were those circumstances in the present case? The Jews were in the habit, as their learned men inform us, of dividing oaths into two classes, the lighter and the weightier. The lighter were those, which did not contain the name of God, and which, they held, might be broken with impunity, although there was some tacit reference made in them to the Deity. These were frequently made, according to Philo, in common conversation, amounting in fact to what we call profane swearing. An apocryphal writer refers to the custom, Ecclesiasticus xxiii. 9-13. They also allowed of mental prevarication, a swearing with the lips, and disavowing or annulling of the oath with the heart. That our Saviour did not refer to judicial oaths, or to solemn appeals to God upon important occasions in a reverent manner, as some believe, and prohibit them entirely, is apparent from the specimens he cites, which are unlike any that were ever used in any court of law; and from his own example in answering to an oath, Matt. xxvi. 64, when he did not answer to an ordinary interrogation, and from that of his Apostle Paul in calling God to witness, which is in spirit an oath, Rom. i. 9; Gal. i. 20; 1 Thess. ii. 5; 2 Cor. i. 18, 23. He aims to sweep away the minute and pernicious distinctions introduced into promissory oaths and bonds, and to inculcate greater simplicity and sincerity of conversation. By them of old time. Rather, according to Griesbach, to them of old time. Thou shalt not forswear thyself. Lev. xix. 12; Num. xxx. 2; Deut. xxiii. 23. Thou shalt not perjure thyself; thou shalt not take an

oath in form, and do it with a mental reservation, so as to deceive the other party, and be guilty of trifling with the venerable majesty of God. - But perform unto the Lord thine oaths. Deal honestly in the matter. Be true to the obligation assumed in making the oath. So much for what Moses taught. What does Jesus teach in commenting on this law in reference to the circumstances of his day?

34. But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven. That is to say, abolish this practice; abandon the common irreverent oaths, in which there is a tacit understanding and purpose to deceive. The sense is more clearly brought out by Griesbach, who leaves out the usual semicolon, and puts in only a comma. For, as the punctuation was determined, not by the original inspired writers, but by their fallible successors in the church, it is lawful to change it as the sense seems to require. Our Lord is not made to say, swear not at all, which would be plainly one sense; but swear not at all by heaven, and the other pernicious forms which he mentions, which is plainly quite a different sense. If it had been his object to prohibit oaths altogether, upon every occasion, he would certainly have said, swear not at all, swear not by God, and said no more; but, as he goes on to specify what they were not to swear by, he leaves it plainly to be inferred, that there is at least one oath, that by God himself, that established in the Mosaic code, which it is lawful to take upon solemn and important occasions. If a legislator prohibits the importation of certain articles of commerce, we conclude that the ar

ticles which he does not specify in the prohibition may be lawfully imported. For it is God's throne. Ís. lxvi. 1; Acts vii. 49; Jesus shows, Matt. xxiii. 22, that in swearing by heaven there is a secret appeal to the Being who dwelleth therein, and that in a trivial matter such an oath should not be used, for it is profaneness; especially should not be used as if a mental reservation could be made, and the performance of the oath could be innocently trifled with, for that would be perjury. To call heaven God's throne, and the earth his footstool, is to use figures in accommodation to man's imperfect idea of the all-surrounding Deity. The Hebrew Scriptures abound in similar instances.

35. He who swears by the earth makes a solemn and binding oath, and is responsible for its fulfilment, for he virtually appeals to Him before whose infinite greatness the mighty globe itself is but a footstool. And he who swears by Jerusalem calls Him to witness whose city Jerusalem peculiarly is, as the capital of his chosen people, and the place of his worship. The ancient Arabs called God simply "the King.' The Jews often addressed him with this title. Ps. xcv. 3; Is. xli. 21.

36. The oaths enumerated by Jesus were common amongst the Heathen likewise, as well as among the Jews. Juvenal, Horace, Virgil, Ovid, Martial, and Pliny, to mention no more, might be cited in illustration of the custom. As God is the architect of the head, and it

is wholly in his hands, so that the very color of the hair is determined by his will exclusively, it follows that in swearing by the head reference is made to the Deity, and the oath is therefore weighty and not to be used on every insignificant occasion; and binding and not to be broken with impunity.

Ac

37. Your communication. cording to Robinson, in his Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, your answer, your reply. When in common conversation you make a reply, do not try to confirm your assertion with an oath, as if that would add any weight to it, but let your yes be yes, and your no be no. Let your simple affirmation or negation be sufficient. Do not expose yourself to profaneness and perjury. For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. Or, the evil one. If you go beyond this simplicity of speech, you fall into evil. It was a proverb among the Jews, to characterize a man of veracity, that his yes was yes, and his no, no. 2 Cor. i. 17, 18, 19; James v. 12. In conclusion, upon this paragraph relating to oaths, we are to bear in mind, that profaneness and perjury were rife in the days of Christ, and that he addresses his remarks to uproot both these sins. Again, that his prohibition relates to promissory oaths and vows, and not to oaths before a magistrate, or in a court of law. Further, that it is undeniably true, that the authorized oaths of office, of courts, &c., are multiplied so as to lose much of their weight, and often administered so as to command little respect.

"An 38

And it is to be feared that perjury is more common than is supposed. But abuse is no valid argument against use. Still it was the object of our Saviour to prepare the way for an age when the simple yea or nay of his followers should be more trustworthy than the most tremendous oath. Finally, the lessons of our Master are highly pertinent to the present times. They piercingly rebuke that vice of profane language, which preeminently strikes at the majesty of God, and soils in the common mind the holiness of his name.

38. Our Master criticizes another saying of old, relating to what is called Lex Talionis, or the law of revenge, retaliation.. - An eye for an eye, &c. Ex. xxi. 23-25; Lev. xxiv. 19, 20; Deut. xix. 21. This provision of the Mosaic code was adapted to a semi-barbarous state of society, and, like that relating to divorces, was tolerated and allowed for a time, as Jesus said, for the hardness of their hearts. The same custom was observed at Athens, Rome, and other ancient cities. According to the laws of Solon the retaliation was so rigid that where an eye was put out, and it was the only one the person had, both of the eyes of the offender were put out to make the loss equal. The evil of the law was that it encouraged a fiendish spirit of revenge, fatal to every sentiment of benevolence and piety, which was not content always with returning like evil for evil, but often carried its retaliation to the utmost extremity. Moses, in order to provide a safety-valve for the boiling passions of a half savage people, permitted

them by law to demand an eye for an eye, &c. But in process of time, it became the custom, under the sanction of corrupt teachers, to make these exactions and take revenge privately. Jesus annuls this whole custom, and inculcates a better spirit.

39-48. Parallel passage, Luke vi. 27-36.

39. Resist not evil. Or, the injurious person. The nature and condition of man, the example of Jesus and his disciples, forbid the idea that the principle of non-resistance, in the wide latitude which some give it, was ever designed to be conveyed in these words. Resisting evil is man's great work on earth; resisting evil men, overcoming evil with good, is the mission of every Christian. The manner of resistance is the great question. The lesson of Jesus plainly was, that we should not oppose the evil or injurious person in his own spirit, should not resist in anger, revenge, or hate; should not resist for the sake of doing harm, but of preventing harm; should resist in such a self-possessed temper as to be able to bear even redoubled indignities, and to prefer to suffer them rather than to give way to the angry passions. Smite thee on thy right cheek, &c. An affront of the worst kind. Is. 1. 6; Lam. iii. 30. Nobody can suppose for a moment that this is to be literally understood. It is a hyperbole. As much as to say, it is better to turn the other cheek to the smiter than to retaliate in his own hot spirit. Meek and patient endurance is preferable to eager, headlong revenge. It is observable in this connexion,

that Jesus expostulated with the band who arrested him, and the officer who struck him. Mark xiv. 48; John xviii. 22, 23. In these, as well as in other cases, it is not so much the object of our divine Master to give his followers a statute book, to define nicely their doings, but to carry home deeply and feelingly to their hearts and consciences great principles, that should be an ever present and ever speaking law to them. It has been said, that it is devil-like to return evil for good, beast-like to return evil for evil, man-like to return good for good, but God-like to return good for evil.

40. The first case he cites is of assault, the second is of a suit at law, and the third is that of personal liberty. Here again the like principle of interpretation is to be applied as in the preceding verse. It is an illustration, rather than a rule, which Jesus here propounds. Loss of property is better than litigation. I can afford to lose dollars and cents; but love for our neighbor is one of the "must haves," it is of the necessity of life itself. Submit to any inconvenience, even that of losing an article of clothing, rather than be embroiled in quarrels and contentions in law with a violent man. · Coat. The coat or tunic was the under or inner garment, encircling the whole body and descending to the knees. The cloak was a flowing mantle without sleeves, nearly square, worn over the close under-dress, and often used as a covering at night. Hence the custom and expression, to gird up the loins, or confine this loose dress around the person. There is

a reference in the verse probably to the law of Moses. Ex. xxii. 25, 26; Deut. xxiv. 13.

41. Whosoever shall compel. This language is taken from a Persian custom. A courier travelling on the king's business could lawfully impress into his service, men, horses, ships, boats, or any vehicle, to accelerate his journey. No person could refuse with safety, however urgent his own business or journey. The king's will was omnipotent. The same custom prevailed under the Roman governors or Tetrarchs, and, according to Chardin, prevails now among the Turks. A compulsory service is spoken of in Matt. xxvii. 32; Mark xv. 21.- Twain. Two. The sense is an amplification of the last verse. It is better to do twice as much as is required of us than to seek revenge, or to make an opposition which would only draw upon our heads greater ruin. Or apply it to the time: those thus pressed into the public service would feel angry and bitter; but Jesus advises that they should be willing to do more rather than less than they were compelled.

42. Here are farther pointings towards the same kind, conciliating, accommodating, fraternal spirit. We are not to understand that we are to give to every one that asks, or to lend to every one that wishes to borrow. To give to some would be to furnish them with the means of injury; to lend to some would be to supply them encouragements to indolence and shiftlessness. "turn not thou away' from the really needy, help them in the most judicious way. James ii. 15, 16. Most noble were the injunctions of

Still