only. The other verse to which the rabbies also allude is equally
plain against it. The words, "Ye shall not swear by my name
falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God. I am
the Lord," plainly forbid that absolution from oaths which the
rabbies teach not only as lawful, but as of Divine authority.
We know that the rabbies make a distinction between (
Hebrew characters)
a false oath and a (Hebrew characters) rash oath; but the distinction,
as made by them is unfounded. A rash oath, according
to their doctrine, is an oath concerning something which it is
possible and lawful for a man to do or to leave undone; for as
soon as it interferes with the fulfilment of a Divine command,
it belongs to that class of oaths which they call (Hebrew characters)
vain oaths. If, therefore, a man swears to do what is both lawful
and possible for him to do, and afterwards draws back and
does it not, what man in his senses can doubt, that that individual,
no matter what the pretext for not keeping the oath, is
guilty of having sworn falsely? What is it to swear falsely, if
voluntarily to refuse to do what a man had previously sworn to
do, constitute not that sin? A sinful falsehood is a wilful departure
from truth; here there is that wilful departure: who, then,
will dare to affirm, that such conduct is not contrary to the express
command of God? Rabbinists sometimes say, that though
the oral law sometimes commands more than is commanded in
the Scriptures, it never allows what God has forbidden; but
here we have a plain example of the contrary. Here the oral
law allows false swearing, which God has positively forbidden.
The doctrine of absolution from oaths teaches men to transgress
three (Hebrew characters) negative precepts. The man who
swears to do anything and then does it not, because he has got
absolution, violates, first, the negative precept, "He shall not profane
his word;" he violates, secondly, the negative precept, "Ye
shall not swear by my name falsely;" and, lastly, he violates a
negative precept more important than either of the others; and
that is, "Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God."
Any man, pretending to religion, who should act upon these
principles, first swear and then obtain absolution from his oath,
would expose his religion to the contempt and indignation of all
honest men, and thereby do all that in him lies to profane the
name of his God. Let, then, every Israelite who thinks that the
negative precepts are more important than the affirmative, remember,
that in this one instance the oral law teaches him to
violate three such precepts; and let him reflect further, that the
upholding such a law as this is to profane the name of the God
of Israel before those who are ignorant of the Scripture.
But the rabbinical doctrine does not stop at prospective absolution, it goes so far as to absolve from the guilt of perjury actually committed:—
(Hebrew characters)
