So Navarre (p)and in him Ledesma, (whom he calls the Glory of the Dominican Order) with Soto, (of the same Order and no less renown) maintain, that no lye is mortal in any Court exterior (that of the Judge) or interior (that of the Confessor); which is but Venial, out of Court. So that if the lye be not signally injurious, it is not mortal, however or wherever it be delivered, though by a Witness in a Trial before a Judge▪ in the face of the Country. Moreover, it is as innocent in all those cases, wherein the Liar is not obliged to speak truth, which are not few. A Lye, says Sylvester (q)in judicial matters, is pernicious and mortal; because it subverts the truth of Judgment, which tends to the ruin of the Universe. But then he adds, this is to be limited to things, in which the Liar is bound to speak the truth, and not extended to ⟨p. 251⟩any other. Now they hold, there are very many cases in which they are not obliged to speak the truth, no not in Courts: and in all these by their common Doctrine (not that of the Jesuits only) either they may lye plainly; or (which is all one as to the justice of the practice, and as to the subverting of Judgment), secretly, by equivocation or mental reservation. Antonius Corduba determines, that a person other wise virtuous, being unduly interrogated, whether such a thing was done, which, confessed, might endanger him; he and the Witnesses too, if they cannot otherwise evade, (by saying (r)I know not, or I remember not); may say, though it be false, that it was not done, with this reserve, To discover it unto thee; and says, such Interrogatories may be answered or evaded, by any, with equivocal words, in usual (*)form. So that he is not bound to tell the truth, though he be sworn to declare it. Navarre holds that not only virtuous, but any person whatever, may so answer in like case; denying that to be done, which was done, secretly meaning, In such a Month; and this he asserts after Gabriel, Paludanus, Adrian, Vincentius Justinianus, and (s)Lopez after him. Sylvester (t)concludes, when the process is not judicial, or the accused not subject to the Judge; in this case mentioned, or any other cause whatsoever, though a lye he not lawful, yet it is not mortal, yea it will not be so much as Venial, if answering cautiously, and, as they say, sophistically, he speak that which is false in the Judges sense, (u)and true ⟨p. 252⟩in his own;
So Navar (p)and in him Ledesma, (whom he calls the Glory of the Dominican Order) with Soto, (of the same Order and no less renown) maintain, that no lye is mortal in any Court exterior (that of the Judge) or interior (that of the Confessor); which is but Venial, out of Court. So that if the lye be not signally injurious, it is not mortal, however or wherever it be delivered, though by a Witness in a Trial before a Judge▪ in the face of the Countrey. Moreover, it is as innocent in all those cases, wherein the Lyar is not obliged to speak truth, which are not few. A Lye, saies Sylvester (q)in judicial matters, is pernicious and mortal; because it subverts the truth of Judgment, which tends to the ruine of the Ʋniverse. But then he adds, this is to be limited to things, in which the Lyar is bound to speak the truth, and not extended to ⟨p. 251⟩any other. Now they hold, there are very many cases in which they are not obliged to speak the truth, no not in Courts: and in all these by their common Doctrine (not that of the Jesuits only) either they may lye plainly; or (which is all one as to the justice of the practice, and as to the subverting of Judgment), secretly, by equivocation or mental reservation. Antonius Corduba determines, that a person other wise virtuous, being unduly interrogated, whether such a thing was done, which, confessed, might endanger him; he and the Witnesses too, if they cannot otherwise evade, (by saying (r)I know not, or I remember not); may say, though it be false, that it was not done, with this reserve, To discover it unto thee; and says, such Interrogatories may be answered or evaded, by any, with equivocal words, in usual (*)form. So that he is not bound to tell the truth, though he be sworn to declare it. Navar holds that not only virtuous, but any person whatever, may so answer in like case; denying that to be done, which was done, secretly meaning, In such a Month; and this he asserts after Gabriel, Paludanus, Adrian, Vincentius Justinianus, and (s)Lopez after him. Sylvester (t)concludes, when the process is not judicial, or the aceused not subject to the Judge; in this case mentioned, or any other cause whatsoever, though a lye he not lawful, yet it is not mortal, yea it will not be so much as Venial, if answering cautiously, and, as they say, sophistically, he speak that which is false in the Judges sense,
- (p)Concludendo nullum mendacium esse mortale, to solo, quod, in judicio exteriori, vel interiori dicatur, quod extra illud dictum tale non esset. Navar. cap. 18. n. 3. Censeo in judicio mendacium circa rem ad id pertinentem levissimam tamen contingens, non esse mortale crimen quod—ostendunt. Domin. a Soto, Covarruvius, Navarre. Graft. l. 1. c. 14. n. 6. & l. 2. c. 143. n. 7.Concludendo nullum mendacium esse mortale, to solo, quod, in judicio exteriori, vel interiori dicatur, quod extra illud dictum tale non esset. Navar. cap. 18. n. 3. Censeo in judicio mendacium circa rem ad id pertinentem levissimam tamen contingens, non esse mortale crimen quod—ostendunt. Domin. a Soto, Covarruvius, Navar. Graff. l. 1. c. 14. n. 6. & l. 2. c. 143. n. 7.
- (q)Mendacium de his quae ad judicium pertinent est perniciosum & mortale: quia subvertit veritatem judicii, quod tendit, in perniciem universitatis, quod limita quantum ad ea, in quibus qui mentitur, tenetur dicere veritatem, non aliter. Ibid. n. 3.
- (r)Liceret sibi & testibus injustè interrogatis sic respondere: (quando tunc respondere nescio, non recordor non prodasstt) non furatus sum, intelligendo, ad jure revelandum tibi.—alias tenemur per verba, & modos assuetos, licèt aequivocos injuste, interroganti, respondere. Lopez. cap. 51. p. 264.
- (*)Angel. Sum. v. Confess. n. 1.
- (s)Intelligendo intra se quod isto vel illo mense non fuerit id res furatus—Navarre opinio testimoniis Gabriel Adriani, Paludens & Vincent. Justiniani, rata habetur. Ibid.
- (t)Quum juridice non procedet, vel quia accusatus non est ei subjectus simpliciter vel in hoc casu, aut quacunque alia causa, tune licèt mendacium sic illicitum, non est tamen mortale—Immò non erit etiam veniale, si respondendo cautelose, &, ut aiunt Sophistice, dicat aliquid salsum, apud sensum judicis, & apud suum verum; quia eo casu cum non sit ejus subditus, non tenetur dicere veritatem ad ejus intentionem. Rationem dictorum assignat. Hen. de Gan. Sylv. Sum. v. accusatio. n. 10.
- (u)Licèt ei uti aequivocatione, Soto de just. l. 5. q. 6. art. 2. Adrian dicit, talem reum posse dicere non seci, & Cajetan. Opusc. 16. q. 5. Dicit posse respondere se non habuisse complices, quamvis habuerit, in Toll. Instr. l. 5. c. 58.Licèt ei uti aequivocatione, Soto de just. l. 5. q. 6. art. 2. Adrian dicit, talem reum posse dicere non seci, & Cajetan. Opusc. 16. q. 5. Dicit posse respondere se non habuisse complices, quamvis habuerit, in Tol. Instr. l. 5. c. 58.