Question II: Whether it is lawful to swear by God

VERY many heretics deny altogether that an Oath is licit. Among these are the Manichaeans, whom D. Bonav. reports here, and the Apostolici, according to D. Bernard homil. 66. in Cant. and the Cathari, by the testimony of Guido, and the Pauperes de Lugduno according to the same, and the Fraticelli, by the testimony of Turrecremata lib. 4. summae de Ecclesia part. 2. cap. 37. Vuiclephus error 43. from the condemned in the Council of Constance sess. 8. who said that one ought not to swear to confirm human contracts; so also the Anabaptists, according to Cochlaeus against the same, and Erasmus ad 5. Matthaei.

I ASSERT, however, that the Oath is licit.

It is PROVED from D. Bonav. first from 5. Matth. But thou shalt render to the Lord thy oaths. The same is had in Deuter. 6. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and shalt swear by his name, and cap. 21. where the Magnates of the neighboring places, in which a man had been found slain, are commanded to purge themselves by oath, and Psalm. 62. All shall be praised who swear by him, and Heb. 6. where it is said: An oath is the end of all controversy, as S. Bonaventure rightly notes serm. 3. Decalogi, and loco cit. after D. Augustine serm. 28. de verbis Apostoli.

It is PROVED secondly from D. Bonaventure. That which has God and the Saints as exemplars is not sin: But the oath was instituted by God, and the Saints: Therefore. The minor is proved, Genes. 22. By myself I have sworn, saith the Lord. Psalm. 119. The Lord hath sworn. Heb. 6. He swore by himself. Besides, as often as in the old testament he said: I live, and in the new: Amen, amen, (which is frequent) God swore, as D. Jerome rightly notes also ad 16. Ezech. Chrysostomus homil. 11. in epistolam ad Heb. Oecumenius in cap. 3. ad Heb. and it is had cap. Etsi Christus, extra de iureiur.

SIMILARLY also the Saints swore: thus Abraham Genes. 21. Jacob and Laban Genes. 31. Moses and Jethro Exodi 2. David 1. Reg. 20. second, Reg. 1. the Apostle Rom. 1. second, Cor. 1. Philip. 1. and in other places, as S. Bonaventure reports serm. 3. Decal. and in 3. dist. 39. passim and in the Bibliis Pauperum, cap. 18. Therefore. It is the argument of D. Augustine loco cit. and lib. 19. cap. 23. contra Faustum, and of other Fathers.

It is PROVED thirdly. That by which honor is shown to God is licit: such is the oath: Therefore. The minor is proved by D. Bonaventure from the Gloss in 5. Matth. because while we bring God in as witness of the truth, we confess that God is the first infallible truth, on whom we lean, in whom we hope for the truth to be unfolded, whom we fear, whom we love, and therefore we remit ourselves wholly to him. These things Suarez pursues at length lib. 2. de religione, Tract. de iuramento, lib. 1. cap. 4. and 7.

It is PROVED fourthly from D. Bonaventure. That which has a holy object and end is licit; such is the oath, which has for object the Divine invocation, to unfold the truth, to promote good, to preserve fidelity, to promote peace, to curb malice, to settle controversies, duly to purge infamies, as is had in Heb. 6. Deuter. 21. cited above: Therefore. See D. Bonaventure.

D. Bonavent. also serm. 3. Decal. et loco cit. Gentil. On these arguments lean Suarez loco cit. Valencia 2. 2. disp. 6. quaest. 7. puncto 3. Castro lib. 8. contra haeres. V. Iuram. Azor Tom. 1. lib. 11. cap. 2.

You will object first Matth. 5. Christ says: But I say to you, not to swear at all.

D. Bonaventure answers ad primum, and serm. 3. in Decalogum, that Christ did not prohibit the oath universally, but only prohibited that we should swear too easily in every affair. For therefore he did not say: I say to you not to swear at all, which would render a universal negative: but he says: I say to you not to swear at all, that is, not always, and so easily. For a negation placed before the sign of universality is equivalent to a particular negative. Thus: Not every man runs, is a particular negative: But the negation placed after makes it universally true, as: Every man does not run. Azor receives this response Tom. 1. lib. 11. cap. 3. quaestio 5.

Valencia loco citato, after Gabriel in 3. dist. 39. quaest. 1. rejects this response, because the sentences of Sacred scripture are not to be measured by the rules of the Dialecticians, and it is certain that under the same form of speaking there stands in Scripture a universal prohibition, as Exodi 20. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor any likeness.

¶ But what harm does this acute observation of the Seraphic Doctor do, that these men should attempt by no reason to overturn it utterly? Moreover I show it solid: For often, and ever more often, Scripture is expounded by these rules, as is everywhere seen in the SS. PP., especially Augustine; for the rules of Dialectic were handed down to find the truth of propositions; and in this case the text was translated word for word from the Greek, which sounds altogether thus, as is read in the text. But we know that the Greeks use these Aristotelic rules. So also we very often see sacred scripture using figures and Tropes.

Indeed the Example brought forward by Valencia is for us: For there not all images are prohibited universally, for God himself commands the Cherubim to be woven, others to be sculpted; but only those to which the honor of latria is paid, or by which it is paid to other creatures, as Valencia himself confesses 2. 2. disp. 6. quaest. 11. puncto 6. col 1461. where he says this is the irrefragable sense of all Catholics. Wherefore that is a particular negative proposition.

Other responses therefore having been rejected, Valencia answers from D. Thom. art. 2. ad 1. and D. Augustine lib. 19. contra Faustum, cap. 23. and lib. de mendacio, cap. 15. that Christ the Lord prohibited the facility, and accordingly the temerity, in swearing, with which the Pharisees abounded. But that this was Christ's Scope he proves from the beginning of the sermon: Unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes, and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Moreover, for this exposition he could bring forward also S. Bonaventure loco cit. ad secundum, and in corpore. But the reason which Valencia adds from his own store is a frivolous invention; for Christ sufficiently assigned the more abundant justice necessary in this respect, blunting their use of swearing by creatures, on this pretext, that swearing by them is not an oath. But that he rather prohibited too great facility in swearing, whence an oath could lack truth also through inconsideration; or prohibited that they should not swear in every light matter without necessity, as S. Bonaventure says in the former exposition, is not gathered even by a word. Add that in the former exposition of D. Bonaventure this second is contained, namely, that it is prohibited that at every third word, from any slight occasion and slight little cause, we precipitately and inconsiderately swear.

You will object secondly, Iacobi 5. But above all, my brethren, do not swear.

S. Bonaventure answers in corpore, and ad 2. from D. Augustine ad Publicolam, that it forbids the facility of the oath because of the danger of perjury from inconsideration of the truth. So Valencia also answers loco cit. The same response from D. Bonaventure ad secundum, he gives to the Fathers who frequently inveigh against swearers.

S. Bonaventure adds that the Divine James intends also to remove the excessive affection toward oaths; therefore he says: Do not, because of the danger which follows from the affection of frequenting the oath without the due conditions; for too great frequency is evil. From which, however, it does not follow that the oath is absolutely evil: As the habit of laughing and playing is evil; yet sometimes to play and laugh moderately is the virtue of Eutrapelia. Whence S. Bonaventure refutes that argument: Every act whose habit is evil, is itself evil; but the habit of swearing is evil: Therefore also the act simply. He adds therefore for this reason that the Oath is not among those goods to be sought for themselves, but that it is licit to use it in necessity alone, which he proves from D. Augustine de serm. Domini in monte, lib. 1. cap. 30. and it is reported, cap. Ita ergo, 22. quaest. 1. and D. Thom. art. 5. has the same.

You will object thirdly, that it is perverse to invoke God as witness of profane and human things as though it were licit.

S. Bonaventure answers serm. 3. Decal. from the Apostle Heb. 6. That this is judged right by God; for peace is a most weighty good, necessary unto salvation, but controversies having been settled, peace is preserved. Therefore the invocation of God is not ordered, as to the last end, to profane affairs, but the end of controversies is peace, which returns into God, and is terminated in him. In the same way answers Valencia loco cit. and Azor Tom. 1. lib. 11. cap. 3. quaestio 5. and Iurisconsult. leg. 1. ff. de Iureiurando.