← Back to Distinction 39

Dist. 39, Art. 2, Q. 1

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 39

Textus Latinus
p. 866

Articulus II. De forma iurandi.

Consequenter quaeritur de forma iurandi, et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum liceat iurare per Deum. Secundo, utrum liceat iurare per aliquid creatum. Tertio, utrum liceat recipere iuramentum ab idololatris factum.

Quaestio I. Utrum licitum sit iurare per Deum.

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum licitum sit iurare per Deum. Et quod sit simpliciter illicitum, videtur.

1. Omne illud quod est prohibitum, est malum et illicitum; sed iurare per Deum est prohibitum, quia dicitur Matthaei quinto1: Nolite iurare omnino; similiter Iacobi quinto: Ante omnia, fratres mei, nolite iurare: ergo iurare per Deum est malum et illicitum.

2. Item, omnis actus, qui est perniciosus, vel periculosus, est de se malus et illicitus; sed iuratio per Deum facta, secundum quod dicit Augustinus in quodam sermone2, « aut est perniciosa, aut periculosa, et nulla secura »: ergo etc.

p. 867

3. Item, omne illud quod sibi relictum est malum, simpliciter loquendo, iudicandum est malum et illicitum; sed iurare per Deum sine causa est malum et illicitum: ergo simpliciter loquendo, illicitum et malum est iurare per Deum.

4. Item, omnis actus, cuius consuetudo est mala, est de se malus et illicitus; sed consuetudo iurandi per Deum est mala et reprobanda: ergo iurare per Deum est malum et illicitum.

Sed contra: 1. Augustinus in sermone de Verbis Apostoli5: « Si peccatum esset iuratio, non diceretur in Lege: Reddes Domino iuramenta tua »; sed Domino reddimus iuramenta, quando iuramus per Dominum: cum ergo hoc sit in Lege concessum, videtur, quod iurare per Deum non sit illicitum.

2. Item, nullus actus, qui habet exemplar in Deo, est malus et illicitus; sed iuratio per Deum habet exemplar in ipso Deo, quoniam ipse Deus iurat per semetipsum, secundum quod dicit Apostolus ad Hebraeos sexto6: et in Psalmo: Iuravit Dominus etc.; et Genesis vigesimo secundo: Per memetipsum iuravi etc.: ergo iurare per Deum non est illicitum.

3. Item, nullus actus, in quo exhibetur honor et reverentia ipsi Deo, est illicitus; sed cum iuramus per Deum, exhibemus honorem et reverentiam ipsi Deo: ergo etc. Minor probatur per Glossam Matthaei quinto7: « Hoc, per quod iurat, quilibet veneratur, hoc amat, hoc timet: ideo praecipitur, quod non iuretur nisi per Deum ».

4. Item, omnis actus transiens super materiam debitam1b est bonus et licitus6b; sed iurare per Deum est actus transiens super materiam debitam, quia hoc est invocare divinam Veritatem in testimonium: ergo iurare per Deum est bonum et licitum.

5. Item, omne illud quod facit ad confirmationem veritatis et ad confutationem7b falsitatis et dolositatis, est bonum et licitum; sed iuratio per Deum est huiusmodi, quia per testes boni expiantur, et mali convincuntur et puniuntur: ergo iuratio per Deum est bona et licita8.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, utrum iuramentum bonum et licitum sit appetendum. Et quod sic, videtur, quia potest esse meritorium. Et si sic, quaeritur: quare iuramentum fuit a Domino prohibitum magis quam aliud bonum?

Conclusio

Iurare per Deum licitum est, non tamen appetendum.

Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod aliqui dicere voluerunt, omne iuramentum esse illicitum, non solum per creaturam, sed etiam per ipsum Deum. Et haec fuit et est positio haereticorum Manichaeorum9, qui sui erroris occasionem sumserunt ex verbo Domini, Matthaei quinto, et ex eo quod dicitur Iacobi quinto. Quod quidem verbum male intellexerunt dupliciter: primo, quia crediderunt, quod Dominus ipsum iuramentum prohiberet tanquam de se malum; secundo, quia intellexerunt per hoc quod dicitur: Non iurabis omnino, quod Dominus omne iuramentum prohiberet. Et in primo erraverunt: quoniam, si Lex evangelica non2b prohibet nisi quod malum est de se; iurare autem per Deum et adducere ipsam Veritatem in testimonium nec est contra rationem rectam nec contra consuetudinem bonam nec contra Legem divinam — maxime cum Lex divina dicat10: Reddes Domino iuramenta tua, quam Legem ipsi impii Manichaei dicunt a malo Deo esse latam11 — in hoc quod intelligebant, Dominum iuramentum prohibere per se, errabant, quia credebant, praecepta Evangelii repugnare praeceptis Legis veteris, repugnare etiam rationi rectae et moribus bonis. Unde et ipsorum errorem elidens Augustinus dicit, quod iuramentum non fuit prohibitum propter se, sed propter vitandum periurium. Ait enim ad Publicolam sic12: « Dictum est in novo Testamento, ne omnino iuremus;

p. 868

quod mihi propterea dictum videtur, non quod iurare sit peccatum, sed quia peierare est immane peccatum, a quo nos longe esse voluit qui, ne omnino iuraremus, commonuit ».

In alio etiam errabant, quia credebant, iurationem universaliter esse prohibitam. Et iste error venit ex manifesta ignorantia, quia nescierunt intelligere, quod alium sensum facit negatio praeposita signo universali, alium sensum facit postposita. Praeposita enim facit aequipollere particulari negativo, sed postposita facit aequipollere suo contrario. Unde differt dicere: non omnis homo currit, et omnis homo non currit1c. Dominus autem non dixit: omnino non iurabis, sed dixit: non iurabis omnino. Unde non prohibuit omnem iurationem, sed prohibuit, quod non esset omni modo et sine omni causa iurandum.

Et ideo errore isto abiecto tanquam irrationabili et pernicioso, concedendum est, quod licitum est iurare per Deum; et hoc communiter tenet universitas fidelium. — Quia tamen non sic est licitum, quin aliquo modo possit esse illicitum, dubium est inter doctores, utrum iurare per Deum dicat actum bonum in genere, aut2c actum indifferentem. Et aliquibus visum fuit, quod iurare per Deum est actus bonus in genere, ratione tamen pronitatis ipsius iurantis malus est per occasionem. Dicunt enim, illum actum esse bonum in genere, pro eo quod actus transit super materiam debitam, quia invocare3c in testimonium recte transit super ipsam Veritatem.

Aliis autem videtur, quod iurare per Deum de se sit indifferens, quia divina Veritas potest invocari per iuramentum in testimonium veritatis et in testimonium falsitatis; et unum est bonum, et alterum est malum, quia in uno fit reverentia, in altero iniuria. — Unde nota, quod quidam sunt actus, qui pertinent ad divinum cultum, ut laudare Deum; et isti sunt boni per se et secundum se. Quidam vero sunt actus, qui sunt ad oppositum; et isti sunt per se mali, ut blasphemare Deum. Quidam autem sunt medio modo, sicut actus iurandi, qui, si fiat reverenter, est ad cultum Dei; si fiat irreverenter, est ad oppositum. — Ideo dicunt, quod iurare per Deum licitum est sicut indifferens, quod potest fieri bene et male4c; et quia indifferens diversis ex causis potest esse occasio cadendi in malum et vitandi malum: hinc est, quod Dominus aliquando monet et inducit homines ad iurandum per Deum, aliquando retrahit. In veteri Lege inducebat ad iurandum per Deum, ut per hoc revocarentur a iuramento idolorum, cum dicebat: Reddes Domino iuramenta tua. In nova Lege retrahit, ut ostendat, periurium esse fugiendum. — Et pro tanto iuxta hunc modum dicendi satis rationabiliter videtur, quod iurare per Deum sit licitum tanquam indifferens. Sive autem sit indifferens, sive bonum in genere, quia utrumque potest dici satis probabiliter5c, hoc pro certo tenendum est, quod licitum est per Deum iurare; et concedendae sunt rationes hoc ostendentes.

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod actus iste est prohibitus; dicendum, quod non prohibetur actus iste, quia malus est, sed quia occasio est mali; nec etiam prohibetur universaliter, sed prohibetur, ut quis non iuret irreverenter. Et hoc importat ipsius verbi sententia6c, secundum quod explanatum est supra.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod iurare per Deum vel est perniciosum, vel periculosum; dicendum, quod periculosum dicitur aliquid dupliciter: aut quia periculi causa, aut quia periculi occasio. Iurare autem per Deum dicitur esse periculosum, non quia causa periculi — potest enim esse meritorium et bonum — sed quia occasio periculi7c in eo qui non diligenter observat, qualiter iurat.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omne illud quod sibi relictum est malum de se, iudicandum est malum et illicitum; dicendum, quod dupliciter contingit intelligere, actum iurandi per Deum sibi relinqui: aut considerando ipsum iuramentum in se, et sic non est malum, sed vel est indifferens, vel bonum in genere; aut secundum quod fit in opere praeter causam et utilitatem8c, et sic malum est, pro eo quod est ibi privatio finis debiti et positio irreverentiae ex hoc, quod aliquis praeter causam et utilitatem et necessitatem divinam Veritatem assumit in testem. Verumtamen ex hoc non potest concludi, quod iurare per Deum simpliciter sit malum.

p. 869

Sicut enim non sequitur: loqui sine causa et utilitate est malum, ergo loqui est malum; sic etiam non tenet illatio praedicta.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnis actus, cuius consuetudo est mala, de se est malus; dicendum, quod hoc est falsum, quia multa sunt, quae bona sunt pro loco et tempore, etsi frequenter1d generent vitiositatem; sicut bonum est aliquando ridere et laetari, sed non est bonum hoc frequentare, quia perducit in dissolutionem. Sic etiam et de iuramento intelligendum est; quia assuetudo iurandi minuit reverentiam veritatis et quodam modo disponit ad assertionem falsitatis.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum iuramentum per Deum licite factum sit appetendum; dicendum, quod non; et hoc est propter occasionem mali adiunctam. Et est simile: sicut affluentia divitiarum2d, quia distrahit hominem, ne cultui Dei intendat, non debet esse in appetitu, licet possit licite et meritorie possideri; sic etiam intelligendum est circa ipsum iuramentum. Et propterea beatus Iacobus dicit: Nolite iurare, non solum ostendens, vitandum esse actum iurationis sine causa, sed etiam affectum. Unde etiam monemur circa actum iurationis propter periculum periurii vitare consuetudinem, vitare etiam actum praeter necessitatem, et vitare affectum; et ad iuramentum non debet quis ire ultroneus, sed coactus3d. — Et huius simile potest reddi in praesidentia praelationis. Quamvis enim bonum sit et licitum aliis praeesse, non tamen est appetendum, sed potius fugiendum; et ad illud debet homo trahi quasi invitus, quia, cum amatur, praelatio frequenter est ratio superbiendi et quodam modo apostatandi et recedendi a Deo4d. Similiter intelligendum est in proposito. Unde quamvis iuramentum licitum sit et meritorium, non tamen est appetendum; et hoc vult innuere textus Evangelii et admonitio ipsius beati Iacobi5d.

Scholion

I. De conditionibus, quae requiruntur, ut iuramentum sit licitum, agitur hic dub. 1; de variis iuramenti formulis hic dub. 3. — Principalis conclusio 1. quaestionis ab ipso ecclesiastico magisterio contra haereticos determinata est. In professione enim fidei, quae Waldensibus ad Ecclesiam revocatis ab Innocentio III. (an. 1210) est praescripta, legitur: « Non condemnamus iuramentum, immo credimus puro corde, quod cum veritate et iudicio et iustitia licitum sit iurare ». Error Fraticellorum de eadem re reprobatus est a Ioanne XXII. an. 1318 (error tertius), et postea sequens error Wikleff a Concilio Constantiensi (prop. 43.): « Iuramenta illicita sunt, quae fiunt ad corroborandos humanos contractus et commercia civilia ». — Quoad dubium occurrens, utrum iuramentum per se sit actus bonus, vel indifferens, S. Bonav. rem relinquit iniudicatam. S. Thom. in Summa (II. II. q. 89. a. 2.) favet primae sententiae (hic in corp.) dicens: « Iuramentum secundum se est licitum et honestum ». Hanc tenet etiam Alex. Hal. (Sum. p. III. q. 31. m. 2. a. 1.), de hoc specialiter et diffuse agens. Attamen S. Thom. in Comment. (hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1.) videtur magis inclinare ad secundam opinionem, dum (ibi ad 1.) dicit: « Non tamen oportet, quod iurare simpliciter sit per se iustum et bonum »; et ad 3. docet, quod ipsius Dei iuramentum sit per se bonum, et addit: « Nec est simile de nostro iuramento ». — Quod autem iuramentum debito modo factum, licet sit meritorium, nihilominus non sit appetendum per se, communiter tenetur et hic bene probatur. De hac 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 2. — S. Thom., hic loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2; S. loc. cit. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Durand., hic q. 1. — De hac et duabus seqq. qq. Dionys. Carth. et Biel, hic q. 1.

II. Seq. (2.) quaestio est de iuramento facto per creaturas. Quod duplici modo liceat iurare per creaturas ad Deum relatas, videlicet tum quatenus in eis relucet divina Veritas et Maiestas, tum quatenus creatura aliqua Deo quasi oppigneratur (iuramentum exsecratorium), est doctrina communissima. Aliter est dicendum, si hoc fiat venerando creaturam vel in se tanquam aliquid divinum, vel eam contemnendo tanquam rem vilem, et tamen in testimonium veritatis invocando. — In duabus quaestionibus ultimis auctor noster sequitur S. Augustinum (cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.) docentem, quod per se loquendo, liceat per omnes creaturas iurare. Refert Alex. Hal. (loc. cit. m. 3. a. 3.), alios docere, quod non nisi per creaturas Deo dicatas et ad cultum divinum ordinatas liceat iurare; contra quos et ipse affert praenotatum testimonium S. Augustini. Observari tamen debet restrictio huius doctrinae ab auctore nostro adiecta. Praeter Alexandrum Hal.; S. Thom., hic a. 1. in solutionibus oppositor.; S. loc. cit. a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2.

III. Casum moralem in 3. quaestione discussum similiter solvit cum aliis S. Thom. (hic a. 5. ad 3; S. II. II. q. 98. a. 4. ad 4.). In notis ad primum locum observat P. Nicolai, quod non constat, iuramentum Laban (vide hic 1. fundam.) factum esse in forma non concessa, scilicet per idola, licet ille fuerit idololatra. De eadem (3.) quaestione explicite tractant: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 2. a. 6. § 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3.

---

English Translation

Article II. On the form of swearing.

Next there is inquiry concerning the form of swearing, and on this three questions are asked. First, whether it is lawful to swear by God. Second, whether it is lawful to swear by some created thing. Third, whether it is lawful to accept an oath made by idolaters.

Question I. Whether it is lawful to swear by God.

Concerning the first one proceeds thus and asks, whether it is lawful to swear by God. And that it is simply unlawful, it seems.

1. Everything that is forbidden is evil and unlawful; but to swear by God is forbidden, for it is said in Matthew the fifth1: Swear not at all; likewise in James the fifth: Above all things, my brethren, swear not: therefore to swear by God is evil and unlawful.

2. Likewise, every act that is pernicious or dangerous is of itself evil and unlawful; but an oath made by God, according to what Augustine says in a certain sermon2, « is either pernicious or dangerous, and none is safe »: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, everything that, when left to itself, is evil, simply speaking, must be judged evil and unlawful; but to swear by God without cause is evil and unlawful: therefore, simply speaking, to swear by God is unlawful and evil.

4. Likewise, every act whose habitual practice is evil is of itself evil and unlawful; but the habit of swearing by God is evil and to be reproved: therefore to swear by God is evil and unlawful.

On the contrary: 1. Augustine in the sermon on the Words of the Apostle5: « If swearing were a sin, it would not be said in the Law: Thou shalt render to the Lord thy oaths »; but we render oaths to the Lord when we swear by the Lord: since therefore this is conceded in the Law, it seems that to swear by God is not unlawful.

2. Likewise, no act that has an exemplar in God is evil and unlawful; but an oath by God has its exemplar in God himself, since God himself swears by himself, according to what the Apostle says to the Hebrews the sixth6: and in the Psalm: The Lord hath sworn etc.; and in Genesis the twenty-second: By myself have I sworn etc.: therefore to swear by God is not unlawful.

3. Likewise, no act in which honor and reverence is shown to God himself is unlawful; but when we swear by God, we show honor and reverence to God himself: therefore etc. The minor is proved by the Gloss on Matthew the fifth7: « That by which anyone swears, he venerates, he loves, he fears: therefore it is enjoined that one swear only by God ».

4. Likewise, every act passing over its due matter1b is good and lawful6b; but to swear by God is an act passing over its due matter, since this is to invoke the divine Truth as witness: therefore to swear by God is good and lawful.

5. Likewise, everything that conduces to the confirmation of truth and to the confutation7b of falsity and deceit is good and lawful; but an oath by God is of this kind, since by it the good are cleared as witnesses, and the evil are convicted and punished: therefore an oath by God is good and lawful8.

In connection with this it is asked, whether a good and lawful oath is to be desired. And that it is so, it seems, because it can be meritorious. And if so, it is asked: why was an oath forbidden by the Lord more than another good thing?

Conclusion

To swear by God is lawful, yet not to be desired.

I respond: For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that some have wished to say that every oath is unlawful, not only by a creature, but even by God himself. And this was and is the position of the Manichaean heretics9, who took the occasion of their error from the word of the Lord, in Matthew the fifth, and from what is said in James the fifth. Which word indeed they misunderstood in two ways: first, because they believed that the Lord forbade the oath itself as of itself evil; second, because they understood by what is said: Thou shalt not swear at all, that the Lord forbade every oath. And in the first they erred: for, if the evangelical Law does not2b forbid except what is evil of itself; but to swear by God and to bring forward Truth itself as witness is neither against right reason nor against good custom nor against the divine Law — especially since the divine Law says10: Thou shalt render to the Lord thy oaths, which Law these impious Manichaeans say was promulgated by an evil God11 — in this, that they understood the Lord to forbid the oath in itself, they erred, because they believed that the precepts of the Gospel were at variance with the precepts of the old Law, at variance also with right reason and good morals. Hence, refuting their error, Augustine says that the oath was not forbidden for its own sake, but for the avoiding of perjury. For he says to Publicola thus12: « It is said in the new Testament that we should not swear at all;

which therefore seems to me to be said, not because swearing is a sin, but because to commit perjury is a monstrous sin, from which he willed us to be far who, that we should not swear at all, admonished us ».

In another point also they erred, because they believed that swearing was universally forbidden. And this error comes from manifest ignorance, because they did not know how to understand that a negation placed before a universal sign makes one sense, and placed after makes another sense. For placed before it makes the proposition equivalent to a particular negative, but placed after it makes it equivalent to its contrary. Hence it differs to say: not every man runs, and every man does not run1c. But the Lord did not say: at all thou shalt not swear, but said: thou shalt not swear at all. Hence he did not forbid every act of swearing, but forbade that one should not swear in every manner and without any cause.

And therefore, that error being cast off as irrational and pernicious, it must be conceded that it is lawful to swear by God; and this the whole body of the faithful commonly holds. — Yet, since it is not so lawful but that in some way it can be unlawful, there is doubt among the doctors whether to swear by God denotes an act good in its kind, or2c an indifferent act. And to some it has seemed that to swear by God is an act good in its kind, yet by reason of the proneness of the one swearing is evil by occasion. For they say that the act is good in its kind, in that the act passes over its due matter, since to invoke3c as witness rightly passes over Truth itself.

But to others it seems that to swear by God is of itself indifferent, since the divine Truth can be invoked through an oath as witness to truth and as witness to falsity; and the one is good, and the other is evil, since in the one reverence is done, in the other injury. — Hence note that there are certain acts which pertain to the divine worship, as to praise God; and these are good of themselves and according to themselves. But there are certain acts which are toward the opposite; and these are evil of themselves, as to blaspheme God. But there are certain ones that are in a middle manner, like the act of swearing, which, if it be done reverently, is toward the worship of God; if it be done irreverently, is toward the opposite. — Therefore they say that to swear by God is lawful as indifferent, which can be done well and badly4c; and because an indifferent thing for diverse causes can be an occasion of falling into evil and of avoiding evil: hence it is that the Lord sometimes admonishes and induces men to swear by God, sometimes draws back. In the old Law he induced them to swear by God, that by this they might be recalled from the oath of idols, when he said: Thou shalt render to the Lord thy oaths. In the new Law he draws back, to show that perjury is to be fled. — And to this extent, according to this manner of speaking, it seems reasonable enough that to swear by God is lawful as indifferent. But whether it be indifferent, or good in its kind, since either can be said with sufficient probability5c, this must be held for certain, that it is lawful to swear by God; and the reasons showing this are to be granted.

1. To that, then, which is objected to the contrary, that this act is forbidden; it must be said that this act is not forbidden because it is evil, but because it is an occasion of evil; nor is it forbidden universally, but it is forbidden that one should not swear irreverently. And this is conveyed by the meaning of the word itself6c, according as has been explained above.

2. To that which is objected, that to swear by God is either pernicious or dangerous; it must be said that dangerous is said of something in two ways: either because it is the cause of danger, or because it is the occasion of danger. But to swear by God is said to be dangerous, not because it is the cause of danger — for it can be meritorious and good — but because it is the occasion of danger7c in him who does not diligently observe how he swears.

3. To that which is objected, that everything that, when left to itself, is evil of itself must be judged evil and unlawful; it must be said that there are two ways of understanding the act of swearing by God as left to itself: either by considering the oath itself in itself, and so it is not evil, but is either indifferent or good in its kind; or according as it is done in the deed apart from cause and utility8c, and so it is evil, in that there is there a privation of the due end and a positing of irreverence from this, that someone, apart from cause and utility and necessity, takes the divine Truth as witness. Yet from this it cannot be concluded that to swear by God is simply evil.

For just as it does not follow: to speak without cause and utility is evil, therefore to speak is evil; so also the aforesaid inference does not hold.

4. To that which is objected, that every act whose habitual practice is evil is of itself evil; it must be said that this is false, since there are many things which are good according to place and time, even though frequently1d they breed viciousness; just as it is sometimes good to laugh and to be glad, but it is not good to make this frequent, because it leads into dissoluteness. So also is it to be understood of an oath; since the habit of swearing diminishes reverence for truth and in some manner disposes to the assertion of falsity.

To that which is asked, whether an oath lawfully made by God is to be desired; it must be said that it is not; and this is on account of the occasion of evil joined to it. And it is similar: just as the affluence of riches2d, because it distracts a man, lest he attend to the worship of God, ought not to be in his desire, although it can be lawfully and meritoriously possessed; so also is it to be understood concerning the oath itself. And therefore blessed James says: Swear not, showing not only that the act of swearing without cause is to be avoided, but also the affection for it. Hence also we are admonished, concerning the act of swearing, on account of the danger of perjury, to avoid the habit, to avoid also the act apart from necessity, and to avoid the affection; and to an oath one ought not to go of his own accord, but constrained3d. — And the like of this can be rendered in the presiding of a prelacy. For although it be good and lawful to be set over others, yet it is not to be desired, but rather to be fled; and to it a man ought to be drawn as if unwilling, because, when it is loved, prelacy is frequently a ground for being proud and in some manner for apostatizing and withdrawing from God4d. The like is to be understood in the matter proposed. Hence, although an oath be lawful and meritorious, yet it is not to be desired; and this the text of the Gospel and the admonition of blessed James himself mean to suggest5d.

Scholion

I. The conditions which are required for an oath to be lawful are treated here in dub. 1; the various formulas of an oath here in dub. 3. — The principal conclusion of the 1st question has been determined by the ecclesiastical magisterium itself against heretics. For in the profession of faith which was prescribed to the Waldensians recalled to the Church by Innocent III (in the year 1210), it is read: « We do not condemn an oath, nay we believe with a pure heart that with truth and judgment and justice it is lawful to swear ». The error of the Fraticelli on the same matter was reprobated by John XXII in the year 1318 (the third error), and afterwards the following error of Wycliffe by the Council of Constance (prop. 43.): « Oaths are unlawful which are made to corroborate human contracts and civil commerce ». — As to the doubt that arises, whether an oath in itself is a good act, or an indifferent one, St. Bonaventure leaves the matter unjudged. St. Thomas in the Summa (II. II. q. 89. a. 2.) favors the first opinion (here in the body), saying: « An oath in itself is lawful and honorable ». This Alexander of Hales also holds (Sum. p. III. q. 31. m. 2. a. 1.), treating of it specially and at length. Yet St. Thomas in the Commentary (here q. 1. a. 2. little-question 1.) seems to incline more to the second opinion, when (there, to the 1st) he says: « Yet it is not necessary that to swear be simply just and good of itself »; and to the 3rd he teaches that God's own oath is good of itself, and adds: « Nor is it similar concerning our oath ». — But that an oath made in due manner, although it be meritorious, is nonetheless not to be desired in itself, is commonly held and is here well proved. On this 1st question: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 2. — S. Thom., here loc. cit. little-question 2; S. loc. cit. — B. Albert, here a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 2. a. 2. little-questions 1, 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 1. — Durandus, here q. 1. — On this and the two following questions, Dionysius the Carthusian and Biel, here q. 1.

II. The following (2nd) question is concerning an oath made by creatures. That in a twofold manner it is lawful to swear by creatures referred to God — namely, both inasmuch as the divine Truth and Majesty shine forth in them, and inasmuch as some creature is, as it were, pledged to God (an execratory oath) — is the most common doctrine. It must be said otherwise if this be done by venerating a creature either in itself as something divine, or by despising it as a vile thing, and yet invoking it as witness to truth. — In the last two questions our author follows St. Augustine (cf. here the text of the Master, c. 7.), who teaches that, speaking in itself, it is lawful to swear by all creatures. Alexander of Hales reports (loc. cit. m. 3. a. 3.) that others teach that it is lawful to swear only by creatures dedicated to God and ordained to the divine worship; against whom he too brings forward the aforenoted testimony of St. Augustine. Yet the restriction of this doctrine added by our author ought to be observed. Besides Alexander of Hales; S. Thom., here a. 1. in the solutions of the objections; S. loc. cit. a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 2. a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 2.

III. The moral case discussed in the 3rd question St. Thomas likewise solves with others (here a. 5. to the 3rd; S. II. II. q. 98. a. 4. to the 4th). In the notes to the first place P. Nicolai observes that it is not established that the oath of Laban (see here the 1st argument) was made in a form not conceded, namely by idols, although he was an idolater. On the same (3rd) question explicitly treat: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 2. a. 6. § 2. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 2. a. 4. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 3.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 34. — Seq. textus est Iac. 5, 12. — Pro quia dicitur codd. U Z bb secundum quod dicitur. (p.866, n.6, ad arg. 1.)
    Verse 34. — The following text is James 5, 12. — For quia dicitur codices U, Z, bb read secundum quod dicitur.
  2. Serm. 180. (alias 28. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 4. n. 4. (p.866, n.7, ad arg. 2.)
    Sermon 180 (otherwise 28, on the Words of the Apostle) c. 4, n. 4.
  3. Serm. 28, sed nunc serm. 180. c. 4. n. 4. Textus Scripturae est Matth. 5, 33; ubi hoc loco plurimi codd. et edd. 1 2 Redde pro Reddes. — In minori pro per Dominum codd. A L Z per Deum. (p.867, n.3, ad Sed contra 1.)
    Sermon 28, but now sermon 180, c. 4, n. 4. The text of Scripture is Matthew 5, 33; where in this place very many codices and editions 1, 2 read Redde for Reddes. — In the minor, for per Dominum codices A, L, Z read per Deum.
  4. Vers. 13. — Seq. textus est Ps. 109, 4; tertius Gen. 22, 16. — De minori cfr. I. Sent. d. 36. a. 3. q. 1. seq. (p.867, n.4, ad Sed contra 2.)
    Verse 13. — The following text is Ps. 109, 4; the third is Gen. 22, 16. — On the minor cf. I Sent. d. 36, a. 3, q. 1, following.
  5. Vers. 33. — Glossa, quae est secundum Hieron. in hunc locum, exhibetur apud Strabum et Lyranum ut ordinaria, in qua ultima propositio sic exprimitur: « Ideo Lex praecipit, ut non iuretur nisi per Deum ». Hieron. vero ita dicit: In Lege praeceptum est, ut non iuremus nisi per Dominum Deum nostrum. — Plurimi codd. ideo non praecipitur, quod iuretur etc., cod. T ideo praecipitur, quod iuretur etc., edd. tandem ideo prohibetur, quod non iuretur etc. (p.867, n.5, ad Sed contra 3.)
    Verse 33. — The Gloss, which is according to Jerome on this place, is given in Strabus and Lyra as ordinaria, in which the last proposition is expressed thus: « Therefore the Law enjoins that one swear only by God ». But Jerome says thus: In the Law it is enjoined that we swear only by the Lord our God. — Very many codices read ideo non praecipitur, quod iuretur etc., codex T ideo praecipitur, quod iuretur etc., the editions finally ideo prohibetur, quod non iuretur etc.
  6. Super illud Exod. 20, 7: Non assumes nomen Domini Dei tui in vanum, Glossa interlinearis: Non iurabis pro nihilo nomen Domini. (p.867, n.1, ad Sed contra 4.)
    On that text Exod. 20, 7: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, the interlinear Gloss: Thou shalt not swear the name of the Lord for nothing.
  7. Cfr. Eccli. 23, 12; supra a. 1. q. 3. ad 1. et d. 37. dub. 2. (p.867, n.2, ad Sed contra 5.)
    Cf. Eccli. 23, 12; above a. 1. q. 3. to the 1st, and d. 37. dub. 2.
  8. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 36. dub. 5. — De minori vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 7. (p.867, n.6, ad Sed contra 4.)
    Cf. II Sent. d. 36. dub. 5. — On the minor see here the text of the Master, c. 7.
  9. De hoc arg. cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. — In maiori pro ad confutationem codd. G H H Z aa ad confusionem. In minori post per testes edd. addunt et iurationem. (p.867, n.7, ad Sed contra 5.)
    On this argument cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4. — In the major, for ad confutationem codices G, H, H, Z, aa read ad confusionem. In the minor, after per testes the editions add et iurationem.
  10. Alan. ab Insulis, II. contra Haereticos, c. 18, refert, Waldenses in eundem errorem incidisse. — Seqq. textus Scripturae sunt Matth. 5, 33. et Iac. 5, 12. (p.867, n.8, ad Respondeo, "Manichaeorum".)
    Alan of Lille, II Against Heretics, c. 18, reports that the Waldensians fell into the same error. — The following texts of Scripture are Matth. 5, 33 and James 5, 12.
  11. Cod. K nihil. (p.867, n.9, ad Respondeo, "Lex evangelica non".)
    Codex K has nothing here (omitting non).
  12. Cfr. supra pag. 858, nota 3. (p.867, n.10, ad "Reddes Domino iuramenta tua".)
    Cf. above p. 858, note 3.
  13. Cfr. Augusl., Epist. 236. (alias 74.) n. 2; Serm. 170. (alias 49. de Tempore) c. 2. n. 2, et de Haeresibus, n. 46, nec non II. contra Adversar. Legis et Proph. c. 11. n. 36. — Mox pro iuramentum, cui voci cod. H non bene praemittit omne, edd. 1, 2 cum pluribus codd. falso virandum. (p.867, n.11, ad "a malo Deo esse latam".)
    Cf. Augustine, Epist. 236 (otherwise 74) n. 2; Sermon 170 (otherwise 49, on the Season) c. 2, n. 2, and On Heresies, n. 46, as well as II Against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets, c. 11, n. 36. — Then for iuramentum, to which word codex H wrongly prefixes omne, editions 1, 2 with several codices falsely read virandum.
  14. Epist. 47. (alias 154.) n. 2, ubi textus originalis pro non quod iurare substituit non quia verum iurare, et finem testimonii exhibet sic: qui, omnimodo ne iuremus, admonuit. (p.867, n.12, ad "ad Publicolam".)
    Epist. 47 (otherwise 154) n. 2, where the original text for non quod iurare substitutes non quia verum iurare, and gives the end of the testimony thus: who admonished us by no means to swear.
  15. Regula haec fundatur in eo, quod particula non, quae ut dicitur, est malignantis naturae, destruit sive commutat (quantum ad qualitatem et quantitatem propositionis) omne et tantum id quod post se invenit. Cfr. Aristot., II. Periherm. c. 1. (c. 10.); Petr. Hispan., Summul. tr. 1. c. de Aequipollentia propositionum. (p.868, n.1.)
    This rule is founded on this, that the particle not, which as it is said is of a malignant nature, destroys or alters (as regards the quality and quantity of the proposition) all and only that which it finds after it. Cf. Aristotle, II On Interpretation c. 1 (c. 10); Peter of Spain, Summulae tr. 1, the chapter on the Equivalence of propositions.
  16. Codd. G H L an. (p.868, n.2.)
    Codices G, H, L read an ("or").
  17. Codd. A U invocare Veritatem, cod. F Deum invocare. (p.868, n.3.)
    Codices A, U read invocare Veritatem, codex F Deum invocare.
  18. Alan. ab Insulis, II. contra Haereticos, c. 18: « Ad hoc dicimus, quod iurare in se neque bonum neque malum est, sed indifferens; aliquando tamen malum est, aliquando non. Sponte enim et sine necessitate iurare, vel falsum iurare, grande peccatum est; ex necessitate autem iurare, scilicet ad asserendam innocentiam... malum non est, est enim necessarium etc. » — Aliquanto inferius pro monet plures codd. et edd. movet. (p.868, n.4.)
    Alan of Lille, II Against Heretics, c. 18: « To this we say that to swear in itself is neither good nor evil, but indifferent; yet sometimes it is evil, sometimes not. For to swear of one's own accord and without necessity, or to swear falsely, is a great sin; but to swear out of necessity, namely to assert innocence... is not evil, for it is necessary etc. » — Somewhat below, for monet several codices and editions read movet.
  19. Codd. K Z rationabiliter. Superius pro tanquam cod. Q et tanquam. (p.868, n.5.)
    Codices K, Z read rationabiliter. Above, for tanquam codex Q reads et tanquam.
  20. Cod. F Et hoc patet per ipsius verbi sententiam. (p.868, n.6.)
    Codex F reads And this is evident through the meaning of the word itself.
  21. Cod. U supplet est, subinde pro qualiter cod. A quomodo. (p.868, n.7.)
    Codex U supplies est, and then for qualiter codex A reads quomodo.
  22. Edd. 1, 2 necessitatem, Vat. utilitatem et necessitatem, et mox pro positio irreverentiae edd. 1, 2 privatio reverentiae, Vat. privatio reverentiae vel positio irreverentiae. Paulo inferius pro in testem, quod habent plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, Vat. in testimonium, in fine solut. pro illatio codd. U Z illa ratio. (p.868, n.8.)
    Editions 1, 2 read necessitatem, the Vatican utilitatem et necessitatem, and shortly for positio irreverentiae editions 1, 2 read privatio reverentiae, the Vatican privatio reverentiae vel positio irreverentiae. A little below, for in testem, which very many codices have with editions 1, 2, the Vatican reads in testimonium; at the end of the solution, for illatio codices U, Z read illa ratio.
  23. Edd. frequententur, et immediate post pro generent cum pluribus codd. generant. Subinde pro ridere cod. L ludere, et cod. K iocari pro laetari. Circa finem solut. pro assuetudo cod. K consuetudo, edd. assiduitas. (p.869, n.1.)
    The editions read frequententur, and immediately after, for generent, with several codices, generant. Then for ridere codex L reads ludere, and codex K iocari for laetari. Near the end of the solution, for assuetudo codex K reads consuetudo, the editions assiduitas.
  24. Respicitur Ps. 61, 11: Divitiae si affluant, nolite cor apponere. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. — Inferius pro possit codd. H K T V X aa posset. Subinde post intelligendum est multi codd. subnectunt et. (p.869, n.2.)
    Reference is to Ps. 61, 11: If riches abound, set not your heart upon them. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4. — Below, for possit codices H, K, T, V, X, aa read posset. Then after intelligendum est many codices add et.
  25. Cfr. August., Serm. 180. (alias 28. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 8. n. 9. seqq., et Beda, in Iac. 5, 12. (p.869, n.3.)
    Cf. Augustine, Sermon 180 (otherwise 28, on the Words of the Apostle) c. 8, n. 9, following, and Bede, on James 5, 12.
  26. Eccli. 10, 14: Initium superbiae hominis apostatare a Deo etc. — Superius pro ratio codd. U Z causa, cod. G occasio. Mox pro Similiter cod. U Z et sic. (p.869, n.4.)
    Eccli. 10, 14: The beginning of the pride of man is to apostatize from God etc. — Above, for ratio codices U, Z read causa, codex G occasio. Then for Similiter codices U, Z read et sic.
  27. Vide (Decretales) C. Et si Christus, x. (i. e. extra Decretum) de iureiurando. Sumtum est ex litteris Innocentii III. (p.869, n.5.)
    See the Decretals, ch. Et si Christus, x. (i.e. extra Decretum) de iureiurando (On the oath). It is taken from the letters of Innocent III.
← Dist. 39, Art. 1, Q. 3Dist. 39, Art. 2, Q. 2→