title: Dist. 39, Art. 2, Q. 1

title_alt:
Utrum licitum sit iurare per Deum
Whether it is lawful to swear by God

source_text:
<!-- page 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 quinto[^1]: *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 sermone[^2], « aut est perniciosa, aut periculosa, et nulla secura »: ergo etc.

<!-- page 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 Apostoli[^5]: « 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 sexto[^6]: 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 quinto[^7]: « 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 debitam[^1b] est bonus et licitus[^6b]; 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 confutationem[^7b] 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 licita[^8].

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 Manichaeorum[^9], 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 non[^2b] 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 dicat[^10]: *Reddes Domino iuramenta tua*, quam Legem ipsi impii Manichaei dicunt a malo Deo esse latam[^11] — 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 sic[^12]: « Dictum est in novo Testamento, ne omnino iuremus;

<!-- page 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 currit[^1c]. 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*, aut[^2c] 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 invocare[^3c] 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 male[^4c]; 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 probabiliter[^5c], 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 sententia[^6c], 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* periculi[^7c] 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 utilitatem*[^8c], 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.

<!-- page 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 frequenter[^1d] 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 divitiarum[^2d], 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 coactus[^3d]. — 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 Deo[^4d]. 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 Iacobi[^5d].

english:
### 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 fifth[^1]: *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 sermon[^2], « 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 Apostle[^5]: « 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 sixth[^6]: 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 fifth[^7]: « 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 matter[^1b] is good and lawful[^6b]; 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 confutation[^7b] 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 lawful[^8].

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 heretics[^9], 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 not[^2b] 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 says[^10]: *Thou shalt render to the Lord thy oaths*, which Law these impious Manichaeans say was promulgated by an evil God[^11] — 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 thus[^12]: « 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 run[^1c]. 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*, or[^2c] 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 invoke[^3c] 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 badly[^4c]; 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 probability[^5c], 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 itself[^6c], 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 danger[^7c] 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 utility*[^8c], 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 frequently[^1d] 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 riches[^2d], 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 constrained[^3d]. — 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 God[^4d]. 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 suggest[^5d].

la: 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.)*

en: Verse 34. — The following text is James 5, 12. — For *quia dicitur* codices U, Z, bb read *secundum quod dicitur*.

la: Serm. 180. (alias 28. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 4. n. 4. *(p.866, n.7, ad arg. 2.)*

en: Sermon 180 (otherwise 28, on the Words of the Apostle) c. 4, n. 4.

la: 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.)*

en: 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*.

la: 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.)*

en: 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.

la: 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.)*

en: 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.

la: 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.)*

en: 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*.

en: Cf. Eccli. 23, 12; above a. 1. q. 3. to the 1st, and d. 37. dub. 2.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 36. dub. 5. — De minori vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 7. *(p.867, n.6, ad Sed contra 4.)*

en: Cf. II Sent. d. 36. dub. 5. — On the minor see here the text of the Master, c. 7.

la: 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.)*

en: 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*.

la: 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".)*

en: 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.

la: Cod. K *nihil*. *(p.867, n.9, ad Respondeo, "Lex evangelica non".)*

en: Codex K has *nothing* here (omitting *non*).

la: Cfr. supra pag. 858, nota 3. *(p.867, n.10, ad "Reddes Domino iuramenta tua".)*

en: Cf. above p. 858, note 3.

la: 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".)*

en: 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*.

la: 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".)*

en: 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*.

la: 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.)*

en: 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*.

en: Codices G, H, L read *an* ("or").

la: Codd. A U *invocare Veritatem*, cod. F *Deum invocare*. *(p.868, n.3.)*

en: Codices A, U read *invocare Veritatem*, codex F *Deum invocare*.

la: 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.)*

en: 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*.

la: Codd. K Z *rationabiliter*. Superius pro *tanquam* cod. Q *et tanquam*. *(p.868, n.5.)*

en: Codices K, Z read *rationabiliter*. Above, for *tanquam* codex Q reads *et tanquam*.

la: Cod. F *Et hoc patet per ipsius verbi sententiam*. *(p.868, n.6.)*

en: Codex F reads *And this is evident through the meaning of the word itself*.

la: Cod. U supplet *est*, subinde pro *qualiter* cod. A *quomodo*. *(p.868, n.7.)*

en: Codex U supplies *est*, and then for *qualiter* codex A reads *quomodo*.

la: 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.)*

en: 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*.

la: 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.)*

en: 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*.

la: 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.)*

en: 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*.

la: Cfr. August., Serm. 180. (alias 28. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 8. n. 9. seqq., et Beda, in Iac. 5, 12. *(p.869, n.3.)*

en: Cf. Augustine, Sermon 180 (otherwise 28, on the Words of the Apostle) c. 8, n. 9, following, and Bede, on James 5, 12.

la: 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.)*

en: 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*.

la: Vide (Decretales) C. *Et si Christus*, x. (i. e. extra Decretum) *de iureiurando*. Sumtum est ex litteris Innocentii III. *(p.869, n.5.)*

en: 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.

latin_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_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.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF bands (Vol III PDF-priority inversion), keyed to raw lines 60106–60343. The ARTICULUS II opener (*De forma iurandi*, raw 60106) + the TRACTATIO of its three questions fold into this q1 per the locked chunking convention (no standalone a2-divisio). Bound forward at QUAESTIO II raw 60344 (*Utrum liceat iurare per aliquod creatum*).

**Alignment.** VERIFIED. ARTICULUS II framing *Primo quaeritur, utrum liceat iurare per Deum* (raw 60112) = QUAESTIO I title *Utrum licitum sit iurare per Deum* (raw 60115); body opener *Circa primum… utrum licitum sit iurare per Deum* (raw 60117).

**Page span.** Printed pp.866–869 (PDF 888–891). Opens at the FOOT of p.866 beneath a1-q3's Solutio tail (a1-q3 ends at the top of p.866 L-col); runs p.867 (full), p.868 (full), p.869 (body + scholion). p.870 begins QUAESTIO II (= a2-q2's content) — NOT part of this chunk.

**Scholion.** `has_scholion: TRUE`. This is the ARTICULUS II article-master scholion (raw 60297, OCRs `SCHOLIOK`), sitting between QUAESTIO I (60114) and QUAESTIO II (60344), so it belongs to a2-q1. §I = *De conditionibus ut iuramentum sit licitum* (oath-doctrine + Waldensian/Fraticelli/Wycliffe magisterial determinations + q.1 bibliography); §II prospectively surveys the next quaestio on oaths by creatures; §III the third quaestio (oaths from idolaters). Body-then-scholion order observed (parser requirement).

**Apparatus — per-page footer split map (27 entries, renumbered continuous):**
- p.866 footers nn.6–7 → `[^1]` (Mt 5,34 / Jas 5,12, ad arg. 1), `[^2]` (Serm. 180, ad arg. 2). p.866 nn.1–5 belong to a1-q3 (already captured there).
- p.867 footers nn.1–12 → `[^1b]` (n.1), `[^8]` (n.2), `[^5]` (n.3), `[^6]` (n.4), `[^7]` (n.5), then `[^9]`–`[^12]` for nn.8–12; nn.1–2 key the late *Sed contra* args, n.3 the first *Sed contra* arg, nn.4–5 args 2–3, then Respondeo markers nn.8–12.
- p.868 footers nn.1–8 → `[^1c]`–`[^8c]`.
- p.869 footers nn.1–5 → `[^1d]`–`[^5d]`.

Marker pairing: every `[^N]:` definition has matching `[^N]` anchors in both the Latin and English bodies (27/27). The `b`/`c`/`d` suffixes disambiguate the per-page footer-number restarts.

**Footer hand-offs.** PICKED UP ← a1-q3: NOTHING (a1-q3 closed its band at p.866 n.5 — its *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaestionem* redirect; p.866 nn.6–7 are this chunk's first footers). FORWARDED → a2-q2: NOTHING — this chunk closes its band at p.869 n.5 (scholion §III tail); p.870 begins QUAESTIO II with its own fresh per-page band.

**[?] flags.** None — pp.866–869 fully legible at 450 dpi.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 39, Art. 2, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
> 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 a fresh per-page footer band at p.870 (nothing is carried over from a2-q1).

<!-- page 870 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum liceat iurare per aliquod creatum.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum liceat iurare per aliquod creatum. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Primo per ipsum textum Matthaei quinto[^1]: *Nolite iurare neque per caelum, quia thronus Dei est, neque per terram* etc.; ibi Glossa: «Quod perfectionis est docuit, cum dixit: *Non iurare omnino*; quod vero superstitiosum est resecavit, cum subiunxit: *Neque per caelum*» etc.: ergo iurare per creaturam est superstitiosum; sed nihil tale est licitum: ergo etc.

2. Item, Pius Papa, Causa vigesima secunda, quaestione prima[^2]: «Si quis per capillum Dei vel caput iuraverit, si in ecclesiastico ordine est, deponatur, si laicus, anathematizetur»: si ergo illicitum est iurare per membra Christi, cum ipsa sint sanctiora omnibus aliis creaturis; videtur, quod per nullam aliam liceat iurare.

3. Item, iurare per Deum est invocare Deum testem[^3], ergo iurare per creaturam est invocare creaturam in testimonium; sed irrationalis creatura non potest aliquo modo veritati testimonium perhibere: ergo stultum et vanum et inconveniens est per ipsam iurare.

4. Item, qui iurat per idolum committit idololatriam, et hoc non est ob aliud, nisi quia in iurando exhibet idolo quod debet exhibere Deo[^4]: ergo iuratio spectat ad cultum latriae, qui debetur soli Maiestati divinae; sed constat, quod non est licitum creaturam aliquam venerari cultu latriae: ergo nullo modo est licitum per creaturam iurare.

**Sed contra:** 1. Genesis quadragesimo secundo[^5], Ioseph iuravit *per salutem Pharaonis*: si ergo ipse tanquam sanctus homo licitum iuramentum fecit, et salus Pharaonis erat quid creatum; videtur, quod per creaturam iurare sit licitum et concessum.

2. Item, Paulus primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto[^6]: *Quotidie morior, per vestram gloriam, fratres*; ubi, secundum quod dicit Augustinus, iuravit Apostolus; sed gloria eorum erat quid creatum: ergo etc.

3. Item, forma iuramenti, qua maxime utitur universitas fidelium, est iurare per sancta Dei Evangelia[^7]: sed Evangelium est quid creatum: ergo licitum est iurare per creaturam.

4. Item, quotidie fideles iurant per Sanctos, utpote per beatam Virginem et per beatum Petrum; nec illud iuramentum arguitur: ergo videtur, quod forma iuramenti licita non solum habeat fieri per Creatorem, sed etiam per creaturam.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur: quare magis iuratur per Evangelia quam per creaturas alias? — Quaeritur etiam, utrum qui iurat falsum per lapidem sit periurus. Et quod non, videtur, quia lapidi nulla est exhibenda reverentia. Contrarium autem huius dicit Augustinus super illud ad Romanos primo: *Testis est mihi Deus*, et habetur in littera[^8]. — Quaeritur ergo, quomodo et qualiter liceat iurare per creaturam.

### Conclusio.

> Iurare per creaturas, et quidem per omnes, licite fieri potest duobus modis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod iuramentum assertorium dupliciter habet[^9] fieri: quoddam per imprecationem, quoddam per ipsius Veritatis testimonii invocationem. — Per imprecationem autem iuratur, cum dicitur: ita vivat filius meus, vel pater, hoc est dicere: nisi ego implevero quod promitto, vel nisi implevero quod iuro, non vivat filius vel pater meus. Et in hac forma iurandi creatura ad testificandum non invocatur, sed potius ipsi Creatori «oppigneratur», secundum quod dicit Augustinus[^10]. Et hoc quidem est licitum, quia, quamvis omnis creatura sit ipsius Creatoris, tamen bonum vel solatium, quod ex creatura percipimus et a Deo nobis concessum est, Deo tanquam nostrum oppignerare possumus; et ideo licita est haec forma, licet «hoc iuramenti genus, secundum quod dicit Augustinus in littera[^11], sit gravissimum».

<!-- page 871 -->

Illud vero iuramentum fit per ipsius Veritatis testimonii invocationem, quando aliquis iurat per aliquem ad invocandum illum in testem. Potest autem creatura dupliciter advocari[^12] in testimonium: aut *secundum se*, aut in quantum est *vestigium Veritatis divinae*. Si *secundum se*, hoc modo non licet, quia sic crederetur, quod aliquid numinis esset in ea, ratione cuius veritas dicti possit per huiusmodi testimonium confirmari. Secundo vero modo, in quantum in ea relucet *vestigium divinae Veritatis*, licitum est iurare per creaturam. Hoc enim nihil aliud est quam iurare per eum qui in creatura relucet; et tunc non veneratur quis creaturam, sed Creatorem. Unde sicut «honor, qui exhibetur imagini, refertur ad prototypum», id est ad exemplar primum, sicut dicit Damascenus[^13]; ita hoc modo iuratio facta per creaturam refertur ad ipsarum creaturarum auctorem. Et hoc est quod dicitur Causa vigesima secunda, quaestione prima[^14]: «Sciendum est, quod Sancti non tam per creaturas quam per creaturarum auctorem iurabant, nec in creaturis aliud quam ipsarum Creatorem venerabantur, sicut Ioseph, qui per Pharaonem iurando hoc in eo venerabatur, quod Dei iudicio positus erat in infimis». Et quoniam in omni creatura isto modo relucet Deus, per omnem creaturam licite potest fieri hoc modo iuramentum[^15]. Quia vero principaliter relucet in Sanctis, et maxime in verbis evangelicae Legis, per quae divina nobis Veritas illuxit; hinc est, quod per Sanctos, et maxime per Evangelia consuevit frequentari forma iurationis, qua quidem iuratur per creaturam. — Concedendum est igitur, quod per creaturam licitum est iurare, sive imprecando, sive Creatorem eius in testimonium invocando. Et sic procedunt rationes ad hanc partem inductae[^16].

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**
*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod Dominus prohibet iuramentum per creaturas, et Glossa dicit, illud iuramentum esse superstitiosum; dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur, secundum quod ipsae creaturae secundum se consideratae in veritatis testimonium invocantur; et hoc modo est ibi superstitio, quia eis reverentia ultra debitum exhibetur. Et quantum ad hoc intelligi habet[^17] Glossa et textus.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de auctoritate Pii Papae, dicendum, quod canon loquitur contra illos qui credebant, Deum secundum divinitatem habere caput et capillos — et tales erant blasphemi — aut certe contra illos qui irreverenter nominant membra Christi et quodam exquisito modo iurandi dividunt ipsum quasi membratim; qui valde rationabiliter sunt arguendi.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui iurat per aliquid invocat ipsum in testimonium; dicendum, quod illud non est semper verum, immo aliquando invocat ipsum in testimonium, aliquando non ipsum invocat, sed illud potius[^18], ad quod ipsum refertur: vel etiam obligat et Deo oppignerat. Et his modis, non praemissis, licitum est et concessum iurare per irrationalem creaturam.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui iurat per idolum veneratur ipsum; dicendum, quod hoc est, quia ille qui iurat per idolum, invocat ipsum in testimonium tanquam Deum; et propterea est ibi idololatriae peccatum. Non sic autem est, quando iurat per alias creaturas, quia iuramentum illud refertur totum ad Veritatem aeternam.

Ad illud vero quod ulterius quaeritur: quare magis iuratur per Evangelia quam per alias creaturas; iam patet responsio per ea quae dicta sunt. Sicut enim crucem Christi magis veneramur, propter hoc quod magis refertur ad ipsum Crucifixum; et Sanctos, quia quadam maiori propinquitate se habent ad Deum[^19]: sic etiam intelligendum est in ipsis Evangeliis, quae directe et immediate ducunt in ipsam aeternam Veritatem. — Et si tu obiicias, quod licet creatura ducat in Creatorem, tamen propter hoc non quaelibet creatura est adoranda, sed illa sola, quae est ad hoc instituta, sicut imago Crucifixi; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia exhibitio honoris et[^20] cultus latriae respicit illud quod honoratur, secundum illud quod est in eo dignissimum, et hoc est proprium et singulare; sed invocatio in assertione respicit ipsius Veritatis infallibilitatem et luminositatem; et haec in singulis creaturis relucet, sed secundum plus et minus. Ideo non est simile hinc et inde.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum ille qui iurat falsum per lapidem, sit periurus; dicendum, quod sic, secundum quod dicit Augustinus: quoniam iurans per lapidem aut intendit ipsi lapidi reverentiam exhibere, aut auctori lapidis. Et si ipsi lapidi intendat reverentiam exhibere, dupliciter peccat[^21]; si vero auctori lapidis, tunc absque dubio peierat,

<!-- page 872 -->

quia ipsi Creatori lapidis contumeliam facit, dum nomen eius per effectum creaturae intellectum assumit in vanum. — Si quis tamen non serio iuraret, sed quodam modo ludere intenderet, sicut mos est aliquibus per bottas[^22] suas iurare; non esset dicendum periurium, quia iurare non intendit, sed potius ludere; est tamen talis modus loquendi satis reprehensibilis et caveri debet a viris perfectis[^23].

---

english:
> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation.

<!-- page 870 -->

### Question II. *Whether it is lawful to swear by some created thing.*

Secondly it is asked whether it is lawful to swear by some created thing. And that it is not seems [to be the case]:

1. First, by the very text of Matthew, chapter five[^1]: *Do not swear, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God, nor by the earth* etc.; there the Gloss says: «What belongs to perfection He taught when He said: *Do not swear at all*; but what is superstitious He cut away when He added: *Neither by heaven*» etc.: therefore to swear by a creature is superstitious; but nothing of that sort is lawful: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Pope Pius, Cause twenty-two, question one[^2]: «If anyone swears by the hair of God or by [His] head, if he is in an ecclesiastical order, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be anathematized»: if therefore it is unlawful to swear by the members of Christ, since they are holier than all other creatures; it seems that it is lawful to swear by no other [creature].

3. Likewise, to swear by God is to call God to witness[^3]; therefore to swear by a creature is to call a creature into testimony; but an irrational creature cannot in any way bear witness to truth: therefore it is foolish and vain and unfitting to swear by it.

4. Likewise, whoever swears by an idol commits idolatry, and this is for no other reason than that in swearing he renders to the idol what he ought to render to God[^4]: therefore the act of swearing pertains to the worship of *latria*, which is owed to the divine Majesty alone; but it is established that it is not lawful to venerate any creature with the worship of *latria*: therefore in no way is it lawful to swear by a creature.

**On the contrary:** 1. In Genesis chapter forty-two[^5], Joseph swore *by the welfare of Pharaoh*: if therefore he, as a holy man, made a lawful oath, and the welfare of Pharaoh was something created; it seems that to swear by a creature is lawful and permitted.

2. Likewise, Paul, in First Corinthians chapter fifteen[^6]: *I die daily, by your glory, brethren*; where, according to what Augustine says, the Apostle swore; but their glory was something created: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the form of oath which the whole body of the faithful most uses is to swear by the holy Gospels of God[^7]: but the Gospel is something created: therefore it is lawful to swear by a creature.

4. Likewise, every day the faithful swear by the Saints, namely by the blessed Virgin and by blessed Peter; nor is such an oath censured: therefore it seems that the lawful form of oath may be made not only by the Creator, but also by a creature.

In connection with this it is asked: why is it sworn rather by the Gospels than by other creatures? — It is also asked whether one who swears falsely by a stone is a perjurer. And that he is not seems [to be the case], because no reverence is to be rendered to a stone. But the contrary of this Augustine says, on that passage to the Romans, chapter one: *God is my witness*, and it is found in the [Master's] text[^8]. — It is asked therefore how and in what manner it is lawful to swear by a creature.

### Conclusion.

> To swear by creatures — and indeed by all of them — can be done lawfully in two ways.

**I respond:** It must be said that an assertory oath can[^9] be made in two ways: one by imprecation, the other by the invocation of the testimony of Truth itself. — By imprecation one swears when it is said: so may my son live, or my father — that is to say: unless I fulfill what I promise, or unless I fulfill what I swear, may my son or my father not live. And in this form of swearing a creature is not called to bear witness, but rather is «pledged» to the Creator Himself, according to what Augustine says[^10]. And this indeed is lawful, because, although every creature is the Creator's own, nevertheless the good or comfort which we receive from a creature and which has been granted to us by God, we can pledge to God as our own; and therefore this form is lawful, although «this kind of oath, according to what Augustine says in the [Master's] text[^11], is most grave».

<!-- page 871 -->

But that oath is made by the invocation of the testimony of Truth itself, when someone swears by another in order to call him as witness. Now a creature can be called[^12] into testimony in two ways: either *in itself*, or insofar as it is a *vestige of divine Truth*. If *in itself*, in this way it is not lawful, because thus it would be believed that there is something of the divine in it, by reason of which the truth of the statement could be confirmed by such testimony. But in the second way, insofar as the *vestige of divine Truth* shines forth in it, it is lawful to swear by a creature. For this is nothing other than to swear by Him who shines forth in the creature; and then one does not venerate the creature, but the Creator. Hence just as «the honor which is shown to an image is referred to the prototype», that is, to the first exemplar, as Damascene says[^13]; so in this way the oath made by a creature is referred to the author of the creatures themselves. And this is what is said in Cause twenty-two, question one[^14]: «It must be known that the Saints swore not so much by creatures as by the author of creatures, nor did they venerate in creatures anything other than their Creator, as Joseph, who in swearing by Pharaoh venerated this in him, that by God's judgment he had been set over the lowest». And since in every creature God shines forth in this way, by every creature an oath can lawfully be made in this manner[^15]. But because He shines forth principally in the Saints, and most of all in the words of the evangelical Law, through which the divine Truth has shone upon us; hence it is that the form of swearing by which one swears by a creature has come to be used through the Saints, and most of all through the Gospels. — It must therefore be granted that it is lawful to swear by a creature, whether by imprecation, or by invoking its Creator into testimony. And thus proceed the arguments adduced for this side[^16].

**To the arguments on the contrary:**
*To 1.* To that which is first objected on the contrary, that the Lord prohibits oaths by creatures, and the Gloss says that such an oath is superstitious; it must be said that this is understood according as the creatures themselves, considered in themselves, are called into the testimony of truth; and in this way there is superstition there, because reverence beyond what is due is shown to them. And as to this the Gloss and the text are to be understood[^17].

*To 2.* To that which is objected from the authority of Pope Pius, it must be said that the canon speaks against those who believed that God according to His divinity has a head and hairs — and such men were blasphemers — or else against those who irreverently name the members of Christ and by a certain elaborate manner of swearing divide Him as it were member by member; who are very reasonably to be censured.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that whoever swears by something calls it into testimony; it must be said that this is not always true, but rather sometimes he calls it into testimony, sometimes he does not call it, but rather that[^18] to which it is referred: or he even binds himself and pledges [it] to God. And in these ways, not the aforesaid, it is lawful and permitted to swear by an irrational creature.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that whoever swears by an idol venerates it; it must be said that this is so because the one who swears by an idol calls it into testimony as God; and therefore the sin of idolatry is there. But it is not so when one swears by other creatures, because that oath is referred wholly to the eternal Truth.

But to that which is further asked, why one swears rather by the Gospels than by other creatures; the response is already plain from what has been said. For just as we venerate the cross of Christ the more, for the reason that it is the more referred to the Crucified Himself; and the Saints, because they have a certain greater nearness to God[^19]: so also it must be understood in the Gospels themselves, which directly and immediately lead into the eternal Truth itself. — And if you object that, although a creature leads to the Creator, yet for this reason not just any creature is to be adored, but only that which has been instituted for this, like the image of the Crucified; it must be said that it is not similar: because the showing of honor and[^20] of the worship of *latria* regards that which is honored according to that which is most worthy in it, and this is proper and singular; but invocation in an assertion regards the infallibility and luminosity of Truth itself; and this shines forth in individual creatures, but according to more and less. Therefore it is not similar on the one side and the other.

To that which is asked, whether the one who swears falsely by a stone is a perjurer; it must be said that he is, according to what Augustine says: since one swearing by a stone either intends to show reverence to the stone itself, or to the author of the stone. And if he intends to show reverence to the stone itself, he sins doubly[^21]; but if to the author of the stone, then without doubt he perjures himself,

<!-- page 872 -->

because he does insult to the Creator of the stone himself, while he takes up His name, understood through the effect of the creature, in vain. — Yet if someone were not to swear in earnest, but intended in a certain way to jest, as is the custom for some to swear by their *bottas*[^22]; it ought not to be called perjury, because he does not intend to swear, but rather to jest; nevertheless such a manner of speaking is sufficiently reprehensible and ought to be avoided by perfect men[^23].

---

la: Vers. 34. seq. — Glossa, quae apud Strabum et Lyranum invenitur ut *ordinaria* in v. 37, sumta est ex Paschasio Radberto, in hunc locum, qui dicit: *Sed Dominus docuit quod perfectius est, indulsit quod infirmitatis, resecavit quod superstitiosum erat et noxium.* — Inferius pro *sed nihil tale est licitum* cod. F *sed omne tale est vitium*.

en: Verses 34 ff. — The Gloss, which is found in Strabus and Lyranus as the *ordinaria* on v. 37, is taken from Paschasius Radbertus on this passage, who says: *But the Lord taught what is more perfect, conceded what belongs to weakness, cut away what was superstitious and harmful.* — Below, for *but nothing of that sort is lawful* codex F has *but everything of that sort is a fault*.

la: Can. *Si quis* 10, ubi textus originalis post *iuraverit* interserit *vel alio modo blasphemia contra Deum usus fuerit*.

en: Canon *Si quis* 10, where the original text, after *swears*, inserts *or has in some other way used blasphemy against God*.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7. — Inferius pro *stultum* cod. A *fatuum*.

en: Cf. here the Master's text, c. 7. — Below, for *foolish* codex A has *silly*.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 8. — De *latria* cfr. supra d. 9. per totam.

en: See here the Master's text, c. 8. — On *latria* cf. above, d. 9, throughout.

la: Vers. 15.

en: Verse 15.

la: Vers. 31, ubi codd. et edd. male *propter* pro *per*. — Verba August., Serm. 180. (alias 28, de Verbis Apostoli) c. 5. n. 5, sunt: *Ut noveritis, verum iurare non esse peccatum, invenimus et apostolum Paulum iurasse: Quotidie morior, per vestram gloriam, fratres, quam habeo in Christo Iesu Domino nostro. Per vestram gloriam iuratio est.*

en: Verse 31, where the codices and editions wrongly have *propter* for *per*. — The words of Augustine, Sermon 180 (otherwise 28, *On the Words of the Apostle*) c. 5, n. 5, are: *That you may know that to swear truly is not a sin, we find that the apostle Paul too swore: I die daily, by your glory, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord. «By your glory» is an oath.*

la: Cfr. August., Epist. 250. (alias 75.) n. 1.

en: Cf. Augustine, Letter 250 (otherwise 75) n. 1.

la: Hic c. 7. — Textus Scripturae est Rom. I, 9.

en: Here c. 7. — The text of Scripture is Romans 1, 9.

la: Cod. K *potest*. Edd. I, 2 cum pluribus codd. pro *imprecationem* perperam substituunt *interpretationem*, et pro *invocationem* nonnulli codd. *invectionem*. Inferius post *vivat* cod. A subnectit *mihi*.

en: Codex K *potest* (can). Editions 1 and 2, with several codices, wrongly substitute *interpretationem* for *imprecationem*, and for *invocationem* some codices have *invectionem*. Below, after *vivat* codex A appends *mihi*.

la: Serm. 180. (alias 28. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 6. n. 7. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.

en: Sermon 180 (otherwise 28, *On the Words of the Apostle*) c. 6, n. 7. Cf. here the Master's text, c. 7.

la: Hic c. 7.

en: Here c. 7.

la: Cod. G *invocari*. Inferius pro *numinis* edd. *divinum*.

en: Codex G *invocari* (be called). Below, for *numinis* the editions have *divinum*.

la: Libr. IV. *de Fide orthod.* c. 16. Cfr. supra pag. 202, nota 2. — Mox pro *auctorem* codd. scribunt *actorem*, codd. A U Z bb substituunt *Creatorem*.

en: Book IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 16. Cf. above, p. 202, note 2. — Soon, for *author* the codices write *actorem*; codices A U Z bb substitute *Creatorem*.

la: Can. *Movet te.* § 2. *Sed sciendum.* Pro *venerabatur* cod. bb cum textu originali *veneratus est*, plures alii codd. *veneratur*. Finem testimonii permulti codd. corrupte exhibent his verbis *praepositus erat et infimus* (alias: Memphis).

en: Canon *Movet te*, § 2, *Sed sciendum*. For *venerabatur* codex bb, with the original text, has *veneratus est*; many other codices *veneratur*. The end of the testimony very many codices corruptly give in these words: *praepositus erat et infimus* (otherwise: Memphis).

la: Isai. 65, 16: *Qui iurat in terra iurabit in Deo: Amen.* — Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.

en: Isaiah 65, 16: *He who swears on the earth shall swear by God: Amen.* — Cf. here the Master's text, c. 5.

la: Codd. F L U V Z *adductae*.

en: Codices F L U V Z *adductae* (adduced).

la: Cod. G *potest*, cod. K *oportet*.

en: Codex G *potest*, codex K *oportet*.

la: Ex codd. U Z supplevimus *potius*; multi codd. substituunt *sed propter* [*proprie?*] *illud*; edd. I, 2 cum paucis codd. legunt *aliquando vero ipsum invocat, sed propter illud*. Mox pro *et Deo* cod. U *quod Deo*. Subinde pro *Et his modis, non* [codd. K M O *nunc*] *praemissis* Vat. *Ex his modis praemissis*.

en: From codices U Z we have supplied *potius*; many codices substitute *sed propter* [*proprie?*] *illud*; editions 1 and 2, with a few codices, read *aliquando vero ipsum invocat, sed propter illud* (but sometimes he does call it, yet on account of that). Soon, for *et Deo* codex U has *quod Deo*. Then, for *Et his modis, non* [codices K M O *nunc*] *praemissis*, the Vatican edition has *Ex his modis praemissis*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 9. n. I. q. 3. seq. — Inferius verbis *in ipsis Evangeliis* permulti codd. praemittunt *et*.

en: Cf. above, d. 9, art. 1, q. 3 ff. — Below, before the words *in ipsis Evangeliis* very many codices prefix *et*.

la: Pro *et*, quod edd. omittunt, cod. X *vel*.

en: For *et* (and), which the editions omit, codex X has *vel* (or).

la: Peccato scil. idololatriae et periurii. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7. et 8, ubi etiam verba August. allegantur. — Athenienses dicuntur consuevisse ad lapidem quendam iuramenta facere, cuius consuetudinis mentionem facit Demosthenes, Orat. in Cononem, his verbis: καὶ πρὸς λίθον ἄγοντες καὶ ἐξορκοῦντες, i. e. et ad lapidem agentes et iurantes. Apud Ciceronem, VII. Epist., epist. 12. notatur formula: *Iovem lapidem iurare.* Festus docet, Romanos iurasse, lapidem tenentes et proiicientes his verbis: *Si sciens fallo, tum me Diespiter, salva urbe arceque, bonis eiiciat, uti ego hunc lapidem.* Cfr. August., *de Vera Relig.* c. 2. n. 2; ubi loquitur de Socratis consuetudine iurandi per quamlibet creaturam.

en: That is, with the sin of idolatry and of perjury. Cf. here the Master's text, c. 7 and 8, where the words of Augustine are also cited. — The Athenians are said to have been accustomed to make oaths at a certain stone, a custom mentioned by Demosthenes, *Oration against Conon*, in these words: καὶ πρὸς λίθον ἄγοντες καὶ ἐξορκοῦντες, that is, leading [him] to the stone and making [him] swear. In Cicero, Letters VII, letter 12, the formula is noted: *to swear by Jupiter-Stone.* Festus teaches that the Romans swore holding and throwing down a stone, in these words: *If I knowingly deceive, then may Diespiter, the city and citadel being preserved, cast me out from my goods, as I [cast] this stone.* Cf. Augustine, *On True Religion* c. 2, n. 2, where he speaks of Socrates' custom of swearing by any creature whatever.

la: Du Cange, *Glossarium* etc.: *Bota, Botta* i. e. *ocrea*. — Mox pro *non esset*, quod habent codd. A H Z bb, in aliis *non est*; nostra lectio confirmatur incongrua lectione plurium codd. *non esse*. Subinde pro *loquendi* cod. K *ludendi*, et cod. V *timeri* pro *caveri*.

en: Du Cange, *Glossarium* etc.: *Bota, Botta*, i.e. *ocrea* (a boot/greave). — Soon, for *non esset*, which codices A H Z bb have, in others *non est*; our reading is confirmed by the incongruous reading of several codices *non esse*. Then, for *loquendi* codex K has *ludendi*, and codex V *timeri* for *caveri*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p870..872-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), per the Vol III two-column PDF-priority inversion. Raw range 60344–60488 (`QUAESTIO II.` raw 60344, bound forward at `QUAESTIO III.` raw 60489). Body opener verified: *Secundo quaeritur, utrum liceat iurare per aliquod creatum. Et quod non, videtur:* — the SECOND of ARTICULUS II *De forma iurandi*'s three questions (alignment CONFIRMED).

**Page-split map (printed pp.870–872, PDF 892–894; offset pdf = printed + 22):**
- **p.870** (QUAESTIO II opener through Respondeo *sit gravissimum*): footer nn.1–11 → [^1]–[^11].
- **p.871** (Respondeo *Illud vero iuramentum* through Ad-quaest. *dupliciter peccat*): footer nn.1–10 → [^12]–[^21]. **Note:** the footer text of p.871 n.10 (Athenienses/Demosthenes/Cicero/Festus) physically *completes at the top of the p.872 footer band* — captured whole in [^21].
- **p.872** (Q2 tail *quia ipsi Creatori* through *a viris perfectis*): footer nn.1–2 → [^22]–[^23]. The p.872 R-col footer nn.3–11 belong to **QUAESTIO III** (Iacob/Laban etc.) and are EXCLUDED here — q3 opens its own fresh band lower on p.872 L-col.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- **PICKED UP ← a2-q1: NOTHING.** a2-q1's band closed at p.869 n.5; p.870 begins QUAESTIO II with a fresh per-page band (a2-q2's first footer = p.870 n.1, *Vers. 34 seq.*, keyed to arg.1 *quinto¹* → [^1]).
- **d39-a2-q2 → d39-a2-q3: NOTHING forwarded.** a2-q2's band closes at p.872 n.2 ([^23], *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*, keyed to the Q2-tail *a viris perfectis²*). **QUAESTIO III** (raw 60489) opens lower on p.872 L-col and starts a FRESH band with the p.872 R-col footer nn.3–11.

**Scholion.** `has_scholion: false` — grep-verified NO SCHOLI/SOHOLI in raw 60344–60488. a2-q1 carries the ARTICULUS II article-master scholion (raw 60297), whose §II prospectively surveyed THIS quaestio on oaths by creatures; [^23] redirects there (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*).

**[?] flags.** NONE — pp.870–872 fully legible at 450 dpi.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 39, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
> 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).

<!-- page 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 primo[^1]. 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 octavo[^2], 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 Publicolam[^3]: «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 recipere[^4].

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 suscipiendo[^5] eius iuramentum.

**Sed contra:**

1. Ad Romanos primo[^6]: *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 distinctionis[^7]; 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 Augustinum[^8], 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 mundo[^9], 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,

<!-- page 873 -->

quia super illud Matthaei quinto[^10]: *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 prohibita[^11]. 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 exigi[^12] 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 Glossa[^13]: *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 bono[^14] 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 forma[^15] 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 intentione[^16]; 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 communi[^17]. — 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-

<!-- page 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 esse[^18]; 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 hoc[^19] 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 illicitum[^20].

---

english:
> 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-one[^1]. 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 eight[^2], 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 Publicola[^3]: «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 him[^4].

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 accepting[^5] his oath.

**On the contrary:**

1. To the Romans, chapter one[^6]: *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 distinction[^7]; 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 Augustine[^8], 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 world[^9], 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 five[^10]: *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 form[^11]. 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 exacted[^12] 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 says[^13]: *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 good[^14] 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 form[^15] 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 intention[^16]; 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 advantage[^17]. — 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 something[^18]; 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 this[^19] *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 unlawful[^20].

---

la: 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*.

en: 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*.

la: Vers. 17. seqq.

en: Verses 17 ff.

en: Letter 47 (otherwise 134), n. 2.

la: Cfr. August. loc. cit.

en: Cf. Augustine, in the place cited.

la: Cod. A *recipiendo*.

en: Codex A: *recipiendo* (in receiving).

la: Vers. 32.

en: Verse 32.

en: Chapter 12.

la: 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*.

en: 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*.

la: Epist. I. Corinth. 8, 4. — Circa finem arg. pro *conversionem*, quod habent edd. et multi codd., substituimus auctoritate codd. K U Z *confirmationem*.

en: 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*.

la: 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.

en: 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.

la: De forma iuramenti concessa, vel non concessa loquitur Iustinian. IV. Digest. tit. 2. Lex 5.

en: Justinian, *Digest* IV, title 2, Law 5, speaks of an oath in a conceded, or in a non-conceded, form.

la: Cod. K *recipi*, codd. Z bb *accipi*. Inferius pro *stabilior sit* cod. A *stabilior fiat*.

en: Codex K: *recipi*; codices Z bb: *accipi*. Below, for *stabilior sit*, codex A has *stabilior fiat*.

la: 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*.

en: 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*.

la: 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*.

en: 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*.

la: Edd. *de forma*.

en: The editions: *de forma*.

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2. — Inferius pro *idololatrae* non pauci codd. *idololatra*.

en: Cf. above, a. 1, q. 2. — Below, for *idololatrae* not a few codices have *idololatra*.

la: Vide supra pag. 652, nota 4. — Pro *oportet* fere omnes codd. et edd. 1, 2 minus congrue *oportuit*.

en: See above, p. 652, note 4. — For *oportet* nearly all codices and editions 1, 2 have, less congruously, *oportuit*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 37. dub. 1. — Verbo *aestimat* cod. U praemittit *illud*.

en: Cf. above, d. 37, dub. 1. — Before the word *aestimat* codex U prefixes *illud*.

la: Multi codd., verbis male transpositis, *et hoc secundum*.

en: Many codices, with the words badly transposed, have *et hoc secundum*.

en: See the scholion on the first question of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p87{2,3,4}-{L,R}-*.png`), Vol III two-column PDF-priority inversion; cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw 60489–60634. Fresh literal English. Bound forward at `ARTJCULUS III.` (raw 60635, OCR `ARTJCULUS`, *De obligatione iuramenti*). **CLOSES ARTICULUS II *De forma iurandi*.**

**Alignment.** VERIFIED — body opener (raw 60493) reads *Tertio quaeritur, utrum liceat recipere iuramentum ab idololatris factum. Et quod sic, videtur:* = the third of ARTICULUS II's three questions (*per Deum* / *per aliquid creatum* / *ab idololatris*).

**Page span.** Opens at the BOTTOM of p.872 L-col (PDF 894), beneath a2-q2's *a viris perfectis* tail; runs through p.873 (PDF 895) and ends on p.874 (PDF 896), where ARTICULUS III opens immediately below q3's *Ad 5* reply. Offset pdf = printed + 22; running-head TEXT (*DIST. XXXIX. ART. II. QUAEST. III.*) trusted over OCR'd digits.

**Apparatus — 20 markers, per-page restart renumbered continuous.** Marker pairing 20/20 (each `[^N]` appears once in the Latin body, once in the English body, once in the definitions).
- **p.872 R-col nn.3–11 → [^1]–[^9]** (the five *videtur* args 1–5 [Iacob/Laban, Iudas Machab., Aug. ad Publicolam, mercari/treugas, eleemosyna] + the four *Sed contra* args [Rom. 1, Aug. *animam occidit*, Aug. *de Doctr. christ.*, *idolum nihil est*]). n.9 = the side-set *Cap. 12*.
- **p.873 nn.1–8 → [^10]–[^17]** (L-col nn.1–4 = Glossa/Mt 5, *De forma iuramenti* Iustinian, Cod. K *recipi*, Aug. Serm. 180; R-col nn.5–8 = *pace*, *de forma*, *idololatrae* / a.1 q.2, *oportet* / Vide supra pag. 652).
- **p.874 nn.1–3 → [^18]–[^20]** (q3's tail *Ad 4*/*Ad 5*: *aestimat* d.37 dub.1, *et hoc secundum*, *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*). The p.874 footer nn.4–11 (*Regula 85.*, *Libr. XXVI. Moral.* etc.) belong to ARTICULUS III q.1 — EXCLUDED.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- **PICKED UP ← a2-q2: NOTHING.** a2-q2's band closed at p.872 n.2 ([^23], *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*). q3 opens its own fresh band with p.872 R-col n.3 (*Vers. 44 seqq.* keyed to arg.1 Genesis 30). The Demosthenes/Cicero/Festus preamble in the p.872 L-col footer is the tail of a2-q2's n.10, already captured in a2-q2 [^21].
- **FORWARDED → a3-q1: NOTHING.** q3's band closes at p.874 n.3 ([^20]). The p.874 footer nn.4–11 are ARTICULUS III's; a3-q1 opens a fresh band on p.874.

**Scholion.** `has_scholion: false`. Grep-verified NO SCHOLI/SOHOLI header inside raw 60489–60634. The article-master scholion (raw 60297, in a2-q1) §III prospectively surveyed this quaestio on oaths from idolaters → [^20] is the redirect (*Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*).

**[?] flags.** NONE — pp.872–874 fully legible at 450 dpi.