|
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not lawful to adjure a man.
Origen says (Tract. xxxv super Matth.): "I deem that a man who
wishes to live according to the Gospel should not adjure another man.
For if, according to the Gospel mandate of Christ, it be unlawful
to swear, it is evident that neither is it lawful to adjure: and
consequently it is manifest that the high-priest unlawfully adjured
Jesus by the living God."
Objection 2: Further, whoever adjures a man, compels him after a
fashion. But it is unlawful to compel a man against his will.
Therefore seemingly it is also unlawful to adjure a man.
Objection 3: Further, to adjure is to induce a person to swear.
Now it belongs to man's superior to induce him to swear, for the
superior imposes an oath on his subject. Therefore subjects cannot
adjure their superiors.
On the contrary, Even when we pray God we implore Him by certain
holy things: and the Apostle too besought the faithful "by the mercy
of God" (Rm. 12:1): and this seems to be a kind of
adjuration. Therefore it is lawful to adjure.
I answer that, A man who utters a promissory oath, swearing by his
reverence for the Divine name, which he invokes in confirmation of his
promise, binds himself to do what he has undertaken, and so orders
himself unchangeably to do a certain thing. Now just as a man can
order himself to do a certain thing, so too can he order others, by
beseeching his superiors, or by commanding his inferiors, as stated
above (Question 83, Article 1). Accordingly when either of
these orderings is confirmed by something Divine it is an adjuration.
Yet there is this difference between them, that man is master of his
own actions but not of those of others; wherefore he can put himself
under an obligation by invoking the Divine name, whereas he cannot put
others under such an obligation unless they be his subjects, whom he
can compel on the strength of the oath they have taken.
Therefore, if a man by invoking the name of God, or any holy thing,
intends by this adjuration to put one who is not his subject under an
obligation to do a certain thing, in the same way as he would bind
himself by oath, such an adjuration is unlawful, because he usurps
over another a power which he has not. But superiors may bind their
inferiors by this kind of adjuration, if there be need for it.
If, however, he merely intend, through reverence of the Divine name
or of some holy thing, to obtain something from the other man without
putting him under any obligation, such an adjuration may be lawfully
employed in respect of anyone.
Reply to Objection 1: Origen is speaking of an adjuration whereby a
man intends to put another under an obligation, in the same way as he
would bind himself by oath: for thus did the high-priest presume to
adjure our Lord Jesus Christ [Mt. 26:63].
Reply to Objection 2: This argument considers the adjuration which
imposes an obligation.
Reply to Objection 3: To adjure is not to induce a man to swear,
but to employ terms resembling an oath in order to provoke another to do
a certain thing.
Moreover, we adjure God in one way and man in another; because when
we adjure a man we intend to alter his will by appealing to his
reverence for a holy thing: and we cannot have such an intention in
respect of God Whose will is immutable. If we obtain something from
God through His eternal will, it is due, not to our merits, but to
His goodness.
|
|