Dist. 39, Divisio Textus
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/39/q/bon-sent-III-d39-divisio
----------------------------------------
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXIX.
### *On perjury.*

*Now let us consider perjury, etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation; each entry gives the Latin apparatus note (**La.**) followed by an English rendering (**En.**).

Above, the Master treated of lying, which was opposed to the fifth precept of the second table. But in this part he intends to treat of perjury. Now this part contains the present distinction and is divided into three parts. In the first of these the Master inquires what perjury is. In the second he determines how one ought to swear, there: *It is also asked whether it is lawful to swear by a creature.* In the third, that an oath is to be fulfilled, etc., there: *Now it remains to investigate whether every oath is to be fulfilled, etc.*

The first part is divided into two parts. In the first of these he determines concerning perjury by comparison to lying. But in the second by comparison to the oath, there: *But if it is asked whether to swear is evil, etc.*

This second part remaining undivided, the first is divided into three parts. In the first of these he inquires whether it is essential to perjury to be a lie, and determines according to another's opinion. But in the second he determines according to his own opinion, there: *But it is better believed, etc.* But in the third he removes an attached doubt, there: *But when someone swears what is true, etc.*

Likewise the second part, in which he determines how one ought to swear, is divided into two parts. In the first of these he determines concerning the lawful form of the oath. In the second, concerning the unlawful form of the oath, there: *After these things it is asked whether one ought to use his faith, etc.*

And this part remaining undivided, the first is divided into three. In the first of these he asks what form is fitting for an oath. In the second, what form is more binding, there: *But if it is asked who is more bound.* But in the third he determines what is the understanding of the form of swearing, there: *Here it is asked what it is to say: I swear by God.*

In this same manner also the third principal part is divided into two parts. In the first of these he determines concerning the obligation of the oath. But in the second concerning its uprightness, there: *The Holy Synod decreed, etc.* And that part remaining undivided, the first is divided into three parts. In the first of these he determines whether an unlawful oath is binding.

In the second, whether a deceitful oath, there: *This also must be known, that by whatever art of words, etc.* But in the third he inquires whether a coerced oath is binding, there: *It is also asked whether he sins who compels a man to swear.* But the meaning and the subdivision of the parts is sufficiently manifest in the text.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

Now for the understanding of this part, according to the things which the Master determines, a question here falls under three heads.

*First*, it is asked concerning the fault of perjury.

*Second*, it is asked concerning the form of swearing.

*Third*, it is asked concerning the obligation of the oath.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

*First*, it is asked whether all perjury is a lie.

*Second*, it is asked whether all perjury is a sin.

*Third*, it is asked whether all perjury is a mortal sin.

### ARTICLE I.
### *On the fault of perjury.*