ita Hugo a S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 6. c. 10.

en: So Hugh of St. Victor, *Summa Sententiarum* tr. 6, c. 10.

la: Gratian., super C. *Quis aliquando,* supra cit. § 15, ubi respicitur Gen. 3, 10; 4, 9. — De opinione Magistri obsoleta, hic in fine et c. 1. in fine tacta, cfr. Bonav. infra d. 18. p. I. a. 2. q. 1.

en: Gratian, on the canon *Quis aliquando,* cited above, § 15, where Gen. 3:10; 4:9 is regarded. — On the obsolete opinion of the Master, touched here at the end and at the end of c. 1, cf. Bonaventure below at d. 18, p. I, a. 2, q. 1. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** This chunk is the complete Lombard *littera* of Distinction XVII, *De confessione* — the Master's own three-pars division: **Pars I** = Cap. I (whether sins are forgiven without confession, by contrition alone); **Pars II** = Caps. II–III (whether confession to God alone suffices, vs. confession to a priest); **Pars III** = Caps. IV–V (whether confession to a layman suffices, and to what confession avails). The littera runs from the *Cap. I* header on p.413 (left column lower, body continuing into the right column) through the end of Cap. V on p.417 (right column), stopping just before the *COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVII.* which begins on p.418. The "Pars II" (raw ~46897) and "Pars III" (raw ~47077) are the **Master's own** divisions inside the littera, not the commentary's — the rendering keeps going past them through the end of the Master's text. Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 46740–47184) under the **Vol II OVERRIDE** PDF-priority inversion for the cascade-fragmented two-column body and footers. PDF column bands read for pp. 413–417 (vol4 column split x=1880, offset `pdf = printed + 20`); running heads verified: *DISTINCTIO XVII.* on recto pages (413, 415, 417) and *SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.* on verso pages (414, 416).

**Page-split map (footer notes).** The *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* footnotes restart per printed page and are printed per column. Mapped continuously here `[^1]–[^29]`:
- **p.413** right-column footer: 3 littera notes (`[^1]–[^3]`). (The p.413 left-column *NOTAE AD LIBR.* block, ¹–⁵, belongs to d.16's commentary Dub. V and is **not** captured here.)
- **p.414**: left col ¹–⁵ → `[^4]–[^8]`; right col ⁶–¹⁰ → `[^9]–[^13]`.
- **p.415**: left col ¹–⁴ → `[^14]–[^17]`; right col ⁵–⁶ → `[^18]`, `[^20]`. Note `[^19]` is an **editorial bridge marker** placed at the second Augustine citation in Cap. III (*Cum tanta est plaga…*) that the printed page carries under the same per-column note 5 as note `[^18]`; it is split out here so every body anchor has a matching `[^N]:` def (see the apparatus header).
- **p.416**: left col ¹–³ → `[^21]–[^23]`; right col ⁴ → `[^24]`.
- **p.417**: left col ¹–³ → `[^25]–[^27]`; right col ⁴–⁵ → `[^28]–[^29]`.

The p.418 footers (*NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM*) belong to the COMMENTARIUS and are **forwarded** to the `bon-sent-IV-d17-p1-divisio` commentary chunk.

**Hand-offs.** Picked up: nothing — the littera opens cleanly at the *Cap. I* header on p.413 (the prior page-top finishes d.16's dubia/commentary, not captured here). Forwarded: the *COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVII. / De confessione, quatenus… / DIVISIO TEXTUS* begins on p.418 immediately after this chunk and belongs to the divisio chunk, along with its *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* footers.

**Marginalia trimmed.** The left/right-margin author-name glosses (*Cassiodorus, Augustinus, Ambrosius, Ioannes, Gratianus, Prosper, Leo, Hieronymus, Beda, Epilogus, Repetitio, Notandum,* and the *Dubium 1–7* / *Opinio 2. et vera.* tags) and the running heads are editorial marginalia, trimmed out per the project's marginal-gloss rule; the inline author attributions inside the Master's prose are preserved.

**[?] flags.** None. Body and all 29 footer notes resolved against the PDF column bands (pp. 413–417, x=1880, +20).


title: Dist. 17, Part 1, Divisio Textus

title_alt:
Divisio textus
Division of the text

source_text:
<!-- page 418 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVII.

#### Pars I.

*De confessione, quatenus est necessaria ad iustificationem.*

> Hic oritur quaestio multiplex. Primo enim quaeritur etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de partibus integrantibus poenitentiam quasi sub quodam compendio. Hic, quia poenitentia, ut est Sacramentum Ecclesiae, praecipue attenditur quantum ad confessionem, principaliter determinat de confessione. Et dividitur haec pars in duas. In prima agit de confessione sacramentali, ut habet rationem remedii. In secunda, in quantum habet rationem signi, infra capitulo ultimo huius totalis partis distinctione vigesima secunda: *Post praedicta restat investigare, quid in actione poenitentiae* etc.

Prima pars habet quatuor partes. In prima agit de confessione quantum ad necessitatem a parte[^1] confitentis. In secunda quantum ad potestatem absolventis, infra distinctione decima octava: *Hic quaeri solet, si peccatum omnino dimissum est a Deo* etc. In tertia quantum ad opportunitatem temporis, infra distinctione vigesima: *Sciendum est, quod tempus poenitentiae est usque in extremum.* In quarta quantum ad utilitatem a parte finis, infra distinctione vigesima prima ultra medium: *Post haec considerandum est, utrum prosit confessio* etc.

Prima pars spectat ad praesentem distinctionem, quae habet tres partes secundum tres quaestiones, quas determinat Magister circa confessionis necessitatem. Primo enim quaerit, utrum confessio sit peccatori necessaria ad iustificationem. Secundo, dato quod quodam modo sit necessaria, utrum sufficiat confiteri corde, an necesse sit confiteri ore ipsius[^2] Dei ministro; et hanc prosequitur ibi: *Iam secundum quaestionis articulum inspiciamus.* Tertio vero determinat, cui homini necesse sit confiteri, utrum sufficiat confiteri laico, an necesse sit confiteri sacerdoti, et hoc ibi: *Nunc priusquam praemissis auctoritatibus* etc.

Prima pars habet tres partes. In prima proponit quaestiones. In secunda ad utramque partem primae quaestionis opponit, utrum scilicet confessio sit necessaria ad iustificationem, ibi: *Dicunt quidam, sine confessione oris.* In tertia determinat, ibi: *Quid igitur super his sentiendum? quid tenendum* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam primae quaestionis, quam ponit hic[^3] Magister, quaeritur in parte ista de iustificatione impii. Et circa hoc duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de his quae sunt necessaria ad iustificationem impii absolute.

Secundo quaeritur de ipsis in comparatione ad invicem.

Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor.

Primo quaeritur, utrum ad iustificationem impii sit necessaria gratiae infusio.

Secundo, utrum necessarius sit motus liberi arbitrii.

Tertio, utrum necessaria sit contritio.

Quarto, utrum necessaria sit confessio.

### ARTICULUS I.

#### *De his quae necessaria sunt ad iustificationem impii absolute.*

### QUAESTIO I.

#### *Utrum ad iustificationem impii necessaria sit gratiae infusio.*

---

english:
<!-- page 418 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVII.

#### Part I.

*On confession, insofar as it is necessary for justification.*

> Here a manifold question arises. For first it is asked, etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the parts integrating penance as if under a certain summary. Here, because penance, as it is a Sacrament of the Church, is chiefly considered with respect to confession, he principally determines concerning confession. And this part is divided into two. In the first he treats of sacramental confession, as it has the character of a remedy. In the second, insofar as it has the character of a sign, below in the last chapter of this whole part, in the twenty-second distinction: *After the foregoing it remains to investigate, what in the action of penance,* etc.

The first part has four parts. In the first he treats of confession with respect to its necessity on the part[^1] of the one confessing. In the second with respect to the power of the one absolving, below in the eighteenth distinction: *Here it is wont to be asked, whether sin is altogether remitted by God,* etc. In the third with respect to the opportuneness of time, below in the twentieth distinction: *It must be known, that the time of penance is even unto the end.* In the fourth with respect to its usefulness on the part of the end, below in the twenty-first distinction beyond the middle: *After these things it must be considered, whether confession profits,* etc.

The first part pertains to the present distinction, which has three parts according to three questions, which the Master determines concerning the necessity of confession. For first he asks, whether confession is necessary for the sinner unto justification. Second, granted that it is in some manner necessary, whether it suffices to confess in the heart, or whether it is necessary to confess by mouth to the very[^2] minister of God; and this he pursues there: *Now let us consider the second article of the question.* Third he determines, to which man it is necessary to confess, whether it suffices to confess to a layman, or whether it is necessary to confess to a priest, and this there: *Now before [setting forth] the aforesaid authorities,* etc.

The first part has three parts. In the first he proposes the questions. In the second he argues against both sides of the first question, namely whether confession is necessary unto justification, there: *Certain ones say, without confession of the mouth.* In the third he determines, there: *What therefore is to be thought concerning these things? what is to be held,* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of the first question, which the Master here[^3] poses, inquiry is made in this part concerning the justification of the impious. And concerning this two things are principally asked.

First it is asked concerning the things which are necessary for the justification of the impious absolutely.

Second it is asked concerning these same things in comparison with one another.

Concerning the first, four things are asked.

First it is asked, whether for the justification of the impious the infusion of grace is necessary.

Second, whether a movement of free will is necessary.

Third, whether contrition is necessary.

Fourth, whether confession is necessary.

### ARTICLE I.

#### *On the things which are necessary for the justification of the impious absolutely.*

### QUESTION I.

#### *Whether for the justification of the impious the infusion of grace is necessary.*

---

la: Plurimi codd. omittunt *a parte.*

en: Very many codices omit *a parte.*

la: Codd. FG *ipsi.*

en: Codices FG [read] *ipsi.*

la: Cap. I.

en: Chap. I.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 47185–47244 (the COMMENTARIUS title through the QUAESTIO I title) with the PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p418-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative in the two-column cascade-fragmented regions (the OCR splices left- and right-column lines together throughout the DIVISIO TEXTUS and TRACTATIO). Offset pdf = printed + 20. The chunk lies wholly on printed page **418**; running head confirmed **418 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.** (recto top). The QUAESTIO I body (*Circa primum, quod necessaria sit gratiae infusio, videtur. 1. Ad Romanos tertio: Iustificati per gratiam ipsius etc.* / Fundamenta, p.418 left col, raw L47254+) is excluded; it opens the next chunk `d17-p1-a1-q1`.
- **Structure confirmed — Pars I has TWO articles, each with FOUR questions** (matches the brief's expected map). The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM first splits the whole pars into two articles: **Art I** *De his quae necessaria sunt ad iustificationem impii absolute* ("Primo quaeritur de his quae sunt necessaria ad iustificationem impii absolute"); **Art II** *De ordine eorum quae concurrunt ad iustificationem* (the "Secundo … de ipsis in comparatione ad invicem" branch — the comparison/order of those concurring factors, treated below). Art I's four questions are listed verbatim under "Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor": q1 *utrum … necessaria sit gratiae infusio*; q2 *utrum necessarius sit motus liberi arbitrii*; q3 *utrum necessaria sit contritio*; q4 *utrum necessaria sit confessio*. Per the divisio-chunk convention the ARTICULUS I opener (heading + sub-title) folds in here, along with the QUAESTIO I heading + title; the q1 body is left to `d17-p1-a1-q1`. (Art II's four-question listing prints at the head of Art II, not in this opening TRACTATIO.)
- **Page-split map:** the chunk does NOT straddle a page break — the COMMENTARIUS title, *Pars I* subtitle/argumentum, full DIVISIO TEXTUS (left- and right-column), TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (with the quatuor partition), the ARTICULUS I opener, and the QUAESTIO I title all print on **p.418** (left column ends mid-DIVISIO; right column carries the *Prima pars spectat…* continuation through the TRACTATIO). No `<!-- page 419 -->` break is needed in this chunk.
- **Footer ownership (corrected 2026-07-13):** printed page **418** carries **four** footers. Notes **1–3** anchor in this divisio's own body and are claimed here: 1 at *a parte* (DIVISIO TEXTUS, four-part division), 2 at *ipsius* (DIVISIO TEXTUS, *ore ipsius Dei ministro*), and **3 at *hic*** in the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM ("quam ponit hic Magister," note 3 anchored right after *hic*) — confirmed by both the 450dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p418-L-1.png`, superscript directly after *hic*) and raw IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` line 47228: `hic' Magister`, the `'` being the garbled marker glyph). This corrects the prior (2026-06-23) session's claim that note 3 does not anchor in this body — it does, and has now been anchored. Note **4** (*Vers. 24: Iustificati gratis per etc.*, Rom. 3:24) anchors at *Ad Romanos tertio* in the first argument of QUAESTIO I's own body (raw line 47247: `1. Ad Romanos tertio *`), which sits outside this divisio's raw range (47185–47244) — it is **not** this chunk's content and has been **removed** from here. `d17-p1-a1-q1` already carries this note (bundled into its own note 1, which folds together *Cap. I* / *Vers. 24* / the *a parte* and *ipsi* variants into one merged entry attached to "Ad Romanos tertio") — no action needed there, but flagged for a future pass since that merge conflates four distinct printed footnotes into one.
- **No `[?]` flags** — the divisio body, the two-article/four-question partition, and the three owned, now-anchored footers read cleanly once reflowed from the column bands (OCR raw is column-spliced but the PDF bands disambiguate every line). The Pars-I subtitle reads *De confessione, quatenus est necessaria ad iustificationem* and the argumentum *Hic oritur quaestio multiplex. Primo enim quaeritur etc.*; both confirmed against the bands.
- No scholion in this divisio chunk.
- **Hand-off to `d17-p1-a1-q1`:** that chunk opens at raw L47245+ / p.418 left col (*Circa primum, quod necessaria sit gratiae infusio, videtur. 1. Ad Romanos tertio…*), QUAESTIO I title already set here; it owns the p.418/419 *Fundamenta* footers (Romans/ratione source notes), including the note-4 *Vers. 24* content — already present there, bundled into its note 1. Not edited here per task scope; documented for awareness only.