Hebrews 6:16 For men truly swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. I. FOR THE NATURE OF AN OATH, AND THE KINDS OF IT. An oath is an invocation of God, or an appeal to Him as a witness of the truth of what we say. So that an oath is a sacred thing, as being an act of religion and an invocation of the name of God; and this, whether the name of God be expressly mentioned in it or not. There are two sorts of oaths, assertory and promissory. An assertory oath is when a man affirms or denies, upon oath, a matter of fact, past or present: when he swears that a thing was, or is so, or not so. A promissory oath is a promise confirmed by an oath, which always respects something that is future; and if the promise be made directly and immediately to God, then it is called a vow; if to men, an oath. II. THE GREAT USE AND EVEN NECESSITY OF OATHS, IN MANY CASES, WHICH IS SO GREAT, THAT HUMAN SOCIETY CAN VERY HARDLY, IF AT ALL, SUBSIST LONG WITHOUT THEM. Government would many times be very insecure, and for the faithful discharge of offices of great trust, in which the welfare of the public is nearly concerned, it is not possible to find any security equal to that of an oath; because the obligation of that reacheth to the most hidden practices of men, and takes hold of them, in many cases, where the penalty of no h ,man law can have any awe or force upon them; and especially it is the " best means of ending controversies." And where men's estates or lives are concerned, no evidence, but what is assured by an oath, will be thought sufficient to decide the matter, s,, as to give full and general satisfaction to mankind. III. THE LAWFULNESS OF OATHS, WHERE THEY ARE NECESSARY. 1. I shall prove the lawfulness of oaths from the authority of this text, and the reasons plainly contained, or strongly implied in it. — Because the apostle doth not only speak of the use of oaths among men, without any manner of reproof, but as a commendable custom, and in many cases necessary for the confirmation of doubtful matters, and in order to the final decision of controversies and differences among men. 2. The insufficiency if the grounds of the contrary opinion, whether from reason or from Scripture. (1) From reason. They say the necessity of an oath is occasioned by the want of fidelity among men; and that every man ought to demean himself with that integrity as may give credit to his word; and then oaths will be needless. This pretence will be fully answered, if we consider these two things. (a) That in matters of great importance, no other obligation besides that of an oath hath been thought sufficient amongst the best and wisest of men, to assert their fidelity to one another. (b) This reason, which is alleged against oaths among men, is much stronger against God's confirming His promises to us by an oath. For He, who is truth itself, is surely of all other most to be credited upon His bare word, and His oath needless to give confirmation to it; and yet He condescends to add His oath to His word" and therefore that reason is evidently of no force. (2) From Scripture. Our Saviour seems altogether to forbid swearing in any case (Matthew 5:33, 34). (a) That several circumstances of these words of our Saviour do manifestly show that they ought to be interpreted in a limited sense, as only forbidding swearing in common conversation; needless and heedless oaths, and in general all voluntary swearing, unless upon some weighty cause, in which the glory of God and the wood of the souls of men is concerned. For that in such cases a voluntary oath may be lawful, I am induced to believe from the example of St. Paul, who useth it more than once upon such occasions. (b) It is very considerable to the explaining of this prohibition, that there are like general expressions in other Jewish authors concerning this very matter, which yet must of necessity be thus limited: — , from the ancient rabbis, gives this rule, that " it is best not to swear at all": and Philo useth almost the same words. And Rabbi Jonathan comes very near our Saviour's expression when he says, "The just man will not swear at all; not so much as by the common names of God, nor by His attributes, nor by His works, as by heaven, or the angels, or by the law." Now it is lint imaginable that these learned Jews should condemn oaths in all cases, when the law of Moses did in many cases expressly require them. And therefore they are to be understood of voluntary oaths in ordinary conversation. (c) This prohibition of our Saviour's cannot be understood to forbid all oaths, without a plain contradiction to the unboubted practice of the primitive Christians and of the apostles, and even of our Lord Himself. and tell us that the Christians refused to swear by the emperor's genius; not because it was an oath, but because they thought it to be idolatrous. But the same Tertullian says that the Christians were willing to swear " by the health and safety of the emperor." being accused to Constantius, purged himself by oath, and desired that his accuser might be, put to his oath," by calling the truth to witness: by which form," says he, "we Christians are wont to swear." But, which is more than this, St. Paul, upon weighty occasions, does several times in his epistle call God to witness for the truth of what he says; which is the very formality of an oath (Romans 1:9; 2 Corinthians 1:18, 23; Galatians 1:20; Philippians 1:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:5). These are all unquestionable oaths; which we cannot imagine St. Paul would have used had they been directly contrary to our Saviour's law. And whereas some defend this upon account of his extraordinary inspiration, I cannot possibly see how this mends the matter. For certainly it is very inconvenient to say that they who were to teach the precepts of Christ to others, did themselves break them by inspiration. But I go yet farther, and shall urge an example beyond all exception. Our Saviour Himself (who surely would not be the first example of breaking His own laws) did not refuse to answer upon oath, being called thereto at His trial. So we find Matthew 26:60. IV. THE SACRED OBLIGATION OF AN OATH: BECAUSE IT IS A SOLEMN APPEAL TO GOD AS A WITNESS OF THE TRUTH OF WHAT WE SAY: to God, I say, from whose piercing and all-seeing eye, from whose perfect knowledge, nothing is or can be hid; so that there is not a thought in our heart but He sees it, nor a word in our tongue, but He discerns the truth or falsehood of it. Whenever we swear, we appeal to His knowledge and refer ourselves to His just judgment, who is the powerful patron and protector of right, and the almighty judge and avenger of all falsehood and unrighteousness. So that it is not possible for men to lay a more sacred and solemn obligation upon their consciences than by the religion of an oath. (Abp. Tillotson.) Parallel Verses KJV: For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. |
    |