← Back to Distinction 39

Dist. 39, Art. 2, Q. 3

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

Textus Latinus
The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; the markers here are renumbered continuously across the chunk. This quaestio opens lower on p.872, beneath the tail of the preceding quaestio, and begins a fresh per-page footer band (nothing is carried over from a2-q2).
p. 872

Quaestio III. Utrum liceat recipere iuramentum ab idololatris factum.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum liceat recipere iuramentum ab idololatris factum. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Primo exemplo Iacob, Genesis trigesimo primo1. Recepit enim iuramentum a Laban; et constat, quod Laban idololatra erat, sicut patet, quia Rachel furata erat idola sua: ergo si Iacob recte fecit, nec eum Scriptura reprehendit; videtur, quod liceat ipsum quantum ad hoc imitari.

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur exemplo Iudae Machabaei, primi Machabaeorum octavo2, ubi Iudas recepit iuramentum, quando iniit foedus et amicitiam cum Romanis; et constat, quod iuraverunt per idola, quae colebant: cum ergo Iudas Machabaeus non reprehendatur de contractu illius amicitiae, videtur etc.

3. Item, Augustinus ad Publicolam3: «Quamvis dictum sit, ne iuremus, nunquam tamen in Scripturis sanctis me legisse memini, ne ab aliis iuramentum recipiamus»: ergo cum iuramentum recipere in Scriptura sacra non prohibeatur, videtur, quod nullum sit peccatum, a quocumque recipiatur.

4. Item, licitum est cum infidelibus mercari et treugas inire; sed fides mercationis et foederis confirmari habet per mutuum iuramentum: si ergo licet Christiano iuramentum exhibere fidei infideli et idololatrae, videtur, quod similiter liceat ab ipso recipere4.

5. Item, ita mihi licet recipere eleemosynam, quae datur mihi cum murmure, sicut illam, quae datur mihi cum bona voluntate — et hoc est, quia quod alius mala voluntate impendit alius potest bona voluntate recipere — ergo licet idololatra peccet iurando per idola, videtur, quod non peccet Christianus in suscipiendo5 eius iuramentum.

Sed contra:

1. Ad Romanos primo6: Non solum qui talia agunt digni sunt morte, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus; ex quo verbo colligitur, quod qui consentit peccanti mortaliter peccat mortaliter; cum ergo recipiens iuramentum ab idololatra consentiat in illo iuramento, in quo idololatra peccat mortaliter; videtur, quod ipse peccet mortaliter.

2. Item, Augustinus dicit, quod «qui petit ab alio iuramentum, quem scit iuraturum falsum, animam illius occidit», secundum quod habetur in fine istius distinctionis7; cum ergo homo sciat, idololatram male et damnabiliter iurare, qui ab eo iuramentum petit eadem ratione animam ipsius occidit; sed non licet animam ipsius occidere: ergo non licet idololatrae iuramentum recipere.

3. Item, magis debet quis diligere animam proximi quam aliquam utilitatem temporalem, quia secundum beatum Augustinum8, nihil post Deum et ipsum animum est adeo diligendum, sicut proximi salus: cum ergo idololatra iuret contra salutem animae suae, videtur, quod ordinem caritatis pervertat qui eius iuramentum recipit pro aliquo commodo temporali. Sed non licet ordinem caritatis pervertere: ergo non licet ab idololatris iurantibus per idola iuramentum recipere.

4. Item, idolum nihil est in mundo9, ergo fides ab idolo nulla est; sed quod nihil habet fidei non potest praebere confirmationem sermoni: cum ergo iuramentum per idolum faciat potius ad fidei subversionem quam ad confirmationem, videtur, quod nullo modo sit recipiendum.

5. Item, videtur, quod non solum ab idololatris, sed etiam a nullis liceat recipere iuramentum,

p. 873

quia super illud Matthaei quinto10: Quod amplius est a malo est, dicit Glossa: «Non tuo, sed illius, a quo cogeris iurare»: ergo malum est alicuius iuramentum recipere et exigere.

Conclusio.

Quamvis illicitum sit iurare per idola, tamen ubi necessitas, vel communis utilitas hoc requirit, licet recipere iuramentum etiam in forma non concessa.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod contingit, idololatram iurare in forma concessa et in forma prohibita11. Si iurat in forma concessa, non iurat secundum quod idololatra; et hoc modo in quodam casu licet ab eo iuramentum recipere, in quodam vero minime: quia ille qui exigit, aut est persona publica, aut privata. Si publica est, quantum est ex ordine iuris, potest et debet exigere secundum quod iudex. Si vero privata est, hoc tripliciter potest exigere: aut enim exigit ad veritatis confirmationem, aut in veritatis subversionem, aut ad suae dubitationis remotionem. Primo modo potest exigi12 iuramentum sine aliquo peccato, videlicet cum ad hoc exigitur solum, ut firmior et stabilior sit ipsa promissio et veritatis assertio. — Cum autem exigit in veritatis subversionem, hoc non potest esse sine mortali peccato; et illud est, quando compellit aliquem iurare, quem novit iurare falsum. — Cum vero exigit propter dubitationis suae remotionem, quia suspicatur, ne homo sine iuramento dicat sibi falsitatem; tunc, si suspicio illa sistat in generali, sic talis exactio tenet potius rationem poenae quam culpae; si vero descendat ad speciale, sic est peccatum veniale, dum de proximo suo malam habet suspicionem. Et propterea dicit Glossa13: Quod amplius est a malo est, scilicet «non credentis»; non, inquam, semper a malo culpae, sed etiam a malo poenae. — Et sic in forma concessa licet iuramentum recipere ab idololatris et infidelibus, sic etiam a Christianis et fidelibus.

Et hoc non quaeritur principaliter in proposita quaestione, sed quaestio principalis est de iuramento, quo quis idololatra iurat per idolum et in forma non concessa, utrum illud sit recipiendum. Et ad huius intelligentiam est notandum, quod in iuramento facto per idolum est duo considerare, videlicet ipsius idoli venerationem et exterioris verbi confirmationem. Habendo respectum ad primum, nulli licet iuramentum ab idololatra recipere nec exigere nec facere, quia idoli veneratio est omnino detestanda. Si vero habeatur respectus ad secundum, sic licitum est ab eis recipere iuramentum, maxime pro utilitate communi. Et sic recepit Iacob pro bono14 suae posteritatis, et Iudas pro pace gentis suae; et sic Christiani a Saracenis recipiunt pro pace et utilitate communitatis. Unde quamvis illicitum sit iurare per idolum, quia forma illa est prohibita; tamen ubi necessitas, vel communis utilitas hoc requirit, licitum est recipere iuramentum tale. — Unde et rationes concedi possunt, quae hoc ostendunt. Illa tamen auctoritas Augustini, qua dicitur: Non est prohibitum in sanctis Scripturis recipere iuramentum, non cogit, quia hoc intelligitur in forma15 concessa ab ipsa Ecclesia.

Ad argumenta in oppositum:

Ad 1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod qui recipit iuramentum per idolum factum illi consentit; dicendum, quod cum duo ibi sint, sicut prius tactum est, non consentit idoli venerationi, sed veritatis confirmationi, ut firmum sit verbum, et solidum maneat pactum. Et quantum ad hoc non est ibi peccatum, quia recipit quod suum est, quod vero ibi malum est detestatur; sicut pauper indigens eleemosyna recipit eleemosynam cum murmure sibi datam, et non peccat, quia sic placet sibi eleemosynae datio, ita quod displicet sibi annexa murmuratio.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de auctoritate Augustini, quod qui exigit iuramentum ab eo quem scit peierare, animam eius occidit; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia illud est in veritatis subversionem nec potest fieri bona intentione16; sed iuramentum ab idololatra factum per idolum facit ad veritatis confirmationem, quia frequenter idololatrae et infideles ita bene reputant se obligatos per iuramenta illicita, sicut Christiani per licita et concessa.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magis debemus amare animam proximi quam utilitatem temporalem; dicendum, quod verum est de utilitate privata, sed non oportet intelligi de utilitate communi17. — Alia etiam est ratio, quia sine iuramenti illius expressione nihilominus idololatra idolum veneratur in corde. Unde positio, vel privatio iurationis exterioris non ponit per se salutis defectum vel detrimentum; ideo caritas de hoc non dicit esse multum curan-

p. 874

dum. Sed si ille vellet ab errore resipiscere et ad veram fidem converti, tunc nullatenus tale iuramentum deberet ab eo exigi.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod idolum nihil est, et fides in idolo nulla est; dicendum, quod quamvis nihil sit secundum veritatem, tamen idololatra aestimat aliquid esse18; et ex ipsa sua aestimatione et errore fortius adhaeret idololatra ipsi vanitati, quam multi Christiani ex fide adhaereant ipsi veritati, sicut etiam videmus in haereticis; et ex illa forti adhaerentia et erronea conscientia, cum per idola iurant, verba sua confirmant.

Ad 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nullum iuramentum licet recipere, quia quod amplius est a malo est; iam patet responsio: quia recipere iuramentum aliquando est culpae mortalis, aliquando venialis, aliquando contractae poenalitatis; et secundum hoc19 malum in textu et Glossa habet differenter accipi: vel pro culpa mortali, vel pro veniali, vel pro ipso malo poenali. Nisi enim intervenisset incertitudo de veritate conscientiae alienae et pronitas ad decipiendum et male suspicandum; non esset necessarium iuramentum. Et ideo ex hoc non potest generaliter concludi, quod iuramentum recipere sit illicitum20.

---

English Translation
The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; the markers here are renumbered continuously across the chunk. This quaestio opens lower on p.872, beneath the tail of the preceding quaestio, and begins a fresh per-page footer band (nothing is carried over from a2-q2).

Question III. Whether it is lawful to receive an oath made by idolaters.

Thirdly it is asked whether it is lawful to receive an oath made by idolaters. And that it is, seems to be the case:

1. First, by the example of Jacob, Genesis thirty-one1. For he received an oath from Laban; and it is established that Laban was an idolater, as is clear from the fact that Rachel had stolen his idols: therefore if Jacob acted rightly, and Scripture does not reproach him, it seems that it is lawful to imitate him in this respect.

2. Likewise, this same thing is shown by the example of Judas Maccabaeus, First Maccabees eight2, where Judas received an oath, when he entered into a treaty and friendship with the Romans; and it is established that they swore by the idols which they worshipped: since therefore Judas Maccabaeus is not reproached for entering into that friendship, it seems so, etc.

3. Likewise, Augustine to Publicola3: «Although it has been said that we should not swear, nevertheless I do not recall ever having read in the holy Scriptures that we should not receive an oath from others»: therefore, since receiving an oath is not prohibited in sacred Scripture, it seems that it is no sin, from whomever it is received.

4. Likewise, it is lawful to trade and to make truces with unbelievers; but the good faith of trade and of a treaty has to be confirmed by a mutual oath: if therefore it is lawful for a Christian to tender an oath of good faith to an unbeliever and idolater, it seems that likewise it is lawful to receive one from him4.

5. Likewise, it is lawful for me to receive alms given to me with grumbling, just as those given to me with good will — and this is because what one person bestows with bad will another can receive with good will — therefore, granted that the idolater sins in swearing by idols, it seems that the Christian does not sin in accepting5 his oath.

On the contrary:

1. To the Romans, chapter one6: Not only those who do such things are worthy of death, but also those who consent to those who do them; from which word it is gathered that he who consents to one sinning mortally sins mortally; since therefore the one receiving an oath from an idolater consents to that oath, in which the idolater sins mortally; it seems that he himself sins mortally.

2. Likewise, Augustine says that «he who asks an oath from another whom he knows will swear falsely, kills his soul», as is found at the end of this distinction7; since therefore a man knows that the idolater swears wickedly and damnably, he who asks an oath from him by the same reasoning kills his soul; but it is not lawful to kill his soul: therefore it is not lawful to receive an oath from an idolater.

3. Likewise, one ought to love the soul of one's neighbor more than any temporal advantage, because according to blessed Augustine8, nothing after God and the soul itself is so to be loved as the salvation of one's neighbor: since therefore the idolater swears against the salvation of his own soul, it seems that he who receives his oath for some temporal benefit perverts the order of charity. But it is not lawful to pervert the order of charity: therefore it is not lawful to receive an oath from idolaters swearing by idols.

4. Likewise, an idol is nothing in the world9, therefore the good faith from an idol is nothing; but that which has nothing of good faith cannot lend confirmation to speech: since therefore an oath by an idol makes rather for the subversion than for the confirmation of faith, it seems that it should in no way be received.

5. Likewise, it seems that not only from idolaters, but from no one is it lawful to receive an oath,

because, upon that text of Matthew five10: What is more than this is from evil, the Gloss says: «Not from yours, but from his, by whom you are compelled to swear»: therefore it is evil to receive and to exact anyone's oath.

Conclusion.

Although it is unlawful to swear by idols, nevertheless, where necessity or the common advantage requires it, it is lawful to receive an oath even in a form that is not conceded.

I respond: It must be said that it happens that an idolater swears in a conceded form and in a prohibited form11. If he swears in a conceded form, he does not swear insofar as he is an idolater; and in this way, in a certain case it is lawful to receive an oath from him, but in a certain case not at all: because the one who exacts it is either a public or a private person. If he is a public person, so far as belongs to the order of law, he can and ought to exact it as a judge. But if he is a private person, he can exact it in three ways: for he exacts it either for the confirmation of truth, or for the subversion of truth, or for the removal of his own doubt. In the first way an oath can be exacted12 without any sin, namely when it is exacted only that the promise and the assertion of truth may be firmer and more stable. — But when he exacts it for the subversion of truth, this cannot be without mortal sin; and that is when he compels someone to swear whom he knows to be swearing falsely. — But when he exacts it for the removal of his own doubt, because he suspects that the man without an oath may tell him a falsehood; then, if that suspicion remains in general, such an exaction holds rather the character of punishment than of fault; but if it descends to the particular, then it is a venial sin, while he holds an evil suspicion concerning his neighbor. And therefore the Gloss says13: What is more than this is from evil, namely «of the one not believing»; not, I say, always from the evil of fault, but also from the evil of punishment. — And so in a conceded form it is lawful to receive an oath from idolaters and unbelievers, and likewise from Christians and the faithful.

And this is not what is principally asked in the proposed question, but the principal question is about the oath by which an idolater swears by an idol and in a form that is not conceded, whether it should be received. And for the understanding of this it is to be noted that in an oath made by an idol there are two things to consider, namely the veneration of the idol itself and the confirmation of the external word. Having regard to the first, it is lawful for no one to receive an oath from an idolater, nor to exact nor to make it, because the veneration of an idol is altogether to be detested. But if regard is had to the second, then it is lawful to receive an oath from them, especially for the common advantage. And thus Jacob received one for the good14 of his posterity, and Judas for the peace of his people; and thus Christians receive one from the Saracens for the peace and advantage of the community. Hence, although it is unlawful to swear by an idol, because that form is prohibited; nevertheless, where necessity or the common advantage requires it, it is lawful to receive such an oath. — Hence too the reasons can be conceded which show this. Yet that authority of Augustine, by which it is said: It is not prohibited in the holy Scriptures to receive an oath, does not compel, because this is understood of the form15 conceded by the Church itself.

To the arguments on the contrary:

To 1. To that which is first objected on the contrary, that he who receives an oath made by an idol consents to it; it must be said that, since there are two things there, as was touched on before, he does not consent to the veneration of the idol, but to the confirmation of truth, that the word may be firm and the pact remain solid. And as to this there is no sin there, because he receives what is his own, while what is evil there he detests; just as a poor man in need of alms receives alms given to him with grumbling, and does not sin, because the giving of the alms thus pleases him, while the attached grumbling displeases him.

To 2. To that which is objected from the authority of Augustine, that he who exacts an oath from one whom he knows to be perjuring himself kills his soul; it must be said that it is not the same: because that is for the subversion of truth and cannot be done with good intention16; but an oath made by an idolater through an idol makes for the confirmation of truth, because frequently idolaters and unbelievers reckon themselves bound by unlawful oaths just as well as Christians by lawful and conceded ones.

To 3. To that which is objected, that we ought to love the soul of our neighbor more than temporal advantage; it must be said that this is true of private advantage, but it need not be understood of the common advantage17. — There is also another reason, because without the expression of that oath the idolater nonetheless venerates the idol in his heart. Hence the placing or the withholding of the external swearing does not of itself bring about a defect or detriment of salvation; therefore charity does not say that this is to be much cared

for. But if he were willing to recover from his error and to be converted to the true faith, then such an oath should in no way be exacted from him.

To 4. To that which is objected, that an idol is nothing, and good faith in an idol is nothing; it must be said that, although it is nothing according to truth, nevertheless the idolater esteems it to be something18; and from his very estimation and error the idolater clings to that vanity more strongly than many Christians by faith cling to truth itself, as we also see in heretics; and from that strong adherence and erroneous conscience, when they swear by idols, they confirm their words.

To 5. To that which is objected, that it is lawful to receive no oath, because what is more than this is from evil; the response is now clear: because to receive an oath is sometimes a matter of mortal fault, sometimes of venial, sometimes of contracted penalty; and according to this19 evil in the text and the Gloss has to be taken differently: either for mortal fault, or for venial, or for the penal evil itself. For unless there had intervened uncertainty about the truth of another's conscience and a proneness to deceiving and to suspecting wrongly, an oath would not be necessary. And therefore from this it cannot generally be concluded that to receive an oath is unlawful20.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 44. seqq. Seq. textus est ibid. v. 19, ubi Vulgata: Et Rachel furata est idola patris sui. — Pro furata erat permulti codd. furata fuerat, edd. furata fuit.
    Verses 44 ff. The following text is in the same place, v. 19, where the Vulgate has: And Rachel stole the idols of her father. — For furata erat very many codices have furata fuerat, the editions furata fuit.
  2. Vers. 17. seqq.
    Verses 17 ff.
  3. Epist. 47. (alias 134.) n. 2.
    Letter 47 (otherwise 134), n. 2.
  4. Cfr. August. loc. cit.
    Cf. Augustine, in the place cited.
  5. Cod. A recipiendo.
    Codex A: recipiendo (in receiving).
  6. Vers. 32.
    Verse 32.
  7. Cap. 12.
    Chapter 12.
  8. Libr. I. de Doctr. christian. c. 27. n. 28; cfr. ibid. c. 23. n. 22. — Pro proximi salus codd. W X anima proximi. Subinde pro pervertat plurimi codd. et edd. 1, 2 pervertit.
    Book I, On Christian Doctrine, c. 27, n. 28; cf. ibid. c. 23, n. 22. — For proximi salus codices W X have anima proximi. Then for pervertat very many codices and editions 1, 2 have pervertit.
  9. Epist. I. Corinth. 8, 4. — Circa finem arg. pro conversionem, quod habent edd. et multi codd., substituimus auctoritate codd. K U Z confirmationem.
    First Letter to the Corinthians 8:4. — Near the end of the argument, for conversionem, which the editions and many codices have, we have substituted, on the authority of codices K U Z, confirmationem.
  10. Vers. 37: Quod autem his abundantius est etc. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum, delibata est ex August., Serm. 180. (alias 28. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 9. n. 10. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.
    Verse 37: But what is more abundant than these etc. — The Gloss, which is the ordinaria in Strabus and Lyranus, is drawn from Augustine, Sermon 180 (otherwise 28, On the Words of the Apostle), c. 9, n. 10. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4.
  11. De forma iuramenti concessa, vel non concessa loquitur Iustinian. IV. Digest. tit. 2. Lex 5.
    Justinian, Digest IV, title 2, Law 5, speaks of an oath in a conceded, or in a non-conceded, form.
  12. Cod. K recipi, codd. Z bb accipi. Inferius pro stabilior sit cod. A stabilior fiat.
    Codex K: recipi; codices Z bb: accipi. Below, for stabilior sit, codex A has stabilior fiat.
  13. August., Serm. 180. (alias 28. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 9. n. 10: Et si non a malo iuramus, a malo est non credentis. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. — Aliquanto inferius pro sic etiam edd. 1, 2 cum paucis codd. sicut etiam. Subinde pro Et hoc cod. K Sed de hoc.
    Augustine, Sermon 180 (otherwise 28, On the Words of the Apostle), c. 9, n. 10: And if we do not swear from evil, it is from the evil of the one not believing. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4. — Somewhat below, for sic etiam editions 1, 2 with a few codices have sicut etiam. Then for Et hoc codex K has Sed de hoc.
  14. Edd. cum aliquot codd. pace. Paulo ante pro Et sic cod. A Sicut, plures alii codd. incongrue et sicut. Aliquanto superius pro omnino codd. G H L T V Z aa bb omnimode.
    The editions with several codices have pace. A little before, for Et sic codex A has Sicut, several other codices incongruously et sicut. Somewhat above, for omnino codices G H L T V Z aa bb have omnimode.
  15. Edd. de forma.
    The editions: de forma.
  16. Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2. — Inferius pro idololatrae non pauci codd. idololatra.
    Cf. above, a. 1, q. 2. — Below, for idololatrae not a few codices have idololatra.
  17. Vide supra pag. 652, nota 4. — Pro oportet fere omnes codd. et edd. 1, 2 minus congrue oportuit.
    See above, p. 652, note 4. — For oportet nearly all codices and editions 1, 2 have, less congruously, oportuit.
  18. Cfr. supra d. 37. dub. 1. — Verbo aestimat cod. U praemittit illud.
    Cf. above, d. 37, dub. 1. — Before the word aestimat codex U prefixes illud.
  19. Multi codd., verbis male transpositis, et hoc secundum.
    Many codices, with the words badly transposed, have et hoc secundum.
  20. Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.
    See the scholion on the first question of this article. ---
← Dist. 39, Art. 2, Q. 2Dist. 39, Art. 3, Q. 1→