Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 20, Part 2, Dubia

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 20

Textus Latinus

p. 541

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit: Si vero non sufficit dolor interior simul cum poena iniuncta, addet Deus poenam. Videtur enim falsum, quia iste qui fecit poenitentiam iniunctam, fecit totum, ad quod tenebatur: ergo illa completa, est absolutus¹: ergo non debet amplius poenam reddere. — Item, sacerdos est arbiter inter peccatorem et Deum; sed si sacerdos iniungat peccatori poenitentiam maiorem, peccator tenetur stare eius iudicio, quamvis excedat: ergo si Deus non revocat compromissum; si errat iniungendo minorem poenam debita, debet Deus esse contentus; aut si aliter, videtur frangere pactum. — Item, ignorantia excusat, maxime quando est invincibilis; sed scire, quantum Deus exigat poenae pro culpa, nemo novit certitudinaliter, sed solum per coniecturam: ergo in hoc standum est iudicio et arbitrio sacerdotis: ergo si amplius non procedat³, absolutus est.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sacerdos virtute clavium habet potentiam relaxandi aliquid de poena², et hanc Deus nunquam exigit, sed solutum tantum⁴ reputat, a quo sacerdos absolvit; et quantum ad hoc simpliciter se committit in sacerdotis arbitrium, si non sit impedimentum a parte eius qui absolvitur. Quantum vero ad taxationem non se committit nisi in arbitrium discreti, qui etiam discrete taxat, quia non decet Deum aliter facere; et ideo, si sacerdos poenitentiam minorem condigna imponat, Dominus supplet quod deerat.

Quod obiicitur, quod talis fecit totum, ad quod tenebatur, verum est de tentione, quae venit ex debito praecepti; sed de tentione, quae venit ex obligatione sive ex reatu peccati, non est verum⁵, quousque solverit poenam condignam.

Quod obiicitur de arbitrio, iam patet: quia in solius discreti arbitrium se committit quantum ad taxationem poenae.

Quod obiicitur de ignorantia, dicendum, quod illa ignorantia excusat, ut non peccet; sed tamen non excusat, ut satisfactionem perfectam faciat; et ideo oportet adhuc perfici in foro Dei⁶.

Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit de latrone: Statim, ut conversus fuit, paradisum ingredi meruit. Videtur enim falsum, quia Michaeae secundo⁷ dicitur: Ascendet iter pandens ante eos; hoc intelligitur de Christo: ergo ante ascensionem Christi nullus intravit: ergo nec latro statim.

Respondeo: Aliqui ad hoc voluerunt dicere, quod latro fuerit in paradiso terrestri cum Domino usque ad ascensionem, sed post ascensionem fuit in paradiso caelesti. — Sed tamen illud dubium est; et ideo via alia eligenda est secundum Augustinum⁸, quod paradisus uno modo dicit statum fruitionis, alio modo dicit locum ad hoc aptum et idoneum. Et ille locus duplex est, secundum quod fruitio est duplex: quaedam per speculum et imperfecta, et tali competebat paradisus terrestris, quoniam locus est terrenus, tamen quietus et elevatus; quaedam est fruitio plena, et haec est in patria, et huic competit locus supercaelestis. Quando ergo dicitur, quod latro statim fuit in paradiso, intelligitur quantum ad statum, quia statim fuit in Dei visione, non quantum ad locum.

Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hieronymus, quod non satis praefigunt canones mensuram etc.⁹; quia Gregorius dicit, et habetur supra distinctione decima sexta¹⁰: «Falsas poenitentias dicimus quae non secundum auctoritatem sanctorum Patrum imponuntur»: ergo videtur, quod omnes poenitentiae verae in canonibus Sanctorum comprehenduntur.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut est in scientiis practicis, quae versantur circa opera, quod sermo in particulari est incertus et dubius; sermo autem

p. 542

in universali certitudinem habet, sed cum applicatur ad singularia, incipit quodam modo habere incertitudinem, ut qui non considerat circumstantias particulares potius deviet, quam se ipsum rectificet, sicut patet in medicina et scientia morali¹: Sic intelligendum est in proposito, quod canones instruunt in generali, qualiter imponenda est poenitentia, sed descensum ad singularia relinquunt sacerdotibus discretis, qui considerent personarum circumstantias, attendentes ad canones sicut ad regulas directivas; quia, si contra canones imponant, non recte imponunt. In canone autem determinatur poenitentia maxime quantum ad tempus, magis quam quantum ad modum; quia modus ille certior est et communior. Unde generaliter pro peccato mortali praefigunt poenitentiam septennem: unde laicus, qui fornicatur, septem annis, presbyter decem, episcopus vero quindecim poeniteat, sicut habetur in diversis locis in decretis Patrum². Similiter de evomentibus eucharistiam propter gulam et ebrietatem, si sit laicus, quadraginta diebus poeniteat; si clericus vel religiosus, septuaginta diebus; si episcopus, nonaginta diebus; hoc habetur de Consecratione, distinctione secunda³. Ad has autem regulas aspiciendo, debet unusquisque sacerdos inspicere, quales poenitentias imponat tum secundum gravitatem criminis, tum secundum diversas conditiones personarum.

Et nota hic, quod pro peccato mortali septennis poenitentia praefigitur non solum propter temporis diuturnitatem, sed magis propter figuram et significationem. In Lege enim Maria separata fuit extra castra diebus septem, Numerorum duodecimo⁴; Maria significat poenitentem, unde Maria amarum mare interpretatur, et in Threnis dicitur de viro poenitente: Magna est velut mare contritio tua. Haec poenituit septem diebus, sed nunc poenitet septem annis, quod significatum est Ezechielis quarto: Diem pro anno dedi tibi. — Si autem tu quaeras rationem huius, quare poenitentia est aggravata, cum lex nova sit lex misericordiae; dicendum, quod maior ingratitudo est hic propter maiorem gratiam; quia etiam maior contemptus est propter maiorem dignitatem novae legis, in qua sanguis Christi effusus est, ut firmum esset testamentum⁵; quia etiam gravius est peccatum propter statum peccantis, qui debet esse perfectior; quia ulterius satisfactio in lege nova debet esse perfecta, ut in statum pristinum reducat. — Et quoniam sol in uno die non redit in idem punctum, sed in anno⁶, ideo dies conversus est in annum. Rursus, quia perfectum est remedium in lege nova, ideo annus debuit multiplicari per septenarium propter septem pronitates domandas, propter septem dona Spiritus sancti reacquirenda, propter septem dotes, tres scilicet animae et quatuor corporis obtinendas⁷. — Et sic patet ratio, quare canones sic instituerunt. Haec autem omnibus non est imponenda, sed tamen insinuanda, ut recognoscant, quam gravis est culpa.

Dub. IV

Item, quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod non est imponenda in articulo mortis poenitentia, sed innotescenda. Videtur enim male dicere, quia ad nihil valet scire, quid et quantum debeat facere, nisi etiam faciat: ergo si non est imponenda, ut faciat, non est innotescenda. Si dicas, quod valet ad cognoscendam gravitatem peccati; contra: gravitas peccati considerata in fine maxime inducit in desperationem; sed hoc maxime cavendum est in infirmis: ergo non debet tunc dici.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod poenitentia non est imponenda tali, de quo praesumitur, quod moriatur, quia stultum esset aliquid imponere alicui, quod non potest facere; sed innotescenda est ad cognoscendam gravitatem peccati, ut doleat et ingemiscat. Sed nihilominus⁸ manifestanda est divinae misericordiae abundantia, ut speret in Domino et confidat; et sic manifestans poenitentiam non inducit in desperationem, sed magis in veram contritionem.

Dub. V

Item, quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Non debet presbyter reconciliare poenitentem, inconsulto episcopo. Videtur enim male dicere, quia ubi supernus iudex dictat faciendum, frustra quaeritur consilium humanum⁹; sed cum presbyter videt peccatorem contritum, supernus iudex dicit, peccatorem illum conversum in iustum et esse reconciliatum: ergo statim

p. 543

sine consilio, sive sit in necessitate, sive non, debet eum absolvere.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod dupliciter quaeritur consilium ab aliquo: aut propter instructionem; et tunc quaeritur consilium a sapiente, quia sapiens, et hoc maxime, quando casus emergit, ubi probabiliter potest dubitari. Alio modo quaeritur consilium et consulitur aliquis propter auctoritatis commissionem; et sic inferior consulit superiorem, scilicet ut sciat eius voluntatem et per eius imperium et commissionem habeat potestatem. Hoc modo debet sacerdos in aliquibus casibus consulere episcopum, quia non potest per se ad illos extendere manum, cum habeat potestatem limitatam. — In quinque autem casibus debet sacerdos ad episcopum remittere vel eum consulere. Primus est de poenitentia solemni, quae ab episcopo debet imponi, et per eum poenitens reconciliari¹. — Secundus casus est de excommunicatis, quos aliquando non potest absolvere. — Tertius, ubicumque invenerit irregularitatem contractam; propter illam enim debet remittere ad episcopum, ut, si potest, dispenset; si non potest, cum litteris suis mittat² ad Papam. — Quartus est de incendiariis. — Quintus, si sit consuetudo in aliquo episcopatu, quod certa crimina ad episcopum deferantur, ut homicidium, sacrilegium et huiusmodi; et iste casus est particularis, non universalis³.

Dub. VI

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Puellarum consecratio, consulto episcopo, per presbyterum fieri valet. Videtur male dicere, quia illae desponsantur Christo: ergo a solo episcopo est eis imponendus anulus.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quantum est de iure communi⁴, hoc licitum est solis episcopis, quia ipsi sunt sponsi, qui debent Christo animas consecrare, secundum quod dicit Apostolus secundae ad Corinthios undecimo⁵: Despondi vos uni viro virginem castam, et debent filios perfectos generare; et ideo habent clavium potestatem in excellentia, et eis solis ista quae sunt excellentiae, sunt commissa. Unde hoc quod dicit Magister, locale solum fuit et nunc non habet locum nisi de viduis velandis, quibus potest sacerdos de consilio episcopi dare velum. Et pro tanto illud est intelligendum⁶.

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 he says: But if the interior sorrow together with the enjoined penalty is not sufficient, God will add a penalty. For it seems false, because he who has done the enjoined penance has done all to which he was bound: therefore, that being complete, he is absolved¹: therefore he ought not to render any further penalty. — Likewise, the priest is an arbiter between the sinner and God; but if the priest enjoins on the sinner a greater penance, the sinner is bound to stand by his judgment, although it exceeds [what is due]: therefore if God does not revoke the compromise; if he [the priest] errs by enjoining a penalty less than what is owed, God ought to be content; or if otherwise, He seems to break the pact. — Likewise, ignorance excuses, especially when it is invincible; but no one knows with certitude how much penalty God exacts for a fault, but only by conjecture: therefore in this one must stand by the judgment and discretion of the priest: therefore if [the penitent] proceeds³ no further, he is absolved.

I respond: It must be said that the priest by virtue of the keys has the power of relaxing something of the penalty², and this God never exacts, but reckons only as paid⁴ that from which the priest absolves; and as to this [the penitent] simply commits himself to the priest's discretion, if there be no impediment on the part of the one who is being absolved. But as to the taxation [of the penalty] he does not commit himself except to the discretion of a discerning [priest], who also taxes discreetly, because it is not fitting for God to do otherwise; and therefore, if the priest imposes a penance lesser than the worthy [one], the Lord supplies what was lacking.

As to what is objected, that such a one has done all to which he was bound, it is true of the holding [of debt] that comes from the obligation of the precept; but of the holding that comes from the obligation or from the guilt of sin, it is not true⁵, until he has paid the worthy penalty.

As to what is objected concerning the discretion, it is now plain: because [the penitent] commits himself to the discretion of the discerning [priest] alone as to the taxation of the penalty.

As to what is objected concerning ignorance, it must be said that that ignorance excuses, so that he does not sin; but yet it does not excuse, so that he makes perfect satisfaction; and therefore it must still be perfected in the forum of God⁶.

Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says concerning the thief: As soon as he was converted, he merited to enter paradise. For it seems false, because in Micah two⁷ it is said: He shall ascend, opening the way before them; this is understood of Christ: therefore before the ascension of Christ no one entered: therefore neither [did] the thief at once.

I respond: Some wished to say to this, that the thief was in the earthly paradise with the Lord until the ascension, but after the ascension was in the heavenly paradise. — But yet that is doubtful; and therefore another way is to be chosen according to Augustine⁸, that paradise in one way means a state of fruition, in another way means a place apt and suitable for this. And that place is twofold, according as fruition is twofold: a certain [fruition] through a mirror and imperfect, and for such [fruition] the earthly paradise was suited, since the place is earthly, yet quiet and elevated; another is full fruition, and this is in the fatherland, and to it belongs the supercelestial place. When therefore it is said that the thief was at once in paradise, it is understood as to the state, because he was at once in the vision of God, not as to the place.

Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that Jerome says, that the canons do not sufficiently fix the measure etc.⁹; because Gregory says, and it is had above in the sixteenth distinction¹⁰: «We call those penances false which are not imposed according to the authority of the holy Fathers»: therefore it seems that all true penances are comprehended in the canons of the Saints.

I respond: It must be said that, just as it is in the practical sciences, which are concerned with works, that speech in particular [matters] is uncertain and doubtful; but speech

p. 542

in universal [matters] has certitude, yet when it is applied to particulars, it begins in a certain way to have uncertainty, so that he who does not consider the particular circumstances rather goes astray than rectifies himself, as is plain in medicine and moral science¹: So it is to be understood in the matter at hand, that the canons instruct in general, in what manner penance is to be imposed, but they leave the descent to particulars to discerning priests, who should consider the circumstances of persons, attending to the canons as to directive rules; because, if they impose contrary to the canons, they do not impose rightly. But in the canon penance is determined chiefly as to time, more than as to manner; because that manner is more certain and more common. Whence generally for mortal sin they prescribe a seven-year penance: whence a layman who fornicates should do penance for seven years, a presbyter ten, but a bishop fifteen, as is had in diverse places in the decrees of the Fathers². Likewise concerning those who vomit up the Eucharist on account of gluttony and drunkenness, if he be a layman, let him do penance forty days; if a cleric or religious, seventy days; if a bishop, ninety days; this is had in [the treatise] On Consecration, distinction two³. Looking to these rules, each priest ought to consider what penances he imposes, both according to the gravity of the crime and according to the diverse conditions of persons.

And note here, that for mortal sin a seven-year penance is prescribed not only on account of the length of time, but rather on account of the figure and the signification. For in the Law Mary was separated outside the camp for seven days, Numbers twelve⁴; Mary signifies the penitent, whence "Mary" is interpreted bitter sea, and in Lamentations it is said of the penitent man: Great as the sea is thy contrition. This [woman] did penance for seven days, but now [the penitent] does penance for seven years, which was signified in Ezekiel four: A day for a year have I given thee. — But if you ask the reason for this, why penance is aggravated, since the new law is a law of mercy; it must be said that the ingratitude here is greater on account of the greater grace; because also the contempt is greater on account of the greater dignity of the new law, in which the blood of Christ was poured out, that the testament might be firm⁵; because also the sin is graver on account of the state of the sinner, who ought to be more perfect; because further satisfaction in the new law ought to be perfect, so as to lead back into the pristine state. — And since the sun in one day does not return to the same point, but [does so] in a year⁶, therefore the day was turned into a year. Again, because the remedy in the new law is perfect, therefore the year had to be multiplied by seven on account of the seven pronenesses to be subdued, on account of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit to be reacquired, on account of the seven dowries, namely three of the soul and four of the body, to be obtained⁷. — And so the reason is plain, why the canons instituted [it] thus. But this [penance] is not to be imposed on all, but yet to be intimated, so that they may recognize how grave the fault is.

Doubt IV

Likewise, it is asked about this, that he says, that penance is not to be imposed in the article of death, but [is] to be made known. For it seems to be said badly, because it is of no avail to know what and how much one ought to do, unless one also does it: therefore if it is not to be imposed, so that he may do it, it is not to be made known. If you say that it avails to know the gravity of the sin; on the contrary: the gravity of sin, considered at the end, especially induces into despair; but this is especially to be guarded against in the sick: therefore it ought not to be said then.

I respond: It must be said that penance is not to be imposed on such a one, of whom it is presumed that he will die, because it would be foolish to impose something on someone which he cannot do; but it is to be made known in order to make known the gravity of the sin, so that he may grieve and groan. But nevertheless⁸ the abundance of divine mercy is to be manifested, so that he may hope in the Lord and trust; and thus manifesting the penance does not induce into despair, but rather into true contrition.

Doubt V

Likewise, it is asked about this, that he says: A presbyter ought not to reconcile a penitent, without consulting the bishop. For it seems to be said badly, because where the supernal Judge dictates what is to be done, human counsel is sought in vain⁹; but when the presbyter sees the sinner contrite, the supernal Judge says that that sinner is converted into a just man and is reconciled: therefore at once,

p. 543

without counsel, whether he be in necessity or not, he ought to absolve him.

I respond: It must be said that counsel is sought from someone in two ways: either on account of instruction; and then counsel is sought from a wise man, because [he is] wise, and this especially when a case emerges where one can probably be in doubt. In another way counsel is sought and someone is consulted on account of the commission of authority; and thus an inferior consults a superior, namely that he may know his will and through his command and commission may have power. In this manner the priest ought in certain cases to consult the bishop, because he cannot of himself extend his hand to those [cases], since he has a limited power. — But in five cases the priest ought to refer to the bishop or to consult him. The first is concerning solemn penance, which ought to be imposed by the bishop, and the penitent [ought] to be reconciled by him¹. — The second case is concerning the excommunicated, whom sometimes he cannot absolve. — The third, wherever he finds an irregularity contracted; for on account of it he ought to refer to the bishop, that, if he can, he may dispense; if he cannot, that he may send with his letters to the Pope². — The fourth is concerning arsonists. — The fifth, if there be a custom in some bishopric, that certain crimes be referred to the bishop, such as homicide, sacrilege, and the like; and this case is particular, not universal³.

Doubt VI

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: The consecration of maidens, the bishop having been consulted, can be done by a presbyter. It seems to be said badly, because they are betrothed to Christ: therefore the ring is to be imposed on them by the bishop alone.

I respond: It must be said that, as far as concerns the common law⁴, this is lawful only to bishops, because they are the spouses, who ought to consecrate souls to Christ, according as the Apostle says in the second to the Corinthians eleven⁵: I have espoused you to one husband, [to present you] a chaste virgin, and they ought to beget perfect sons; and therefore they have the power of the keys in excellence, and to them alone those things which are of excellence are committed. Whence this which the Master says was only local and now has no place except concerning the veiling of widows, to whom the priest can give the veil by counsel of the bishop. And to this extent that [statement] is to be understood⁶.

Apparatus Criticus

1
Cod. Z et ita.
Codex Z [reads] et ita ["and so"].
2
Vide scholion ad 3. huius articuli quaest.
See the scholion to question 3 of this article.
3
Cod. bb procedit.
Codex bb [reads] procedit ["proceeds"].
4
Plures codd. omittunt tantum, pro quo edd. eum, codd. H V bb habent: sed solum tantum.
Several codices omit tantum ["only"], for which the editions [read] eum; codices H V bb have: sed solum tantum ["but only as paid"].
5
Edd. quia si aliter fit. Eaedem edd. aliquanto inferius omittunt quae venit ex debito praecepti, sed de tentione.
The editions [read] quia si aliter fit ["because if it is done otherwise"]. The same editions, somewhat further down, omit quae venit ex debito praecepti, sed de tentione ["which comes from the obligation of the precept; but of the holding"].
6
Cfr. supra d. 18. p. I. a. 2. q. 2; Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 21. m. 3. a. I. et q. 24. m. 4. a. 5; B. Albert., hic a. 12; S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1.; Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
Compare above, d. 18, p. I, a. 2, q. 2; Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 21, m. 3, a. 1, and q. 24, m. 4, a. 5; Blessed Albert, here, a. 12; St. Thomas, here, q. 1, a. 2, sub-question 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 2, a. 1, sub-question 1; Richard of Mediavilla, here, on the text.
7
Vers. 13. Plurimi codd. perperam Amos IV.
Verse 13. Very many codices wrongly [read] Amos IV.
8
Epist. 187. (alias 57.) c. 2. n. 3. seqq. et XII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 34. n. 65. seqq. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 22. q. 6. ad 1.
[Augustine,] Letter 187 (otherwise 57), c. 2, n. 3 ff., and On Genesis according to the Letter, book XII, c. 34, n. 65 ff. Compare III Sentences, d. 22, q. 6, ad 1.
9
Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 19. m. 4; B. Albert., hic a. 13; S. Thom., hic circa lit.
The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. III, q. 19, m. 4; Blessed Albert, here, a. 13; St. Thomas, here, on the text.
10
Cap. 3.
Chapter 3.
1
Vide Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 3. et 7, nec non II. c. 2. — Inferius pro instruunt codd. H K aa instituunt.
See Aristotle, Ethics I, c. 3 and 7, and also II, c. 2. — Further down, for instruunt ["instruct"] codices H K aa [read] instituunt ["institute"].
2
Cfr. canon. poenitentiales (post Decret. Gratiani), in quibus diversi loci allegantur, et quibus tota solutio huius dubii a S. Bonav. data praemittitur ut introductio. Vide etiam Confessionale S. Bonav. c. 3.
Compare the penitential canons (after Gratian's Decretum), in which diverse places are alleged, and which the whole solution of this doubt given by St. Bonaventure prefaces as an introduction. See also the Confessionale of St. Bonaventure, c. 3.
3
Can. Si per ebrietatem (28.). Vide supra pag. 309, nota 6. — De seq. propos. cfr. Innocent. III. C. Deus, qui Ecclesiam (8.), X. de Poenitentiis et remiss. (lib. V. tit. 38.).
The canon Si per ebrietatem (28). See above, page 309, note 6. — On the following proposition compare Innocent III, c. Deus, qui Ecclesiam (8), [in the title] X On Penances and Remissions (book V, tit. 38).
4
Vers. 14. et 15. (Maria, secundum Hieron., Fragment. 2. libri Nominum Hebr., idem est ac stella maris, sive amarum mare. Idem in lib. de Nom. Hebr. ex Exodo ait: Mariam illuminatrix mea, vel illuminans eos, aut smyrna maris, vel stella maris. Merra, amaritudo. Marath, amara.). — Seq. locus est Thren. 2, 13; tertius Ezech. 4, 6. Cfr. Alan. ab Insulis, Lib. poenitentialis.
Verses 14 and 15. (Mary, according to Jerome, Fragment 2 of the book of Hebrew Names, is the same as star of the sea, or bitter sea. The same [Jerome] in the book On Hebrew Names, from Exodus, says: Mary [means] "my illuminatrix," or "illuminating them," or "myrrh of the sea," or "star of the sea." Merra, bitterness. Marath, bitter.). — The following place is Lamentations 2:13; the third is Ezekiel 4:6. Compare Alan of Lille, Book of Penance.
5
Cfr. Hebr. 9, 13. seqq.
Compare Hebrews 9:13 ff.
6
Vide August., IV. de Trin. c. 4. n. 8, et Isidor., V. Etymolog. c. 36.
See Augustine, On the Trinity IV, c. 4, n. 8, and Isidore, Etymologies V, c. 36.
7
Cfr. infra d. 49. p. 1. q. 5. in corp. et p. II. a. 2. q. 1. — Idem dub. solvitur a B. Albert., hic a. 14.
Compare below, d. 49, p. 1, q. 5, in the body, and p. II, a. 2, q. 1. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here, a. 14.
8
Codd. F G Sed ulterius. — Vide de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 14; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2.
Codices F G [read] Sed ulterius ["But further"]. — On this doubt see Blessed Albert, here, a. 14; St. Thomas, here, on the text; Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 1, a. 2, sub-question 2.
9
Prov. 21, 30: Non est consilium contra Dominum. — Verbo faciendum cod. G praemittit aliquid.
Proverbs 21:30: There is no counsel against the Lord. — Before the word faciendum ["what is to be done"] codex G prefixes aliquid ["something"].
1
Cfr. supra d. 14. p. II. dub. 9.
Compare above, d. 14, p. II, dub. 9.
2
Codd. I K supplent eum.
Codices I K supply eum ["it"].
3
Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic in fine dist.; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here, at the end of the distinction; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here, on the text.
4
Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6.
See here the text of the Master, c. 6.
5
Vers. 2. Cfr. supra q. 3. in corp.
Verse 2. Compare above, q. 3, in the body.
6
Idem dub. solvunt S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here, on the text.