← Back to Distinction 19

Dist. 19, Dubia

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 19

Textus Latinus
p. 511

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicitur: Cum esset pontifex anni illius. Videtur enim falsum, quia, sicut patet ex textu1, ipse dixit animo interficiendi Christum: ergo peccavit dicendo, non prophetavit. — Item, tam ipse quam Iudaei intellexerunt de salute corporali; constans est autem, illud fuisse falsum.

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

p. 512

phetia facta fuit Christianis. Unde prophetavit nesciens, quid diceret, quantum ad verum intellectum, secundum quem inspiratum fuerat verbum. Et secundum hunc duplicem intellectum dicitur verbum illud fuisse fructum2 Spiritus sancti, vel malae voluntatis ipsius pontificis.

Dub. II

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

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absolvere a mortali hominem iudicare in conspectu Dei hoc est; secundum autem omne forum nullus digne iudex est, qui reus est et in eadem damnatione3: ideo dico, quod sacerdos, quando absolvit poenitentem, tenetur de culpa sua poenitere, alioquin indigne Sacramentum administrat; ideo graviter peccat, quia in quo alterum iudicat, se ipsum condemnat.

Quod obiicitur de veniali, non valet, quia non est ibi iudicium. — Quod obiicitur, quod facit quod debet; dicendum, quod verum est, sed non omni modo, quo debet. — Quod obiicitur, quod fructuosa est; dicendum, quod verum est suscipienti4, sed damnosa est absolventi sive administranti propter contemptum Sacramenti5.

Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Iudicans enim alium, qui est iudicandus etc. Ponatur ergo hic, quod sacerdos cognoscat parochianam suam, vel ut dicatur honestius, furetur cum parochianis suis res aliquas, utrum possit eos absolvere. Et quod sic, videtur: quia in quocumque peccato existit, absolvit6 de facto: ergo videtur, quod de tali possit eos absolvere. — Sed contra hoc est, quia non potest esse idem in eadem causa iudex et reus; et hoc patet: ergo si talis sacerdos reus est, iudex esse non potest.

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

Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Ideo liberavit peccatricem, quia non erat qui iuste proiiceret lapidem. Secundum hoc enim videtur, quod illa peccatrix non fuit liberata ex misericordia, sed quia non aderat humana iustitia. — Item, esto quod praelatus sit malus; quaero a te, utrum teneatur subditos corrigere; constans est, quod non est absolutus a tentione: ergo si facit hoc, non7 peccat ex hoc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod duplex est correctio8: per modum increpationis et arguitionis; et talis arguit per modum superioris, et qui sic arguit alium, peccat, quia quod facit, non ut debet, facit; sed si interior sit malitia, superbiendo peccat; si exterior, peccat scandalizando: et ideo ad hoc, quod licite corrigat, tenetur primo de oculo suo trabem eiicere9, alioquin ordinem correctionis pervertit. — Alia est correctio per modum cuiusdam supplicationis et admonitionis, et haec potest esse bonorum et etiam malorum; ipse autem loquitur de prima et non de secunda. — Quod obiicitur de muliere, patet, quia ille modus corripiendi erat per vindictam. — Quod

p. 513

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

De correctione vero fraterna hoc notandum, quod tunc tenetur homo corrigere, quando videt fratrem graviter peccare, et credit probabiliter, quod debeat10 prodesse et non obesse; hoc tamen cavendum, ne quis formet sibi conscientiam stultam ex modica coniectura.

Dub. V

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Diligens ergo investigator sapienter interroget. Ex hoc enim videtur, quod ad confessorem pertinet perscrutari conscientiam alienam. Sed contrarium habetur in Psalmo11: Scrutati sunt, inquit, iniquitates; defecerunt scrutantes scrutinio. — Item, Deuteronomii vigesimo quarto: Cum repetis a proximo tuo rem aliquam, quam tibi debet; non ingredieris domum eius, ut pignus auferas, sed stabis foris, et ille tibi proferet quod habuerit: ergo non videtur, quod homo interius debeat ad secreta cordis ingredi. — Item, ex horum peccatorum ruminatione frequenter foetor oritur concupiscentiae in quaerente, et generatur cognitio mali in audiente; propter quod etiam frequenter contingit, eum titillari ad sciendum scientia experientiae: ergo etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio oportet, ipsum confessorem diligentem esse in investigando. Et ratio huius est, quoniam ipse iudex est, et iudex debet diligenter inquirere causae veritatem, maxime quando dubia apparet; secundum quod dicitur Iob vigesimo nono12: Causam, quam nesciebam, diligentissime investigabam. In talibus autem inquisitionibus cavenda est superflua curiositas et negligentia. — Quaedam enim sunt, quae non debet inquirere in speciali confessor, sicut sunt peccata inconsueta et enormia et contra naturam, et de talibus intelligitur illud Proverbiorum undecimo13: Investigator malorum opprimetur ab eis. Et ratio huius est, quia frequenter addiscit poenitens quod non noverat, et contingit, ipsum confessorem in talibus concuti; et ideo non debet talia quaerere nisi in generali et quasi de longinquo per quasdam circumlocutiones, ut, si fecit, qui confitetur intelligat, si non fecit, non addiscat. In huius rei significationem Iudith octavo14 dicitur: Vos autem nolo, ut scrutemini actum meum; Iudith confessio interpretatur, et hoc dixit sacerdotibus, quasi reprimens curiosam inquisitionem; et ideo, quia a longinquo debet esse, dicitur Iob vigesimo sexto15: Obstetricante manu, eductus est coluber tortuosus.

Alia vero sunt inquirenda, scilicet transgressio decem praeceptorum, commissio septem capitalium, abusio quinque sensuum; et de his potest quaerere, quando videt, negligentem vel ignorantem esse ipsum poenitentem. Hoc autem semper est attendendum, ut inquisitio conferat statui poenitentis. Ideo dicitur Proverbiorum decimo octavo16: Iustus in principio est accusator sui. Venit amicus eius et investigabit eum. Et cum magna prudentia oportet hoc facere; et ideo necesse est, confessores esse discretos. Unde Proverbiorum vigesimo octavo17: Sapiens sibi videtur vir dives, pauper autem prudens scrutabitur eum.

Dub. VI

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Cum tot sunt qui labuntur, ut pristinam dignitatem etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia deferendum est multitudini; et «ubi multitudo est in causa, oportet rigori detrahere18»: ergo magis restituendi sunt in gradum pristinum quam si pauci essent. — Contra: ius dicit, eos esse amovendos19: ergo qui restituit facit contra ius, ergo agit iniuste.

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

p. 514

«Dispensatio est iuris relaxatio, facta cum causae cognitione ab eo qui habet ius dispensandi.» Unde dispensare dicitur quasi diversa pensare20; et ideo in eis quae statum Ecclesiae decolorant, dispensandum non est, et in eis quae videntur ius infringere, et hoc quando multis conceditur quod paucis esset concedendum, et quando sic accipitur, non sicut fiat sibi de gratia, sed tanquam si esset de iure communi. Et in talibus loquitur auctoritas prius posita.

English Translation

DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that it is said: Being the high priest of that year. For it seems false, because, as is plain from the text1, he said [it] with the intention of killing Christ: therefore he sinned in saying [it], he did not prophesy. — Likewise, both he and the Jews understood [it] of bodily welfare; but it is established that that was false.

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

p. 512

was made for the Christians. Whence he prophesied not knowing what he said, as to the true sense, according to which the word had been inspired. And according to this twofold sense that word is said to have been the fruit2 of the Holy Spirit, or of the evil will of the high priest himself.

Doubt II

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

I respond: It must be said that to absolve from mortal [sin] is to judge a man in the sight of God; but according to every forum no one is worthily a judge who is guilty and under the same condemnation3: therefore I say that the priest, when he absolves a penitent, is bound to do penance for his own fault, otherwise he administers the Sacrament unworthily; therefore he sins gravely, because in that wherein he judges another, he condemns himself.

What is objected concerning the venial [sin] has no force, because there is no judgment there. — What is objected, that he does what he ought; it must be said that this is true, but not in every manner in which he ought. — What is objected, that it is fruitful; it must be said that this is true for the one receiving4, but it is harmful to the one absolving or administering, on account of contempt of the Sacrament5.

Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: For judging another, who is to be judged etc. Let it then be supposed here that a priest knows [carnally] his parishioner-woman, or, to put it more decently, steals along with his parishioners certain things, whether he can absolve them. And that he can, it seems: because in whatever sin he exists, he absolves6 in fact: therefore it seems that he can absolve them of such [a sin]. — But against this is, that the same [person] cannot be judge and defendant in the same case; and this is plain: therefore if such a priest is a defendant, he cannot be a judge.

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

Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: He therefore freed the woman-sinner, because there was no one who could justly cast the stone. For according to this it seems that that woman-sinner was not freed out of mercy, but because human justice was not present. — Likewise, let it be that the prelate is evil; I ask of you, whether he is bound to correct his subjects; it is established that he is not released from his charge: therefore if he does this, he does not7 sin from this.

I respond: It must be said that correction is twofold8: by way of rebuke and reproof; and such a one reproves by way of a superior, and he who thus reproves another sins, because what he does, he does not as he ought; but if the malice be interior, he sins by being proud; if exterior, he sins by giving scandal: and therefore in order that he may lawfully correct, he is bound first to cast the beam out of his own eye9, otherwise he perverts the order of correction. — Another is correction by way of a certain entreaty and admonition, and this can belong to the good and also to the evil; but he [the Master] speaks of the first and not of the second. — What is objected concerning the woman is plain, because that manner of reproving was by way of vengeance. — What

p. 513

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

But concerning fraternal correction this is to be noted, that a man is then bound to correct, when he sees a brother gravely sinning, and probably believes that he ought to10 profit and not harm [him]; yet this is to be guarded against, lest one form for himself a foolish conscience from a slight conjecture.

Doubt V

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: Let the diligent investigator therefore wisely inquire. For from this it seems that it pertains to the confessor to search out another's conscience. But the contrary is had in the Psalm11: They have searched out, he says, iniquities; they have failed in searching with [their] search. — Likewise, Deuteronomy twenty-four: When thou demandest of thy neighbor any thing which he oweth thee; thou shalt not go into his house to take away a pledge, but thou shalt stand outside, and he shall bring out to thee what he has: therefore it does not seem that a man ought to enter inwardly into the secrets of the heart. — Likewise, from the ruminating of these sins there frequently arises a stench of concupiscence in the one inquiring, and a knowledge of evil is generated in the one hearing; on account of which it also frequently happens that he is tickled to know by the knowledge of experience: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that without doubt it behooves the confessor himself to be diligent in investigating. And the reason for this is that he himself is a judge, and a judge ought diligently to inquire into the truth of the case, especially when it appears doubtful; according as it is said [in] Job twenty-nine12: The cause which I knew not I searched out most diligently. But in such inquiries superfluous curiosity and negligence are to be guarded against. — For there are certain things which the confessor ought not to inquire about in particular, such as unusual and enormous sins and [sins] against nature, and of such is understood that [text] of Proverbs eleven13: The investigator of evils shall be oppressed by them. And the reason for this is that the penitent frequently learns what he did not know, and it happens that the confessor himself is shaken in such things; and therefore he ought not to ask such things except in general and as it were from afar by certain circumlocutions, so that, if he did [it], the one confessing may understand, [and] if he did not do [it], he may not learn [it]. In signification of this thing it is said [in] Judith eight14: But I will not [have you] search out my act; Judith is interpreted "confession," and she said this to the priests, as it were repressing curious inquiry; and therefore, because it ought to be from afar, it is said [in] Job twenty-six15: With his hand bringing forth, the winding serpent was led out.

But other things are to be inquired about, namely the transgression of the ten precepts, the commission of the seven capital [sins], the abuse of the five senses; and about these he can ask, when he sees the penitent himself to be negligent or ignorant. But this is always to be attended to, that the inquiry contribute to the penitent's state. Therefore it is said [in] Proverbs eighteen16: The just man in the beginning is the accuser of himself. His friend comes and shall investigate him. And it behooves [him] to do this with great prudence; and therefore it is necessary that confessors be discreet. Whence Proverbs twenty-eight17: The rich man seemeth to himself wise, but the poor [man] that is prudent shall search him out.

Doubt VI

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: Since there are so many who fall, that [their] former dignity etc. For it seems to be said badly, because deference is to be given to the multitude; and «where the multitude is in question, the rigor must be relaxed18»: therefore they are rather to be restored to their former grade than if they were few. — On the contrary: the law says that they are to be removed19: therefore he who restores [them] acts against the law, therefore he acts unjustly.

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

p. 514

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

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Extra lib. V. tit. 38. c. 16, ubi in textu originali (Gregor. IX.) post ut additur etiam. — Edd. supplent tamen. — Fortasse subsistendum coram, vel a. — Ita omnes codd., edd. melius supra.
    Decretals (Extra) book V, tit. 38, c. 16, where in the original text (Gregory IX) after ut ("that") is added etiam ("also"). — The editions supply tamen ("nevertheless"). — Perhaps one should stop at coram ("before"), or a ("from"). — Ita ("thus") all codices; the editions better [read] supra ("above").
  2. 2
    Ita plurimi codd., codd. H P Q verbum, edd. factum. — Cfr. de hoc dubio August., XVI. contra Faustum, c. 23; Gregor., XXVII. Moral. c. 1. n. 2; Hug. a S. Vict., V. Allegor. in nov. testam. (Ioan. 11, 49.). Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert. hic a. 13; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
    So most codices; codices H P Q [read] verbum ("word"), the editions factum ("deed"). — Cf. on this doubt Augustine, Against Faustus XVI, c. 23; Gregory, Morals XXVII, c. 1, n. 2; Hugh of St. Victor, Allegories on the New Testament V (John 11:49). The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 13; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
  3. 3
    Luc. 23, 40. — Inferius respicitur Rom. 2, 1: In quo enim iudicas alterum, te ipsum condemnas.
    Luke 23:40. — Below, reference is to Romans 2:1: For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself.
  4. 4
    Edd. absolvi. — Ita omnes codd., edd. poenitenti.
    The editions [read] absolvi ("to be absolved"). — So all codices; the editions [read] poenitenti ("for the penitent").
  5. 5
    Ex constitutione Benedicti XIV. Sacramentum poenitentiae (an. 1741) et Apostolici muneris (an. 1745) constat, nullum confessarium absolvere posse complicem suum in peccato turpi (excepto in articulo mortis), et absolventem praesumentem incurrere ipso facto excommunicationem Papae reservatam.
    From the constitution of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum poenitentiae (the year 1741) and Apostolici muneris (the year 1745), it is established that no confessor can absolve his accomplice in a base sin (except in the article of death), and that the one presuming to absolve incurs, by the very fact, an excommunication reserved to the Pope.
  6. 6
    Plures codd. omittunt non.
    Several codices omit non ("not").
  7. 7
    Plures codd. omittunt non.
    Several codices omit non ("not").
  8. 8
    Correctio fraterna, (a magistris, ut dicit B. Albert., hic a. 17.) definitur: Est admonitio fratris de emendatione delicti ex fraterna caritate procedens. Cfr. Aristot., X. Ethic. c. 9, ubi duplicem viam correctionis assignat, scil. per verba et per poenas, quia plerique non «pudori, sed timori obedire, neque abstinere a malis ob dedecus, sed ob poenam consueverunt». — Ed. 1 cum non paucis codd. correptio. Vat. hic addit una.
    Fraternal correction (by the masters, as Blessed Albert says, here a. 17) is defined: It is the admonition of a brother concerning the amendment of a fault, proceeding from fraternal charity. Cf. Aristotle, Ethics X, c. 9, where he assigns a twofold way of correction, namely by words and by penalties, because most men are wont «to obey not shame, but fear, and to abstain from evils not on account of disgrace, but on account of penalty». — Ed. 1, with not a few codices, [reads] correptio ("reproof"). The Vatican [edition] here adds una ("one").
  9. 9
    Matth. 7, 5: Hypocrita, eiice primum trabem de oculo tuo, et tunc videbis eiicere festucam de oculo fratris tui. Cfr. Luc. 6, 42.
    Matthew 7:5: Hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Cf. Luke 6:42.
  10. 10
    Codd. R S T omittunt quod debeat. — Cfr. de hoc dubio August., II. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 19. n. 63. seqq. et in Ioan. Evang. tr. 33. n. 4. seqq. — Idem dub. solvitur a B. Albert., hic a. 17. seqq.; S. Thom., hic q. 2; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2; qui hic cum aliis commentatoribus Lombardi plures de correctione fraterna quaestiones solvunt.
    Codices R S T omit quod debeat ("that he ought"). — Cf. on this doubt Augustine, On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount II, c. 19, n. 63 ff. and On the Gospel of John, tract 33, n. 4 ff. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 17 ff.; St. Thomas, here q. 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 3; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2; who here, with the other commentators on Lombard, resolve several questions concerning fraternal correction.
  11. 11
    Psalm. 63, 7. — Seq. locus est Deut. 24, 10. seq.: Cum repetes a proximo etc.
    Psalm 63:7. — The following passage is Deuteronomy 24:10 f.: When thou demandest of thy neighbor etc.
  12. 12
    Vers. 16. — Superius pro diligenter non pauci codd. libenter, et pro causae plures codd. omnem, cod. U rei.
    Verse 16. — Above, for diligenter ("diligently") not a few codices [read] libenter ("gladly"), and for causae ("of the case") several codices [read] omnem ("all"), codex U rei ("of the matter").
  13. 13
    Vers. 27: Qui autem investigator malorum est opprimetur ab eis.
    Verse 27: But he who is an investigator of evils shall be oppressed by them.
  14. 14
    Vers. 33. — Secundum Hieron. (Origenian. sive Graecum Lexicon nominum hebraic.) Iudith idem valet ac «laudans aut confitens».
    Verse 33. — According to Jerome (the Origenian or Greek Lexicon of Hebrew Names), Judith is equivalent to «praising or confessing».
  15. 15
    Vers. 13, ubi Vulgata post manu addit eius. — Mox pro inquirenda cod. H (bb a secunda manu) communia.
    Verse 13, where the Vulgate after manu ("hand") adds eius ("his"). — Soon, for inquirenda ("to be inquired about") codex H (bb by a second hand) [reads] communia ("common things").
  16. 16
    Vers. 17: Iustus prior est etc.
    Verse 17: The just is first etc.
  17. 17
    Vers. 11. — Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thom., hic circa lit.
    Verse 11. — Cf. on this doubt St. Thomas, here on the text.
  18. 18
    Secundum C. Comessationes (1.), d. 41; C. Ut constitueretur (28.), d. 50; C. Quoties a populis (14.), C. I. q. 7. et C. Non potest esse (32.), C. 23. q. 4.
    According to the canon Comessationes (1), d. 41; canon Ut constitueretur (28), d. 50; canon Quoties a populis (14), C. I, q. 7; and canon Non potest esse (32), C. 23, q. 4.
  19. 19
    Vide C. Si lapsis (1.), seqq., d. 50.
    See the canon Si lapsis (1) ff., d. 50.
  20. 20
    Glossa in Gratian. super C. Requiritis de iis (5.), C. 1. q. 7. — Inferius pro et quando plurimi codd. ut quando. — Ut docet Bernard., III. de Considerat. c. 4. n. 18.
    The Gloss in Gratian on the canon Requiritis de iis (5), C. 1, q. 7. — Below, for et quando ("and when") most codices [read] ut quando ("as when"). — As Bernard teaches, On Consideration III, c. 4, n. 18.
← Dist. 19, Art. 3, Q. 2