Summa Contra Hereticos (Early
Dominican), On Oaths against Paterenes
Early unattributed Dominican
Latin writing of the genre dialogue against heretics. Likely written in
Lombardy between 1235-1239. Recent scholarship suggests Peter of Verona as a
likely contender for authorship. In section 34 of the work, the Catholic [Cath]
author argues against an imagined Paterene [Pat], on the topic of oath taking. Paterene is a term somewhat interchangeable with Cathar at this time period, found mostly in Northern Italy.
Source: Summa Contra Hereticos
ad Petrum Martyrem attributa, p. 324 – 334. Ed.: Donald S. Prudlo. Medium Ævum
Monographs XXXVIII. Oxford, 2020.
34 On oath taking
On taking oaths we follow three
paths against the heretics. The first is by questioning, tell me heretic, what
is swearing.
On oath taking
Swearing is a particular
assertion with divine attestation. Therefore the Apostle swore on many
occasions, since many times he asserted with divine attestation. See Romans 1 (1:9)
“For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son,
that without ceasing I make a commemoration of you, always making request in my
prayers.” And the same in 9 (9:1) “I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie,
my conscience bears witness to me in the Holy Spirit that I have great sadness,
and continual sorrow in my heart.” Also 2 Corinthians 2 (2:17) “For we are not
peddlers of God's word like so many, but in Christ we speak as persons of
sincerity, as persons sent from God and standing in his presence.” The same in
12 near the end (12:19) “Of old, do you think that we excuse ourselves to you?
We speak before God in Christ.” The same in Galatians I near the end (1:20)
“Now the things which I write to you, behold, before God, I do not lie.” Also
Ephesians 4 (4:17) “this then I say and testify in the Lord.” Also Philippians
(1:8) “For God is my witness, how I long after you all in the affection of
Jesus Christ.” Also 2 Timothy 4 (4:1) “I bear witness before God and Jesus Christ,
who shall judge the living and the dead.”
More on the same
Pat: Or swearing is a
conjuring of God. And the Apostle does this in 1 Thessalonians at the end
(5:27) “I adjure you by the Lord, that this epistle be read to all the holy
brethren.” Therefore let us say that is what swearing is. Whatsoever else is
said as an assertion, which is that which Christ commanded us, namely (Mt 5:37)
“yes, yes, or no, no.”
Cath: Yet I ask you,
whether those words only might be said and not others, or rather the meaning of
these words. For the first one cannot say because we find neither Christ nor
the Apostles ever using those words in their assertions. If yet you say that
the meaning of those words should be pronounced, I ask what that might be in fact.
Pat: I say that the
meaning of those words is to be held thusly, that one should assert or deny
something through two manners of speaking only.
Cath: I say that both
Christ and his Apostles many times asserted and denied, which is read more
often about Christ in John 3 (3: 5) “Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless a man be
born again.” For twice did He say “Amen, Amen,” that represents two “Yes, yes.”
And later is appended his assertion in those words “one is not able,” which
represents the third “yes” and for often one reads that Christ is speaking in
such a manner. Truly of the Apostle Paul one has many occasions and of the
other Apostles teaching in [groups of] three or four asserted positive or
negative things or they denied them. As it is especially read of Paul, in
Romans 9, when he said (9:1–2) "I speak the truth,” behold one positive
utterance, “in Christ Jesus,” behold the second, “I do not lie,” behold the
third, “my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit,” behold the
fourth, “that I have great sadness,” behold the fifth, “and continual sorrow in
my heart,” is added, behold the sixth. So I say that the meaning of these words
is assertion or negation by clear words just as these words are either yes or
no and according to the value of “yes, yes, or no, no,” one yes and one no, or
three yes and three no, for as often as one wishes to say yes or no, provided
that one does not use words of adjuration, in which God or another substance is
introduced in witness or judgment.
But Christ used words of
adjuration, namely “amen, amen,” which means “in truth, in truth”, which indeed
He is Himself, as He says in John 14 (14:6) “I am the way, the truth,” and He
Himself is God, therefore He was saying “in God, in God.” And the Apostle Paul
used words of swearing, calling God as [his] witness or taking oaths as was
shown above.
About swearing
So I could say that another way
of swearing is to say “God help me,”
On the same topic
But this swearing is nowhere read
to be prohibited, particularly in the time of Christ and of the Apostles they
would not make oaths with words of this kind, but with others, for example,
“the Lord lives” or “May the Lord do this for me,” and “May He add this,” or
“God is the witness” or “in God” and the like.
About swearing
Pat: I say that swearing
is to swear by the gospels just as the Roman Church does.
About swearing
But the objection remains the
same about this and of the next. Moreover, if this alone is swearing, then it
is not swearing; to swear in a different manner, namely, by the cross or by the
relics of the saints, and the like, which you refuse to acknowledge. Further,
by what reason, in what sense are these oaths? And I might find that you
propose some in the foregoing cases.
Pat: But you tell me what
swearing is.
Cath: Swearing is a legal
statement in conscience to someone with the attestation of divine religion.
“Legal statement” supposes that a law is enacted, that is, by legal proof in
swearing, in the absence of other proofs, as the Apostle says in Hebrews 6 (6:16)
“and an oath for confirmation is the end of all their controversy.” “In
conscience,” it is added on account of truth in the heart which one ought to possess,
for otherwise it is no oath but a perjury, yet with the attestation of divine religion,”
he inserts on account of creatures, by which it is not permitted to swear for
two reasons. One is on account of having to remove idolatry from the hearts of men,
for if they swore by creatures, they might consider perhaps generally that the
creature through not having respect towards God that they might have certain
divine powers and thus they would be idolatrous. Another is lest by swearing by
something insignificant which they do not fear, they should not consider
themselves blamed [ for breaking it) and so they might have ample occasion to
perjure themselves, and so the form of the oath is established so that one
should swear by God, fear of whom silences falsehood and love of whom speaks
the truth. Whence the Apostle says in the aforementioned place, “for men swear
by a thing greater than themselves.” The second manner is what Paul the Apostle
swore, and the angel too, and God. Of swearing one has the Apostle in 2
Corinthians I at the end ( 1:23 ) “ But I call God to witness upon my soul ,
that to spare you , I came not any more to Corinth , ” Of the oath by the angel
it is read in Apocalypse 10 ( 10 : 5–6 ) “ And the angel , whom I saw standing
upon the sea and upon the earth , lifted up his hand to heaven , and he swore
by him who lives for ever and ever , who created heaven , and the things which
are in it . ” And of the oaths of God, the Apostle says in Hebrews 4 (4: 3) “As
I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest.” And 6 (6: 13-14) “For
God making promise to Abraham, because he had no one greater by whom he might swear,
swore by himself saying: 'Unless blessing I shall bless you.’” And 7 (7:20) “And
inasmuch as it is not without an oath who were made priests, but this with an oath,
by him that said to him: The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent, you are a
priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” So if the Apostles and
Angels and God swore, you can be sure that you heretics can swear even though
you disdain it, since it is not only the Apostles and the angel who propose it
but God Himself. You are more prideful than the prince of Pride who did not say,
'I will be better than the most high,' but something similar, thus you ought
deservedly to suffer for following after him, just as Blessed Peter says in 2
Peter 2 (2:11) “Whereas angels who are greater in strength and power bring not
against themselves a railing judgment.”
Pat: I reply that the
Apostles did not swear, but invoked the witness of God. The angels were able to
swear because it was not prohibited to them. Truly God did it, just like the Lord,
for many things are permitted to the Lord which are not permitted to His servant,
neither is man able to do what God does.
Cath: That the Apostle
swore I prove, for he said (2 Cor 1:23) “upon my soul,” that is, against my soul,
therefore if I lie may God give testimony against my soul, or may God take
witness and judgment against it at the same time. But our oath is the same as
the Apostle’s when we say, “may God help me,” but more strongly, when we
propose a privation of the divine help for ourselves if we might lie. Thus his
words mean “I call God as witness,” that is, if I say the truth, may God bear
His witness for me, but if I lie instead may it be a harm to me. Therefore the
Apostle made an oath. Further I say to you, O Heretic, you say these words and
it suffices for me, and I know why you do not want to [swear]. Therefore you
consider these words as an oath, but because you said that we ought not to imitate
the angels in their example of swearing, for whom you say that swearing is
forbidden to us and not to them, I require a reason from you why you say that
men more than angels are to be forbidden from swearing and why Blessed John
wrote about angels taking oaths, if it would be a sin for us to imitate this.
Since also you say that we ought not, nor are we able to do anything that God
does, which, actually, we are able or at least it is not a sin if we do these,
as the Apostle says in Ephesians 5 (5:1) “Be imitators of God, just as beloved
sons,” and the Lord in Matthew 5 (5:48) “therefore be perfect, as your heavenly
Father is perfect,” namely insofar as we are able to swear. Therefore it is
permitted for us to swear after God swore, since what is not unbecoming for a
king, neither is it for a soldier, and if unbefitting for a soldier, how much
more unbefitting would it be for a king, just as in the examples of
fornication, and lying, and the like, which God cannot do since they are sins,
likewise neither could He swear, if it were a sin, and since He did swear, then
swearing is not a sin. And note, Catholic, that by the same reason one is a
sin, the heretics declare others to be sins. For they say that all sins are
identical by one and the same reason.
Pat: I might say therefore
that God did not swear as you would do, but simply by the plain sense of the
words He promised, and in God a promise is called an oath on account of the
firmness of truth that is in Him.
Cath: On the contrary
beyond the plain promising He is promising a binding promise and swearing by
His divinity, just as we also do. As the Apostle says in Hebrews 6 (6:13) “He
swore by himself,” and later (6:17-19) “Wherein God, meaning more abundantly to
show to the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed an
oath that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we
may have the strongest comfort, who have fled for refuge to hold fast the hope
set before which have as an anchor of the soul.” Then God made two promises
about the same thing, namely, plainly and in an oath. The third way is because
the parts of a thing are good the whole is good, just as the example of a
horse, of which if I prove that it has a good head and feet and so on of the
other parts, it remains that it is wholly good. But it is obvious that in true
and necessary swearing, done by God, there are three parts, and all the parts
are good. For therefore there are only three, namely, truth, the will to swear truthfully,
and the invocation of divine aid. But all these are good, or there is nothing
evil in them. Therefore, swearing done in such a way is completely good, or at
least there is no evil, and pay attention, Catholic, that whatsoever the
heretics chatter, they should have in their consciences that the Apostles swore
many times and that God and the angels swore likewise.
That to swear is a sin,
according to the Patarenes
Pat: Zechariah 5 (5: 3) “for
every thief shall be judged as is there written: and everyone who swears in
like manner shall be judged by it.” Therefore swearing is a sin, like thievery,
even if one does it in the name of God.
Cath: I reply that he is
speaking of false swearing, whence he goes on (5: 4) “I will bring it forth,
says the Lord of hosts, and it shall come to the house of the thief, and to the
house of him who swears falsely in my name.”
Pat: Also, Matthew 5 (5:
33–37) “Again you have heard that it was said to them of old, do not perjure yourself,
but perform your oaths to the Lord. But I say to you not to swear at all ,
neither by heaven , for it is the throne of God , nor by the earth , for it is
his footstool , nor by Jerusalem , for it is the city of the great king ,
neither swear by your head , because you cannot make one hair white or black ,
but let your speech be yes , yes , no , no : and that which is over and above
these , is of evil . ” So it is a command of Christ not to swear.
Cath: One can take these
words of the Lord in five ways. The first is , “ do not swear at all , ” that
is , in vain , say , ' in whatever manner you swear , even if by creatures ,
for example , by heaven and earth , and the like , I want it that you keep
faith , ' whence He adds , “ but let your speech be yes , yes , no , no ,
" that is , let your mouth be one with your heart , whether in affirmation
or negation . And that the words “yes, yes, no, no” mean, that is, let the
mouth be in concert with the heart should be understood the Apostle shows in 2
Corinthians 1 (1:18) “But God is faithful, for our preaching which was to you,
was not, it is, and it is not.” And that that is a fit interpretation is clear
from two words which He spoke in that chapter, namely (Mt 5:17) “I have not
come to destroy the law or the prophets. I have not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”
(5:20) “Unless your justice abounds more than that of the scribes and Pharisees.”
For if Christ does not destroy the law and if our justice ought to abound more
than the scribes and Pharisees, who were to teach men to fulfil oaths to God
according to the command of the law, it remains that He did not remove
swearing, but supplements the law further with regard to the wicked doctrine of
the scribes and Pharisees, and supplements their justice which was wanting. Yet
the foregoing were teaching and were observing that anyone who might swear by
creatures in that way they swore wickedly ought not to observe those oaths, and
so they were teaching them to perjure. Nevertheless they excepted certain
creatures, namely, the gifts which were offered to them, that they might induce
simple people to offer gifts to them. But the Lord, since He is truth, commands
them to observe truth, even if it is sworn by creatures, since in creatures the
creator is understood, especially in those of which the scribes and the
Pharisees condemned making oaths to, and this is what follows “neither by
heaven, for it is the throne of God,” to say, the throne of God as if in
heaven, and so those who swear by the throne of God, it is understood swear by
God, and so on of the others and this is proven later in 23 (23:16) “Woe to you
blind guides, that say, ‘Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing,
but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple, is a debtor.’” And later (23:22)
“And he that swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him who sits
thereon.” And note, Catholic, that the Lord, when He spoke regarding redeeming
oaths made [in the name of] creatures, He gave the reason that in creatures the
creator is known. He is speaking to the faithful who were understanding the
Creator by the creatures and who were taught by the Pharisees that oaths should
not be kept unless they were made by God. Those who themselves understood the
creator to be understood in creatures too, although they excused some more
worthy persons regarding whom greater things could be seen, and the Lord
inveighs against their stupidity. Still you ought to know that even if an oath
is made through an idol it ought to be kept, lest the promised faith be broken,
and this is what the Lord concluded by the words “yes, yes, no, no” since in
whatsoever manner an oath be made, He willed that the oath be kept unless it
was a pernicious one. The second way of understanding the Lord’s words is thus,
that in these words He does three things, namely, He prohibits, He commands,
and He grants permission. He prohibits, namely, not to swear at all, “neither
by heaven, etcetera.” He prohibits, I say, by a prohibition of counsel, yet He
commands to tell the truth there, “but let your words be yes, yes.” He grants
permission also about the necessity of swearing in truth there “and that which
is over and above these, is of evil.” For all the things which are in this
passage the Lord adds to the law. They are counsels of greater perfection and
occasions of avoiding sins. The third way of explaining is thus, that the Lord
might prohibit by these words only swearing by creatures particularly for respect
to those pure creatures, and then it is not a lie from that word “not to swear”
up to “yet let your speech,” as if to say, “may you not swear by heaven,”
because it is not God, but it is His throne, therefore a creation, nor by earth
for the same reason , nor by the city of Jerusalem for the same cause , by your
head , since your head has no power , on account of which you might fear to lie
, since you are completely unable to make one hair black or white which yet
follows , but let your speech , ” is commanded for the avoidance of perjury .
The fourth manner of explanation is this, that Christ prohibited two types of swearing,
the first, namely, not to swear at all, that is, everywhere, always, or for any
cause. He did not say not to swear at all , since if He had meant this then He
would have said “ never swear , but since He says “ do not swear at all , ” it
means not to swear everywhere or always , since when one proposes a denial by
means of a universal affirmative , it is changed into a particular affirmation
and denial , for “ not all men are dogs , ” that is , “ a certain man is a dog
and a certain other one is not , ” as what is proposed here “ do not swear at
all , ” that is " at some times swear and in other times do not . ” If it
is placed after it makes it a universal negation, as “every man is not a dog,
" that is, “no man is a dog,” and thus it might be if he would have said “do
not swear at all,” since it means you never swear, which He didn't do. Secondly,
He prohibits swearing by creatures when He says, " neither by heaven,
" which is obvious that also from the word “neither.” For if He should
have said “do not swear at all,” that is “never swear in any way,” and a
different thing is “do not swear by heaven. " The fifth way of
understanding this saying is that it is a counsel of the Lord for perfection,
if you pay attention in this chapter, there are such counsels which Christ only
gave to the perfect.
Pat: Also, at the end of
James (5:12) “But above all things, my brethren, do not swear, neither by heaven,
nor by the earth, nor by any other oath.” Therefore, in no way is it permitted
to swear
Cath: Even here I reply in
five ways. The first thusly, “above everything, " that is, above all things,
which is “any " thing since it is declined in the neuter, it is unpacked
as this noun ' thing ‘, and in the latter's feminine gender. And following this
the rest is perfectly clear. And note that oaths are fourfold, of which three
are prohibited. The first is perjury, of which the Lord says in Matthew 5 (5:33)
" you have heard it said of old, you shall not bear false witness.” The
second is that if it might be without cause or necessity , of which Blessed
James speaks , and of which the Lord says in Matthew ( 5:24 ) “ do not swear at
all , ” according to one reading , and Ecclesiasticus 23 ( 23 : 9 ) “ Let not
your mouth be accustomed to swearing , for in it there are many falls , and let
not the naming of God be usual in your mouth . ” The third is if it might be
done by creatures, as in Matthew (5:33) “neither by heaven,” and this “neither
by heaven” according to another reading. The fourth is that it might be done in
truth and by God and in necessity, and that is conceded, just as it was proven
above in the part of the Catholics, and otherwise it is not possible to explain
that saying “above all things.” For in fact, it cannot be said before all, that
is, the first, because He says this as if it were last, or above all, since
before and after, He says greater and more useful things for salvation. For
above He said in the first chapter (1: 5) “But if any of you lack wisdom, let
him ask of God, " and that one (1:22) " be doers of the word, and not
hearers only,” and 2 (2:13) “And mercy exalts itself above judgment.” And 3 (3:14)
“do not glory, and do not be liars against the truth.” And 4 (4: 7) “Be subject
therefore to God, " and later he says (5:19) " if any of you err from
the truth, and one convert him.” And all these, and many others, which Blessed
James speaks of in the epistle, are greater and more useful things for the
salvation of souls than not swearing. To the second I reply, by explaining the
saying here thusly, “do not swear,” that is, you should not wish to swear since
it is permitted to swear from necessity, and though it is not a sin, it is
nevertheless not good to wish or desire to swear. To the third point is this (5:12)
“do not swear by heaven,” that is, by creatures. Nor does what is added oppose
this “neither by any other oath,” since it is to be understood of forbidden
oaths and read by the Master Jesus Christ, “neither by the city of Jerusalem,
nor by your head. " Yet the fourth way is this, “do not swear " namely,
in vain, and so He says, “that you do not fall under judgment.” Since whatever
oath you might swear you ought to keep it. The fifth way I reply thus, since I
say that Blessed James counsels in these passages for the perfect to beware of oaths,
for the reason that those who swear often come to perjury, and if you pay
attention to nearly all those things which he says in this epistle, they are
counsels to greater security and perfection of life, especially when he said “do
not. " Yet of these five expositions the first two seem to be the more secure,
for the first he makes that which comes next (5:12) “that you do not fall under
judgment,” and by the ecclesiastical authorities mentioned above, and Isaiah 8 (8:12)
“for all that this people speak is a conspiracy,” and the second readily
confirms what follows “yes, yes, no, no. "
Pat: Also, Augustine (Sermon
307 on John the Baptist) on account of the crime of false swearing the Lord
prohibited all oaths,” also another of his glosses “Swearing is not good.”! Therefore,
Augustine understood swearing to be a sin prohibited by God.
Cath: I reply to how
Augustine might have understood swearing to be prohibited by God he explains
when he says, (Gregory on Mt 3, Ordinary Gloss on Mt 5: 33-37) “He did not
completely prohibit swearing but removing the occasion for perjury, by which he
taught it is more perfect to avoid, showing it is further removed from evil. The
Apostle swears that some might be convinced of the faith. Even the Church
permits swearing by its faithful for a peace treaty. But Christ taught more
perfectly, that He would indulge the weak and that He might remove
superstition.” And here, regarding that word (Mt 5:37) “and that which is over
and above these, is of evil.” He does not say it is evil, but it is from evil.
Namely, of the evil of unbelief, in exacting an oath, which unbelief certainly
is sometimes a fault and sometimes even a sin. In what way He understands that
swearing is not good is explained by the gloss. Whence you have stolen the
sense thus, by saying swearing is not good, (Augustine, Sermon on the Mount, 1.17)
“swearing is to be reckoned not among things that are good, but among things
that are necessary,” that is “it is not to be desired as if it were a good, nor
is it to be fled from like an evil, since it is necessary,” (Augustine on
Galatians) “for it is not contrary to the command of God to swear.” Also
another gloss, on Matthew (Augustine, Sermon on the Mount) “He who does not
swear, is unable to perjure himself,” the Gloss understands that one should not
swear.
Cath: Reply about the
gloss. When it adds, “he who does not speak is unable to lie,” and understand
that it does not say that all swearing is evil, just as it does not say that
all speech is evil, but it does say of both that he who does not swear is
unable to perjure himself and that he who does not speak cannot lie. Thus on
the contrary he who never swears, never swears the truth, and he who never
speaks never speaks the truth. For it is good not to swear that one might not
perjure himself, and it is good not to speak that one might not lie thus, and
it is good to swear for one who might know the truth. It is good to speak that
the truth be spoken. But answer me this, for there is no evil except in the
good, since evil is the corruption of the good, or its privation. For so is a
killing evil, because it unduly destroys a creature of God. Likewise adultery,
since it violates a marriage. Likewise about theft, since upsets rightful owner
ship. So also of perjury since it corrupts an oath. Therefore swearing in truth,
which is opposed to acts of perjury, is not an evil.
Pat: But why will you not
receive us to the faith and to the obedience of the Roman Church without
swearing, even supposing we wish to come to her, also since according to us it
is more perfect not to swear than to swear.
Cath: I reply that we do
not want to receive you as wolves like lambs, neither do we know you to be
lambs, so long as you have not put off your skin of wolves For we do not wish
to receive you as heretics, but Catholics, and we do not see you as Catholics
until you no longer wish to embrace that by which you blasphemously err, and
regarding this especially, that it is better to swear than not to swear, in
fact the first is good, and the second evil.
Pat: But what if we wish
not to swear, because we can never break our vow?
Cath: Yes, because it is
false and fraudulently made, especially it can be released by the authority of
the Church, to whom Christ said (Mt 18:18) “whatsoever you shall loose upon
earth.”
