18 November 2016

Gregory Palamas, The Decalogue of Christian Law, 3

Gregory Palamas, The Decalogue of Christian Law, 3

Written 14th Century CE.

Source: Gregory Palamas. “The Decalogue of Christian Law, 3.” Translated by Fr. Nicholas Palis from the Greek Book “Voice of the Fathers” Volume 3, pp. 141-158, The Sacred Paracletos Monastery, Oropos, Attica, 2003; Edited by Irene Maginas. Available online at: denver.goarch. See PG 150:1093 for Greek text.

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain You shall not use the name of the Lord your God in vain (Ex. 20:7), making a false oath because of any earthly thing, or fear of someone, or out of shame, or for your own gain. Breaking an oath is a denial of God.
So don’t make any oath at all. Completely avoid making an oath because from oaths comes breaking of oaths, which estranges man from God and makes the oath-breaker a law-breaker. If you always say the truth, people will believe you as if you were taking an oath.

And if it ever happens that you take an oath — something you should pray doesn’t happen — so long as it is for something in agreement with the divine law, perform it as lawful, but consider yourself to blame for making the oath. With charity, petitioning, mourning and physical hardship, seek mercy from Christ, Who said that you should make no oaths at all (Matt. 5:34). Again, if you took an oath for something illegal, be careful not to fulfill it because you took an oath, so that God does not number you with the prophet-killing Herod, who, in order not to break his oath, beheaded the Precious Forerunner (Matt. 14:7-12). Better to break that illegal oath, make a law for yourself never again to make an oath, and seek God’s mercy, using the above medicines even more laboriously, together with tears. 

1 September 2016

Grimlaicus’ Rule for Solitaries, 28.2

Grimlaicus’ Rule for Solitaries, 28.2


Around 900 CE., Grimlaicus, a solitary monk, living somewhere near Metz, France, wrote the Regula Solitariorum, a rule for solitary monks, at the behest of another named Grimlaicus.

Source: Grimlaicus. 2011. Grimlaicus: Rule for Solitaries, p. 90. Translated by Andrew Thornton. Cistercian Studies Series 200. Liturgical Press.

I am ashamed to bring up the topic of swearing oaths, not only because of the oaths but also because of perjury [see Matt 5:33-37]. If indeed swearing an oath is a sin and a transgression of a commandment, then what are we to say about perjury? Gospel truth does not allow an oath, even though every word is found to be trustworthy by means of the swearing of an oath [see Matt 18:16; Heb 6:17].

31 August 2016

Pope Lucius III, Ad Abolendam, 6

Pope Lucius III, Ad Abolendam, 6


Written by Pope Lucius III, in 1184 CE. Reproduced verbatim in the Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 3 in 1215 CE. The text reported here is based on that of the Lateran Council. translation by Norman Tanner.

Source: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner


We add further that each archbishop or bishop, either in person or through his archdeacon or through suitable honest persons, should visit twice or at least once in the year any parish of his in which heretics are said to live. There he should compel three or more men of good repute, or even if it seems expedient the whole neighbourhood, to swear that if anyone knows of heretics there or of any persons who hold secret conventicles or who differ in their life and habits from the normal way of living of the faithful, then he will take care to point them out to the bishop. The bishop himself should summon the accused to his presence, and they should be punished canonically if they are unable to clear themselves of the charge or if after compurgation they relapse into their former errors of faith. If however any of them with damnable obstinacy refuse to honour an oath and so will not take it, let them by this very fact be regarded as heretics.

25 August 2016

The Rule of the Master, 11.66-68



The Rule of the Master, 11.66-68


Written 6th century CE.

Source: Luke Eberle, trans. 1977. The Rule of the Master, p. 145. Cistercian Studies Series 6. Cistercian Publications.


If he hears a brother swearing a great deal, let the dean who is present reprove him, saying: ‘Hold your tongue, brother. Why are you swearing so much, when Scripture commands us not to swear at all, lest the taking of an oath occasion the breaking of it? “All you need say is yes if you mean yes, no if you mean no”, believe me if you mean believe me, and we shall immediately believe what you say.’

17 August 2016

Donatus of Besançon, Regula ad virgines, 35

Donatus of Besançon, Regula ad virgines, 35


Written in the 7th Century.


Source: Saint Donatus (of Besançon). 1993. The Ordeal of Community, p. 52. Translated by Jo Ann McNamara and John E. Halborg. Peregrina.

35. None are allowed to swear.

Strive to flee and avoid swearing or malediction as indulgence of the devil. And she who does it must repent with two suppositions of silence and one hundred blows punishment.

---


Source: PL 87:285


CAPUT XXXV. Ut iurare omnino non liceat.

Iuramentum, vel maledictum, velut venenum diaboli fugere et vitare contendat; quod si fecerit, duabus silentii suppositionibus, et centum percussionibus poeniteat.

Peter Divinacello, Commentary In I Regum, Book V, Chapter 4.57

Peter Divinacello, Commentary In I Regum, Book V, Chapter 4.57


Traditionally ascribed to Pope Gregory I (The Great). In recent years, shown convincingly to be the work of a 12th century Benedictine abbot, Peter Divinacello, though may be based on an original Gregorian reportatio. See Articles below for discussions of authorship.
  • de Vogüé A. L'auteur du commentaire des Rois attribué à saint Grégoire: Un moine de Cava?. Revue bénédictine. 1996;106(3-4):319-31.
  • Clark, Francis. "Authorship of the Commentary In 1 Regum: Implications of A. de Vogüé's Discovery." Revue bénédictine 108.1-2 (1998): 61-79.

Source: PL 79: 393-394


57. Quo in loco notandum est quia rex bis iusiurandum interfectionis Ionathae superius protulit, quem tamen victus populi instantia non occidit. Quid est quod iuravit, et iuramenti assertionem nequaquam servavit? Sed ex hac re duo nobis documenta proveniunt, ut cauti scilicet, et discreti esse debeamus. Cauti quidem, ne iuremus, discreti, si agere perversa iuramus. Qui enim iurare cavet, periurare omnino non potest. Sed cum male iuratur, iustius iusiurandum dimittitur quam compleantur crimina quae iurantur. Sit ergo unusquisque cautus antequam iuret, ut aut ne omnino iuret, aut facturum se mala non iuret. Cautos quidem nos esse Dominus insinuat, dicens: Sit sermo vester: Est, est, non, non. Nolite iurare per coelum, neque per terram (Matth. V, 37) . E contra autem reprobi, et incauti quidem sunt, et discreti non sunt. Nam saepe se acturos mala repromittunt, et revocare promissa, quasi periurium incursuri, non satagunt. Hinc est, quod Herodes incaute iuravit, et nefarium iusiurandum quod protulit, in praecursoris Domini morte complevit (Marc. VI) . Cauti ergo in nostris dispositionibus esse debemus, sed si cauti esse negligimus, praetermittenda sunt proposita, non implenda. Sic quippe a proposito desistere non est vitium levitatis, sed virtus discretionis.Tamen iurare quae revocanda sunt et detestanda, omnino cavendum est, et vehementer horrendum, quia cum tale iusiurandum non impletur, non omnino culpa vitatur, sed minor eligitur. Sequitur:

Peter, Cardinal of St. Chrysogonus, Letter to the Faithful, 1178 CE

Peter, Cardinal of St. Chrysogonus, Letter to the Faithful



From the Letter to the faithful, 1178 CE. (Epistle 3). On the excommunication of Bernard Raymond and Raymond of Baimac.

Source: Robert I. Moore. The birth of popular heresy, p 115-116. University of Toronto Press, Reprint 1995. 


However Righteous their previous confession, which had seemed to be enough for salvation if they had believed it in their heart of hearts, they were men of twisted minds and dishonest intentions. They did not want to relinquish their heresy when on the surface some authority or other seemed to support their slothful and foolish minds, on the pretext of the words which, according to the Gospel, the Lord said, 'Do not swear at all. Let your speech be: Yea, yea, and No, no.' They claimed that this  meant that they ought not to swear, though the Lord himself is recorded as having sworn, for it is written "The Lord hath sworn" etc. and elsewhere, "I have sworn by myself saith the Lord." Again, the Apostle says, "an oath for confirmation is the end of all their controversy.' Those who read the holy scriptures will find many other passages like this which permit us, because of their fickleness, to swear to anyone whom we wish to persuade. but, like the fools they were, these men did not understand the scriptures, and fell into the trap which they themselves had laid. Although they held swearing to be a dreadful thing, forbidden by the Lord, they were convicted of swearing in their own statement of confession. When they said, 'in the truth which is God we believe this, and declare that it is our faith.' thy did not realize that to adduce the truth and word of God in support of their assertion was undoubtedly to swear, as the Apostle said when he wrote, "this we say unto you in the word of the Lord, and God is my witness," and similar things which anyone who reads and understands the holy scriptures can easily find.

William of Ockham, Dialogues [On "Do not swear at all"]

William of Ockham, Dialogues


In two chapters of William of Ockham's Dialogus, part 3, tract 1, book 4, written in the 1330's CE., he touches on the Dominical saying, "Do not swear at all," shown below.

3.1 Dial. 4.7


Source: William of Ockham: Dialogus. Latin Text and English Translation, edited by John Kilcullen, John Scott, George Knysh, Volker Leppin, Jan Ballweg, Karl Ubl and Semih Heinen. British Academy, 1995-2015. Online project available at: http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/t31d4new.html


Student Can it be proved that those words of Christ should not be understood as the holders of that opinion understand them? [That men should not be called rabbi, master or father.]


Master It seems to some people that the answer is 'yes'. For they say that that argument and ones like it are similar to that argument on which certain heretics base themselves when they say that it is not permissible to swear for any reason because of the fact that in Matthew 5:24[sic] Christ says, "But I say to you. Do not swear at all." Just as those people have said that because of that precept of Christ no one is permitted to swear under any circumstances, so in the same way the holders of this opinion seem to say that it should not be granted in any way, because of those words by which he seems to enjoin equality on them, that Christ established any one apostle as superior to the others. But just as in some cases it is permissible to swear, notwithstanding the above words of Christ about swearing, so it is permissible to be called rabbi, master and father, notwithstanding those words of Christ by which he seems to impose a certain equality on the faithful.

3.1 Dial. 4.22


Source: William of Ockham. 'A Letter to the Friars Minor' and Other Writings, p 182 – 183. Trans: John Kilcullen. Cambridge University Press. 1995.

Christ commanded in express words, not excepting any case, that one should not swear. In Matthew 5[:34] he says, "But I say to you do not swear at all, either by heaven" etc., and afterwards, "let your speech be 'Yes, Yes, No, No' - what is more than these is from evil." Yet notwithstanding that express commandment of Christ, it is permissible on occasion to swear: Extra, De electione, Significasti; Extra, De iureiurando, Etsi Christus; and 22, q. I, Non est, where Augustine asserts that to swear is permissible on account of the weakness or incredulity of those not otherwise moved to belief.

15 August 2016

Jonas of Orléans, De institutione laicali, Chapter 25, The Avoidance of Swearing

Jonas of Orléans, De institutione laicali, Chapter 25, The Avoidance of Swearing


A "lay mirror" composed for Matfred of Orléans between 820-828 CE.

Source: PL 106:221- 225

CAPUT XXV. De vitanda iuratione.

Cum in multis omnes, apostolo Iacobo teste, offendamus, apud utrumque ordinem, clericalem videlicet et laicalem, imo apud utrumque sexum, in incauta iuratione valde et miserabiliter delinquitur. (0221D) Putatur enim a quibusdam quod solummodo ille qui falsitatem super ossa alicuius sancti viri, aut super reliquias, aut super altare, aut Evangelia iurat, periurii crimine teneatur obnoxius: ille vero qui pro qualibet re magna, aut parva Deum testem invocat, et per sanctam Trinitatem, supernosque cives iurare non trepidat, immunis habeatur a periurio; praesertim cum omnis qui testem adhibet Deum, iurare comprobetur, sicut beatus Augustinus in libro sermonum ait. Dominus quoque ait in lege: Non assumas nomen Domini Dei tui in vanum: nec enim Dominus eum habebit insontem, qui assumpserit nomen Dei sui frustra (Exod. XX, 7) . Et Zacharias propheta: Iuramentum mendax ne diligatis (Zac. VIII, 17) . Et Salomon: Iurationi non assuescat os tuum (Eccli. XXIII, 9) . Item: Qui multum iurat, non effugiet peccatum. (0222A) Item: Vir multum iurans, replebitur iniquitate, et non discedit de domo illius plaga (Ibid., 12) . Et in Evangelio: Audistis quia dictum est antiquis, redde Domino iuramenta tua. Ego autem dico vobis, non iurare omnino, neque per coelum, quia sedes Dei est: neque per terram, quia scabellum est pedum eius: neque per caput tuum, quia non potes facere unum capillum album, aut nigrum. Sit autem sermo vester, est, est; non, non: quod autem amplius est, a malo est (Matth. V, 33, 34) .

Augustinus de sermone Domini in monte (Lib. I, cap. 17) : « Ita, inquit, intelligitur praecepisse Dominum ne iuretur, ne quisquam sicut bonum appetat iusiurandum; et assiduitate iurandi ad periurium per consuetudinem dilabatur. (0222B) Quapropter qui intelligit, non in bonis, sed in necessariis iurationem habendam, refrenet se quantum potest, ut non ea utatur, nisi necessitate, cum videt pigros esse homines ad credendum, quod eis utile est credere, nisi iuratione firmetur. Ad hoc itaque pertinet quod sic dicitur: Sit autem sermo vester, est, est; non, non, hoc bonum est et appetendum: Quod autem amplius est, a malo est (Matth. V, 37) : Id est, si iurare cogeris, scias de necessitate venire infirmitatis eorum quibus aliquid suades. (0222C) Quae infirmitas utique malum est: unde nos quotidie liberari deprecamur, cum dicimus: Libera nos a malo (Ibid. VI, 13) . Itaque dixit: Quod autem amplius est, a malo est (Luc. XI, 4) . Tu autem non malum facis, qui bene uteris iuratione: quae etsi non bona, tamen necessaria est, ut alteri persuadeas, quod utiliter suadeas: sed a malo est illius, cuius infirmitate iurare cogeris. Sed nemo novit, nisi qui expertus est, quam sit difficile et consuetudinem iurandi exstinguere, et nunquam temere facere, quod nonnunquam facere necessitas cogit. (0222D) Quaeri autem potest cum diceretur: Ego autem dico vobis non iurare omnino: cur additum sit: Neque per coelum, quia thronus Dei est, et caetera usque ad id quod dictum est, neque per caput tuum (Matth. V, 34) . Credo propterea, quia non putabant se Iudaei teneri iureiurando, si per ista iuravissent: et quoniam audierant: Reddes autem Domino usque iusiurandum tuum (Ibid., 33) , non se putabant Domino debere iusiurandum, si per coelum, aut terram, aut Ierosolymam, aut per caput suum iurarent: quod non vitio praecipientis, sed male intelligentis est factum. Itaque Dominus docet, nihil esse tam vile in creaturis Dei, ut per hoc quisque periurandum arbitretur: quando a summis ad infima divina providentia creata regerentur, incipiens a throno Dei usque ad capillum album aut nigrum. Neque per coelum, inquit, quia thronus Dei est: neque per terram, quae scabellum est pedum eius (Ibid., 36) .

Item idem in libro Sermonum: « Plura sunt, inquit, plerumque iuramenta, quam verba. Si discutiat homo quoties iuret per totum diem, quoties se vulneret, quoties gladio linguam feriat, et transfigat, quis in illo locus invenitur sanus? (0223A) Quia ergo grave peccatum est periurare, compendium tibi dedit Scriptura: Noli iurare (Iac. V, 12) . » Item: « Vis ergo longe esse a periurio? Iurare noli: qui enim iurat, aliquando verum iurare potest: qui autem non iurat, mendacium iurare nunquam potest. Iuret ergo Deus, qui iurat securus, quem nihil fallit, quem nihil latet, qui omnino fallere ignorat; quia nec falli potest. Cum enim iurat, se adhibet testem. Quomodo tu cum iuras Deum adhibes testem: sic ipse cum iurat, se testem adhibet. Tu quando illum adhibes testem, forte supra mendacium tuum accipis in vanum nomen Domini Dei tui. Ne mendacium iures, ergo iurare noli. Ipsa est angustia: periurium praecipitium est: qui iurat, iuxta est; qui non iurat, longe est. (0223B) Peccat et graviter, qui falsum iurat: non peccat, qui verum iurat; sed nec ille peccat qui omnino non iurat; sed qui non iurat, et non peccat, et longe est a peccato; qui autem verum iurat, non peccat; sed prope est a peccato ad peccatum. » Item (Cap. 6) : Intendite, quaeso, et advertite: Non vos fallant qui nescio quomodo volentes ipsas iurationes discernere, vel potius non intelligere, dicunt non esse iurationem, quando dicit homo: Scit Deus, testis est Deus, invoco Deum supra animam meam verum me dicere. Invocavit, inquit, Deum, testem fecit Deum; nunquid iuravit? Qui haec dicunt, nihil aliud volunt, nisi invocato Deo testem mentiri. Itane vero quis es pravi et perversi cordis, si dicas, Per Deum, iuras; si dicas, Testis est Deus, non iuras? Quid est enim Per Deum, nisi. Testis est Deus? (0223C) Aut quid est, testis est Deus, nisi per Deum? (0223D) » Item: « Sed si aliquid teste filio tuo faceres, et amico vel proximo tuo, vel cuilibet homini diceres: Non feci, et tangeres filio tuo caput, quo teste fecisti, et diceres: Per huius salutem quia non feci; exclamaret forte filius tuus sub paterna manu tremens, nec tamen paternam manum, sed divinam tremens: Noli pater, non tibi sit vilis salus mea; Deum super me invocasti, ego te vidi, fecisti, noli periurare; te quidem habeo genitorem, sed plus et meum et tuum timeo creatorem (Cap. VII) . Sed quia Deus, quando per eum iuras, non tibi dicit: Ego te vidi, fecisti, noli iurare: sed times ne te iste occidat, tu te ante occidis: quia ergo non dicit, ego te vidi, putas quia non vidit. Et ubi est quando dicit: Tacui, tacui, nunquid semper tacebo? » Item (Cap. VIII) : « Breviter audite, fratres mei, concludam sermonem, figens in cordibus vestris curam salubrem, ante omnia nolite iurare. » Item (Cap. X) : « Tene ergo linguam et consuetudinem, quantum potes: non quomodo quidam, quando illis dicitur, verum dicis, non credo, non fecisti, non credo, Deus iudicet, iura mihi. Et ipse qui exigit iurationem, multum interest, si nescit illum falsum iuraturum, an scit; si enim nescit, et ideo dicit, iura mihi, ut fides ei fiat, non audeo dicere non esse peccatum, tamen humana tentatio est. Si autem scit eum fecisse, novit fecisse, vidit fecisse, et cogit iurare, homicida est. (0224A) Ille enim periurio suo se perimit: sed iste manum interficientis et expressit et pressit. » Item (Cap. XI) : « Nam tantum mali habet iuratio, ut qui lapides colunt, timeant falsum iurare per lapides; tu non times Deum praesentem, Deum viventem, Deum scientem, Deum manentem, Deum in contemptore vindicantem? Claudit ille templum super lapidem, et vadit ad domum suam ipse; super domum suam claudit, et tamen quando illi dicitur, iura per Iovem, praesentis oculos timet. (Cap. XII.) Et ecce dico charitati vestrae, et qui per lapidem falsum iurat, periurus est. Unde hoc dico? quia multi et in hoc falluntur, et putant quia nihil est per quod iurant, non se crimine teneri periurii. (0224B) Prorsus periurus es, qui per id quod sanctum putas, falsum iuras. Sed ego illud sanctum non puto. Sanctum putas cui iuras, non enim quando iuras, tibi iuras, aut lapidi iuras, non, sed proximo iuras. Homini iuras ante lapidem; sed nunquid ante Deum? Non te audit lapis loquentem, sed punit te Deus fallentem.

Beda in expositione Epistolarum canonicorum: « Qui detrahere, inquit, ad alterum, qui iudicare proximum interdixit, qui in adversitatibus ad alterutrum ingemiscere prohibuit, quae sunt aperta peccata, addidit etiam hoc, quod quibusdam leve videtur, ut iuris quoque iurandi consuetudinem tollat. (0224C) Nam hoc quoque illis parvipendendum nequaquam patenter apparet, qui illam Domini sententiam sollicite considerant, qua dicitur: Omne verbum otiosum, quod locuti fuerint homines, reddent de eo rationem in die iudicii (Matth. XII, 36) : ut non sub iudicio incidatis. Ideo, inquit, vos a iurationis culpa compesco, ne frequenter vera iurando etiam in periurium decidatis, sed eo longius a periurandi vitio stetis, quo nec verum iurare nisi proxima necessitate velitis. » Isidorus in libro Sententiarum (Lib. II, c. XXXI) : « Cavendam igitur esse iurationem dicimus, nec ea utendum, nisi in sola necessitate: non est contra Dei praeceptum facere; sed dum usum iurandi facimus, periurii crimen incurrimus. Nunquam ergo iuret, qui periurare timet. (0224D) Multi dum loquuntur, iurare semper delectantur, dum oporteat hoc tantum esse in ore: Est, est; Non, non: Amplius enim quam Est et Non, a malo est (Matth. V, 37) . Multi enim ut fallant, periurant; ut per fidem sacramenti, fidem faciant verbi: sicque fallendo dum periurant, et mentiuntur, hominem incautum decipiunt. Interdum et falsis lacrymis decipimur, et creditur dum plorant, quibus credendum non erat. Plerumque sine iuramento loqui disponimus; sed incredulitate eorum qui non credunt quod dicimus, iurare compellimur, talique iurandi necessitate, consuetudinem facimus. Sunt multi ad credendum pigri, qui non moventur ad fidem verbi. Graviter autem delinquunt, qui sibi loquentes iurare cogunt. Quacunque arte verborum quisque iuret, Deus tamen, qui conscientiae testis est, ita hoc accipit, sicut ille cui iuratur, intelligit. (0225A) Dupliciter autem reus fit, qui et Dei nomen in vanum assumit, et proximum dolo capit. Non est conservandum sacramentum quod malum incaute promittit, veluti si quispiam adulterae perpetuam cum ea permanendi fidem polliceatur. Tolerabilius est enim non implere sacramentum, quam permanere in stupri flagitio. »

Perspicuis itaque testimoniis astruitur nequaquam passim, ut a multis fieri solet, acquiescere debere iurationi: nec ea etiam, quae peccato caret, utendum nisi in sola necessitate; ne scilicet dum nimium in usu habetur, in periurii crimen labatur.

Hugo Eterianus, Contra Patarenos, 2-5


Hugo Eterianus, Contra Patarenos, 2-5


A treatise against the Patarenes, written between 1165 - 1180 CE by Hugo Eterianus, a Latin Christian from Pisa, living in Constantinople. The Paterenes were Latin Christian heretics, (likely dualists, possibly Cathars, text unclear) living in Constantinople in the late twelfth century.


Source: Hugo Eterianus, Janet Hamilton, Sarah Hamilton, and Bernard Hamilton. 2004. Contra Patarenos, p. 179 - 183. BRILL.



Again, they speak clearly and openly against Christ and the truth itself when they remove oaths from the church, failing to understand what Christ commanded in the gospel and James in his epistle, as he imitates his master. They never forbid swearing by God but only by his creatures, saying ‘Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth for it is his footstool’ nor by any other creature, and this for the reason that there should be no room for idolatry, for they deified heaven and earth and the other created things by which they swore. God alone, who is subject to no-one, swears by himself but we who have no power of our own, how could we swear by our head— for it belongs to another— if your head belongs to you change, if you can, the natural colour of a single hair. An oath is not to be forbidden, nor to be desired as if it were something good. To swear freely and without compulsion or to swear a false oath is a serious sin, but to swear from necessity, to confirm our own innocence or to ratify a peace agreement or to persuade the hearers of what is to their advantage is good and necessary. For this reason, all the church of the Greek and Latin saints, which these wicked and evil men contradict (for which alone they deserve death) holds and preaches that oaths should be employed when need be, when men are reluctant to believe what is good and useful. So oaths are not against the commandment of God. The Lord and his disciple James should be understood to have forbidden swearing in these terms, that as far as he is able nobody should swear because it is part of the evil, not of the person who takes the oath but the evil of the reluctance to believe of the person who forces him to swear. Yet it is not evil, because it is necessary. But to swear from greed, or through pleasure in swearing as many do who take pleasure in oaths as if they were something great and attractive is a great sin. If it were wrong to swear as these most wretched men claim God himself would not have sworn an oath saying ‘By myself have I sworn, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will bless you and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven’. The Lord swore, and did not repent of it. Abraham was old and advanced in years, and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things. And Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his house, ‘Put your hand under my thigh and I will make you swear by the Lord of heaven and earth that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites. The Lord, the god of heaven, who took me from my father’s house... spoke to me and swore to me ‘To your descendants I will give this land’.... So the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham... and swore to him concerning this matter.’ Abraham himself also swore, for so it is said ‘Abymelech and Ochozath his son-in-law and Phicol the commander of his army said to Abraham ‘God is with you... so swear... by God that you will not deal falsely with me (V.‘harm’) or my offspring’. Abraham swore and therefore that place was called Beersheba because there both of them swore an oath. Similarly Jacob swore an oath to Laban his father-in-law and Joseph was bound by an oath to Jacob his father, saying ‘If I have found favour in your sight put your hand under my thigh... that you will not bury me in Egypt. So swear to me, he said, and so swearing Israel adored God (in V, not in RSV).’ Moses too, that friend of God, swore an oath to Raguel, priest of Midian, for thus it is written Moses swore that he would live with him. Why should I repeat at length? Without oaths the world did not and cannot stand. We are forbidden to take God’s name falsely, but to swear by the name of God in case of need is not forbidden in the Old Testament or in the New. See, if swearing were a sin the evangelist John would not have introduced an angel swearing, for he says The angel whom I saw standing on sea and land lifted up his right hand to heaven and swore by him who lives for ever and ever... that there should be no more delay. The apostle knows the Lord’s commands and yet he says As God is my witness which is the same as saying ‘By God it is so’, which is more serious than to swear on the gospel, because the scriptures are holy because of God, not God because of the scriptures. So too creatures are holy through God. Nevertheless today through an ecclesiastical enactment oaths are sworn in necessary cases by touching the gospels. To swear by God is to call God to witness. To swear an oath is to give God the legal power of truth and not of falsehood. Anyone who removes oaths in necessary matters from the church launches lasting hostility against the church and between princes who are at odds. The church has no other tie with which to fasten them and bring them to peace and unity. Those who totally remove oaths from the church destroy the law of the church which it had from the beginning. And so for this reason alone (to say nothing of their other most wicked crimes) they should be taken away and removed as fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted to be cut off from truth and thrown into the wise in their own eyes against the precepts of the apostles, wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved for ever

Moreover the most pious emperor Constantine, Justinian and all the most Christian emperors promulgated this law to the whole world, believers and unbelievers alike, that in the absence of proof a lawsuit should be decided by swearing an oath, sometimes for the plaintiff, sometimes for the accused, and again that the judge should swear that he would judge in individual cases in accordance with truth, observing the law as should seem just. We ought to believe the emperors, especially the most Christian ones, and anyone who does not obey them but obstinately gainsays them should be condemned to death. More important than any of these is God’s commandment, who said in Exodus through Moses that oaths ought to exist, ‘If a man delivers to his neighbour an ass or an ox or a sheep or any beast to keep and it dies or is hurt or driven away without anyone seeing it, an oath shall be between them both to see whether he has not put his hand to his neighbour’s property and the owner shall accept the oath and he shall not make restitution.’ Since then God himself, and the holy church of the Latins and Greeks has from the beginning allowed the swearing of oaths in necessary cases and the most holy and Christian emperors have confirmed this the Patarenes should not abolish it completely. Although Christ ordered preaching to be open the Patarenes preach in secret against the command of Christ, and although Christ told us to observe everything which priests do in their capacity as priests and they administer oaths in accordance with their priestly status the Patarenes say that we should not observe them and abolish oath-swearing. So it is clear that they are false apostles, heretics, antichrists, excommunicate, divided and separated from holy church, and nothing remains but that the most Christian emperor Manuel should devoutly intervene, ordering them and their followers to be sent to the furnace so that they may begin to burn here who will be burnt in the everlasting fires of Hell. Amen, Amen.

But if by any chance these wretched and deluded men should respond to the scriptural examples listed above that they are not to be trusted because they are taken from the old law the mouths of those who say this should be closed and stopped with these arguments. First they should be told that the Old Testament is the basis of the new law, and that anyone who rejects the old is evilly disposed to the new, for just as the stone cut out from a mountain by no human hand, that is Christ, was born in accordance with the patriarchs and the prophets and without coition, so the New Testament concerning him is derived from the Old and depends on it. That is what Matthew means when he says ‘The book of the genealogy... of the son of David, the son of Abraham.’ Luke confirms the same when he says ‘And Jesus himself was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of Hely the son of Mathan the son of Levi...’ and what follows. Mark too gives testimony about the beginning of his gospel, saying ‘Behold I send my messenger before thy face who shall prepare thy way’ and John too is in agreement with them when he says ‘The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.’ That is why our saviour when he defeated the devil quoted the evidence of the old law, this ‘Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’, and again ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’ In many other places of the gospel he acts in the same way. Peter the apostle too calls women to chaste living through the example of Sarah, saying ‘You wives, be submissive to your husbands... as Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him Lord. And you are now her children if you do right and let nothing terrify you.’ Jude the apostle says the same ‘Those who walk in the way of Cain and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error and perish in Chorah’s rebellion.’ Moreover James the apostle takes pleasure in Old Testament examples and says ‘Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness and he was called the friend of God,’ and similarly he cites Rahab the harlot among his examples. We should listen to what Paul, the chosen vessel and doctor of the Gentiles, thinks of the old law. He says ‘The law is holy and the commandment is holy and just and good’ and again ‘I delight in the law of God in my inmost self’ and clearly he silences the Manichean Patarenes and all those who attack the old law. For this reason the holy fourth ecumenical council anathematises all those who have such beliefs, rightly, for it is written that it is like the sin of soothsaying to oppose the tradition that the church holds and like the wickedness of idolatry to refuse to accept it. Since the aforesaid Patarenes have rejected the tradition of the holy churches in Greek and Latin the Lord has rejected them from his kingdom as dissemblers and hypocrites.