Summa Contra Hereticos (Early Dominican), On Oaths against Paterenes

Summa Contra Hereticos (Early Dominican), On Oaths against Paterenes

Early unattributed Dominican Latin writing of the genre dialogue against heretics. Likely written in Lombardy between 1235-1239. Recent scholarship suggests Peter of Verona as a likely contender for authorship. In section 34 of the work, the Catholic [Cath] author argues against an imagined Paterene [Pat], on the topic of oath taking. Paterene is a term somewhat interchangeable with Cathar at this time period, found mostly in Northern Italy.  

Source: Summa Contra Hereticos ad Petrum Martyrem attributa, p. 324 – 334. Ed.: Donald S. Prudlo. Medium Ævum Monographs XXXVIII. Oxford, 2020.

 

34 On oath taking

On taking oaths we follow three paths against the heretics. The first is by questioning, tell me heretic, what is swearing.

On oath taking

Swearing is a particular assertion with divine attestation. Therefore the Apostle swore on many occasions, since many times he asserted with divine attestation. See Romans 1 (1:9) “For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make a commemoration of you, always making request in my prayers.” And the same in 9 (9:1) “I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie, my conscience bears witness to me in the Holy Spirit that I have great sadness, and continual sorrow in my heart.” Also 2 Corinthians 2 (2:17) “For we are not peddlers of God's word like so many, but in Christ we speak as persons of sincerity, as persons sent from God and standing in his presence.” The same in 12 near the end (12:19) “Of old, do you think that we excuse ourselves to you? We speak before God in Christ.” The same in Galatians I near the end (1:20) “Now the things which I write to you, behold, before God, I do not lie.” Also Ephesians 4 (4:17) “this then I say and testify in the Lord.” Also Philippians (1:8) “For God is my witness, how I long after you all in the affection of Jesus Christ.” Also 2 Timothy 4 (4:1) “I bear witness before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead.”

More on the same

Pat: Or swearing is a conjuring of God. And the Apostle does this in 1 Thessalonians at the end (5:27) “I adjure you by the Lord, that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren.” Therefore let us say that is what swearing is. Whatsoever else is said as an assertion, which is that which Christ commanded us, namely (Mt 5:37) “yes, yes, or no, no.”

Cath: Yet I ask you, whether those words only might be said and not others, or rather the meaning of these words. For the first one cannot say because we find neither Christ nor the Apostles ever using those words in their assertions. If yet you say that the meaning of those words should be pronounced, I ask what that might be in fact.

Pat: I say that the meaning of those words is to be held thusly, that one should assert or deny something through two manners of speaking only.

Cath: I say that both Christ and his Apostles many times asserted and denied, which is read more often about Christ in John 3 (3: 5) “Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again.” For twice did He say “Amen, Amen,” that represents two “Yes, yes.” And later is appended his assertion in those words “one is not able,” which represents the third “yes” and for often one reads that Christ is speaking in such a manner. Truly of the Apostle Paul one has many occasions and of the other Apostles teaching in [groups of] three or four asserted positive or negative things or they denied them. As it is especially read of Paul, in Romans 9, when he said (9:1–2) "I speak the truth,” behold one positive utterance, “in Christ Jesus,” behold the second, “I do not lie,” behold the third, “my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit,” behold the fourth, “that I have great sadness,” behold the fifth, “and continual sorrow in my heart,” is added, behold the sixth. So I say that the meaning of these words is assertion or negation by clear words just as these words are either yes or no and according to the value of “yes, yes, or no, no,” one yes and one no, or three yes and three no, for as often as one wishes to say yes or no, provided that one does not use words of adjuration, in which God or another substance is introduced in witness or judgment.

But Christ used words of adjuration, namely “amen, amen,” which means “in truth, in truth”, which indeed He is Himself, as He says in John 14 (14:6) “I am the way, the truth,” and He Himself is God, therefore He was saying “in God, in God.” And the Apostle Paul used words of swearing, calling God as [his] witness or taking oaths as was shown above.

About swearing

So I could say that another way of swearing is to say “God help me,”

On the same topic

But this swearing is nowhere read to be prohibited, particularly in the time of Christ and of the Apostles they would not make oaths with words of this kind, but with others, for example, “the Lord lives” or “May the Lord do this for me,” and “May He add this,” or “God is the witness” or “in God” and the like.

About swearing

Pat: I say that swearing is to swear by the gospels just as the Roman Church does.

About swearing

But the objection remains the same about this and of the next. Moreover, if this alone is swearing, then it is not swearing; to swear in a different manner, namely, by the cross or by the relics of the saints, and the like, which you refuse to acknowledge. Further, by what reason, in what sense are these oaths? And I might find that you propose some in the foregoing cases.

Pat: But you tell me what swearing is.

Cath: Swearing is a legal statement in conscience to someone with the attestation of divine religion. “Legal statement” supposes that a law is enacted, that is, by legal proof in swearing, in the absence of other proofs, as the Apostle says in Hebrews 6 (6:16) “and an oath for confirmation is the end of all their controversy.” “In conscience,” it is added on account of truth in the heart which one ought to possess, for otherwise it is no oath but a perjury, yet with the attestation of divine religion,” he inserts on account of creatures, by which it is not permitted to swear for two reasons. One is on account of having to remove idolatry from the hearts of men, for if they swore by creatures, they might consider perhaps generally that the creature through not having respect towards God that they might have certain divine powers and thus they would be idolatrous. Another is lest by swearing by something insignificant which they do not fear, they should not consider themselves blamed [ for breaking it) and so they might have ample occasion to perjure themselves, and so the form of the oath is established so that one should swear by God, fear of whom silences falsehood and love of whom speaks the truth. Whence the Apostle says in the aforementioned place, “for men swear by a thing greater than themselves.” The second manner is what Paul the Apostle swore, and the angel too, and God. Of swearing one has the Apostle in 2 Corinthians I at the end ( 1:23 ) “ But I call God to witness upon my soul , that to spare you , I came not any more to Corinth , ” Of the oath by the angel it is read in Apocalypse 10 ( 10 : 5–6 ) “ And the angel , whom I saw standing upon the sea and upon the earth , lifted up his hand to heaven , and he swore by him who lives for ever and ever , who created heaven , and the things which are in it . ” And of the oaths of God, the Apostle says in Hebrews 4 (4: 3) “As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest.” And 6 (6: 13-14) “For God making promise to Abraham, because he had no one greater by whom he might swear, swore by himself saying: 'Unless blessing I shall bless you.’” And 7 (7:20) “And inasmuch as it is not without an oath who were made priests, but this with an oath, by him that said to him: The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent, you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” So if the Apostles and Angels and God swore, you can be sure that you heretics can swear even though you disdain it, since it is not only the Apostles and the angel who propose it but God Himself. You are more prideful than the prince of Pride who did not say, 'I will be better than the most high,' but something similar, thus you ought deservedly to suffer for following after him, just as Blessed Peter says in 2 Peter 2 (2:11) “Whereas angels who are greater in strength and power bring not against themselves a railing judgment.”

Pat: I reply that the Apostles did not swear, but invoked the witness of God. The angels were able to swear because it was not prohibited to them. Truly God did it, just like the Lord, for many things are permitted to the Lord which are not permitted to His servant, neither is man able to do what God does.

Cath: That the Apostle swore I prove, for he said (2 Cor 1:23) “upon my soul,” that is, against my soul, therefore if I lie may God give testimony against my soul, or may God take witness and judgment against it at the same time. But our oath is the same as the Apostle’s when we say, “may God help me,” but more strongly, when we propose a privation of the divine help for ourselves if we might lie. Thus his words mean “I call God as witness,” that is, if I say the truth, may God bear His witness for me, but if I lie instead may it be a harm to me. Therefore the Apostle made an oath. Further I say to you, O Heretic, you say these words and it suffices for me, and I know why you do not want to [swear]. Therefore you consider these words as an oath, but because you said that we ought not to imitate the angels in their example of swearing, for whom you say that swearing is forbidden to us and not to them, I require a reason from you why you say that men more than angels are to be forbidden from swearing and why Blessed John wrote about angels taking oaths, if it would be a sin for us to imitate this. Since also you say that we ought not, nor are we able to do anything that God does, which, actually, we are able or at least it is not a sin if we do these, as the Apostle says in Ephesians 5 (5:1) “Be imitators of God, just as beloved sons,” and the Lord in Matthew 5 (5:48) “therefore be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” namely insofar as we are able to swear. Therefore it is permitted for us to swear after God swore, since what is not unbecoming for a king, neither is it for a soldier, and if unbefitting for a soldier, how much more unbefitting would it be for a king, just as in the examples of fornication, and lying, and the like, which God cannot do since they are sins, likewise neither could He swear, if it were a sin, and since He did swear, then swearing is not a sin. And note, Catholic, that by the same reason one is a sin, the heretics declare others to be sins. For they say that all sins are identical by one and the same reason.

Pat: I might say therefore that God did not swear as you would do, but simply by the plain sense of the words He promised, and in God a promise is called an oath on account of the firmness of truth that is in Him.

Cath: On the contrary beyond the plain promising He is promising a binding promise and swearing by His divinity, just as we also do. As the Apostle says in Hebrews 6 (6:13) “He swore by himself,” and later (6:17-19) “Wherein God, meaning more abundantly to show to the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed an oath that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have the strongest comfort, who have fled for refuge to hold fast the hope set before which have as an anchor of the soul.” Then God made two promises about the same thing, namely, plainly and in an oath. The third way is because the parts of a thing are good the whole is good, just as the example of a horse, of which if I prove that it has a good head and feet and so on of the other parts, it remains that it is wholly good. But it is obvious that in true and necessary swearing, done by God, there are three parts, and all the parts are good. For therefore there are only three, namely, truth, the will to swear truthfully, and the invocation of divine aid. But all these are good, or there is nothing evil in them. Therefore, swearing done in such a way is completely good, or at least there is no evil, and pay attention, Catholic, that whatsoever the heretics chatter, they should have in their consciences that the Apostles swore many times and that God and the angels swore likewise.

That to swear is a sin, according to the Patarenes

Pat: Zechariah 5 (5: 3) “for every thief shall be judged as is there written: and everyone who swears in like manner shall be judged by it.” Therefore swearing is a sin, like thievery, even if one does it in the name of God.

Cath: I reply that he is speaking of false swearing, whence he goes on (5: 4) “I will bring it forth, says the Lord of hosts, and it shall come to the house of the thief, and to the house of him who swears falsely in my name.”

Pat: Also, Matthew 5 (5: 33–37) “Again you have heard that it was said to them of old, do not perjure yourself, but perform your oaths to the Lord. But I say to you not to swear at all , neither by heaven , for it is the throne of God , nor by the earth , for it is his footstool , nor by Jerusalem , for it is the city of the great king , neither swear by your head , because you cannot make one hair white or black , but let your speech be yes , yes , no , no : and that which is over and above these , is of evil . ” So it is a command of Christ not to swear.

Cath: One can take these words of the Lord in five ways. The first is , “ do not swear at all , ” that is , in vain , say , ' in whatever manner you swear , even if by creatures , for example , by heaven and earth , and the like , I want it that you keep faith , ' whence He adds , “ but let your speech be yes , yes , no , no , " that is , let your mouth be one with your heart , whether in affirmation or negation . And that the words “yes, yes, no, no” mean, that is, let the mouth be in concert with the heart should be understood the Apostle shows in 2 Corinthians 1 (1:18) “But God is faithful, for our preaching which was to you, was not, it is, and it is not.” And that that is a fit interpretation is clear from two words which He spoke in that chapter, namely (Mt 5:17) “I have not come to destroy the law or the prophets. I have not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (5:20) “Unless your justice abounds more than that of the scribes and Pharisees.” For if Christ does not destroy the law and if our justice ought to abound more than the scribes and Pharisees, who were to teach men to fulfil oaths to God according to the command of the law, it remains that He did not remove swearing, but supplements the law further with regard to the wicked doctrine of the scribes and Pharisees, and supplements their justice which was wanting. Yet the foregoing were teaching and were observing that anyone who might swear by creatures in that way they swore wickedly ought not to observe those oaths, and so they were teaching them to perjure. Nevertheless they excepted certain creatures, namely, the gifts which were offered to them, that they might induce simple people to offer gifts to them. But the Lord, since He is truth, commands them to observe truth, even if it is sworn by creatures, since in creatures the creator is understood, especially in those of which the scribes and the Pharisees condemned making oaths to, and this is what follows “neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God,” to say, the throne of God as if in heaven, and so those who swear by the throne of God, it is understood swear by God, and so on of the others and this is proven later in 23 (23:16) “Woe to you blind guides, that say, ‘Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing, but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple, is a debtor.’” And later (23:22) “And he that swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him who sits thereon.” And note, Catholic, that the Lord, when He spoke regarding redeeming oaths made [in the name of] creatures, He gave the reason that in creatures the creator is known. He is speaking to the faithful who were understanding the Creator by the creatures and who were taught by the Pharisees that oaths should not be kept unless they were made by God. Those who themselves understood the creator to be understood in creatures too, although they excused some more worthy persons regarding whom greater things could be seen, and the Lord inveighs against their stupidity. Still you ought to know that even if an oath is made through an idol it ought to be kept, lest the promised faith be broken, and this is what the Lord concluded by the words “yes, yes, no, no” since in whatsoever manner an oath be made, He willed that the oath be kept unless it was a pernicious one. The second way of understanding the Lord’s words is thus, that in these words He does three things, namely, He prohibits, He commands, and He grants permission. He prohibits, namely, not to swear at all, “neither by heaven, etcetera.” He prohibits, I say, by a prohibition of counsel, yet He commands to tell the truth there, “but let your words be yes, yes.” He grants permission also about the necessity of swearing in truth there “and that which is over and above these, is of evil.” For all the things which are in this passage the Lord adds to the law. They are counsels of greater perfection and occasions of avoiding sins. The third way of explaining is thus, that the Lord might prohibit by these words only swearing by creatures particularly for respect to those pure creatures, and then it is not a lie from that word “not to swear” up to “yet let your speech,” as if to say, “may you not swear by heaven,” because it is not God, but it is His throne, therefore a creation, nor by earth for the same reason , nor by the city of Jerusalem for the same cause , by your head , since your head has no power , on account of which you might fear to lie , since you are completely unable to make one hair black or white which yet follows , but let your speech , ” is commanded for the avoidance of perjury . The fourth manner of explanation is this, that Christ prohibited two types of swearing, the first, namely, not to swear at all, that is, everywhere, always, or for any cause. He did not say not to swear at all , since if He had meant this then He would have said “ never swear , but since He says “ do not swear at all , ” it means not to swear everywhere or always , since when one proposes a denial by means of a universal affirmative , it is changed into a particular affirmation and denial , for “ not all men are dogs , ” that is , “ a certain man is a dog and a certain other one is not , ” as what is proposed here “ do not swear at all , ” that is " at some times swear and in other times do not . ” If it is placed after it makes it a universal negation, as “every man is not a dog, " that is, “no man is a dog,” and thus it might be if he would have said “do not swear at all,” since it means you never swear, which He didn't do. Secondly, He prohibits swearing by creatures when He says, " neither by heaven, " which is obvious that also from the word “neither.” For if He should have said “do not swear at all,” that is “never swear in any way,” and a different thing is “do not swear by heaven. " The fifth way of understanding this saying is that it is a counsel of the Lord for perfection, if you pay attention in this chapter, there are such counsels which Christ only gave to the perfect.

Pat: Also, at the end of James (5:12) “But above all things, my brethren, do not swear, neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath.” Therefore, in no way is it permitted to swear

Cath: Even here I reply in five ways. The first thusly, “above everything, " that is, above all things, which is “any " thing since it is declined in the neuter, it is unpacked as this noun ' thing ‘, and in the latter's feminine gender. And following this the rest is perfectly clear. And note that oaths are fourfold, of which three are prohibited. The first is perjury, of which the Lord says in Matthew 5 (5:33) " you have heard it said of old, you shall not bear false witness.” The second is that if it might be without cause or necessity , of which Blessed James speaks , and of which the Lord says in Matthew ( 5:24 ) “ do not swear at all , ” according to one reading , and Ecclesiasticus 23 ( 23 : 9 ) “ Let not your mouth be accustomed to swearing , for in it there are many falls , and let not the naming of God be usual in your mouth . ” The third is if it might be done by creatures, as in Matthew (5:33) “neither by heaven,” and this “neither by heaven” according to another reading. The fourth is that it might be done in truth and by God and in necessity, and that is conceded, just as it was proven above in the part of the Catholics, and otherwise it is not possible to explain that saying “above all things.” For in fact, it cannot be said before all, that is, the first, because He says this as if it were last, or above all, since before and after, He says greater and more useful things for salvation. For above He said in the first chapter (1: 5) “But if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, " and that one (1:22) " be doers of the word, and not hearers only,” and 2 (2:13) “And mercy exalts itself above judgment.” And 3 (3:14) “do not glory, and do not be liars against the truth.” And 4 (4: 7) “Be subject therefore to God, " and later he says (5:19) " if any of you err from the truth, and one convert him.” And all these, and many others, which Blessed James speaks of in the epistle, are greater and more useful things for the salvation of souls than not swearing. To the second I reply, by explaining the saying here thusly, “do not swear,” that is, you should not wish to swear since it is permitted to swear from necessity, and though it is not a sin, it is nevertheless not good to wish or desire to swear. To the third point is this (5:12) “do not swear by heaven,” that is, by creatures. Nor does what is added oppose this “neither by any other oath,” since it is to be understood of forbidden oaths and read by the Master Jesus Christ, “neither by the city of Jerusalem, nor by your head. " Yet the fourth way is this, “do not swear " namely, in vain, and so He says, “that you do not fall under judgment.” Since whatever oath you might swear you ought to keep it. The fifth way I reply thus, since I say that Blessed James counsels in these passages for the perfect to beware of oaths, for the reason that those who swear often come to perjury, and if you pay attention to nearly all those things which he says in this epistle, they are counsels to greater security and perfection of life, especially when he said “do not. " Yet of these five expositions the first two seem to be the more secure, for the first he makes that which comes next (5:12) “that you do not fall under judgment,” and by the ecclesiastical authorities mentioned above, and Isaiah 8 (8:12) “for all that this people speak is a conspiracy,” and the second readily confirms what follows “yes, yes, no, no. "

Pat: Also, Augustine (Sermon 307 on John the Baptist) on account of the crime of false swearing the Lord prohibited all oaths,” also another of his glosses “Swearing is not good.”! Therefore, Augustine understood swearing to be a sin prohibited by God.

Cath: I reply to how Augustine might have understood swearing to be prohibited by God he explains when he says, (Gregory on Mt 3, Ordinary Gloss on Mt 5: 33-37) “He did not completely prohibit swearing but removing the occasion for perjury, by which he taught it is more perfect to avoid, showing it is further removed from evil. The Apostle swears that some might be convinced of the faith. Even the Church permits swearing by its faithful for a peace treaty. But Christ taught more perfectly, that He would indulge the weak and that He might remove superstition.” And here, regarding that word (Mt 5:37) “and that which is over and above these, is of evil.” He does not say it is evil, but it is from evil. Namely, of the evil of unbelief, in exacting an oath, which unbelief certainly is sometimes a fault and sometimes even a sin. In what way He understands that swearing is not good is explained by the gloss. Whence you have stolen the sense thus, by saying swearing is not good, (Augustine, Sermon on the Mount, 1.17) “swearing is to be reckoned not among things that are good, but among things that are necessary,” that is “it is not to be desired as if it were a good, nor is it to be fled from like an evil, since it is necessary,” (Augustine on Galatians) “for it is not contrary to the command of God to swear.” Also another gloss, on Matthew (Augustine, Sermon on the Mount) “He who does not swear, is unable to perjure himself,” the Gloss understands that one should not swear.

Cath: Reply about the gloss. When it adds, “he who does not speak is unable to lie,” and understand that it does not say that all swearing is evil, just as it does not say that all speech is evil, but it does say of both that he who does not swear is unable to perjure himself and that he who does not speak cannot lie. Thus on the contrary he who never swears, never swears the truth, and he who never speaks never speaks the truth. For it is good not to swear that one might not perjure himself, and it is good not to speak that one might not lie thus, and it is good to swear for one who might know the truth. It is good to speak that the truth be spoken. But answer me this, for there is no evil except in the good, since evil is the corruption of the good, or its privation. For so is a killing evil, because it unduly destroys a creature of God. Likewise adultery, since it violates a marriage. Likewise about theft, since upsets rightful owner ship. So also of perjury since it corrupts an oath. Therefore swearing in truth, which is opposed to acts of perjury, is not an evil.

Pat: But why will you not receive us to the faith and to the obedience of the Roman Church without swearing, even supposing we wish to come to her, also since according to us it is more perfect not to swear than to swear.

Cath: I reply that we do not want to receive you as wolves like lambs, neither do we know you to be lambs, so long as you have not put off your skin of wolves For we do not wish to receive you as heretics, but Catholics, and we do not see you as Catholics until you no longer wish to embrace that by which you blasphemously err, and regarding this especially, that it is better to swear than not to swear, in fact the first is good, and the second evil.

Pat: But what if we wish not to swear, because we can never break our vow?

Cath: Yes, because it is false and fraudulently made, especially it can be released by the authority of the Church, to whom Christ said (Mt 18:18) “whatsoever you shall loose upon earth.”

Gregory IX, Decretals 2.24 De Iureiurando

Gregory IX, Decretals 2.24 De Iureiurando

Promulgated in 1234 CE.

Source: Corpus iuris canonici. Graz : Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1959.Electronic reproduction. Vol 1-2. New York, N.Y. : Columbia University Libraries, 2007. [p.359 – 374]

De Iureiurando

Capitulum I.

Agi potest ad relaxationem iuramenti, cuius implementum turpitudinem continet ex parte suscipientis. H. d. quoad intellectum, et est casus notabilis. Abbas.

Gregorius III.

Ex administrationis (Et infra:) Quoniam igitur creditores ad usuras sibi solvendas in manifestum periculum animarum iuramento debitores adstringunt, nos eorum saluti volentes iuxta debitum officii nostri prospicere, et iniquum gravamen a debitoribus removere, et ab illis praecipue, qui se in auxilium dederunt ad succursum terrae Hierosolymitanae praestandum, universitati vestrae Mandamus, quatenus creditores ipsos ad iuramenta super usuris sibi solvendis praestita relaxanda sublato contradictionis et appellationis obstaculo ecclesiastica districtione cogatis.

Capitulum II.

Non valet iuramentum praestitum a praelato de non repetendis rebus ecclesiae. Vel sic: a iuramento meticuloso fit absolutio per iudicem ecclesiasticum.

Ex registro Gregorii.

Pervenit ad nos, Laudicensem episcopum ab Ar. comite rebus suis spoliatium, et ad nequitiae augmentum gladiis iurare compulsum, quod non repeteret sic ablata et huius tanti sceleris veniam sibi impertiri rogat. Cognita igitur contumelia, sibi in beato Petro illata, valde doluimus, asserentes, ipsum episcopum nullius iuramenti vinculis super hoc posse constringi, quern tamen apostolica auctoritate absolvimus, qui nefandissima coactione iuravit. [Dat. Romae III. Kal. Febr. Ind. III. 1080.]

Capitulum III.

Non deierat qui iuramenti implementum in melius commutat, et non adstringitur quis iuramento ad implendum quod iuravit, si ab alia parte non impletur, cuius respectu praebuit iuramentum.

Idem Regi Francorum.

Pervenit ad nos, quod, quum iam pridem ad partes Alverniae, etc. (Et infra:) Non enim propositum aut promissum infringit qui in melius illud commutat. Nec tu ei, etiamsi praescriptum promissum tuum iuramento vel fidei obligatione interposita conditione firmasses, aliquatenus teneris, si constat, eum conditioni minime paruisse.

Capitulum IV.

Ponitur forma iuramenti septem capitula continens, secundum quam iurant Papae episcopi; sed hodie omnes recipientes dignitatem a Papa sibi iurant. Hoc sit pro summario et divisione.

Idem Petro Subdiacono.

Ego N. episcopus ab hac hora in antea fidelis ero sancto Petro, sanctaeque apostolicae Romanae ecclesiae, dominoque meo Papae C. eiusque successoribus canonice intrantibus. Non ero neque in consilio neque in facto, ut vitam perdat aut membrum, vel capiatur mala captione. Consilium quod mini aut per se, aut per literas, aut per nuncium manifestabit, ad eius damnum nulli pandam. Papatum Romanae ecclesiae et regulas sanctorum Patrum adiutor ero ad defendendum et retinendum, salvo ordine meo, contra omnes homines. Vocatus ad synodum veniam, nisi praepeditus fuero canonica praepeditione. Legatum apostolicae sedis, quern certum legatum esse cognovero, in eundo et redeundo honorifice tractabo, et in suis necessitatibus adiuvabo. Apostolorum limina singulis annis aut per me aut per certum nuncium meum visitabo, nisi eorum absolvar licentia. Sic me Deus adiuvet et haec sancta evangelia.

Capitulum V.

Non tenetur clericus episcopo suo obedientiae iuramentum praestare, nisi ratione administrationis sibi concessae.

Urbanus Papa.

Nullus episcopus clericos suos, nisi forte quibus ecclesiasticarum rerum commissa fuerit dispensatio, sibi iurare compellat.

Capitulum VI.

Qui se obligavit ad usuras solvendas, solvere non cogitur, nisi iuraverit; quo casu cogitur, sed repetit.

Alexander III. Episcopo Vigiliensi.

Debitores autem ad solvendas usuras, in quibus se obligaverant, cogi non debent, nisi eas iuramento solvere teneantur. Si vero de ipsarum solutione iuraverint cogendi sunt Domino reddere iuramentum, ut a creditoribus solvantur. Et quum usurae solutae fuerint, creditores ad eas restituendas sunt ecclesiastica severitate, si necesse fuerit, compellendi.

Capitulum VII.

Debitor, qui iuravit, creditori nullum gravamen super re pignorata inferre, donec solverit debitum, non auditur repetens pignus, volendo compensare fructus in sortem; sed debet prius debitum integraliter solvere, et demum rem cum fructibus inde perceptis exposcere. H. d. et est casus notabilis.

Idem Rothomagensi Archiepiscopo et eius Suffraganeis.

Ad nostram noveritis audientiam pervenisse, quod, quum Petrus de Neasdem tempore guerrae, quae fuit inter carissimum filium nostrum Henricum illustrem Anglorum regem et filios eius, quibusdam hominibus provinciae regni Francorum certam summam pecuniae mutuasset, quasdam ab eis possessiones et reditus recepit in pignore, ipsos sub iuramenti religione sibi adstringens, quod super possessionibus et reditibus illis, donec solverent sibi pecuniam mutuatam, nullum ei gravamen vel molestiam inferrent. Licet autem de possessionibus illis et reditibus praefatis nondum sortem suam, sicut asserit, deductis expensis receperit, quia tu tamen, frater archiepiscope, eum propter hoc excommunicationis vinculo adstrinxisti, +exinde cogimur literas vobis nostras destinare, praesertim, quum ipse sicut asserit, [sua] velit esse sorte contentus. Ideoque fraternitati vestrae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus, recepta a praefato P. sufficienti cautione, quod exinde vestro debeat parere mandato, contradictione et appellatione cessante, a sententia, qua tenetur, penitus auctoritate nostra, absolvatis eundem, et deinde debitores eius, qui sibi praedictas possessiones et reditus contra iuramentum suum subtraxisse dicuntur, si ita est, eos ecclesiastica censura cogatis, ut haec eidem P. dilatione et appellatione cessante restituant, nec sibi de cetero contra iuramentum suum molestias inferant, donec ei pecunia persolvatur, quia non est tutum cuilibet, sed periculosum potius religionem infringere iuramenti. Quum autem ei pecuniam suam, sicut iuraverunt, persolverint, vos ipsum ad restituendum, quicquid eum vobis deductis expensis ultra sortem recepisse constiterit, studiose monere et diligenter inducere studeatis, et, si commonitus id non fecerit, in eandem excommunicationis sententiam remota appellatione reducatis eundem, quia, sicut periculosum est debitoribus suum infringere iuramentum, ita non minus periculosum est creditoribus detinere quod pro usuris receperint, quum sit usurarium crimen detestabile et horrendum plurimum, et utriusque testamenti pagina condemnatum.

Capitulum VIII.

Si iuramentum per metum extortum servari potest sine interitu salutis aeternae, servandum est; ecclesia tamen Romana consuevit a tali iuramento absolvere.

Idem Senonensi Archiepiscopo.

Si vero aliquis quemquam gravissimo metu sub religione iuramenti suum ius refutare coegerit, ipsumque sibi retinuerit, quia nos consulere voluisti, an alter eorum, vel neuter id habere debeat: hoc tibi duximus respondendum, quod non est tutum, quemlibet contra iuramentum suum venire, nisi tale sit iuramentum, quod servatum vergat in interitum salutis aeternae. Nec nos alicui ex responsione nostra dare materiam volumus veniendi contra iuramentum proprium, ne auctores periurii esse videamur. Verum aliquando in Romana ecclesia a pluribus praedecessoribus nostris factum esse recolitur, quod clerici, qui coacti ministerium ecclesiae abiurarunt, de iuramento absolutionis beneficium meruerunt, et ad coercendam iniquitatem eorum, qui ecclesiasticos viros ad praestandum illud iuramentum compulerant, permissi sunt in eadem ecclesia ministrare.

Capitulum IX.

Monachi, qui pro debito monasterii iurant stare in obstagio, et fideiussores, qui iuraverunt creditorem indemnem servare, iuramenta servare coguntur.

Idem Sardinensibus Episcopis.

Ex rescripto quodam, quod nobis est praesentatum, manifeste nobis innotuit, R. quondam abbatem Tremensem cum Petro super summa octo millium solidorum taliter convenisse (Et infra:) Super haec praedictus abbas quosdam ex monachis obsides dedit, qui de observanda conventione iuraverunt, ut, si ipsi deficerent, alii monachi loco eorum in obstagio ponerentur. Insuper, si fidem dicti monachi non servarent, abbas dedit eidem V. et eius uxorem fideiussores, qui similiter fidem praestitisse dicuntur. Ideoque mandamus, quatenus tam abbatem quam monachos, quam V. et uxorem ipsius studiose monere curetis, ut, sicut iurarunt, eandem conventionem faciant adimpleri, alioquin eidem abbati et monachis ingressum interdicatis ecclesiae, et in terra praefati V. et uxoris eiusdem usque ad dignam satisfactionem inhibeatis divina officia celebrari.

Capitulum X.

Periurus est et ab ecclesia removendus qui non necessitate, sed voluntate venit contra licitum iuramentum.

Idem Lundonensi et Vigoriensi Episcopis.

Querelam R. canonici Linconiensis ecclesiae accepimus, quod, quum V. Salvagius nomine clericus ei duos Bisantios nomine ecclesiae de Statera annis plurimis persolvisset, et se illos annuatim sibi soluturum interposito sacramento firmasset, contempta religione iuramenti iam per biennium ab huiusmodi pensionis solutione cessavit. Quoniam igitur non merentur ecclesias regere, qui sunt crimine periurii irretiti, fraternitati vestrae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus partes ante vestram praesentiam convocetis, et super his rei veritatem curetis diligentius inquirere, et, si vobis constiterit, memoratum V. contra iuramentum suum non necessitate, sed voluntate ab eiusdem pensionis solutione cessasse, ipsum a praescripta ecclesia auctoritate nostra contradictione et appellatione cessante removentes, eam praefato R. restituere minime differatis, ipsumque faciatis eam pacifice possidere.

Capitulum XI.

Si praesentatus iurat praesentanti de antiquo censu augendo, et postea contrarium iurat instituenti, valet secundum, et non primum; tamen ab ecclesia removetur.

Lucius III. Norvicensi Episcopo.

Tua nos duxit fraternitas consulendos, cui standum sit iuramento, quum clericos quosdam religiosi iurisiurandi religione constringunt ad maiorem solito pensionem solvendam, vel praestandum aliquid [nomine] beneficii praeter solitam pensionem; quum autem instituuntur abepiscopis, iurant, quod antiquam pensionem et solitam non augebunt. Tuae igitur consultationi breviter respondemus, quod, quum posterius iuramentum ratione et Lateranensis concilii auctoritate iuvetur, primo praeiudicat, quod de cupiditate processit. Ceterum iustum est, ut clerici [sic perplexi] pro periurio, quod vitare non possunt, ab ecclesiis perpetuo excludantur.

Capitulum XII.

Episcopi de periurio gravius quam alii sunt puniendi. H. d. - §. 1. Illicitum est iuramentum de non praebendo subsidium coniuncto. H. d.

Urbanus III. Archiepiscopo Pisano.

Quum quidam (Et infra: cf. c. 8. de temp. ord. I. 11.) Consultationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod in episcopos, qui suum transgressi sunt iuramentum, est tanto gravius vindicandum, quanto maiori praeeminent dignitate, et eorum exemplo facilius alii poterunt ad similia provocari. (Et infra: cf. c. 8. de temp. ord. I. 11.) §. 1. Illi vero, qui iurant, non loqui patri vel matri vel sorori vel fratri, aut eis humanitatis subsidium non exhibere, absolvendi sunt ab illius observantia iuramenti, quum illicitum sit et omni contrarium rationi; iniuncta tamen eis de hoc, quod male iuraverant poenitentia competenti.

Capitulum XIII.

Non valet iuramentum monachi claustrum abiurautis, et sibi de hoc gravis poenitentia imponitiur.

Idem.

Sicut ex literis tuae discretionis cognovimus, R. prior monasterii tui lator praesentium iracundiae calore succensus praecipitato mentis instinctu temerario iuramento firmavit, quod in claustro eiusdem monasterii, quo se vinculo professionis adstrinxit, non esset cum G. monacho ulterius moraturus. +Quaerenti ergo tibi, quid super hoc circa eundem monachum. sit agendum, Respondemus, quod, quum beatus Benedictus in regula sua, quam fere omnes monachi profitentur, iurare omnino prohibeat, non licuit monacho supra dicto temerarium iuramentum facere; maxime quum fidem professionis frangeret, et stabilitatis suae propositum evacuaret. Ideoque circa eum tua sollicitudo provideat, quod talis ei poenitentia iniungatur, per quam omnipotenti Deo de suscepto in vanum eius nomine satisfaciat, ut alius quilibet exemplo eius deterritus simile aliquid facere pertimescat; ipse vero in claustro, quod licite abiurare non potuit, cum stabilitate perpetua suam poenitentiam exsequatur, ita tamen, ne ex eo, quod ad praesentiam nostram accessit, solita regularis beneficii portione privetur.

Capitulum XIV.

Vasallus, qui iuravit praelato, successoribus iurare non cogitur.

Clemens III.

Veritatis amica simplicitas +nullis verborum fallaciis, nullis appetit ambiguitatum involucris obfuscari. [Frequenter igitur est necesse, ut quae minus plene dicta videntur, et ambiguitis scrupulos pussent sane dicta generare, explanatione veridica clarius elucescant.] Ea propter, carissime in Domino fili, audito, quod in magnitudinis tuae praesentia quaestio mota fuerit, utrum ex nostri tenore rescripti colligeretur, quod singuli heredum tuorum singulis nostris successoribus fidelitatis praestare debeant et hominii iuramentum, intellecta etiam expositione dilectorum filiorum nostrorum A. tit. S. crucis in Hierusalem et P. tit. S. Laurentii in Damaso presbyterorum cardinalium apostolicae sedis legatorum, quae ad nos fuit sub sigillorum suorum testificatione transmissa, a sano eorundem intellectu nolentes aliquatenus dissentire, serenitati regiae duximus intimandum, quod, quum intentio nostra sit nil intolerabile tibi [tuisque] heredibus imponere, taliter in hoc articulo tibi Respondemus, ut heredes tui, qui nobis vel alicui successorum nostrorum iuraverunt, aliis [postea] iurare minime compellantur; catholicis tamen successoribus nostris, qui pro tempore fuerint, et homagii et fidelitatis puritatem, nihilominus ac si iurassent, omni tempore teneantur absque tergiversatione aliqua fideliter observare, nisi forte alicui eorum, sicut personae tuae fuerit hominium de benignitate sedis apostolicae relaxatum; qui tamen non se propterea credat a fidelitatis suae observatione immunem. [Dat. Laterani.]

Capitulum XV.

A iuramento per metum extorto ecclesia solet absolvere, et eius transgressores ut peccantes mortaliter non puniuntur.

Coelestinus III.

Verum in ea quaestione, quae praeter hoc quinto loco ponitur, an scilicet a sacramenti vinculo absolvantur qui illud inviti pro vita et rebus servandis fecerunt, morem ecclesiae nostrae prosequentes nihil aliud arbitramur, quam quod antecessores nostri Romani Pontifices Zacharias, Gelasius, Gregorius VII. et Urbanus II. atque alii arbitrati fuisse noscuntur, qui tales a iuramenti nexibus absolverunt. Ceterum ut agatur consultius et ab eis auferatur materia deierandi, non eis ita expresse dicatur, ut iuramenta non servent, sed, si non ea attenderint, non ob hoc sunt tanquam pro mortali crimine puniendi.

Capitulum XVI.

Si is, cuius mandato stare iuravi, aliquid inihi praecipit contra iuramentum per me prius licite factum, illud servare non teneor. H. d. Inhaerendo verbis literae.

Innocentius III. H. et S. et M. Civibus Venetis.

Veniens ad praesentiam nostram dilectus filius A. [Mengun] lator praesentium humili relatione nobis exposuit, quod, quum olim fuisset in praesentia dilecti filii nobilis viri ducis Veneti cum pluribus aliis constitutus pro multarum discussione causarum, cum M. Maurien. alternatim convicia inferendo certavit. Propter quod quum graves inimicitias incurrisset, et vos et alii parentes vestri propter hoc fuissetis vehementius excitati, quidam, qui partis utriusque amatores exstiterant, se in medium ingerentes turbationem illam ad pacem studuerunt et concordiam revocare, suggesserunt praedicto A., ut in satisfactione iniuriarum vestro iuraret obedire mandato. Quumque idem non crederet, se tale quid commisisse, propter quod ei aliquod grave deberet imponi, iuramentumque illud sub tali confidentia praestitisset, ipsi statim sub iuramenti debito praecepistis, ut a festo beati Michaelis proxime praeterito in antea nunquam curiam dicti ducis intraret, nisi tunc, quum omnes per edictum ipsius generaliter ad curiam vocarentur, aut nisi per nobilem virum Rogerium comitem et M. Mauricen., qui absentes esse dicuntur, ipsum contingeret relaxari. Verum quia idem A., qui, sicut asserit, dicti ducis est consiliarius, et in iure suo multis ecclesiis, quarum est advocatus, ex promisso tenetur adesse, nequaquam taliter iuravisset, si mandatum illud sibi contrarium praescivisset, praesertim quum animae suae timeat obviare saluti, per apostolica [vobis] scripta mandamus, quatenus mandatum ipsum pro vestrarum remedio animarum penitus revocetis. Quodsi mandatum ipsum aut nolueritis, aut nequiveritis revocare, noveritis, nos venerabili fratri nostro patriarchae Grandensi mandasse, ut, si mandatum illud priori iuramento licite facto repugnet, ipsum auctoritate nostra denunciet non servandum. [Dat. ap. Civitatem Castellanam IV. Id. Oct. 1198.]

Capitulum XVII.

Qui iuravit ecclesiam defendere, et requisitus sine iusta causa recusat, periurus est, nec eum defendit appellatio.

Idem Magistro Apollinari.

Brevi sedem apostolicam sciscitatus es quaestione, utrum ille, qui iura alicuius ecclesiae servare, ac pro posse defendere iuramento tenetur, si necessitate imminente super hoc sub iuramenti debito requisitus fuerit, et nolens hoc facere ad sedem apostolicam duxerit appellandum, periurii reatum incurrat. Nos autem quaestioni tuae taliter Respondemus, quod in hoc articulo appellantem a periurio talis appellatio non excusat, immo, nisi aliqua difficultas exsistat, propter quam requisitus non possit ecclesiae subvenire, culpa periurii potius irretitur. [Dat. Lat. XII. Kal. Nov. 1198.]

Capitulum XVIII.

Iurans scienter illicitum, non indiget absolutione, sed tenetur illud non observare. Si vero iuravit ignoranter, debet illud observare, si aliquo licito modo est observabile. Si autem iuravit licitum quod putabat illicitum, debet observare iuramentum, sed de animo depravato aget poenitentiam.

Idem illustri Regi Aragoniae.

Quanto personam tuam +inter alios principes Christianos sinceriori caritate diligimus, tanto serenitati regiae diligentiori sollicitudine volumus praecavere, ne quid ei, quod absit, immineat, quod vel in periculum animae, aut detrimentum terrae valeat redundare. Ex tenore siquidem literarum tuarum et plurium praelatorum, nec non et aliorum multorum in regno tuo consistentium nobis innotuit, quod, quum adversus inimicos Christianitatis, qui prae magnitudine suae potentiae terram Hispaniae tunc temporis occupabant, in auxilium carissimi in Christo filii nostri Castellae regis illustris cum armatorum multitudine festinares, Quidam consiliarii tui, quin immo potius deceptores, tuum animum induxerunt, ut iurares irrequisito assensu populi usque ad certum tempus patris tui conservare monetam, quae tamen circa mortem eius fuerat legitimo pondere defraudata. Quum autem eadem moneta adeo sit diminuta et minoris valoris effecta, quod grave propter hoc scandalum in populo generatur, tu quod egeras indiscrete cupiens revocare, ac necessitati populi satisfacere, ab observatione iuramenti praedicti, ex quo tibi et regno tuo metuis grave periculum imminere, postulasti suppliciter a nobis absolvi. Super quo diligens indagator veritate comperta potuisset facile intueri, quod non tam erat absolutio necessaria, quam interpretatio requirenda, quoniam, quum iuramentum fecisti, monetam aut falsam, aut legitimam esse credebas. Si falsam, quod de regia serenitate non credimus, iuramentum fuisset illicitum et nullatenus observandum, et pro eo esset tibi poenitentia iniungenda, quum iuramentum non, ut esset iniquitatis vinculum, fuerit institutum. Si vero ipsam legitimam esse credebas, iuramentum licitum fuit et usquequaque servandum. Et ut irreprehensibiliter observetur, consulimus et mandamus, ut reprobata moneta, quae a legitimo pondere fuerat defraudata, alia sub nomine patris tui moneta cudatur, quam ad legitimum pondus reducas, secundum eum statum, quem tempore patris tui habuit meliorem, ita, quod [et] antiqua moneta, quae ab illo statu falsata non fuerat, cum ea pariter expendatur, per quod et dispendium vitari poterit, et iuramentum servari. Verumtamen si forte monetam ipsam in praestatione iuramenti credebas a legitimo pondere diminutam, et tua super hoc conscientia te remordeat, venerabili fratri nostro Caesaraugustano episcopo, cui super hoc scribimus, tuum humiliter confitere peccatum, et satisfactionem iniunctam tibi pro illicito iuramento devote suscipias et studeas adimplere. [Dat. Lat. Non. Apr. 1199.]

Capitulum XIX.

Non valet iuramentum praestitum in praeiudicium iuris superioris.

Idem Consulibus et Populo Tudertino.

Venientes nuper ad sedem apostolicam dilectos filios consules vestros benigne recepimus et super his, quae ad nos de vobis saepius referuntur, et commonere paterne curavimus, et aliquantulum aspere convenire. Quum enim appellationibus interpositis ad apostolicam sedem teneamini humiliter et devote deferre, quum et leges etiam saeculares post sententiam beneficium appellationis non denegent aggravatis, vos, id minus, quam vos decent, attendentes, sententias appellatione suspensas exsecutioni mandatis, et gravatis in contemptum sedis apostolicae appellantes. Verum iidem consules nobis ad excusationem vestram exponere curaverunt, quod, quum aliqui vestrum vocantur ad officium consulatus, firmant proprio sacramento, quod super mutuis et plagiariis secundum vestrae civitatis consuetudinem iudicabunt, et infra XXVIII dies quae iudicaverunt exsequentur. Unde salvo huiusmodi iuramento vos non posse super his appellationibus deferre dicebant. Quia vero non minus iudices secundum leges, quam consules vestri secundum consuetudinem vestrae civitatis iudicare iurarunt, et ideo, sicut iudices contra leges, sic et consules vestri contra consuetudinem possent subditos aggravare, ne in his etiam videamur deesse gravatis, universitati vestrae per apostolica scripta mandamus atque praecipimus, quatenus, quum approbatus consuetudines vestras servari velimus, appellationibus ad nos interpositis deferatis humiliter et devote, quum praedictum iuramentum vos excusare non possit, in quo debet intelligi ius superioris exceptum. Quum ergo, sicut accepimus, postquam dilectus filius S. lator praesentium ad sedem apostolicam a sententia G. iudicis appellavit, sententiam ipsam duxeritis exsecutioni mandandam, in possessionem rerum, de quibus quaestio vertebatur, appellantis adversarium inducentes, volumus nihilominus et mandamus, ut possessionem ipsam restituatis eidem; alioquin noveritis, nos venerabili fratri nostro episcopo Nucerino per apostolica scripta mandasse, ut vos ad id monitione praemissa ecclesiastica censura appellatione remota compellat. [Dat. Laterani. 1200.]

Capitulum XX.

Iurans usuras non repetere, potest iuramento non obstante ex nova causa repetere. H. d. secundum intellectum notabiliorem.

Idem Pisano Archiepiscopo.

Ad nostram noveris audientiam pervenisse, quod, quum I. Pellar. et G. filius eius Petro Soctan. usuras non modicas persolvissent, praestito iuramento firmaverunt, quod nec per se, nec per alium praedictas usuras repeterent, vel apud ecclesiasticum iudicem seu etiam saecularem super his deponerent quaestionem. Quumque creditor ipse in mortis articulo constitutus condiderit testamentum, suis praecepit heredibus, ut omnibus, qui rationabiliter probarent, se dedisse usuras eidem, ipsas eis restituere procurarent. Unde quum praedicti I. et G. usuras repetere non attentent propter huiusmodi iuramentum, et heredes praedicti P. eis negligant satisfacere de usuris, ideo fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus sub poena excommunicationis publice in ecclesia proponi facias vel proponas, ut qui super hoc noverint veritatem procedant ad testimonium proferendum, et, si per dicta testium vel alia documenta tibi legitime constiterit de praemissis, heredes illius ut usuras, quas a praedictis I. et G. pater eorum accepit, restituant universas, monitione praemissa ecclesiastica censura appellatione remota compellas. [Dat. Rom. ap. S. Petr. Id. Mart. 1205.]

Capitulum XXI.

Iuramentum generale debet ita intelligi, si fieri potest, ut non obviet iuri; alias tanquam temerarium non obligat contra iuris observantiam.

Idem Neapolitano Archiepiscopo.

Ad nostram noveris audientiam pervenisse, quod dudum a te quasi per extorsionem tale fuit praestitum iuramentum, quod in omni causa deberes ordinem iudiciarium observare. Verum quoniam secundum traditiones canonicas manifesta accusatione non indigent, nec in eis est ordo iudiciarius observandus, qui debet in aliis observari, nec tu, quando sub praemisso tenore iurasti, habebas in mente, ut propterea venires contra canonicas sanctiones, alioquin non iuramentum, sed periurium potius exstitisset, nec esset aliqua ratione servandum, nos iuramentum tuum benignius interpretari volentes, ita, quod consonet canonicis institutis, fraternitati tuae auctoritate praesentium intimamus, quod in manifestis et notoriis ratione iuramenti praemissi non credimus te teneri servare subtilitatem ordinis iudiciarii, quam in his non servari per omnia ipsa quoque iuris ratio postulat et requirit. Unde videbitur nec immerito subtiliter intuenti de ordine iudiciorum procedere, ut in praemissis non per omnia ordo iudiciarius observetur, quanquam et secundum approbatum intellectum scripturae divinae recte possit intelligi, quod iurasti, ut in omnibus causis ordinem iudiciarium observares, in illis videlicet, in quibus est ordo iudiciarius observandus. Sic ergo faciens et iuramenti tenorem servabis, et instituta canonica non omittes. [Dat. Lat. XVIII. Kal. Dec. 1198.]

Capitulum XXII.

Si unum iuramentum uni debitum alteri praestatur, illicitum est, et eo non obstante cui debetur praestandum est.

Idem Iudici Carolitano.

Ea te credimus discretione vigere, ut intelligas per te ipsum, quod onus non remittitur, sed augetur, quum cuiquam improvide solvitur quod alii ex debito est praestandum. Sane, quum venerabilis pater noster archiepiscopus Turritanus a te nomine nostro iuramentum fidelitatis, sicut a nobis mandatum acceperat, exegisset, illud exhibere in eius manibus distulisti, asserens, quod venerabili fratri nostro Pisano archiepiscopo salvo apostolicae sedis honore huiusmodi praestiteras iuramentum. Quum igitur nobis et ecclesiae Romanae fidelitatem facere tenearis, sicut tua etiam prudentia recognoscit, si praestitum iuramentum ei, quod a te nobis tanquam debitum est praestandum, contrarium reputes, illud illicitum iudicabis, et, illicito non obstante, quod licite, immo ex debito petitur, exhibebis, vel, si praestitum praestando contrarium non exsistit, illud sine difficultate praestabis. Monemus igitur nobilitatem tuam et exhortamur attentius, et per apostolica [tibi] scripta mandamus atque praecipimus, quatenus omni excusatione et occasione cessante in manibus eiusdem archiepiscopi fidelitatis nobis et ecclesiae Romanae exhibeas iuramentum. [Dat. Ferentini XVII. Kal. Oct. 1203.]

Capitulum XXIII.

Qui iuravit stare mandato alicuius, non tenetur parere, si praecipit illicita, ut quod filium exheredet, vel uxorem abiuret.

Idem Alatrino Episcopo.

Quintavallis vicarius nostris auribus intimavit, quod, quum olim filiae suae cum Giborga et Venetia filiabus Ioannis Bertii ad verba etiam ad verbera devenissent, idem Quintavallis pro offensa, quam filiae ipsius aliis mulieribus irrogarant satisfacere cupiens de consilio convicinorum mulieribus illis et consanguineis, suis, quod pro offensa earum mandato pareret praestitit iuramentum, quae ab ipso iuramento recepto tale illi sub debito iuramenti dedere mandatum, quod, si quando filii vel filiae aut uxor illius aliquod factum vel verbum contumeliosum mulieribus illis obiicerent, idem Quintavallis et filias et filios suos exheredaret, et a se propriam removeret uxorem. Quocirca fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus inquiras de praemissis diligentius veritatem, et, si rem noveris ita esse, quum licitum fuerit iuramentum, sed mandatum illicitum, praedictis filiabus Ioannis Bertii, ut revocent mandatum illud, iniungas; alioquin eum ad mandati observationem illius auctoritate nostra suffultus denuncies non teneri. [Dat. Anagniae III. Non. Febr. 1204.]

Capitulum XXIV.

Ex causa levi et temeraria coniuges etiam quoad torum et mutuam cohabitationem se separare non possunt, etiam cum iuramenti interpositione.

Idem Archiepiscopo Terraconensi.

Tua nos duxit fraternitas consulendos, quid tibi super hoc articulo sit faciendum, videlicet quod B. de Bella loco et A. uxor eius olim adinvicem iuraverunt, se nunquam mutuo petituros; idem vero nunc repetit illam instanter, ea e contrario affirmante, quod, prius se faceret Sarracenam et perderet animam suum, quam rediret ad eum; +sed adulterum, cui adhaesit, postquam recessit ab eo, libenter dimitteret, et castitatem promitteret, et iuraret. Nos igitur fraternitati tuae super hoc respondentes, per apostolica tibi scripta mandamus, quatenus utrumque ad continentiam servandam moneas attentius et inducas. Quam si promittere voluerint et servare, utrumque dimittas sine alio commorari. Alioquin, si vir noluerit continere, tu illam, ut revertatur ad ipsum, et tanquam uxor cum viro moretur, per excommunicationis sententiam appellatione remota compellas, quum et temerarium fuerit huiusmodi iuramentum, et adulterium utrinque sit commissum. [Dat. Ferentini XII. Kal. Iul. 1203.]

Capitulum XXV.

Is, qui iuravit cum muliere contrahere, propter supervenientem fornicationem vel deformitatem eam repellere potest; propter praecedentem non. H. d. - (Illud autem etc.:) Si vir iuravit non accusare uxorem, temerarium est iuramentum. Sed si specialiter de adulterio hoc iuravit, denunciare poterit; sed accusare non debet.

Idem Genuensi Archiepiscopo.

Quemadmodum, si vir mulieri iurasset, quando contraxit cum illa, quod eam semper pro legitima uxore teneret, ipse quidem pro fornicatione, quam mulier antea commisisset, non posset eam dimittere, sed pro fornicatione, quam postea perpetraret eam dimittere posset non obstante huiusmodi iuramento, quoniam in eo talis erat subintelligenda conditio, si videlicet in legem coniugii illa non peccaret, ita, si quis iuraverit, se ducturum aliquam in uxorem, ipse profecto non potest ei fornicationem opponere praecedentem, sed subsequentem ei potest opponere, ut illam non ducat in coniugem, quia in illo iuramento talis debet conditio subintelligi, si videlicet illa contra regulam desponsationis non venerit. Alioquin si post huiusmodi iuramentum publica meretrix fieret, teneretur eam ducere in uxorem, quod est prorsus absurdum. Nam si post contractum coniugium vir propter fornicationem licite potest uxorem a sua cohabitatione dimittere, longe fortius ante coniugium celebratum propter eandem causam sponsus licite potest in suam cohabitationem non admittere sponsam, quia turpius eiicitur quam non admittitur hospes, non obstante in alterutro casu vinculo iuramenti, quod quidem propter subintelligendam conditionem est tale, ut is, qui iuravit, ad utrumque sine transgressione se possit habere. Quod si post huiusmodi iuramentum mulier fieret non solum leprosa, sed etiam paralytica, vel oculos vel nasum amitteret, seu quicquam ei turpius evenerit, numquid vir teneretur eam ducere in uxorem? Profecto ductam non posset dimittere. Sed numquid non ductam admittere teneretur, quamvis interdum contractum non dirimat, quod impedit contrahendum? Illud autem iuramentum est proculdubio temerarium, si vir iuret uxori, quod eam super nullo crimine accusabit, quia, si mulier fierit infidelis, et nollet cohabitare viro absque contumelia creatoris, vel ut illum pertraheret ad infidelitatis errorem, tunc vir incunctanter deberet illam impetere apud iudicem suum, ut eam, nisi penitus resipisceret, omnino dimitteret, secundum canonicas sanctiones. Quodsi expresse iurasset, quod eam super adulterio non impeteret, essetne servandum huiusmodi iuramentum, quum scriptura testetur, quod patronus est turpitudinis qui celat crimen uxoris, et secundum regulam evangelii, si primo et secundo correcta resipiscere nollet, dicendum esset ecclesiae, ut tanquam ethnica et publicana deinde vitaretur, nec per hoc libera praeberetur ei peccandi facultas propter impunitatem peccati? Sed numquid vir non potest dimittere uxori in ipsum peccanti non solum septies, sed etiam usque septuagies septies secundum evangelicam veritatem? Tutius ergo in hoc casu videtur, ut propter iurisiurandi religionem vir accusare desistat uxorem ad divortium celebrandum, quanquam denunciare eam possit ad poenitentiam peragendam. Pensato itaque huius responsionis tenore procedas in causa, super qua nos consulere decrevisti. [Dat. Viterbii Kal. Sept. Ao. X. 1207.]

Capitulum XXVI.

Licite ex causa necessaria etiam per religiosos iuratur.

Idem Abbati et Capitulo Castellionis.

Etsi Christus praeceperit secundum evangelicam veritatem [ut] sit sermo vester: est est et non non, [id est,] ut affirmatio vel negatio, sicut procedit ex ore, ita procedat ex corde, quia tamen hominum excrescente malitia simplici assertioni vel negationi vix creditur, idcirco prudenter adiunxit: «quod amplius est, a malo est.» A malo quidem, non tam culpae, quam poenae; nec exhibentium, sed exigentium iuramentum. Nam incredulitas huiusmodi magis est poena, quam culpa. Unde non dixit «malum,» sed dixit: «a malo.» Licet enim iuramentum prohibuisse Dominus videatur, nusquam tamen per creatorem, sed per creaturam iurare prohibuit, ne per huiusmodi iuramentum transferretur ad creaturam honorificentia creatoris. Quare quum in evangelio praemisisset: «Dico vobis, nolite iurare omnino,» statim subiunxit: «neque per coelum, quia thronus Dei est; neque per terram, quia scabellum pedum ipsius est; neque per Hierosolymam, quia civitas est regis magni; neque per caput tuum, quia non potes unum capillum facere album aut nigrum.» Et quamvis non sit per creaturam iurandum, si tamen iuretur per creaturam, servandum est quidem, dummodo sit licitum quod iuratur, quia, teste veritate, «qui iurat in coelo, iurat in throno Dei, et in eo, qui sedet super eum.» Iacobus quoque non simpliciter prohibet iuramentum, sed «voluntatem iurandi,» quum ait: «Ante omnia, fratres mei, nolite iurare,» quoniam ad iuramentum non debet quemquam spontanea voluntas inducere, [quia qui facile iurat facile peierat,] sed necessitas trahere importuna. Et tunc potes sine culpa iurare; dummodo illos tres comites habeat iuramentum, de quibus Propheta sic ait: «Et iurabunt, vivit Dominus, in veritate, et iudicio, et iustitia, et benedicent eum omnes, ipsumque laudabunt. Quod autem Iacobus subdit: «neque per coelum, neque per terram, neque per quodcunque aliud iuramentum,» iurare vetat per quamlibet creaturam, quodcunque sit illud. Alioquin non dixisset Apostolus: «Homines per maiorem suum iurant, et omnis controversiae eorum ad confirmationem finis est iuramentum.» In quo patenter ostendit, per quem sit iurardum, quum ait: «homines per maiorem suum iurant,» id est, per Deum, et cur sit iurandum, ut videlicet omnis controversiae finis sit iuramentum. Angelus quoque, quem vidit in Apocalypsi Ioannes stantem super mare et super terram, levavit manum suam ad coelum, et iuravit per viventem in saecula saeculorum. Christus etiam plus legitur dixisse in evangelio, quam est est, non non, quum saepissime dixerit: «Amen dico vobis.» Quod ipse secundum Lucam exponens, quum praemisisset: «amen dico vobis, quia nemo propheta acceptus est in patria sua,» consequenter adiunxit: «in veritate dico vobis, quia multae viduae erant in diebus Heliae in Israel.» Apostolus quoque iurabat, quum diceret: «Testis est mihi Deus,» et iterum: «Quotidie morior per gloriam vestram, fratres.» Quae graeca exemplaria manifestissimam iurationem esse ostendunt. Si enim per se malum esset iurare; profecto Dominus non iurasset, quum tamen in veteri testamento legatur: «Quia iuravit Dominus, et non poenitebit eum,» et rursum: «Iuravit Dominus David veritatem, et non frustrabitur eum;» immo et praecepit in veteri testamento: «Redde Deo iuramenta tua.» Quaedam enim prohibentur, quia per se mala sunt, ut furtum, adulterium et huiusmodi, quae non sunt aliquatenus facienda. Quaedam vero prohibentur ex causa, non quia per se mala sunt, sed quia, si fiant frequenter et multum, ex his mala sequuntur, ut vinum per se [quidem] malum non est, et tamen prohibet Apostolus dicens: «Nolite inebriari vino, in quo est luxuria,» quoniam ex frequenti et immoderata potatione vini luxuria generatur. Sic et iuramentum per se quidem malum non est, quum sit confirmatio veritatis, sed tamen prohibetur ex causa, quoniam ex frequenti et incauta iuratione periurium saepe contingit, sicut in Ecclesiastico legitur: «Vir multum iurans replebitur iniquitate, et non discedet a domo eius plaga.» Quemadmodum ergo Paulus indulsit propter necessitatem discipulo suo, [videlicet] Timotheo, ut utatur modico vino propter stomachum et frequentes infirmitates, sic profecto, quum necessitas exigit, pro re vera, licita et honesta potest secure iurari, quia cessante causa cessat effectus. Licet ergo debeatis esse viri perfecti, ut, quantum potestis, iuramenti vinculum evitetis, volentes tamen indemnitati vestri monasterii paterna sollicitudine providere, ne propter defectum testium sui iuris sustineat laesionem, eius auctoritate, qui dicit in evangelio: «Si peccaverit in te frater tuus, corripe eum inter te et ipsum solum, et, si non audierit te, adhibe tecum duos vel tres testes, ut in ore duorum vel trium testium stet omne verbum,» praesenti vobis pagina indulgemus, quatenus vos et monasterii vestri conversi possitis in causis eiusdem, deficientibus aliis testibus, pro ipso perhibere testimonium veritati. [Nulli ergo etc. Dat. Rom. ap. S. Petr. XII. Kal. Apr. Ao. IX. 1206.]

Capitulum XXVII.

Iuramentum contra utilitatem ecclesiasticam praestitum non tenet.

Idem Episcopo Ameliensi.

Sicut nostris est auribus intimatum, ecclesia dudum Tudertina vacante ipsius canonici, et venerabilis quoque frater noster episcopus Tudertinus cum eis, dum esset in minoribus ordinibus constitutus, iuramenta quaedam in damnum episcopalis iuris fecerunt, priusquam de pontificis electione tractatus aliquis haberetur, +quae utrum servari debeant, quum ex eis praesertim contingeret reditus episcopales minorari, tanquam vir providus et discretus olim nos idem duxit episcopus consulendos. Nos ergo saluti eius paterna volentes sollicitudine providere, Pro iuratione incauta imponi fecimus episcopo poenitentiam congruentem. Et nihilominus attendentes, quod iuramentum non, ut esset iniquitatis vinculum, fuerit institutum, et Quia non iuramenta, sed periuria potius sunt dicenda, quae contra utilitatem ecclesiasticam attentantur, fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus personaliter ad ecclesiam Tudertinam accedens ab ipsis canonicis inquiras super praemissis diligentius veritatem, et, si ea, quae dicta sunt superius, inveneris esse vera, quod in damnum episcopalis iuris repereris taliter attentatum, nostra suffultus auctoritate in statum debitum appellatione remota reducas, faciens quod decreveris per censuram ecclesiasticam firmiter observari.

Capitulum XXVIII.

Iuramentum praestitum super actu a lege infirmato principaliter favore iurantis, licet secundario in favorem publicum, necessario est observandum, si non vi, nec dolo fuit praestitum, et in alterius praeiudicium principaliter non redundat. H. d. multum singulariter considerata medulla capituli.

Idem.

Quum contingat interdum in tua dioecesi, quod constante matrimonio mulieres alienationibus super rebus dotalibus et donationibus propter nuptias sibi datis [sponte] consentiant, ne ulterius contraveniant proprio sacramento firmando, ac soluto processu temporis matrimonio contravenire nitantur, utrum hoc eis liceat, a nobis tua fraternitas requisivit. Nos autem fraternitati tuae taliter respondemus, quod, etsi mulierum consensus in talibus non videatur obligatorius secundum legitimas sanctiones, ne tali tamen praetextu viam contingat periuriis aperiri, mulieres ipsae servare debent huiusmodi iuramenta, sine vi et dolo, sponte ac pro fide praestita, quum in alterius praeiudicium non redundent, nec observata vergant in dispendium salutis aeternae. [Praeterea requisisti etc. Dat. Lateran. XVI. Kal. Iun. Ao. XIII. - 1210.]

Capitulum XXIX.

Movens bellum iniustum compellitur restituere, quae per violentiam occupavit, et eos absolvere, a quibus indebite iuramenta extorsit. H. d. usque ad vers.: Iuramentum. - §. 1.: Non adstringitur quis iuramento ad implendum quod iuravit, si ab alia parte non impletur, cuius respectu praestitum est iuramentum.

Idem.

Sicut +[oblatus dilecti filii I. de Cuter. literartum nobis tenor expressit, nuper expertus est in se ipso quod fallax huius vitae incunditas vix aut nunquam statu permaneat in eodem. Quanta enim ei libentius quis inhaeret, tanto facilius labitur cum labente. (Et infra:) Quum igitur simus in eo loco constituti, ut secundum verbum propheticum debeamus dissolvere colligationes impietatis et fasciculos deprimentes, ac dimittere eos, qui confracti sunt, liberos, et omne onus dirumpere, discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus] Si vobis constiterit, quod praedictus H. iniuste bellum moverit contra I., ipsum H. monere attentius et inducere studeatis, ut [et] terram ipsius et alia universa per huiusmodi violentiam occupata sine dilatione restituat conquerenti, eum a praestito sibi iuramento prorsus absolventes. Quodsi monitis vestris forte acquiescere noluerit, ipsum ad hoc, si praemissa veritate nitantur, [sublato cuiuslibet contradictionis et appellationis obstaculo] cogatis per sententiam excommunicationis, et terram eius interdicti sententiae supponentes. §. 1. Iuramentum autem, quod [idem] I. ultimo se asserit praestitisse, si de assensu factum est utriusque, eum non ligat, qui praestitit, dum ille, cui praestitum fuerat, servare negligit quod promisit.

Capitulum XXX.

Clerici non habentes temporalia a laicis non tenentur eis praestare iuramenta fidelitatis.

Idem in concilio generali.

Nimis de iure divino quidem laici usurpare nituntur, quum viros ecclesiasticos, nihil temporale obtinentes ab eis, ad praestandum sibi fidelitatis iuramenta compellunt. Quia vero secundum Apostolum servus suo domino stat aut cadit, sacri auctoritate concilii prohibemus, ne tales clerici personis saecularibus praestare cogantur huiusmodi iuramenta.

Capitulum XXXI.

Qui iurat non esse contra aliquem, potest in causis propriis et ecclesiae suae esse contra eum. H. d. secuudum intellectum glossae.

Honorius III. A. et C. Canonicis Antiochenis.

Petitio vestra nobis exhibita continebat, quod ecclesia Antiochena vacante nobilis vir R. princeps Antiochenus, timens conspirationes aliquas fieri contra eum, a vobis iuramentum extorsit, quod contra ipsum de cetero non essetis. +Quum autem idem princeps adversus ipsam ecclesiam frequentes habeat quaestiones, vos nec ipsi deesse ecclesiae sine ipsius detrimento potestis, nec eidem audetis adesse, ne videamini contra dictum facere iuramentum. Quare nobis humiliter supplicastis, ut super his paterna providere sollicitudine dignaremur. Nos igitur utililati eiusdem ecclesiae, et saluti ac famae vestrae, et honori dicti principis pariter providentes, Interpretatione congrua declaramus, vos iuramento huiusmodi non teneri, quin pro iuribus et honoribus ipsius ecclesiae, ac etiam specialibus vestris legitime defendendis contra ipsum principem stare libere valeatis, coercendo vos a machinatione duntaxat, per quam idem princeps deberet laesionem personae vel sui amissionem incurrere principatus. Decernimus igitur, vos pro defensione iuris seu honoris ecclesiae saepedictae vel vestri dicto principi quum opus fuerit resistentes, nulli per hoc notae seu calumniae subiacere.

Capitulum XXXII.

Quum agitur de usuris, potest iudex in qualibet parte litis ex officio suo deficientibus probatiouibus exigere a partibus iuramentum de veritate dicenda. Et eadem ratione idem in qualibet causa, in qua imminet peccatum. H. d. secundum Panormitanum.

Idem Archidiacono et Magistro G. Canonico Tullensibus.

Ex literis vestris accepimus, quod super causa usurarum vobis pro G. de Rossuel milite contra E. de Espinal militem Tullensis dioecesis ab apostolica sede commissa non potuit vobis per testes ab ipsius G. parte productos de sortis quantitate liquere, licet de obligatione pignoris constitisset. Unde expedire videtis, quod exigatur de dicenda veritate a partibus iuramentum, quum ex fama quasi notorium habeatur, praefatum E. ex quadam terra ipsius G. sibi titulo pignoris obligata sortem et amplius percepisse. Ne igitur ex huiusmodi iuramenti defectu iustitia occultata veritate succumbat, discretioni vestrae mandamus, quatenus, si est ita, partes ad praestandum huiusmodi iuramentum per censuram ecclesiasticam appellatione remota cogatis.

Capitulum XXXIII.

Si positus in dignitate alienat bona dignitatis, non valet alienatio; et ipsemet revocare debet, non obstante iuramento de non revocando; maxime, si prius iurat non alienare. H. d. secundum verum intelleutum Panormitanus.

Idem Collossensi Archiepiscopo et eius Suffraganeis.

Intellecto iamdudum, quod carissimus in Christo filius noster Hungariae rex illustris alienationes quasdam fecerit in praeiudicium regni sui et contra regis honorem, nos, super hoc affectione paterna consulere cupientes, eidem regi dirigimus scripta nostra, ut alienationes praedictas, non obstante iuramento, si quod fecit de non revocandis eisdem, studeat revocare, quia, quum teneatur, et in sua coronatione iuraverit etiam, iura regni sui et honorem coronae illibata servare, illicitum profecto fuit, si praestitit de non revocandis alienationibus huiusmodi iuramentum, et propterea penitus non servandum.

Capitulum XXXIV.

Si mulier iuravit, aliquem esse suum maritum, et succubuit, quia aliter non probavit, non datur, nec denegatur ei licentia cum alio contrahendi.

Gregorius IX. Episcopo Cenomanensi.

Mulieri, quae in iure praestito iuramento asseruit, virum talem in ipsam per verba de praesenti matrimonialiter consensisse, probationes alias non habenti, viro ab eius impetitione per sententiam absoluto, non debes licentiam dare cum alio matrimonium contrahendi, ne auctor periurii videaris. Nec hoc ei dicimus prohibendum, ne forte, si falsum iuraverit, matrimonium contingat legitimum impediri; sed suae conscientiae est potius relinquenda.

Capitulum XXXV.

Qui iuravit servare statuta edita, et postea per illud iuramentum aliter non iurando promisit servare edenda seu postea edita, non tenetur ex iuramento ad noviter edita. H. d. secundum verum intellectum.

Idem.

Clericus, qui iuravit, se statuta in ecclesia sua edita servaturum, promittens per idem iuramentum, statutum, quod postmodum subsecutum est, fideliter observare, licet transgredi non debuerat quod promisit, non tenetur ad illius observantiam ex debito praestiti iuramenti.

Capitulum XXXVI.

Iuramentum litis decisorium a iudice delatum, sine iusta causa recusari non potest; delatum vero a parte licite recusatur et refertur; in actione tamen famosa non licet reo referre. Hoc dicit, usque ad §. Sane. - §. 1. Actore ninil probante reus est absque omni onere absolvendus; si vero praesumptio est pro eo, defertur reo iuramentum vel ipsi actori, consideratis personarum et causae circumstantiis. H. d.

Idem H. Iudici.

Iuramentum a te parti delatum, nisi iusta de causa, non potuit recusari, quamvis, quod in iudicio a parte parti defertur, recusari possit licite ac referri; nec liceat convento famosa actione referre huiusmodi iusiurandum. §. 1. Sane, si actor omnino in probatione defecerit, reus debet, et si nihil praestiterit, obtinere; praesumptione vero faciente pro illo, reo deferri potest ad ostendendam suam innocentiam iuramentum, nisi iudex inspectis personarum et causae circumstantiis illud actori videat deferendum.