Question I: What an oath is, and of how many kinds

An OATH is said from ius (law), because it must be held as the equivalent of law, whence it is called Iusiurandum.

To SWEAR is to call God to witness, as D. Bonaventure teaches in 3. dist. 39. dub. litt. and in the opuscule, first part. Concil. sect. 12. D. Thom. 2. 2. loco cit. and the others follow them: An Oath, therefore, is the invocation of the Divine name in testimony; but this invocation consists in this, that the swearer, as far as in him lies, or rather, manifests to God that which he confirms by oath, as that which is known to God himself, and true, and this either in this or in the other life, as Valencia notes 2. 2. disp. 6. quaest. 7. puncto 1. Sanchez lib. 3. in Decal. cap. 1. and this D. Bonaventure intimates loco cit. Centil. defining, to Swear is to invoke God as witness of one's utterance; and more clearly in 3. dist. 39. art. 2. quaest. 1. in fundamentis.

It is called the Invocation of God, because whether we name God or creatures, God is always brought in as witness, at least indirectly, inasmuch as he is the author of the creature. For one swearing by a creature does not bring it in as witness, since that would be blasphemous, attributing to the creature the first infallible truth, the firmament of all truths, and an inviolable witness, as D. Bonaventure teaches in 3. dist. 39. art. 2. quaest. 2. D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 89. art. 6. whom the rest follow, cited by Bassaeus 1. num. 5.

It is called the Invocation of God in witness, to distinguish it from prayer, which is an invocation of God to obtain something. But this invocation of the oath need not be expressed in words, in order to bind before God. So D. Bonaventure in 3. dist. 39. art. 3. quaest. 1. whom others follow in the external forum of the soul. Some, however, deny that words are necessary. So Sanchez lib. 2. de matrimonio, disp. 31. num. 5. and lib. 3. Decal. cap. 1. n. 2. citing Couar. de pactis, p. p. initio, num. 4. Azor Tom. 1. lib. 11. cap. 44. Suarez Tom. 2. de Religione, lib. 1. de Iuramento, cap. 11. Clavis Regia lib. 5. cap. 1. Bassaeus num 4.

OTHERS assert that words are necessary, at least in those speaking. The Authors are reported by Couar. loco cit. and Zauallo quaest. 406.

QUOAD D. Bonaventure indeed seems to think with these in the third place presently indicated, with the third and fourth: but if it be read attentively, he wants those signs to suffice by which the certainty of the contract shines forth in the external forum.

But whether the touch of some sacred thing be required, for instance the Gospels, S. Bonav. in 3. dist. 39. art. 2. q. 2. in corpore, indeed concedes that it is more frequently customary to swear by the Gospels; as those in which the Divine truth shines forth most; but he does not admit that the touch is necessary: Couar. de pactis 1. part. §. primo. Zauallus quaest. 407. Sanchez loco citato, num. 3. follow him.

From these you have that an Oath is formally a single thing, because it is the bringing in of God as witness, and on that account it has the nature of an oath, as Cajetan notes ad art. 1. of D. Thomas, and Valencia disp. 6. quaest. 7. puncto 2. after D. Bonaventure loco citato Centil. where he proves it; for perjury is a lie confirmed with God brought in as witness. Therefore the Oath also according to its essence is the Divine truth brought in as testimony, which governs in all oaths, as Sanchez notes num. 9. with others cited, and therefore it is not to be distinguished in confession.

MATERIALLY, however, it can be divided, both on the part of the truth, or enunciation, which it is applied to confirm; and also on the part of the mode of signifying that interior invocation of the Divine testimony.

On the part of the invocation the Oath is divided into Promissory and Assertory. So D. Bonaventure loco cit. Centil. and in sermon 3. on the Decalogue, and in 3. dist. 39.

It is ASSERTORY when the Divine testimony is invoked to confirm an enunciation about the present or the past. But when it is invoked to confirm an enunciation about the future, it is called Promissory. Hence D. Gregory of Nyssa homil. 4. in Cant. says there is a double operation of the oath; for either it makes faith in the truth, or it confirms the faith of a promise, as is said in Ps. 131.: The Lord hath sworn to David in truth, and he will not frustrate it.

OBSERVE here that the promissory oath is so called because, although we may either propose or promise to do something, yet it mostly has a promise joined to it. Or say that even the proposal of doing something has something of a bargain, which differs from a vow, because it brings God as witness of that proposal; and this sense seems more to the mind of D. Bonaventure, who says the promissory oath is that by which we promise something.

On the part of the mode S. Bonaventure in 3. dist. 39. 7 dub. litt. divides it into an Oath by simple contestation, which lightly, or with moderation, brings God in as witness, inasmuch as it has the nature of a principle, as I swear by God; or as it has the nature of a principle, and of one who knows; as God is my witness, or may he be: And into the oath which invokes God as witness, as one who rewards, either with good things, as God is my witness, who grants life, or as one who rewards with punishments in vengeance, as: May God do so to me, and add more: thus it exhibits one's own will, or oneself, to the Divine vengeance, if it is invoked falsely; and this is called the execratory Oath, which sometimes can be mixed, as was that of the Apostle 2. Corinth. 1. I call God to witness upon my soul. Whence the execratory perjury does not include two faults, one of perjury, the other of the malediction invoked; because one who is justly to suffer imprecates the malediction upon himself, as Valencia notes loco citato, although Tannerus holds the opposite disput. 5. quaest. 5. num. 4. But this kind of oath was frequent in the times of the old law; because then God was a God of revenges, and because the law was one of fear, as D. Bonaventure notes loco citato.

NOTE, however, that it is commonly divided into simple and execratory, because that formula by which God is invoked as rewarding good things is recalled to the simple form of an oath, unless it is so uttered as to include the contrary malediction: As: So may God help me: So may God do good to me, give me glory, etc. For in this formula is understood: May God deprive me of these good things, if this is not true; So Cajetanus loco citato, Sylvester V. Iuramentum, 1. quaest. 1. Sotus lib 8. de iustitia, quaest. 1. art. 1. Nauar. summa, cap. 12. Aleozer cap. 15. Lessius lib. 2. de Iustitia, cap. 42. dub. 2. Sayrus lib. 5. cap. 2. Sanchez lib. 3. summa, cap. 2. num. 36. Therefore this oath will be execratory; but if all execration be removed, and God is not brought in as witness, it will not be an oath, as if I were to say: I would have as many golden coins as are those which I say. So Sanchez num. 39.

FINALLY, one oath is simple, another solemn; one judicial, another extrajudicial. So D. Bonaventure in 3. dist. 39. art. 1. part. 3. in resolutione.

CONCERNING the modes and formulas of swearing, something must be noted.

FIRST, the intention must be regarded, whether it was to swear in those words or signs. So D. Bonaventure in 3. dist. 39. art. 3. quaest. 1. in fundamentis, et resp. ad ultimum, notes that the common usage of that country must be observed, whether those words signify an oath. Valencia follows this rule 2. 2. disp. 6. quaest. 7. puncto 2. col. 1. Sanchez lib. 3. cap. 2. Suarez lib. 1. de iuramento, cap. 12. Bassaeus V. Iuramentum, 1.

SECOND, that the word I swear is not necessary for an oath, but that the word, or sign, calling God to witness is sufficient, as By God, etc. So S. Bonaventure in 3. dist. 39. in dub. litt. and in the questions, passim, and in the opuscula in the places cited, whom the Abbas follows cap. etsi Christus, num. 3. de iureiurando, Sylvest. under the word iuramentum, 1. Covarr. de pactis 1. part. num. 7. Sanchez same lib. 1. cap. 13. Sayrus lib. 5. cap. 1. Sanchez loc. cit. num. 2.

¶ THIRD, that it is not necessary for a true oath that the thing brought in as witness be truly such, but it is enough that it be such in the estimation of the swearer; and accordingly the heathens swearing by their Gods truly swear, because they think they bring the true God in as witness, although they err materially. So D. Bonaventure in 3. d. 39. art. 2. quaest. 3. where he also proves it from the oaths described in scripture, made by heathens, Genes. 31. by Laban to Jacob. primo Machab. 8. by the Romans to the Jews.

THEN he proves it from D. Augustine epist. 154., and it is reported cap. Movet, 22. quaest. 1. the Gloss follows cap. movet V. sociat. Sylvest. V. iuram. 4. quaest. 4. Covarr. de pactis 1. part. §. 1. num. 10. Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 89. art. 1. Seraphinus de privilegio iuramenti prim. 30. Azor. T. 2. lib. 11. cap. 2. quaesito 1. and cap. 11. quaesito 11. Petrus Ledesma Tom. 2. summae, tract. 11. cap. 1. d. 1. Philiarc. de offic. Sacerd. Tom. 1. quaest. 2. lib. 3. cap. 13. against many whom Sanchez follows, and cites lib. 3. cap. 2. num. 5. where he does not answer the Scriptures cited by D. Bonaventure.

¶ BUT it is OBJECTED that an oath brings in the true God as witness.

IT IS ANSWERED that it suffices if one intend to bring in the true God. Thus the gentiles intend, although they wander astray; just as if one were to swear upon a profane book, thinking it to be the Gospel, he truly swears.

Sanchez ANSWERS that it is not similar, because here one intends to swear by the true Gospels, nor does he attribute anything to that book.

BUT it is not to the point that the worship of latria is not paid to it; for then it is an invocation in witness, although subordinate; the thing, however, is diverse, as D. Bonav. notes loc. cit. because it suffices that the heathen judge and intend the true God.

THEREFORE if a Christian were to swear by false Gods, he would not be bound by the religion of an oath, because the creature is brought in as witness from knowledge and intention. Whence I wonder that some, cited by Sanchez numero 6. have said this. Therefore to swear falsely by BACCHUS is not perjury; but to swear by him seriously is blasphemy.

¶ FOURTH, it is to be noted that it makes no difference in an oath whether the thing brought in as witness be invoked by the preposition In, or by the preposition Per; as I swear in God, or by God. So D. Bonaventure in 3. d. 39. dubio litt. num. 5. at the end, whom Sylvest. V. Iuram. 1. quaest. 5. Aragon: 2. 2. quaest. 89. art. 1. Petrus Ledesma 2. Tomo, tract. 1. cap. 1. Valencia 2. 2. disp. 6. quaest. 7. puncto 2. Azor. Tom. 1. lib. 11. cap. 3. quaesito 1. Manuel 1. Tomo summae, cap. 19. Suarez lib. 1. de Iuram. cap. 13. num. 14. Clavis Reg. lib. 5. cap. 1. num. 13. Lessius lib. 2. de iust. cap. 42. dub. 1. Sanchez, with others cited loc. cit. num. 8. follow. Thus Matth. 5. it is said: Swear not at all, neither by heaven, nor by the earth.

¶ FIFTH, note from D. Bonaventure in that dist. art. 2. quaest. 2. in corpore, and ad argumenta; that an oath by creatures, asserting them to be infallible witnesses of truth, is blasphemy, and consequently a species of Idolatry; but truly to swear by creatures, as they are effects of the Creator, whom we bring in as witness, is an oath, of which we shall treat quaest. 3. So all.

But Sanchez NOTES num. 10. that only those creatures brought in as witnesses form an oath, in which the majesty of God shines forth specially, as man, heaven, etc. Unless God be added to the others, as by the field of God: He cites Sylvester for himself. V. Iuram. 1. quaest. 4. Nauar. in summa, cap. 12. Suarez lib. 1. cap. 13. num. 23. and others.

BUT D. Bonaventure in the place cited ad ultimum says one also swears by a stone, which he proves first from Matth. 5. where swearing by the earth is prohibited, which nevertheless is the lowest corporeal substance, in which the Divine goodness does not shine forth for a special reason. For it will be the same as to swear by stones, etc.

THEN he proves the same thing ex dist. 2. 2. quaest. 1. which see.

FROM these follow the solutions of many difficulties, which Sanchez reports from num. 13.

FIRST, it follows from the fourth Notando, that the oath is the same whether you say: By God it is so; and in God it is so; for Paul used this second mode of swearing, Rom. 9. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not. So D. Bonaventure and others cited there.

¶ SECOND, I deduce from the first Notando that, although these words sound: I vow to God a vow, yet by usage they are to be judged an oath. The same must be said of these: I promise God, although considered in themselves they are a vow, not an oath; which indeed I readily concede to Valasco consil. 99. num. 14. Say the same of these: as I have the Christian faith, both by usage; and because, in the opinion of D. Bonav. and others, being certain of the truth of faith, I have true faith: Otherwise it seems of these: as I am baptized, a religious, upright; because it seems that only the fidelity and truth are brought in as witness, which a Christian, a Religious, or an upright man is bound to profess. But these: God knows: God sees that it is so, some say are oaths, as D. Augustine epist. 89. and serm. 28. de verbis Apostoli. And it is reported cap. si peccatum. 22. quaest. 1. and D. Thom. loc. cit. ad 3.

BUT D. Bonaventure dist. cit. in dub. litt. holds that God must necessarily be invoked as witness, as knowing, in order that it be an oath. Wherefore if it be simply enunciated, it will not be an oath, as Sanchez notes num. 20. and this D. Augustine holds. So also teach Cajetanus ad 3. Tabiena under the word iurare, quaest. 32. Sorus lib. 8. de Iust. quaest. 1. art. 1. Suarez lib. 1. de voto, cap. 13. num. 7. Less. lib. 2. de Iust. cap. 2. d. 2. Clauis Regia lib. 5. cap. 1. Pedeaza summa, praecepto 2. §. 1. Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 89. art. 1. Manuel 1. Tomo summae, cap. 191. Valencia d. 6. quaest. 7. puncto 2. § a V. Iuram. Petrus Ledesma 2. tom. tract. 11. cap. 1. whom Sanchez cites and follows num. 20. Therefore these words: God knows, sees, can be simple enunciations; but this must be determined by usage and the intention of the swearer. But these words: God is my witness, S. Bonaventure asserts loc. cit. to be an oath. So also D. Thomas, Sotus, Aragon, Manuel, cited just above, Sylvest. V. iuramentum against Sanchez num. 21. and Azorius loco citato, who say they are equivocal words, like the former ones: God knows, and so can be uttered both invocatively and enunciatively.

INDEED Sanchez confesses that these have a greater likeness of an oath, and are oaths by usage. So also Suarez eo cap. 13. num. 7. But Sayrus lib. 5. cap. 2. Less. cap. 42. dub. 2. num. 8. place among oaths these words: God be my witness. I call God to witness, I testify, which S. Bonaventure says are the same as the foregoing: God is my witness; for since he called must be a witness, that the witness be legitimate, by the very fact that God is said: He is witness, he is invoked.

¶ But these words: As God lives, are placed as an oath by D. Bonaventure loc. cit. whom Sylvester V. iuramentum follows, Sotius de iuramentorum abusu, cap. 4. and lib. 8. de iust. quaest. 1. art. 1. col. 6. Azor. Tom. 1. lib. 11. cap. 3. quaesito 1. Suarez eo cap. 13. n. 6. against Petrus de Ledesma loc. cit. n. 20. who places them among ambiguous words, as he also places these: God is truth, which is so in fact; in this Suarez favors him loco citato.

IT IS ALSO DEDUCED that there are oaths by the life of God, or of the Saints, by any members of Christ, or of the Saints. So S. Bonav. loc. cit. and art. 2. quaest. 2. But to swear by certain members of God absolutely, D. Bonav. proclaims blasphemous¹ ad 2. which he proves from the decree of Pope Pius, which is had in 22. quaest. 1. where it is said: If anyone shall have sworn by the hair of God, or by his head, etc. if he is in the ecclesiastical order, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be anathematized. But they are blasphemies, as D. Bonaventure notes in the place cited, if it be believed that the members truly are in God; or that the members of Christ are to be divided, as for example by the head of Christ, by the life of Christ; for this is execratory, as if one said: May God, or Christ, be able to lose life, if it is not so. ¹ N. Editor's note: the print reads "proclamaut", an obvious type-corruption for "proclamat".

SIMILARLY, to swear by the shame-parts of Christ, or of the Saints, is blasphemy, because although they had those members, it was not to contumely, as things to be vituperated; and this S. Bonaventure also indicates in the place cited, with whom very many Doctors agree in all these things, cited by Sanchez lib. 2. sum. cap. 32. from num. 25. to 30.

SIMILARLY, to swear by the life, or safety, or soul of ourselves, or of our neighbors living together, is a true oath, as S. Bonaventure notes 3. dist. 39. art. 2. quaest. 2. in corpore. Thus Joseph swore by the life and safety of Pharaoh, Genes. 42. The reason is, because God is brought in as author of life, of the soul, etc., which are noble things, in which the Divine majesty shines forth: this is clear even in the opinion of the adversaries whom I reported in Notando quinto. So teach Sylvester V. Iuram. 1. quaest. 5. Sotus lib. 8. de Iust. quaest. 1. Pedraza summa, praecepto 2. §. 1. Azorius tract. 1. lib. 11. c. 3. quaest. 1. Petrus Ledelma 2. Tom. tract. 11. cap. 1. dub. 1. Suarez eo cap. 13. num. 22. against others whom Sanchez reports num. 29. who nevertheless, against Ledesma, says it is not execratory. But it will be the same, as I said above: In my soul, unless perhaps you wish to say only: I assert what I have within; for then it will not be an oath, as Sanchez notes.

SIMILARLY it will be an oath: My soul lives, or yours, as D. Bonaventure notes in that dub. litt. because God is brought in as author of life. So Sanchez num. 29. Sylvester V. Iurament. 1. quaest. 1. Azor loco cit. But these words by my conscience, or in my conscience; many assert to be an oath, whom Sanchez reports num. 30. But rather it seems to be said only recitatively: I assert what I feel in conscience. So Sanchez, Sotus de Iuramentorum abusu, cap. 41. Petrus Ledesm. 2. Tom. tract. 11. cap. 1. dub. 1. Suarez eo cap. 13. num. 22. Sayrus eo cap. 1. num. 13. Lessius eo dubio citato. It will be the same: My conscience is my witness; for conscience testifies of itself naturally, as D. Bonaventure notes in 2. dist. 39. quaest. 1. ad ultimum, and so it is marked: This my conscience dictates to me.

But those words: In my faith: A fe da quel che son; I think, with Sanchez lib. 7. de matrim. disp. 79. num. 28., are not an oath, setting aside the peculiar intention of the speaker, who by those words would understand Divine faith; for the sense is: By my fidelity, the human truth by which human words are grounded in the ordinary mode of speaking, as Cajetan notes; and so neither will it be an oath: In truth it is so. So many, with Sanchez num. 34.

But the rude, confessing that they have sworn, are to be questioned as to what they said, as Bassaeus warns.