arising from the too common but dangerous habit of superficial minds, to insist upon a literal interpretation of one or more isolated passages, without reference to the general tenor of the Scriptures, which throws any obscurity on the subject.

Paul certainly has not limited himself to the simple mode of communication, which has been considered indispensable. "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost."* And again, "as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay," or vacillating and equivocating. "Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul."‡ And "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not."§ And, yet again, "the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not."||

It cannot be supposed, that he wrote unadvisedly and ill in these solemn passages, or that he was forsaken by the Spirit of his Master, and (without any adequate cause) instigated by the Evil One, so repeatedly, to transgress a precept, the observance of which is so easy, even to unconverted men. But why not? The

* Rom. ix. 1.

† 2 Cor. i. 18. Ib. 23.

§ Ib. xi. 31.

|| Gal. i. 20. Trench refers to these passages, and the words of Augustine præcepti violati reum Paulum, præsertim in epistolis conscriptis atque editis ad spiritalem vitam salutemque populorum, nefas est dicere. (de Mendac. chap. xv.)

occasion was solemn, the communication privileged ; and less awful words would have been inadequate to produce the impression, or "the end of all strife," which with such confirmatory words he desired to effect; and therefore his conscience reproved him not.*

We conclude, therefore, that oaths are lawful, or that appeals may be made to the Lord, when the cause of God, or of truth and justice, which must needs be His, would suffer without them; though reason and experience alike convince us, that such occasions must be comparatively rare.

Mr. Trench refers the Lord's words, whatsoever is more than these (yea and nay) cometh of evil,” to the fact that the demand for oaths is a recognition of the untruthfulness of man. The fact, indeed, is true; but then this could not have been the principle, on which Jehovah sware by Himself, in condescension to our weakness. It seems more natural to apply those words exclusively to ordinary conversation, when swearing is altogether evil, and can only arise from a sinful and irreverent feeling, be the oath what it may.

The obligation to accomplish vows once made is unalterable. The Psalmist repeatedly refers to those, which he had vowed in the time of trouble, and which he hastened to accomplish on his deliverance, in praise and thank-offerings. The apostle, as we have already

* See 1 Cor. iv. 4; 2 Cor. i. 12.

† See Psalm lvi. 12; lxi. 5; 8; lxvi. 13; xxii. 25; 1. 14; cxvi. 14; 18 with Psalm cxxxii. 2; 2 Chron. xv. 14; Eccles. v. 4, &c.

mentioned, had shorn his head at Cenchrea in consequence of a voluntary vow; and when he came to Jerusalem, he found four brethren belonging to the church there, who had taken some similar vows.* For, when the Lord denounced the absurd and hypocritical evasions of the Pharisees, who distinguished between an oath, (or, rather, vow) by the temple, or by the gold of the temple, and by the altar, or by the gift upon the altar, as if the one might be violated with impunity, and not the other, He asserted the equal solemnity of all such vows, without giving the least intimation that they were to be considered unlawful for the future, thus clearly implying the contrary.† But, as we are free from the ceremonial law, we can scarcely regard them as expedient for such poor, frail, and inconstant creatures as we are, whether they have reference to God, or to our neighbours.

* Acts xviii. 18; xxi. 23, 24 (εuxńv.)

† Matt. xxiii. 16-22.

If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee: Deut. xxiii. 22. The vows of unmarried daughters and wives might be disallowed by fathers and husbands, and then ceased to be obligatory. Num. xxx. 3-8.

Jepthah's rash vow, Judges xi. 30, 31: could not be recalled, (verse 35.) It was doubtless recorded to restrain a dangerous custom, which ensnared many souls. It is obvious that the daughter in that case was not put to death, (which would have been an act of atrocious guilt,) but only constrained to a life of perpetual celibacy, which in Israel was a great calamity and reproach: see verses 37; 39, and an able note on the subject by Jonathan Edwards.

་་

§ 5.

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if a man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." (v. 38-42.)

The words "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," occur in three distinct passages of the law;* but not thus simply and nakedly. The context must be consulted to show with what object the various laws, of which this is only a fragment, were enacted. For it cannot be supposed, that the divine Prophet would sanction by His example such a garbled quotation, (as this seems to be,) however common such a vicious and unjustifiable course may be amongst false and superficial Teachers. Is he not rather referring to the traditionist, who thus summed up in a short proverbial form, easily remembered by the people, an odious maxim of retaliation, which it was supposed that every injured

* Exod. xxi. 24; Levit. xxiv. 20; Deut. xix. 21. Tertull. de Patient. chap. vi. says, nondum enim patientia in terris, quia nec fides: but there was faith in the true Israelites in all ages.

man might carry out at pleasure?

The contrary is generally asserted; and probably no passage has been more frequently alleged, as affording distinct proof of the striking line of contrast, which distinguishes the Jewish from the Christian code of morality. Even Chrysostom represents the conduct of David, when Saul once and again fell into his hands, and he exercised forbearance and kindness towards his persecutor, as the more admirable, because the law then permitted retaliation, so that he exceeded the bounds of the commandment!* Such notions properly belong to the Gnostic and Manichean heresies, the advocates of which, as more profound and rational thinkers, consistently concluded from these premises, that the God of Israel and the God of Christians were irreconcileable adversaries, and maintained, as a fundamental principle, that the law and the Gospel emanated from different Authors! † But some soften the contrast by pointing out the distinction between retaliation and revenge; for these consider the law as either designed to restrain the

*T. ii. p. 1010; 1040. See also T. iii. p. 75, on Psalm vii. 4, (= T. vi. p. 972, he did not consider that he had acted with becoming virtue, unless he had shot beyond the precept.) T. iv. p. 359; T. vi. p. 319, and Palladius Dial. de S. Chrysost. p. 31: (justus mensuras servilis legis modosque transiliens, et eo quod diligit Dominum ad sortem adoptionis libertatisque festinans sibi ipsi legis est author, ut Job xxxi. 1. Cf. 1 Cor. ix.) Compare Chrysost. T. v. p. 234-236. The Psalmist himself could not have entertained such views: Psalm cxix. 96.

† Tertull. adv. Marc i. 19.