Hugh of St. Victor, De Sacramentis, 1.12.17-18; 23

Hugh of St. Victor, De Sacramentis, 1.12.17-18; 23 

Written c. 1134 CE. 

Source: Hugh of Saint Victor on the Sacraments of the Christian Faith: (De Sacramentis), p.198-199; 202. Trans.: Roy J. Deferrari. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007. 

1.12.17 On taking oath. 

Not every oath is evil and yet every oath with truth as witness is without evil. For when anyone swears to the truth for the necessity of his neighbour or for utility, when indeed he to whom the oath is sworn either cannot believe on account of ignorance or refuses to believe on account of malice, an oath of this kind indeed is not evil for him who swore, since he bore witness to the truth out of necessity; yet it is without evil for him to whom the oath is sworn, that is, either if he cannot believe otherwise from infirmity or if he contemns believing from perversity. Now whoever swears without cause, even if he swears the truth, is not without blame, because either he is censured for levity or he is condemned for arrogance. Who-ever swears that he will do evil sins, in which case, however, it would be better to break an oath than to fulfil it, so that he should beware of the evil which he swore and nevertheless understand the guilt in that he swore evilly. 

1.12.18 On perjury. 

Perjury is a lie confirmed by introducing sacrosanct testimony. For whoever swears to something false perjures himself or commits perjury, in which the first evil is the guilt of the lie when that which is false is spoken but the second is the fact that the testimony of truth is taken irreverently to protect falsehood. Whoever sees another swear to a falsehood willingly becomes a participant in the sin, if he consents and if, in so far as he can with saving truth, he does not by contradicting and admonishing prevent the evil from being accomplished. Now here we must consider that, although we cannot approve the sin of a brother, we should not publish it, lest perhaps we seem to be willing not to correct our neighbour but to defame him. On this account admonition should be given sinners when convincing testimony cannot be brought to them as they deny. 

1.12.23 On the movable precepts and those that have been superadded. 

… Now there were certain others of these middle things which the written law proposed rather through concession than through command and prohibition, which possibly would have been evil in themselves if a concession had not been made. For example, the law says that if anyone should find some uncleanness in his wife and on this account should hold her in hatred, he should write for her a bill of divorce and so should dismiss her, (Cf. Deut. 24, 1), because indeed it was better that being held in hatred she should be dismissed according to his will than being retained against his will she should be killed. It is also said in the law: "That shalt offer your oath to the Lord and shall swear by the Lord," (Cf. Deut. 10, 20), not because indeed it is good to swear or to swear by the Lord but oath was conceded to the imperfect on this account, that perjury might more easily be avoided, also at the same time that they might learn to venerate the name of God, when they received it more frequently into the assertion and the testimony of their words, and might not be forced to take the names of false gods to confirm their oaths. And to these not only was it permitted but ordered to invoke the name of the Lord as testimony if the reason for confirming the truth should demand. A similar example also was this, that they were permitted for an injury inflicted to render retaliation in kind, lest perhaps burning with rather vehement fury they should try to return greater evils than those inflicted. …