Dist. 22, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 22
Articulus II. De poenitentia in ratione Sacramenti.
Consequenter quantum ad secundam partem distinctionis quaeritur de poenitentia in ratione Sacramenti. Et cum ad rationem Sacramenti duo concurrant, scilicet institutio et significatio, de quibus duobus in littera1 agitur; ideo circa hoc duo quaeruntur.
Primo quaeritur de poenitentia quantum ad institutionem.
Secundo, quantum ad significationem.
Quaestio I. De Sacramento poenitentiae quoad institutionem.
Quantum ad primum quaeritur, utrum Sacramentum poenitentiae fuerit institutum. Et quod sic, videtur.
1. Ita definit Hugo2 Sacramentum: « Sacramentum est ex similitudine repraesentans, ex institutione significans » etc.: si ergo poenitentia est Sacramentum, patet etc.
2. Item, sicut Dominus praecepit baptizari, ita praecepit poenitentiam agere, sicut patet Matthaei quarto3; et sicut dicitur Ioannis tertio: Nisi quis renatus fuerit etc., ita dicitur Lucae decimo tertio: Si poenitentiam non egeritis, omnes similiter peribitis: ergo sicut praecipiendo baptizari instituit baptismatis Sacramentum, ita praecipiendo poenitere instituit Sacramentum poenitentiae.
3. Item, modus agendi poenitentiam in veteri lege fuit praefixus, sicut patet Levitici quarto et quinto4; similiter in nova secundum sacerdotis arbitrium; sed talis modus non est ex naturae dictamine: ergo est ex institutione.
Contra: 1. Hugo de sancto Victore5 dicit, quod in lege naturae nullum Sacramentum institutum est « sub praecepto, sed solum sub consilio »; sed poenitentia in lege naturae fuit sub praecepto, quia nemo sine ea unquam salvari potuit: ergo non fuit instituta.
2. Item, nullum Sacramentum indiget institutione, quod est ex naturali dictamine; sed poenitentia est ex naturali dictamine, quia naturaliter6 dictat ratio, quod peccans et offendens debet per poenitentiae humilitatem reconciliari: ergo etc.
3. Item, omne Sacramentum, quod institutum est, variatum est; sed poenitentia semper fuit ab initio usque nunc, quantum ad contritionem et satisfactionem saltem: ergo non videtur per legem institutum.
Item, si institutum est Sacramentum, quaeritur, ubi et a quo. Si ibi, ubi dicitur, Matthaei quarto7: Agite poenitentiam; similiter institutum potest dici a Ioanne, qui praedicavit: Poenitentiam agite, Matthaei tertio. Si ibi, Matthaei octavo: Vade, et ostende te sacerdotibus; sed constat, quod intelligebatur de sacerdotibus legalibus. Si ibi: Quorum remiseritis peccata, Ioannis vigesimo; sed contra: ibi est institutum quod est ordinis sacerdotalis.
Conclusio. Poenitentiae Sacramentum, quatenus est reconciliativum Deo, iam ante Legem aliquatenus insinuatum fuit; sed quatenus proprie est Sacramentum, a Domino est institutum et quoad materiale per Apostolos promulgatum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod de poenitentia est loqui dupliciter: aut prout est reconciliativa Deo, aut prout est non solum reconciliativa Deo, sed etiam Ecclesiae. Si loquamur de ipsa, prout Deo reconciliat, sic est de dictamine legis naturalis, quae dictat conteri de peccato et humiliari debere, cum aliqua illustratione fidei8; et sic tale sacramentale potius habuit insinuationem quam institutionem; eo enim quod natura dictabat, insinuari sufficiebat.
Et aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod insinuatum fuit ante lapsum in illo verbo, Genesis secundo9: In quacumque die comederitis etc. Sed illud verbum videtur potius minari supplicium quam instituere remedium. Et iterum, cum poenitentia sit in remedium de sua institutione primaria, non videtur competens eius institutio, nisi ex quo coepit peccatum.
Et ideo est alia positio et melior, quod Dominus tunc insinuavit et instituit, quando post peccatum Adam vocavit, Genesis tertio1b: Ubi es? ubi dicit Glossa, quod monebat eum redire ad cor, iuxta illud propheticum: Redite, praevaricatores, ad cor: et multae Glossae, quae ibi ponuntur, hoc innuunt. Et sic patet, quod poenitentia, prout fuit Sacramentum reconcilians Deo, ibi fuit insinuatum, quantum pro illo tempore sufficiebat; et illa insinuatio cum naturali dictamine sufficiebat loco institutionis.
Est et alio modo loqui de poenitentia, secundum quod est Sacramentum Ecclesiae; et sic habuit institutionem in lege scripta, sive Moysaica, sive evangelica. In lege Moysaica, quia nondum erat unitas perfecta nec perfecta reconciliatio, institutionem habuit secundum imperfectionem, scilicet quantum ad quandam generalitatem in determinatione oblationum, quae erant loco confessionis et satisfactionis. In lege autem nova, ubi unitas ecclesiastica est perfecta et reconciliatio plena, instituta fuit secundum statum perfectionis, et quantum ad formale, quod est absolutio sacerdotalis et ligatio, et quantum ad materiale, quod est quidem lucida et aperta confessio non solum in generali, verum etiam in speciali. Et primum Dominus instituit per se et promulgavit, scilicet clavium potestatem, Ioannis vigesimo2b, post resurrectionem. Secundum vero institutum fuit per Apostolos, vel, ut melius dicam, promulgatum, quia Dominus Apostolos docuit, et ipsi a Domino docti et auctoritate ab ipso accepta, immo eius auctoritate promulgaverunt. Non enim nobis tradiderunt nisi quod a Domino, vel a Domini Spiritu acceperunt. — Et sic patet, quando et quomodo et ubi et a quo institutum est hoc Sacramentum. — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes hoc probantes.
1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non fuit institutum in lege naturae; dicendum, quod proprie institutum non fuit praecepto disciplinae, vel praecepto sacramentali, sed magis ex praecepto naturali, ad quod illuminabat excitatio et visitatio Dei, qua homines increpavit in signo audibili et increpat spiritualiter per dolorem in lectulo et omnia ossa hominis marcescere facit3b.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est ex naturali dictamine; dicendum, quod verum concludit secundum illam acceptionem; attamen, quia natura per se non sufficit, patet etc.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est variatum; dicendum, quod in quantum est Sacramentum Ecclesiae, variatum est; et lex scripta aliquid addidit4b supra illud quod erat naturalis dictaminis, et lex evangelica illud additum non evacuavit, immo magis implevit in addendo additione perfecta. — Quod quaeritur, ubi et a quo sit institutum, iam patet ex praedictis.
I. « Dominus autem Sacramentum poenitentiae tunc praecipue instituit, cum, a mortuis excitatus, insufflavit in discipulos suos, dicens: Accipite Spiritum S. etc. » (Concil. Trident. Sess. XIV. c. 1.). Consulto dixerunt patres Concilii praecipue, cum plures partes huius Sacramenti etiam aliis temporibus vel praeceptae, vel saltem insinuatae sint. Hinc secundum Alex. Hal. (S. p. IV. q. li. m. 1. a. 2. § 4.) Salvator utilitatem poenitentiae insinuavit in principio suae praedicationis (Matth. 4, 17.); necessitatem vero eiusdem Luc. 13, 5; similiter potestas clavium Petro fuit saltem promissa Matth. 16, 19; denique post resurrectionem institutio fuit consummata. Idem ita concludit: « Et sic poenitentia secundum suam integritatem habuit diversis institui temporibus, opportunitatibus et locis, secundum quod Ecclesiae progressui congruebat ». Similia docent S. Thom. aliique communiter. — In hac quaestione vera mens S. Bonav. quoad usum vocabuli instituere manifestatur, ut supra d. 18. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. in scholio observatum est. De eadem quaestione praeter Alexandrum: Scot., IV. Sent. d. 2. q. 1. n. 4, d. 17. q. unica n. 29. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3; S. III. q. 84. a. 7. — B. Albert., hic a. 10. 14. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 5. — Durand., supra d. 14. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2.
II. Quoad 2. quaestionem notanda est doctrina Concilii Florent. (Decret. pro Armenis) et Trident. (Sess. XIV. c. 3.), quae plura determinat: 1. « Sunt autem quasi materia huius Sacramenti ipsius poenitentis actus, nempe contritio, confessio et satisfactio; qui, quatenus in poenitente ad integritatem Sacramenti ad plenamque et perfectam peccatorum remissionem ex Dei institutione requiruntur, poenitentiae partes dicuntur » (Trident. loc. cit.). In aliis enim Sacramentis, exceptis poenitentia et matrimonio, actus Sacramentum suscipientis manifeste non sunt partes ipsius, sed tantum dispositio. — 2. Poenitentiae forma, « in qua praecipue ipsius Sacramenti vis sita est, in illis verbis posita est: Ego te absolvo » (ibid.). Non pauci, etiam inter eos qui non sequuntur sententiam Scoti mox referendam, virtuti clavium et absolutioni, quippe quae sit forma, totam vim Sacramenti tribuunt. Huic opinioni favent etiam verba S. Thomae in uno loco (S. III. q. 89. a. 1. ad 3.) et verba S. Bonav. (hic in corp.): « Ratio causalitatis residet penes id quod formale est »; qui similia habet supra d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. Tamen utriusque verba facile explicari possunt in sensu non ita exclusivo.
— 3. « Res et effectus huius Sacramenti, quantum ad eius vim et efficaciam pertinet, reconciliatio est cum Deo » (ibid.).
III. Haec ab omnibus Catholicis recepta sunt; sed in explicando modo, quo actus poenitentis concurrant ad Sacramentum, ut est signum efficax, et quo sint quasi materia et partes eiusdem, Scot. a Magistro aliisque antiquis disertis verbis recedit (supra d. 14. q. 4. n. 3, d. 16. q. 1. n. 7.) nec concedit, hos actus proprie partes essentiales huius Sacramenti dici posse, cum essentia eiusdem consistat in sola absolutione; tamen confessionem et contritionem omnino requiri asserit, et hoc sensu vocari [a Conciliis] materiam aut quasi materiam proximam poenitentiae. — Hanc opinionem sequuntur praeter nonnullos extra hanc scholam theologos plurimi Scotistae, sed non omnes; quorum quidam (ut Mastrius) Scotum sic explicare nituntur, ut inter utramque opinionem ipsa re non sit nisi lis de nomine; ita tamen ut modus loquendi antiquus sit tutior. — Quidquid autem sit de probabilitate huius opinionis, manifestum est et a commentatore Scoti (ed. Waddingi) conceditur, Alexandrum et S. Bonav. sequi doctrinam Magistri (cfr. etiam supra d. 16. p. I. dub. 1.); nihilominus cum Hauzeur (Collatio etc. II. col. 747 seq.) alii pauci utrumque ad partes Scoti trahere frustra voluerunt. Nec obstat, quod auctor noster passim istos actus nominet partes Sacramenti integrales; eodem enim vocabulo utitur respectu materiae et formae omnium Sacramentorum (Breviloq. p. VI. c. 7. 8. 11. et alibi). De tribus, quae sunt in Sacramentis (res tantum, signum tantum, res et signum) cfr. d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. 2. et infra d. 26. a. 2. q. 1. — Etiam S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2.) docet, quod « interior poenitentia est res exterioris poenitentiae, sed ut significata tantum per actus poenitentis, ut significata autem et causata per actus eosdem, adiuncta absolutione ministri, per quam aliquo modo ad gratiam disponitur ». Hanc autem causalitatem actuum humanorum S. Bonav. extendit tantum ad poenam, non ad ipsam culpam delendam, secundum suum modum loquendi supra d. 18. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. in scholio explicatum. Hinc signum tantum est exterior poenitentia (confessio iuncta contritioni), res et signum interior poenitentia; quia, ut aliquid sit signum simul et res, non est necesse, quod res semper efficienter fiat a signo, sed sufficit, ut ab eo significetur.
IV. De eadem quaestione praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 2. a. 1. 2. — S. Thom., loc. cit.; S. III. q. 84. a. 1. ad 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.
---
Article II. On penance in its character as a Sacrament.
Consequently, as to the second part of the distinction, inquiry is made concerning penance in its character as a Sacrament. And since two things concur toward the character of a Sacrament, namely institution and signification, of which two the text treats1, therefore concerning this two things are asked.
First it is asked concerning penance as to its institution.
Second, as to its signification.
Question I. On the Sacrament of penance as to its institution.
As to the first it is asked whether the Sacrament of penance was instituted. And that it was, is shown.
1. Thus does Hugh2 define a Sacrament: « A Sacrament is that which by likeness represents, [and] by institution signifies » etc.: if therefore penance is a Sacrament, it is clear etc.
2. Likewise, just as the Lord commanded [men] to be baptized, so He commanded [them] to do penance, as is clear from Matthew, chapter four3; and as it is said in John, chapter three: Unless one be reborn etc., so it is said in Luke, chapter thirteen: If you do not do penance, you shall all likewise perish: therefore just as by commanding to be baptized He instituted the Sacrament of baptism, so by commanding to repent He instituted the Sacrament of penance.
3. Likewise, the manner of doing penance in the Old Law was prescribed, as is clear from Leviticus, chapter four and five4; likewise in the New [Law] according to the priest's judgment; but such a manner is not from the dictate of nature: therefore it is from institution.
On the contrary: 1. Hugh of Saint Victor5 says that in the law of nature no Sacrament was instituted « under a precept, but only under a counsel »; but penance in the law of nature was under a precept, since no one was ever able to be saved without it: therefore it was not instituted.
2. Likewise, no Sacrament that is from the natural dictate needs institution; but penance is from the natural dictate, since reason naturally6 dictates that one who sins and offends ought to be reconciled through the humility of penance: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, every Sacrament that was instituted has been varied; but penance has always existed from the beginning until now, at least as to contrition and satisfaction: therefore it does not seem to have been instituted through the law.
Likewise, if the Sacrament was instituted, it is asked where and by whom. If there, where it is said, in Matthew four7: Do penance; likewise it can be said to have been instituted by John, who preached: Do penance, Matthew three. If there, in Matthew eight: Go, and show yourself to the priests; but it is agreed that this was understood of the legal priests. If there: Whose sins you shall remit, John twenty; but on the contrary: there is instituted that which belongs to the priestly order.
Conclusion. The Sacrament of penance, inasmuch as it is reconciliative to God, was already before the Law in some measure intimated; but inasmuch as it is properly a Sacrament, it was instituted by the Lord and, as to its material element, promulgated through the Apostles.
I respond: It must be said that penance may be spoken of in two ways: either as it is reconciliative to God, or as it is not only reconciliative to God, but also to the Church. If we speak of it as it reconciles to God, thus it is from the dictate of the natural law, which dictates that one ought to be contrite over sin and to be humbled, with some illumination of faith8; and thus such a sacramental had rather an intimation than an institution; for by the very fact that nature dictated [it], to be intimated sufficed.
And some have wished to say that it was intimated before the fall in that word, Genesis two9: In whatever day you shall eat etc. But that word seems rather to threaten punishment than to institute a remedy. And again, since penance is [given] as a remedy by its primary institution, its institution does not seem fitting except from the point when sin began.
And therefore there is another and better position, [namely] that the Lord then intimated and instituted [it], when after [his] sin He called Adam, Genesis three1b: Where are you? where the Gloss says that He was admonishing him to return to [his] heart, according to that prophetic word: Return, transgressors, to the heart: and many Glosses which are placed there suggest this. And thus it is clear that penance, as it was a Sacrament reconciling to God, was there intimated, as much as sufficed for that time; and that intimation together with the natural dictate sufficed in place of institution.
There is also another way of speaking of penance, according as it is a Sacrament of the Church; and thus it had its institution in the written law, whether Mosaic or evangelical. In the Mosaic law, since there was not yet perfect unity nor perfect reconciliation, it had its institution according to [that] imperfection, namely as to a certain generality in the determination of the oblations, which were in place of confession and satisfaction. But in the new law, where ecclesiastical unity is perfect and reconciliation full, it was instituted according to the state of perfection, both as to the formal [element], which is priestly absolution and binding, and as to the material [element], which is indeed a clear and open confession not only in general, but also in particular. And the first the Lord instituted through Himself and promulgated, namely the power of the keys, John twenty2b, after the resurrection. But the second was instituted through the Apostles, or, that I may say it better, promulgated, since the Lord taught the Apostles, and they, taught by the Lord and by the authority received from Him, indeed by His authority promulgated [it]. For they handed down to us nothing except what they received from the Lord, or from the Spirit of the Lord. — And thus it is clear when and how and where and by whom this Sacrament was instituted. — The reasons proving this are therefore to be granted.
1. To that which is objected, that it was not instituted in the law of nature; it must be said that properly it was not instituted by a precept of discipline, or by a sacramental precept, but rather from a natural precept, upon which the excitation and visitation of God shed light, whereby He rebuked men by an audible sign and rebukes [them] spiritually through the pain in the bed, and makes all the bones of a man to waste away3b.
2. To that which is objected, that it is from the natural dictate; it must be said that this concludes truly according to that acceptation; nevertheless, since nature by itself does not suffice, it is clear etc.
3. To that which is objected, that it has not been varied; it must be said that inasmuch as it is a Sacrament of the Church, it has been varied; and the written law added something4b over that which was of the natural dictate, and the evangelical law did not void that addition, but rather fulfilled it more fully in adding by a perfect addition. — As to what is asked, where and by whom it was instituted, this is now clear from what has been said.
I. « But the Lord instituted the Sacrament of penance chiefly then, when, raised from the dead, He breathed upon His disciples, saying: Receive the Holy Spirit etc. » (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 1). The Fathers of the Council said "chiefly" deliberately, since several parts of this Sacrament were at other times also either commanded, or at least intimated. Hence, according to Alexander of Hales (Summa, p. IV, q. li, m. 1, a. 2, § 4), the Savior intimated the utility of penance at the beginning of His preaching (Matt. 4, 17); its necessity, however, [in] Luke 13, 5; likewise the power of the keys was at least promised to Peter, Matt. 16, 19; finally after the resurrection the institution was consummated. The same [author] concludes thus: « And thus penance according to its integrity came to be instituted at diverse times, occasions, and places, according as it suited the progress of the Church ». S. Thomas and the others commonly teach similar things. — In this question the true mind of S. Bonaventure as to the use of the word to institute is made manifest, as was observed above at d. 18, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, in the scholion. On the same question, besides Alexander: Scotus, IV Sent. d. 2, q. 1, n. 4, d. 17, q. unica, n. 29. — S. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 3; Summa III, q. 84, a. 7. — B. Albert, here a. 10, 14. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1, 5. — Durandus, above d. 14, q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 2.
II. As to the 2nd question, the doctrine of the Council of Florence (Decree for the Armenians) and of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 3) is to be noted, which determines many things: 1. « Now the acts of the penitent himself, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction, are as it were the matter of this Sacrament; which, inasmuch as by God's institution they are required in the penitent for the integrity of the Sacrament and for the full and perfect remission of sins, are called parts of penance » (Trent, loc. cit.). For in the other Sacraments, penance and matrimony excepted, the acts of the one receiving the Sacrament are manifestly not parts of it, but only a disposition. — 2. The form of penance, « in which chiefly the power of the Sacrament itself is situated, is placed in those words: I absolve you » (ibid.). Not a few, even among those who do not follow the opinion of Scotus soon to be reported, attribute the whole power of the Sacrament to the power of the keys and to absolution, inasmuch as it is the form. To this opinion favor also the words of S. Thomas in one place (Summa III, q. 89, a. 1, ad 3) and the words of S. Bonaventure (here in the body): « The ground of causality resides in that which is formal »; who has similar things above d. 17, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. Yet the words of both can easily be explained in a sense not so exclusive.
— 3. « The thing and effect of this Sacrament, as far as pertains to its power and efficacy, is reconciliation with God » (ibid.).
III. These things have been received by all Catholics; but in explaining the manner in which the acts of the penitent concur toward the Sacrament, as it is an efficacious sign, and in which they are as it were the matter and parts of the same, Scotus recedes from the Master and the other ancients in express words (above d. 14, q. 4, n. 3, d. 16, q. 1, n. 7), and does not concede that these acts can properly be called essential parts of this Sacrament, since the essence of it consists in absolution alone; yet he asserts that confession and contrition are altogether required, and that in this sense they are called [by the Councils] the matter or as it were the proximate matter of penance. — This opinion is followed, besides some theologians outside this school, by very many Scotists, but not all; some of whom (like Mastrius) strive to explain Scotus in such a way that between the two opinions there is in reality nothing but a dispute about a name; yet in such wise that the ancient manner of speaking is the safer. — But whatever be [the case] concerning the probability of this opinion, it is manifest, and is conceded by the commentator on Scotus (Wadding's edition), that Alexander and S. Bonaventure follow the doctrine of the Master (cf. also above d. 16, p. I, dub. 1); nevertheless, with Hauzeur (Collatio etc. II, col. 747 seq.) a few others have vainly wished to draw both to the side of Scotus. Nor does it stand in the way that our author here and there names these acts integral parts of the Sacrament; for he uses the same word with respect to the matter and form of all the Sacraments (Breviloquium p. VI, c. 7, 8, 11, and elsewhere). On the three things which are in the Sacraments (thing only, sign only, thing and sign) cf. d. 8, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, 2, and below d. 26, a. 2, q. 1. — S. Thomas also (here q. 2, a. 1, little-question 2) teaches that « interior penance is the thing [res] of exterior penance, but as signified only through the acts of the penitent, [and] as signified moreover and caused through the same acts, with the absolution of the minister adjoined, through which one is in some manner disposed toward grace ». But this causality of human acts S. Bonaventure extends only to the punishment, not to the destroying of the fault itself, according to his manner of speaking explained above d. 18, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, in the scholion. Hence the sign only is the exterior penance (confession joined to contrition), the thing and sign the interior penance; because, for something to be at once sign and thing, it is not necessary that the thing always be efficiently produced by the sign, but it suffices that it be signified by it.
IV. On the same question, besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., m. 2, a. 1, 2. — S. Thomas, loc. cit.; Summa III, q. 84, a. 1, ad 3. — B. Albert, here a. 5, 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1, 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2, 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.
---
- 1Hic c. 2.Here c. 2.
- 2Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 2. Cfr. supra pag. 13, nota 2. — Cod. aa Sacramentum est materiale elementum, ex sanctificatione gratiam invisibilem conferens, ex similitudine etc.[Hugh of St. Victor,] Book I On the Sacraments, p. IX, c. 2. Cf. above p. 13, note 2. — Codex aa [reads] A Sacrament is a material element, conferring the invisible grace from sanctification, by likeness etc.
- 3Vers. 17: Exinde coepit Iesus praedicare et dicere: Poenitentiam agite etc. Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. in fine locc. de baptismo. — Seq. locus est Ioan. 3, 5; tertius Luc. 13, 5.Verse 17: From then Jesus began to preach and to say: Do penance etc. Cf. above d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. at the end of the passages on baptism. — The following passage is John 3, 5; the third is Luke 13, 5.
- 4In c. 4. agitur de modo offerendi hostias pro peccato sacerdotis, principis et multitudinis per ignorantiam commisso; in c. 5. pro peccato ex silentio veritatis etc.In c. 4 there is treated the manner of offering victims for the sin of a priest, a prince, and the multitude committed through ignorance; in c. 5, for sin arising from the silencing of the truth etc.
- 5Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 3. et 4. Cfr. supra d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. — De minori vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, et supra d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.Book I On the Sacraments, p. XI, c. 3 and 4. Cf. above d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. — On the minor [premise] see here the Master's text, c. 2, and above d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.
- 6Cod. G naturalis. Mox pro peccans cod. A excedens.Codex G [reads] naturalis [natural]. Presently, for peccans [one who sins], codex A [reads] excedens [one who transgresses].
- 7Vers. 17. — Seq. locus est ibid. 3, 2; tertius ibid. 8, 4: Vade, ostende te sacerdoti; quartus Ioan. 20, 23.Verse 17. — The following passage is ibid. 3, 2; the third ibid. 8, 4: Go, show yourself to the priest; the fourth John 20, 23.
- 8Vide supra d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. — Pro cum Vat. tamen. Mox pro sacramentale codd. E L M T U Sacramentum.See above d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. in the body. — For cum the Vatican [edition reads] tamen. Presently, for sacramentale codices E L M T U [read] Sacramentum.
- 9Vers. 17: In quocumque enim die comederis etc. [Attingitur peccatum, respectu cuius est poenitentia].Verse 17: For in whatever day you shall eat etc. [The sin is touched upon, in respect of which penance exists].
- 1bVers. 9. — De Glossa cfr. supra pag. 435, nota 1. Vide etiam Glossam apud Strabum et Lyranum in v. 10. seq., sumtam ex Gregor., II. Moral. c. 8. n. 6, et Isidor., Quaestiones in Gen. c. 5. n. 3, ubi dicitur, Deum his verbis vocasse Adamum ad poenitentiam. — Seq. locus est Isai. 46, 8.Verse 9. — On the Gloss cf. above p. 435, note 1. See also the Gloss in Strabo and Lyra at v. 10 and following, taken from Gregory, II Morals, c. 8, n. 6, and Isidore, Questions on Genesis, c. 5, n. 3, where it is said that God by these words called Adam to penance. — The following passage is Isaiah 46, 8.
- 2bVers. 22. seq. — De praecedentibus et seqq. cfr. supra d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. et 3. — Superius pro quidem edd. cum pluribus codd. quaedam.Verse 22 and following. — On the preceding [words] and those following cf. above d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 2 and 3. — Above, for quidem the editions with several codices [read] quaedam.
- 3bIob 33, 19, ubi Vulgata eius pro hominis.Job 33, 19, where the Vulgate [reads] eius [his] for hominis [of a man].
- 4bIta codd. I K; in aliis et edd. addit.So codices I K; in the others and the editions, addit [it adds].