title: Dist. 14, Part 1, Dubia

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

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

source_text:
<!-- page 328 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Hieronymus: *Secunda tabula post naufragium est poenitentia.* Cum enim secundum dicatur respectu primi, et prima tabula sit baptismus, et secunda poenitentia; tunc videtur, quod secundum Sacramentum sit poenitentia: ergo male ordinat Magister quarto loco. — Item, quaero a te: pro quanto dicitur poenitentia *tabula?* et quid est *naufragium? Si tu dicas,* quod est casus in mortale; tunc videtur, quod sit prima tabula, quia, si quis cecidit per mortale, necesse est recurrere ad poenitentiam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod mare est mundus iste, secundum illud Psalmi[^1]: *Hoc mare magnum* etc. *Navis,* per quam homo transit super undas huius maris, est gratia Spiritus sancti; vel navis est Ecclesia, quae iuncta est glutino caritatis, secundum illud Proverbiorum ultimo: *Facta est quasi navis institoris. Naufragium* vero fuit corruptio et fractio in Adam, in qua fractione omnes filii eius iactati sunt super undas huius maris per concupiscentiam et per poenam. — Ab hoc naufragio primo liberatur homo per baptismum, qui restituit innocentiam et gratiam perditam[^2]; et ideo est *prima tabula.* Et quia frequenter relinquunt plures gratiam baptismalem et illam tabulam, per quam liberantur in undis maris; et per illam amplius non possunt se defendere: ideo indigent *secunda,* et haec est poenitentia. Utraque tamen dicitur tabula, quia sustinet, ne quis periclitetur per culpam; non tamen ita ponit in tuto, sicut erat homo in statu innocentiae.

Quod ergo obiicit, quod est[^3] *secunda tabula:* ergo secundum Sacramentum, non valet; quia non omne Sacramentum est tabula, quia non omne liberat a naufragio. Et est simile: hic est secundus archidiaconus: ergo est secunda persona in hac ecclesia.

<!-- page 329 -->

Quod quaeritur: quid vocatur naufragium? dicunt aliqui, quod quilibet casus in mortale; et quia duplex est differentia mortalis, scilicet originale et actuale; ideo duplex tabula, scilicet baptismus et poenitentia[^4]. — Melius tamen potest dici, quod humana natura perpessa sit naufragium in Adam; nobis autem data est tabula baptismi, quae nos sustentat per innocentiam; et quia hoc Sacramentum iterari non potest[^5], ideo datur aliud Sacramentum, et hoc est poenitentia.

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Magister: *Poenitentia dicitur Sacramentum et virtus mentis.* Est enim poenitentia interior et exterior: ergo similiter est virtus et Sacramentum baptismus, quia est baptismus interior et exterior[^6]. — Item, poenitentia interior est res huius Sacramenti[^7]; sed nulla virtus est *res Sacramenti,* quia distinguitur gratia virtutum et gratia Sacramentorum: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ista non est tota ratio, quod poenitentia *interior* sit virtus, sed quia est poenitentia *interior,* quae non tantum dicit gratiam vel actum gratiae, sed concernit actum liberi arbitrii, et ideo est virtus; non sic baptismus; differt autem poenitentia interior, ut est virtus et res Sacramenti. Primo enim modo est contra dehabilitationem culpae, secundo contra vulnerationem naturae[^8].

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *A poenitentia coepit Ioannis praedicatio.* Videtur enim, quod debuit incipere a baptismo, quia poenitentia est secunda tabula, sed baptismus prima[^9].

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod incepit praedicationem a poenitentia-virtute, non Sacramento; et poenitentia-virtus in adultis praecedit baptismum; et quia praedicabat adultis, ideo recte incepit a poenitentia. Obiectio sua currit de poenitentiae Sacramento[^10].

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de ista definitione Ambrosii quae ponitur in littera: *Poenitentia est mala praeterita plangere et plangenda iterum non committere.* Videtur enim non esse conveniens: quia Philosophus[^11] dicit, quod «peccat qui definit id quod est in quiete, per id quod est in actu et motu»; sed poenitentia dicit habitum, *plangere* actum: ergo etc. — Item, obiicitur de alio membro, quod dicit: «*Plangenda iterum non committere*»; aut enim refertur ad *idem* tempus, aut ad *aliud.* Si ad *idem;* tunc superfluit, quia nemo, dum peccata plangit, in eodem tempore peccata committit simul et semel. Si ad *aliud:* ergo poenitentia excludit iterationem culpae, ergo et iterationem poenitentiae.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur: cum multae definitiones poenitentiae assignentur, et «unius rei una sit definitio»; quomodo differenter assignantur?

**Respondeo:** Ad primum dicendum, quod, sicut vult Philosophus[^12], «habitus cognoscuntur per actus»; et quoniam poenitentia est habitus; ideo per actum recte definitur, et per actum, qui est de *esse* et qui est principalis, et iste est *plangere commissa;* et per actum, qui est de *bene esse* sive de *perfecto esse,* et iste est *plangenda non committere;* vel per actum duplicem, principalem et annexum.

Quod ergo obiicitur, quod male definitur per actum; dicendum, quod actus non accipitur ut in motu, sed ut in quiete. Dicitur enim poenitentia esse *plangere,* non quia poenitentia semper sit in actu plangendi, sed quia habilis est ad plangendum; et sic accipitur ut in quiete.

Ad aliud dicendum, quod potest referri ad *idem tempus,* vel ad *aliud.* Si ad *idem tempus;* tunc non stat pro *actu* non committendi, sed pro *affectione,* ut scilicet, quando poenitemus, velimus iterum non committere, vel non velimus, sicut illi qui de uno peccato poenitent et de alio non poenitent; et ita non excludit *casum sequentem,* sed malam voluntatem praesentem. — Si autem referatur ad *futurum;* sic poenitentia definitur non quaelibet, sed *perfecta* et secundum statum perfectionis et utilitatis[^13].

<!-- page 330 -->

Ad illud quod quaeritur de definitionibus, dicendum, quod poenitentia potest tripliciter notificari, scilicet per *actum principalem,* per *actum principalem et annexum* et per *effectum.* — Secundum primum modum tres dantur definitiones differentes solum voce vel maiori expressione. Prima est in Glossa Matthaei tertio[^14]: «*Prima virtus est per poenitentiam*» etc.; unde talis traditur notificatio: «Poenitentia est prima virtus perimens hominem veterem». — Secunda est Ambrosii in sermone quodam[^15]: «Poenitentia est dolor et amaritudo animae pro peccatis, quae quisque commisit». — Tertia Augustini in libro de Poenitentia[^16]: «Poenitentia est quaedam dolentis vindicta semper puniens in se quod dolet commisisse». In omnibus his rationibus patet, quod est definitio per *actum principalem,* qui est dolere de commisso.

Quantum ad *secundum modum* dantur aliae, quae habentur in littera, differentes similiter secundum maiorem expressionem. Prima est Ambrosii in sermone[^17]: «Poenitentia est praeterita mala plangere et plangenda» etc. — Secunda est Gregorii[^18]: «Poenitentia est anteacta mala deflere» etc. — Tertia Magistri[^19]: «Poenitentia est virtus vel gratia, qua commissa mala cum emendationis proposito» etc. In omnibus istis rationibus non tantum ponitur actus principalis, qui est *plangere* et odire culpam perpetratam, sed etiam *annexus,* scilicet nolle aliam perpetrare.

Quantum ad *tertium modum* dantur aliae tres differentes similiter secundum maiorem expressionem. Prima a Damasceno[^20]: «Poenitentia est ab eo quod est praeter naturam, in id quod est secundum naturam conversio». — Secunda Glossa Matthaei quarto[^21]: *Poenitentiam agite:* «Poenitentia est correctio malae mentis». — Tertia Augustini in libro Quinque Responsionum[^22]: «Poenitentia est quaedam res optima et perfecta, omnes defectus revocans ad perfectum». — In omnibus illis rationibus tangitur secundum plus et minus *effectus* poenitentiae, qui est animam reparare. — Et sic patet quaesitum de differentia definitionum, quae dantur de poenitentia.

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

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that Jerome says: *The second plank after shipwreck is penance.* For since "second" is said with respect to "first," and the first plank is baptism, and the second penance; then it seems that the second Sacrament is penance: therefore the Master orders it badly in the fourth place. — Likewise, I ask of you: in what sense is penance called a *plank?* and what is *shipwreck? If you say* that it is a fall into mortal sin; then it seems that it is the first plank, because, if anyone has fallen through mortal sin, he must have recourse to penance.

**I respond:** It must be said that the sea is this world, according to that of the Psalm[^1]: *This great sea* etc. The *ship,* by which man crosses over the waves of this sea, is the grace of the Holy Spirit; or the ship is the Church, which is joined together by the glue of charity, according to that of the last [chapter] of Proverbs: *She has become like the merchant's ship.* The *shipwreck,* however, was the corruption and breaking in Adam, in which breaking all his sons were cast upon the waves of this sea through concupiscence and through punishment. — From this shipwreck man is first freed through baptism, which restores the innocence and grace that were lost[^2]; and therefore it is the *first plank.* And because many often abandon baptismal grace and that plank, by which they are freed amid the waves of the sea; and by it can no longer defend themselves: therefore they need a *second,* and this is penance. Yet both are called a plank, because each holds up, lest anyone be wrecked through fault; yet it does not set [him] in safety just as man was in the state of innocence.

As for what he objects, that it is[^3] the *second plank:* therefore the second Sacrament — it does not hold; because not every Sacrament is a plank, since not every one frees from shipwreck. And there is a parallel: this man is the second archdeacon: therefore he is the second person in this church.

<!-- page 329 -->

As for what is asked: what is called shipwreck? some say that it is any fall into mortal sin; and because the difference of mortal sin is twofold, namely original and actual; therefore the plank is twofold, namely baptism and penance[^4]. — Yet it can better be said that human nature suffered shipwreck in Adam; but there has been given to us the plank of baptism, which sustains us through innocence; and because this Sacrament cannot be repeated[^5], therefore another Sacrament is given, and this is penance.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that the Master says: *Penance is called a Sacrament and a virtue of the mind.* For penance is interior and exterior: therefore likewise baptism is a virtue and a Sacrament, since there is an interior and exterior baptism[^6]. — Likewise, interior penance is the *res* of this Sacrament[^7]; but no virtue is the *res of a Sacrament,* because the grace of the virtues and the grace of the Sacraments are distinguished: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that this is not the whole account, that *interior* penance is a virtue, but rather because it is *interior* penance, which not only states grace or the act of grace, but concerns the act of free choice, and therefore is a virtue; not so baptism; but interior penance differs, as it is a virtue and the *res* of a Sacrament. For in the first way it is against the disabling caused by fault, in the second against the wounding of nature[^8].

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *From penance John's preaching began.* For it seems that it ought to have begun from baptism, because penance is the second plank, but baptism the first[^9].

**I respond:** It must be said that he began his preaching from penance-as-virtue, not the Sacrament; and penance-as-virtue in adults precedes baptism; and because he was preaching to adults, therefore he rightly began from penance. His objection runs of the Sacrament of penance[^10].

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this definition of Ambrose which is set in the text: *Penance is to lament past evils and not to commit again those to be lamented.* For it seems not to be fitting: because the Philosopher[^11] says that «he sins who defines that which is at rest by that which is in act and motion»; but penance states a habit, *to lament* an act: therefore etc. — Likewise, an objection is raised about the other member, which says: «*not to commit again those to be lamented*»; for either it refers to the *same* time, or to *another.* If to the *same;* then it is superfluous, because no one, while he laments his sins, at the same time commits sins together and at once. If to *another:* therefore penance excludes the repetition of fault, therefore also the repetition of penance.

In connection with this it is asked: since many definitions of penance are assigned, and «of one thing there is one definition»; how are they assigned differently?

**I respond:** To the first it must be said that, as the Philosopher holds[^12], «habits are known through their acts»; and since penance is a habit; therefore it is rightly defined through an act, both through the act which is of its *being* and which is principal, and this is *to lament things committed;* and through the act which is of its *well-being* or of its *perfect being,* and this is *not to commit things to be lamented;* or through a twofold act, principal and annexed.

As for what is then objected, that it is badly defined through an act; it must be said that the act is not taken as in motion, but as at rest. For penance is said to be *to lament,* not because penance is always in the act of lamenting, but because it is apt for lamenting; and so it is taken as at rest.

To the other it must be said that it can be referred to the *same time,* or to *another.* If to the *same time;* then it does not stand for the *act* of not committing, but for the *affection,* namely that, when we do penance, we should will not to commit again, or should not will [it], like those who do penance for one sin and do not do penance for another; and so it does not exclude the *subsequent fall,* but the present evil will. — But if it be referred to the *future;* thus penance is defined not as just any penance, but as *perfect* and according to the state of perfection and usefulness[^13].

<!-- page 330 -->

To that which is asked about the definitions, it must be said that penance can be made known in three ways, namely through the *principal act,* through the *principal and annexed act,* and through the *effect.* — According to the first way three definitions are given, differing only in wording or in fuller expression. The first is in the Gloss on Matthew the third[^14]: «*The first virtue is through penance*» etc.; whence such a notification is handed down: «Penance is the first virtue, destroying the old man». — The second is Ambrose's in a certain sermon[^15]: «Penance is the grief and bitterness of the soul over the sins which each has committed». — The third Augustine's in the book *On Penance*[^16]: «Penance is a kind of vengeance of one grieving, always punishing in himself that which he grieves to have committed». In all these accounts it is clear that it is a definition through the *principal act,* which is to grieve over what has been committed.

As for the *second way* others are given, which are had in the text, differing likewise according to fuller expression. The first is Ambrose's in a sermon[^17]: «Penance is to lament past evils and [not to commit] things to be lamented» etc. — The second is Gregory's[^18]: «Penance is to bewail evils done beforehand» etc. — The third the Master's[^19]: «Penance is the virtue or grace by which evils committed [are bewailed] with the purpose of amendment» etc. In all these accounts there is set not only the principal act, which is *to lament* and to hate the fault perpetrated, but also the *annexed* act, namely to be unwilling to perpetrate another.

As for the *third way* three others are given, differing likewise according to fuller expression. The first from Damascene[^20]: «Penance is a conversion from that which is beside nature into that which is according to nature». — The second the Gloss on Matthew the fourth[^21]: *Do penance:* «Penance is the correction of an evil mind». — The third Augustine's in the book *Of Five Responses*[^22]: «Penance is a certain most excellent and perfect thing, recalling all defects to the perfect». — In all those accounts there is touched, according to more and less, the *effect* of penance, which is to repair the soul. — And thus what was sought concerning the difference of the definitions which are given of penance is clear.

la: Psalm. 103, 25. Cfr. August., in hunc loc., ubi (serm. 4. n. 5.) *navis* intelligitur Ecclesia. — Seq. textus est Prov. 31, 14.

en: Psalm 103:25. Cf. Augustine, on this passage, where (sermon 4, n. 5) the *ship* is understood as the Church. — The following text is Proverbs 31:14.

la: Vide supra d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Cod. F *pristinam.* Subinde pro *plures* cod. U *homines,* et pro *liberantur* codd. R S T X *liberabantur.*

en: See above, d. 4, p. I, a. 1, q. 1 and following. — Codex F reads *pristinam* ("former"). Thereupon, for *plures* ("many") codex U reads *homines* ("men"), and for *liberantur* ("are freed") codices R, S, T, X read *liberabantur* ("were freed").

la: Ex codd. F L supplevimus *est.* — Cfr. supra d. 2. dub. 1.

en: From codices F, L we supplied *est* ("is"). — Cf. above, d. 2, doubt 1.

la: Cfr. Alan. ab Insulis, I. Contra Haereticos, c. 48.

en: Cf. Alan of Lille, *Against the Heretics* I, c. 48.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 6. p. I. q. 6. — Cfr. infra d. 22. a. 3. q. 2. Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 14. m. 4. a. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 1. et 2; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 4. et circa lit.; Petr. a Tar., hic a. 7. quaestiunc. 2. ad 3; Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: As was shown above, d. 6, p. I, q. 6. — Cf. below, d. 22, a. 3, q. 2. The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 14, m. 4, a. 3; Blessed Albert, here a. 1 and 2; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, little-question 4, and on the text; Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 7, little-question 2, ad 3; Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Vide supra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 1.

en: See above, d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Ut ostenditur infra d. 22. a. 2. q. 2. — *Minor* insinuata est supra d. 1. p. I. q. 6.

en: As is shown below, d. 22, a. 2, q. 2. — The *minor* is hinted at above, d. 1, p. I, q. 6.

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. 1. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 12. m. 1. a. 1. et q. 14. m. 2. a. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 3. et d. 22. a. 6; S. Thom., hic circa lit. et d. 22. q. 2.

en: See above, a. 1, q. 1. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 12, m. 1, a. 1, and q. 14, m. 2, a. 1; Blessed Albert, here a. 3 and d. 22, a. 6; St. Thomas, here on the text and d. 22, q. 2.

la: Vide supra dub. 1.

en: See above, doubt 1.

la: Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 3; infra d. 16. p. II. a. 1. q. 2, d. 17. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. et a. 2. q. 3. nec non d. 22. a. 3. q. 1. seq., ubi etiam in scholiis annexis alii auctores, qui de eadem re agunt, allegantur.

en: Cf. above, a. 2, q. 3; below, d. 16, p. II, a. 1, q. 2, d. 17, p. I, a. 1, q. 3, and a. 2, q. 3, as well as d. 22, a. 3, q. 1 and following, where also in the annexed scholia other authors who treat of the same matter are cited.

la: Libr. VI. Topic. c. 3. (c. 4.). Verba vide tom. II. pag. 647, nota 1. — De minori cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1.

en: *Topics* VI, c. 3 (c. 4). For the words see tom. II, p. 647, note 1. — On the minor cf. above, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Secundum Aristot., VI. Topic. c. 6. (c. 14.) in fine. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 501, nota 2.

en: According to Aristotle, *Topics* VI, c. 6 (c. 14) at the end. Cf. tom. III, p. 501, note 2.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 320, nota 3. — Mox pro *recte* plures codd. *certe.* — Cfr. infra p. II. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1, et lit. Magistri, hic c. 2. — Superius pro *praesentem* cod. V *praecedentem.*

en: Cf. above, p. 320, note 3. — Soon, for *recte* ("rightly") several codices read *certe* ("certainly"). — Cf. below, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, ad 1, and the Master's text, here c. 2. — Above, for *praesentem* ("present") codex V reads *praecedentem* ("preceding").

la: Vers. 2. Verba Glossae vide supra a. 1. q. 1. fundam. 1.

en: Verse 2. For the words of the Gloss see above, a. 1, q. 1, fundamentum 1.

la: Serm. 25. (inter eius opera) n. 1. Vide C. *Ecce nunc tempus* (39.), § 1. de Poenitentia, d. 1.

en: Sermon 25 (among his works), n. 1. See the chapter *Ecce nunc tempus* (39), § 1, On Penance, d. 1.

la: Cap. 8. n. 22. Textus originalis omittit *semper,* pauci codd. *amisisse* [admisisse?] pro *commisisse* (cfr. lit. Magistri, c. 2. circa finem, Comment. p. II. dub. 6.), cui similis est illa definitio in lib. de Ecclesiast. Dogmat. (inter opera August.) c. 24: *Poenitentia vera est poenitenda non admittere et admissa deflere.*

en: Chapter 8, n. 22. The original text omits *semper* ("always"); a few codices read *amisisse* [admisisse?] for *commisisse* ("to have committed") (cf. the Master's text, c. 2, near the end, Commentary p. II, doubt 6), to which is similar that definition in the book *On Ecclesiastical Dogmas* (among Augustine's works), c. 24: *True penance is not to admit the things to be repented of and to bewail the things admitted.*

la: Serm. 25. n. 1. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, ubi occurrit definitio Gregorii (II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 34. n. 15.) et ipsius Magistri, de qua vide infra p. II. dub. 4.

en: Sermon 25, n. 1. Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2, where there occurs the definition of Gregory (*Homilies on the Gospels* II, homily 34, n. 15) and of the Master himself, on which see below, p. II, doubt 4.

la: Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 30, ubi post *secundum naturam* additur *atque a diabolo ad Deum per piae vitae studium laboresque* [δι' ἀσκήσεως καὶ πόνων].

en: *On the Orthodox Faith* II, c. 30, where after *secundum naturam* ("according to nature") is added *and from the devil to God through the zeal and labors of a pious life* [δι' ἀσκήσεως καὶ πόνων, "through asceticism and toils"].

la: Vers. 17. — Glossa est *interlinearis* apud Lyranum. Firm. Lactant., Epitom. divinar. institut. c. 67. (alias 9.) dicit, quod poenitentia «sui correctio est».

en: Verse 17. — The Gloss is the *interlinear* in Lyra. Firmianus Lactantius, *Epitome of the Divine Institutes,* c. 67 (otherwise 9), says that penance «is a correction of oneself».

la: Libr. III. (Hypognost. inter opera August.) c. 9. cfr. supra pag. 320, nota 1.

en: Book III (*Hypognosticon,* among Augustine's works), c. 9; cf. above, p. 320, note 1.

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. 1.

en: See above, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 12. m. 1. a. 2. § 1; B. Albert., hic a. 12. et 25; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 6; Petr. a Tar., hic a. 1. quaestiunc. 2. et circa lit.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 12, m. 1, a. 2, § 1; Blessed Albert, here a. 12 and 25; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1, little-question 6; Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 1, little-question 2, and on the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`vol4-p328-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p329-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p330-{L,R}-*`) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion (offset pdf = printed + 20, so PDF 348–350; split_x=1880), cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 37690–37879. The IA OCR cascade-shatters this region (diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation + two-column bleed), so the column bands are authoritative throughout. The running head on p.329 reads "DIST. XIV. P. I. DUBIA. 329," confirming page-verify. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Dubia count: 4.**
- **Dub. I** — On Jerome's *Secunda tabula post naufragium est poenitentia:* if "second" implies "second Sacrament," does the Master misorder penance in the fourth place? And is penance the *first* plank (since a fall into mortal sin requires recourse to penance)? Answer: the allegory — sea = world, ship = grace/Church, shipwreck = the fracture in Adam; baptism = first plank (restores lost innocence/grace, unrepeatable), penance = second; "second plank" ≠ "second Sacrament," since not every Sacrament frees from shipwreck. Better said: human nature was wrecked in Adam, baptism is the given plank, and since it cannot be repeated penance is given as another.
- **Dub. II** — On the Master's *Poenitentia dicitur Sacramentum et virtus mentis:* baptism too is interior/exterior, so it should be both virtue and Sacrament; and interior penance is the Sacrament's *res,* yet no virtue is a Sacrament's *res.* Answer: interior penance is a virtue not merely because interior, but because it concerns the act of free choice (unlike baptism); it differs as virtue (vs. the disabling of fault) and as *res* of the Sacrament (vs. the wounding of nature).
- **Dub. III** — On *A poenitentia coepit Ioannis praedicatio:* it should have begun from baptism (the first plank). Answer: he began from penance-as-virtue (not the Sacrament), which in adults precedes baptism; preaching to adults, he rightly began there. The objection runs only of the Sacrament of penance.
- **Dub. IV** — On Ambrose's definition *Poenitentia est mala praeterita plangere et plangenda iterum non committere:* (a) it defines a habit (penance) by an act (lamenting), which the Philosopher faults; (b) "not committing again" is either superfluous (same time) or excludes the repetition of penance (another time); and (c) since one thing has one definition, why are many assigned? Answer: habits are known through acts, so penance is rightly defined by act — principal (*plangere commissa,* of *esse*) and annexed (*plangenda non committere,* of *bene esse*); the act is taken as at rest, not in motion; "not committing again" stands for the *affection,* or, referred to the future, for *perfect* penance. The many definitions notify penance threefold — by principal act (Gloss, Ambrose, Augustine), by principal + annexed act (Ambrose, Gregory, the Master), and by effect (Damascene, Gloss, Augustine's *Five Responses*).

**Footer ownership / renumber map (Quaracchi restarts footer numbering each printed page):**
- **Printed p.328** (PDF 348): footers **1–5** anchor in the *preceding* articulus (the caritas-vs-poenitentia priority Conclusio/Respondeo on *substantiam/usum* in the upper p.328-L column) and do NOT belong here. Footers **6** (Psalm 103,25 / navis=Ecclesia / Prov 31,14 — Dub. I resp. "Psalmi⁶") → this chunk's [^1]; **7** (Vide supra d.4 / Cod F *pristinam* — Dub. I "gratiam perditam⁷") → [^2]; **8** (Ex codd F L supplevimus *est* — Dub. I "quod est⁸ secunda tabula") → [^3].
- **Printed p.329** (PDF 349): left-column footers **1** (Alan. ab Insulis — Dub. I "poenitentia¹") → [^4]; **2** (Ut ostensum supra d.6 — Dub. I "iterari non potest²") → [^5]; **3** (Vide supra d.3 — Dub. II "interior et exterior³") → [^6]; **4** (infra d.22 / *Minor* — Dub. II "res huius Sacramenti⁴") → [^7]; **5** (Vide supra a.1 q.1 — Dub. II "vulnerationem naturae⁵") → [^8]. Right-column footers **6** (Vide supra dub.1 — Dub. III "baptismus prima⁶") → [^9]; **7** (Cfr. supra a.2 q.3 — Dub. III "poenitentiae Sacramento⁷") → [^10]; **8** (Libr. VI Topic. — Dub. IV "Philosophus⁸") → [^11]; **9** (Secundum Aristot. VI Topic. — Dub. IV "Philosophus⁹" at the Respondeo's *habitus cognoscuntur per actus*) → [^12]; **10** (Cfr. supra pag. 320 / *recte→certe* — Dub. IV "per actus¹⁰") → [^13]; **11** (Cfr. infra p. II / *praesentem→praecedentem* — Dub. IV "perfectionis et utilitatis¹¹") → folded into [^13]. *(p.329-R footers 10 and 11 both anchor in the closing clause of Dub. IV's first Respondeo; to keep one body marker per Quaracchi entry-cluster they are merged into [^13]; all four notes of that cluster are preserved verbatim.)*
- **Printed p.330** (PDF 350): footers **1** (Vers. 2 / Glossa — Dub. IV "Glossa Matthaei tertio¹") → [^14]; **2** (Serm. 25 — Dub. IV "Ambrosii in sermone quodam²") → [^15]; **3** (Cap. 8 n.22 / de Poenitentia — Dub. IV "Augustini in libro de Poenitentia³") → [^16]; **4** (Serm. 25 n.1 / Gregorii — Dub. IV "Ambrosii in sermone⁴") → [^17]; **5** (Libr. II de Fide orthod. / Damasceno — Dub. IV "Damasceno⁵") → [^18]; **6** (Vers. 17 / Glossa interlinearis — Dub. IV "Glossa Matthaei quarto⁶") → [^19]; **7** (Libr. III Hypognost. — Dub. IV "Quinque Responsionum⁷") → [^20]; **8** (Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal. — Dub. IV closing "de poenitentia⁸") → [^22]. **Total: 22 entries [^1]–[^22]** (footers 10+11 of p.329-R consolidated into [^13]; p.330 footer "*Vide supra a.1 q.1*" = [^21] anchors Dub. IV's "Glossa Matthaei quarto" reference per the bands).

**Page-split map:** The dubia open at the foot of printed p.328 (PDF 348) left column — the centered DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI header + DUB. I + its objection sit beneath the close of the preceding caritas-priority articulus (whose Conclusio + Respondeo run down the upper p.328-L column and across into p.328-R). Dub. I's objection breaks at the foot of p.328-L ("...necesse est recurrere ad poenitentiam"); the Respondeo runs through p.328-R ("mare est mundus iste... ergo est secunda persona in hac ecclesia") and its tail ("Quod quaeritur: quid vocatur naufragium?...") continues at the top of p.329-L, closing "...et hoc est poenitentia." Dub. II + Dub. III fill the rest of p.329-L. Dub. IV (objection + incidental question + the long Respondeo) opens the p.329-R column and breaks at "...secundum statum perfectionis et utilitatis¹¹" (foot of p.329-R). Dub. IV's Respondeo continues at the top of p.330-L ("Ad illud quod quaeritur de definitionibus...") through the threefold enumeration of definitions, running into the p.330-R column and closing "...quae dantur de poenitentia⁸" — immediately above where the centered COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIV / Pars II header begins (lower on p.330, both columns).

**Pars II boundary / hand-off to divisio:** Everything from the centered **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIV / Pars II / Contra errorem, quod poenitentia non iteratur** header onward (printed p.330; raw L37880 ff., "TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 315" / DIVISIO TEXTUS "Supra egit Magister de poenitentia in generali, determinans veritatem, scilicet quid sit et quomodo dividatur...") is excluded here and owned by `bon-sent-IV-d14-p2-divisio`. The p.330 columns holding Dub. IV's tail still read "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV" as running head, with the Pars II material beginning lower on the page.

**[?] flags:** none. All four dubia bodies and all twenty-two apparatus entries read cleanly from the PDF column bands. Footer [^17] (Gregory homily reference) is OCR-truncated at the homily number in the raw text ("homil. 34. n. ..."); the standard Quaracchi citation (n. 15) is supplied — confidence high, it is the same Gregorian definition cross-referenced at p. II, dub. 4.