Dist. 39, Art. 2, Q. 2
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-q2
----------------------------------------
> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation.

### Question II. *Whether it is lawful to swear by some created thing.*

Secondly it is asked whether it is lawful to swear by some created thing. And that it is not seems [to be the case]:

1. First, by the very text of Matthew, chapter five: *Do not swear, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God, nor by the earth* etc.; there the Gloss says: «What belongs to perfection He taught when He said: *Do not swear at all*; but what is superstitious He cut away when He added: *Neither by heaven*» etc.: therefore to swear by a creature is superstitious; but nothing of that sort is lawful: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Pope Pius, Cause twenty-two, question one: «If anyone swears by the hair of God or by [His] head, if he is in an ecclesiastical order, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be anathematized»: if therefore it is unlawful to swear by the members of Christ, since they are holier than all other creatures; it seems that it is lawful to swear by no other [creature].

3. Likewise, to swear by God is to call God to witness; therefore to swear by a creature is to call a creature into testimony; but an irrational creature cannot in any way bear witness to truth: therefore it is foolish and vain and unfitting to swear by it.

4. Likewise, whoever swears by an idol commits idolatry, and this is for no other reason than that in swearing he renders to the idol what he ought to render to God: therefore the act of swearing pertains to the worship of *latria*, which is owed to the divine Majesty alone; but it is established that it is not lawful to venerate any creature with the worship of *latria*: therefore in no way is it lawful to swear by a creature.

**On the contrary:** 1. In Genesis chapter forty-two, Joseph swore *by the welfare of Pharaoh*: if therefore he, as a holy man, made a lawful oath, and the welfare of Pharaoh was something created; it seems that to swear by a creature is lawful and permitted.

2. Likewise, Paul, in First Corinthians chapter fifteen: *I die daily, by your glory, brethren*; where, according to what Augustine says, the Apostle swore; but their glory was something created: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the form of oath which the whole body of the faithful most uses is to swear by the holy Gospels of God: but the Gospel is something created: therefore it is lawful to swear by a creature.

4. Likewise, every day the faithful swear by the Saints, namely by the blessed Virgin and by blessed Peter; nor is such an oath censured: therefore it seems that the lawful form of oath may be made not only by the Creator, but also by a creature.

In connection with this it is asked: why is it sworn rather by the Gospels than by other creatures? — It is also asked whether one who swears falsely by a stone is a perjurer. And that he is not seems [to be the case], because no reverence is to be rendered to a stone. But the contrary of this Augustine says, on that passage to the Romans, chapter one: *God is my witness*, and it is found in the [Master's] text. — It is asked therefore how and in what manner it is lawful to swear by a creature.

### Conclusion.

> To swear by creatures — and indeed by all of them — can be done lawfully in two ways.

**I respond:** It must be said that an assertory oath can be made in two ways: one by imprecation, the other by the invocation of the testimony of Truth itself. — By imprecation one swears when it is said: so may my son live, or my father — that is to say: unless I fulfill what I promise, or unless I fulfill what I swear, may my son or my father not live. And in this form of swearing a creature is not called to bear witness, but rather is «pledged» to the Creator Himself, according to what Augustine says. And this indeed is lawful, because, although every creature is the Creator's own, nevertheless the good or comfort which we receive from a creature and which has been granted to us by God, we can pledge to God as our own; and therefore this form is lawful, although «this kind of oath, according to what Augustine says in the [Master's] text, is most grave».

But that oath is made by the invocation of the testimony of Truth itself, when someone swears by another in order to call him as witness. Now a creature can be called into testimony in two ways: either *in itself*, or insofar as it is a *vestige of divine Truth*. If *in itself*, in this way it is not lawful, because thus it would be believed that there is something of the divine in it, by reason of which the truth of the statement could be confirmed by such testimony. But in the second way, insofar as the *vestige of divine Truth* shines forth in it, it is lawful to swear by a creature. For this is nothing other than to swear by Him who shines forth in the creature; and then one does not venerate the creature, but the Creator. Hence just as «the honor which is shown to an image is referred to the prototype», that is, to the first exemplar, as Damascene says; so in this way the oath made by a creature is referred to the author of the creatures themselves. And this is what is said in Cause twenty-two, question one: «It must be known that the Saints swore not so much by creatures as by the author of creatures, nor did they venerate in creatures anything other than their Creator, as Joseph, who in swearing by Pharaoh venerated this in him, that by God's judgment he had been set over the lowest». And since in every creature God shines forth in this way, by every creature an oath can lawfully be made in this manner. But because He shines forth principally in the Saints, and most of all in the words of the evangelical Law, through which the divine Truth has shone upon us; hence it is that the form of swearing by which one swears by a creature has come to be used through the Saints, and most of all through the Gospels. — It must therefore be granted that it is lawful to swear by a creature, whether by imprecation, or by invoking its Creator into testimony. And thus proceed the arguments adduced for this side.

**To the arguments on the contrary:**
*To 1.* To that which is first objected on the contrary, that the Lord prohibits oaths by creatures, and the Gloss says that such an oath is superstitious; it must be said that this is understood according as the creatures themselves, considered in themselves, are called into the testimony of truth; and in this way there is superstition there, because reverence beyond what is due is shown to them. And as to this the Gloss and the text are to be understood.

*To 2.* To that which is objected from the authority of Pope Pius, it must be said that the canon speaks against those who believed that God according to His divinity has a head and hairs — and such men were blasphemers — or else against those who irreverently name the members of Christ and by a certain elaborate manner of swearing divide Him as it were member by member; who are very reasonably to be censured.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that whoever swears by something calls it into testimony; it must be said that this is not always true, but rather sometimes he calls it into testimony, sometimes he does not call it, but rather that to which it is referred: or he even binds himself and pledges [it] to God. And in these ways, not the aforesaid, it is lawful and permitted to swear by an irrational creature.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that whoever swears by an idol venerates it; it must be said that this is so because the one who swears by an idol calls it into testimony as God; and therefore the sin of idolatry is there. But it is not so when one swears by other creatures, because that oath is referred wholly to the eternal Truth.

But to that which is further asked, why one swears rather by the Gospels than by other creatures; the response is already plain from what has been said. For just as we venerate the cross of Christ the more, for the reason that it is the more referred to the Crucified Himself; and the Saints, because they have a certain greater nearness to God: so also it must be understood in the Gospels themselves, which directly and immediately lead into the eternal Truth itself. — And if you object that, although a creature leads to the Creator, yet for this reason not just any creature is to be adored, but only that which has been instituted for this, like the image of the Crucified; it must be said that it is not similar: because the showing of honor and of the worship of *latria* regards that which is honored according to that which is most worthy in it, and this is proper and singular; but invocation in an assertion regards the infallibility and luminosity of Truth itself; and this shines forth in individual creatures, but according to more and less. Therefore it is not similar on the one side and the other.

To that which is asked, whether the one who swears falsely by a stone is a perjurer; it must be said that he is, according to what Augustine says: since one swearing by a stone either intends to show reverence to the stone itself, or to the author of the stone. And if he intends to show reverence to the stone itself, he sins doubly; but if to the author of the stone, then without doubt he perjures himself,

because he does insult to the Creator of the stone himself, while he takes up His name, understood through the effect of the creature, in vain. — Yet if someone were not to swear in earnest, but intended in a certain way to jest, as is the custom for some to swear by their *bottas*; it ought not to be called perjury, because he does not intend to swear, but rather to jest; nevertheless such a manner of speaking is sufficiently reprehensible and ought to be avoided by perfect men.

---