Dist. 39, Art. 2, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/39/q/bon-sent-III-d39-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On the form of swearing.*

Next there is inquiry concerning the form of swearing, and on this three questions are asked. First, whether it is lawful to swear by God. Second, whether it is lawful to swear by some created thing. Third, whether it is lawful to accept an oath made by idolaters.

### Question I. *Whether it is lawful to swear by God.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus and asks, whether it is lawful to swear by God. And that it is simply unlawful, it seems.

1. Everything that is forbidden is evil and unlawful; but to swear by God is forbidden, for it is said in Matthew the fifth: *Swear not at all*; likewise in James the fifth: *Above all things, my brethren, swear not*: therefore to swear by God is evil and unlawful.

2. Likewise, every act that is pernicious or dangerous is of itself evil and unlawful; but an oath made by God, according to what Augustine says in a certain sermon, « is either pernicious or dangerous, and none is safe »: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, everything that, when left to itself, is evil, simply speaking, must be judged evil and unlawful; but to swear by God without cause is evil and unlawful: therefore, simply speaking, to swear by God is unlawful and evil.

4. Likewise, every act whose habitual practice is evil is of itself evil and unlawful; but the habit of swearing by God is evil and to be reproved: therefore to swear by God is evil and unlawful.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine in the sermon on the Words of the Apostle: « If swearing were a sin, it would not be said in the Law: *Thou shalt render to the Lord thy oaths* »; but we render oaths to the Lord when we swear by the Lord: since therefore this is conceded in the Law, it seems that to swear by God is not unlawful.

2. Likewise, no act that has an exemplar in God is evil and unlawful; but an oath by God has its exemplar in God himself, since God himself swears by himself, according to what the Apostle says to the Hebrews the sixth: and in the Psalm: *The Lord hath sworn* etc.; and in Genesis the twenty-second: *By myself have I sworn* etc.: therefore to swear by God is not unlawful.

3. Likewise, no act in which honor and reverence is shown to God himself is unlawful; but when we swear by God, we show honor and reverence to God himself: therefore etc. The minor is proved by the Gloss on Matthew the fifth: « That by which anyone swears, he venerates, he loves, he fears: therefore it is enjoined that one swear only by God ».

4. Likewise, every act passing over its due matter is good and lawful; but to swear by God is an act passing over its due matter, since this is to invoke the divine Truth as witness: therefore to swear by God is good and lawful.

5. Likewise, everything that conduces to the confirmation of truth and to the confutation of falsity and deceit is good and lawful; but an oath by God is of this kind, since by it the good are cleared as witnesses, and the evil are convicted and punished: therefore an oath by God is good and lawful.

In connection with this it is asked, whether a good and lawful oath is to be desired. And that it is so, it seems, because it can be meritorious. And if so, it is asked: why was an oath forbidden by the Lord more than another good thing?

### Conclusion

> To swear by God is lawful, yet not to be desired.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that some have wished to say that every oath is unlawful, not only by a creature, but even by God himself. And this was and is the position of the Manichaean heretics, who took the occasion of their error from the word of the Lord, in Matthew the fifth, and from what is said in James the fifth. Which word indeed they misunderstood in two ways: first, because they believed that the Lord forbade the oath itself as of itself evil; second, because they understood by what is said: *Thou shalt not swear at all*, that the Lord forbade every oath. And in the first they erred: for, if the evangelical Law does not forbid except what is evil of itself; but to swear by God and to bring forward Truth itself as witness is neither against right reason nor against good custom nor against the divine Law — especially since the divine Law says: *Thou shalt render to the Lord thy oaths*, which Law these impious Manichaeans say was promulgated by an evil God — in this, that they understood the Lord to forbid the oath in itself, they erred, because they believed that the precepts of the Gospel were at variance with the precepts of the old Law, at variance also with right reason and good morals. Hence, refuting their error, Augustine says that the oath was not forbidden for its own sake, but for the avoiding of perjury. For he says to Publicola thus: « It is said in the new Testament that we should not swear at all;

which therefore seems to me to be said, not because swearing is a sin, but because to commit perjury is a monstrous sin, from which he willed us to be far who, that we should not swear at all, admonished us ».

In another point also they erred, because they believed that swearing was universally forbidden. And this error comes from manifest ignorance, because they did not know how to understand that a negation placed *before* a universal sign makes one sense, and placed *after* makes another sense. For *placed before* it makes the proposition equivalent to a particular negative, but *placed after* it makes it equivalent to its contrary. Hence it differs to say: not every man runs, and every man does not run. But the Lord did not say: at all thou shalt not swear, but said: thou shalt not swear at all. Hence he did not forbid *every act of swearing*, but forbade that one should not swear *in every manner* and *without any cause*.

And therefore, that error being cast off as irrational and pernicious, it must be conceded that it is lawful to swear by God; and this the whole body of the faithful commonly holds. — Yet, since it is not so lawful but that in some way it can be unlawful, there is doubt among the doctors whether to swear by God denotes an act *good in its kind*, or an *indifferent* act. And to some it has seemed that to swear by God is an act *good in its kind*, yet by reason of the proneness of the one swearing is *evil* by occasion. For they say that the act is good in its kind, in that the act passes over its due matter, since to invoke as witness rightly passes over Truth itself.

But to others it seems that to swear by God is of itself *indifferent*, since the divine Truth can be invoked through an oath as witness to truth and as witness to falsity; and the one is good, and the other is evil, since in the one reverence is done, in the other injury. — Hence note that there are certain acts which pertain to the divine worship, as to praise God; and these are good of themselves and according to themselves. But there are certain acts which are toward the opposite; and these are *evil of themselves*, as to blaspheme God. But there are certain ones that are *in a middle manner*, like the act of swearing, which, if it be done reverently, is toward the worship of God; if it be done irreverently, is toward the opposite. — Therefore they say that to swear by God is lawful as *indifferent*, which can be done well and badly; and because an indifferent thing for diverse causes can be an occasion of falling into evil and of avoiding evil: hence it is that the Lord sometimes admonishes and induces men to swear *by God*, sometimes draws back. In the old Law he induced them to swear by God, that by this they might be recalled from the oath of idols, when he said: *Thou shalt render to the Lord thy oaths*. In the new Law he draws back, to show that perjury is to be fled. — And to this extent, according to this manner of speaking, it seems reasonable enough that to swear by God is lawful as *indifferent*. But whether it be *indifferent*, or *good in its kind*, since either can be said with sufficient probability, this must be held for certain, that it is lawful to swear by God; and the reasons showing this are to be granted.

1. To that, then, which is objected to the contrary, that this act is forbidden; it must be said that this act is not forbidden because it is evil, but because it is an occasion of evil; nor is it forbidden universally, but it is forbidden that one should not swear irreverently. And this is conveyed by the meaning of the word itself, according as has been explained above.

2. To that which is objected, that to swear by God is either pernicious or dangerous; it must be said that *dangerous* is said of something in two ways: either because it is the *cause* of danger, or because it is the *occasion* of danger. But to swear by God is said to be dangerous, not because it is the *cause* of danger — for it can be meritorious and good — but because it is the *occasion* of danger in him who does not diligently observe how he swears.

3. To that which is objected, that everything that, when left to itself, is evil of itself must be judged evil and unlawful; it must be said that there are two ways of understanding the act of swearing by God as *left to itself*: either by considering the oath itself *in itself*, and so it is not evil, but is either *indifferent* or *good in its kind*; or according as it is done in the deed *apart from cause and utility*, and so *it is evil*, in that there is there a privation of the due end and a positing of irreverence from this, that someone, apart from cause and utility and necessity, takes the divine Truth as witness. Yet from this it cannot be concluded that to swear by God is *simply* evil.

For just as it does not follow: to speak without cause and utility is evil, therefore to speak is evil; so also the aforesaid inference does not hold.

4. To that which is objected, that every act whose habitual practice is evil is of itself evil; it must be said that this is false, since there are many things which are good according to place and time, even though frequently they breed viciousness; just as it is sometimes good to laugh and to be glad, but it is not good to make this frequent, because it leads into dissoluteness. So also is it to be understood of an oath; since the habit of swearing diminishes reverence for truth and in some manner disposes to the assertion of falsity.

To that which is asked, whether an oath lawfully made by God is to be desired; it must be said that it is not; and this is on account of the occasion of evil joined to it. And it is similar: just as the affluence of riches, because it distracts a man, lest he attend to the worship of God, ought not to be in his desire, although it can be lawfully and meritoriously possessed; so also is it to be understood concerning the oath itself. And therefore blessed James says: *Swear not*, showing not only that the *act of swearing without cause* is to be avoided, but also the *affection* for it. Hence also we are admonished, concerning the act of swearing, on account of the danger of perjury, to avoid the *habit*, to avoid also the *act apart from necessity*, and to avoid the *affection*; and to an oath one ought not to go of his own accord, but constrained. — And the like of this can be rendered in the presiding of a prelacy. For although it be good and lawful to be set over others, yet it is not to be desired, but rather to be fled; and to it a man ought to be drawn as if unwilling, because, when it is loved, prelacy is frequently a ground for being proud and in some manner for apostatizing and withdrawing from God. The like is to be understood in the matter proposed. Hence, although an oath be *lawful* and *meritorious*, yet it is not to be desired; and this the text of the Gospel and the admonition of blessed James himself mean to suggest.