Dist. 39, Divisio Textus
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 39
## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXIX. ### De periurio.
Nunc de periurio videamus etc.
DIVISIO TEXTUS.
The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation below; each entry gives the Latin apparatus note (La.) followed by an English rendering (En.).
Supra egit Magister de mendacio, quod opponebatur quinto praecepto secundae tabulae. In hac vero parte intendit agere de periurio. Haec autem pars continet praesentem distinctionem et dividitur in partes tres. In quarum prima inquirit Magister, quid sit periurium. In secunda vero determinat, qualiter sit iurandum, ibi: Quaeritur etiam, utrum liceat iurare per creaturam. In tertia vero, quod iuramentum1 sit adimplendum etc., ibi: Nunc superest investigare, utrum omne iuramentum sit implendum etc.
Prima pars dividitur in partes duas. In quarum prima determinat de periurio per comparationem ad mendacium. In secunda vero per comparationem ad iuramentum, ibi: Si autem quaeritur, utrum iurare sit malum etc.
Hac secunda parte indivisa remanente, prima dividitur in partes tres. In quarum prima inquirit, utrum essentiale sit periurio2 esse mendacium, et determinat secundum opinionem alienam. In secunda vero determinat secundum opinionem propriam, ibi: Sed melius creditur etc. In tertia vero removet dubitationem annexam, ibi: Cum vero quis iurat quod verum est etc.
Similiter secunda pars, in qua determinat, quomodo sit iurandum, dividitur in partes duas. In quarum prima determinat de forma iuramenti licita. In secunda de forma iuramenti3 illicita, ibi: Post haec quaeritur, utrum fide eius utendum sit etc.
Et hac parte remanente indivisa, prima dividitur in tres. In quarum prima quaerit, quae sit forma iuramento congrua. In secunda, quae forma sit magis obligatoria, ibi: Si autem quaeritur, quis magis teneatur. In tertia vero determinat, quae sit formae iurandi intelligentia, ibi: Hic quaeritur, quid sit dicere: per Deum iuro.
Per hunc etiam modum tertia pars principalis dividitur in partes duas. In quarum prima determinat de iuramenti obligatione. In secunda vero de honestate, ibi: Sancta Synodus decrevit etc. Et illa parte remanente indivisa, prima dividitur in partes tres. In quarum prima determinat, utrum iuramentum illicitum sit obligatorium.
In secunda, utrum iuramentum dolosum4, ibi: Hoc etiam sciendum est, quod quacumque arte verborum etc. In tertia vero inquirit, utrum iuramentum coactum sit obligatorium, ibi: Quaeritur etiam, si peccat qui hominem iurare cogit. Sententia autem et5 subdivisio partium satis manifesta est in littera.
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis secundum ea quae Magister determinat, incidit hic quaestio circa tria.
Primo quaeritur de culpa periurii.
Secundo quaeritur de forma iurandi.
Tertio vero quaeritur de obligatione iuramenti.
Circa primum quaeruntur tria.
Primo quaeritur, utrum omne periurium sit mendacium.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum omne periurium sit peccatum.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum omne periurium sit mortale peccatum.
ARTICULUS I.
De culpa periurii.
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXIX. ### On perjury.
Now let us consider perjury, etc.
DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation; each entry gives the Latin apparatus note (La.) followed by an English rendering (En.).
Above, the Master treated of lying, which was opposed to the fifth precept of the second table. But in this part he intends to treat of perjury. Now this part contains the present distinction and is divided into three parts. In the first of these the Master inquires what perjury is. In the second he determines how one ought to swear, there: It is also asked whether it is lawful to swear by a creature. In the third, that an oath1 is to be fulfilled, etc., there: Now it remains to investigate whether every oath is to be fulfilled, etc.
The first part is divided into two parts. In the first of these he determines concerning perjury by comparison to lying. But in the second by comparison to the oath, there: But if it is asked whether to swear is evil, etc.
This second part remaining undivided, the first is divided into three parts. In the first of these he inquires whether it is essential to perjury2 to be a lie, and determines according to another's opinion. But in the second he determines according to his own opinion, there: But it is better believed, etc. But in the third he removes an attached doubt, there: But when someone swears what is true, etc.
Likewise the second part, in which he determines how one ought to swear, is divided into two parts. In the first of these he determines concerning the lawful form of the oath. In the second, concerning the unlawful3 form of the oath, there: After these things it is asked whether one ought to use his faith, etc.
And this part remaining undivided, the first is divided into three. In the first of these he asks what form is fitting for an oath. In the second, what form is more binding, there: But if it is asked who is more bound. But in the third he determines what is the understanding of the form of swearing, there: Here it is asked what it is to say: I swear by God.
In this same manner also the third principal part is divided into two parts. In the first of these he determines concerning the obligation of the oath. But in the second concerning its uprightness, there: The Holy Synod decreed, etc. And that part remaining undivided, the first is divided into three parts. In the first of these he determines whether an unlawful oath is binding.
In the second, whether a deceitful4 oath, there: This also must be known, that by whatever art of words, etc. But in the third he inquires whether a coerced oath is binding, there: It is also asked whether he sins who compels a man to swear. But the meaning and5 the subdivision of the parts is sufficiently manifest in the text.
TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
Now for the understanding of this part, according to the things which the Master determines, a question here falls under three heads.
First, it is asked concerning the fault of perjury.
Second, it is asked concerning the form of swearing.
Third, it is asked concerning the obligation of the oath.
Concerning the first, three things are asked.
First, it is asked whether all perjury is a lie.
Second, it is asked whether all perjury is a sin.
Third, it is asked whether all perjury is a mortal sin.
ARTICLE I.
On the fault of perjury.
- Hic c. 9.Here, c. 9.
- Gratian., C. Actione quarta c. 22. q. 4.Gratian, on the canon Actione quarta, c. 22, q. 4.
- Isidor., II. Sent. c. 31. n. 8.Isidore, Sentences II, c. 31, n. 8.
- Cod. K In tertia vero inquirit, utrum omne iuramentum.Codex K reads But in the third he inquires whether every oath.
- Edd. omittunt Sententia autem et.The editions omit But the meaning and.