Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

Whatsoever you intend to do or not to do, do it or do it not, as you say; without interposing an oath or vow in the case; for, when that is done, it cometh from the evil one, and is a fault. This gives a clearer and better meaning than the common translation, and seems to be the sense in which James (v. 12.) understands the words of Christ, when he says, "let your yea, be yea, and your nay, nay." your nay, nay." It appears to correspond likewise to a proverbial saying which prevailed among the Jews, that the the Jews, that the yea of the just, is yea,

and their nay, nay.

These words then, if rightly explained, relate to promissory oaths and vows, and to them only: those of a voluntary nature, and not required by proper authority, are prohibited to all Christians. The reason of this additional command, peculiar to the gospel, of not swearing at all in this sense, seems to be the danger which men are in of not being in the same mind, when the time for performing such promissory oaths and vows comes, as when they were made. To prevent men from forswearing, or perjuring, themselves in this manner, Christ says, swear not at all.

But upon the same principles on which Christ prohibits promissory oaths, when not required by proper authority, he would also condemn and prohibit customary swearing in common discourse; for he who swears often in this manner, must frequently swear falsely, and therefore incur the guilt of perjury.

That Christ does not here mean to prohibit all oaths, even those of a judicial nature, is evident from the connection of the passage, and from the words with which he concludes it: "whatsoever is more than these," than simple affirmation, "cometh of evil," or from the evil one: but as judicial oaths were in several cases required by the Mosaic law, he could never mean to say that these were immoral. His own example also, and that of his apostles, bears testimony to the lawfulness of them; for he answered upon oath when questioned by the Jewish high priest. Paul, who could not be ummindful of his master's words if he had prohibited swearing in every case, uses such expressions as these: "God is

my witness," "in the presence of God I lie not," than which no language could contain more express oaths: but they are justifiable, because used in a solemn manner, and for answering important purposes; to remove all doubts from the minds of Christians respecting his sincerity.

REFLECTIONS.

1. We see that Christ limits the lawfulness of divorce to cases of adultery, or of a few other offences of the same heinous nature; and whoever considers what infinite mischief would arise to society and to individuals, if this sacred tie might be broken on account of every petty disgust, or even criminal action, what mutual dissensions and licentious desires the prospect of it would occasion between the parties themselves, and what injury it would produce to the children, by depriving them of the benefit of the joint efforts of the parents in their education, must see the wisdom of the determination. If any complain of the law as severe, and imagine that it might admit of a greater number of exceptions, they ought to remember that they suffer for the general good, and that to give a little ease to a few individuals would be to make many thousands miserable. If it should be found necessary to their mutual happiness that they live asunder, which cannot be without much guilt on one side or on both, they may separate by mutual consent; or the party aggrieved by perpetual moroseness or extreme violence, may withdraw from the other without leave; but in neither case may they marry again. This is agreeable to Paul's advice, (1 Cor. vii. 11.) "let not the wife depart from her husband; but and if she do depart, let her remain unmarried." It is mentioned to the honour of the Roman people, that they passed the first five hundred and

twenty years of their commonwealth without one example of divorce. The great prevalence of the crime of adultery in the higher ranks of society in this kingdom, and the frequency of divorce in consequence of it, are melancholy proofs of the corruption of our manners, and call loudly for some more effectual restraint than the penalty of a slight fine imposed upon the offender. The Jewish law punished the adulterer with death; and it may be truly said that one half of the crimes for which men suffer death in these kingdoms, are not so flagitious as this.

2. If the marriage bond is indissoluble, except in cases of the highest criminality, this shews the necessity of mutual compliances. Where persons are placed in a situation for life, from which they cannot remove, it is certainly the part of prudence to make the best of it, and, since their own happiness cannot be secured without promoting the comfort of those with whom they are connected, to practise whatever may please, and to give up whatever may offend, in their behaviour. This is the conduct which prudence and a regard to their personal happiness enjoin; and it is also enforced by higher authority: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord: husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them." These considerations are suggested to those between whom there is a contrariety of tempers, tastes and humours: but where there is a strong affection, neither the apostolic advice nor the suggestions of prudence are needed to produce a right conduct.

3. We see that Christ condemns promissory oaths, except when required by proper authority, and that, upon the same principle, he must condemn common swearing. Yet both are practised by many who call themselves his disciples: but what claim can they have to this respectable name, while they violate so plain an injunction? How can they have any sincere regard for the Son, while they treat the Father with contempt, and renounce the first principle of religion, which consists in reverencing the Supreme Being? These trans

*For the fact, see Gibbon's Decline, &c. Ch. xliv. Note 124.

gressors have still recourse to the same subterfuge, in order to palliate their oaths; and if they only swear by their faith or their souls; if they make the most trifling alteration in the form of an oath, by dropping a word or changing a letter; they think that it is nothing, and hold themselves blameless: but, as there is still a secret reference to God in all these different forms, however modified, the guilt of swearing remains undiminished. Let us avoid customary oaths, in every shape, as utterly unbecoming Christians; and guard against the familiar use of the name of God in common discourse, as leading to a disrespect for him.

Oaths of a solemn nature, when demanded by the civil magistrate, are not prohibited by this precept; yet they ought not to be too frequently imposed; for this tends to lessen in the mind that respect for the Divine Being which is the best sanction of an oath.--If men cannot be trusted upon their solemn affirmation, it is a proof of the degeneracy of the times; and to require oaths only tends to increase that degeneracy. The multiplication of oaths upon trifling occasions, is one of the crying sins of this kingdom; it would prevent much guilt, and answer the of civil gopurposes vernment much better, if, in many cases, a simple declaration were admitted, annexing only a severe penalty to a violation of the truth, whenever it was discovered to have been committed. To be fearful of an oath, and careful to fulfil it when taken, is a mark of a religious and upright mind; but to swear heedlessly, and to be indifferent about the performance of what we solemnly bind ourselves to do, discovers the last stage of depravity.

38.

Matthew v. S8. to the end.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

The passage here referred to is Deut. xix. 21. "And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." This is the law which God had given for directing the decisions of the public magistrate among the children of Israel; but the Jews perverted it to justify private

revenge.

39. But I say unto you that ye resist not evil, rather, "the evil one," meaning such injurious persons as are men- · tioned in the two following verses; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

In this and the following verses, the expressions are after the eastern manner, and not to be understood strictly and literally; for when Jesus himself was smitten with the palm of the hand, by an officer of the high priest, (John xviii. 22, 23.) and when Paul was smitten upon a like occasion, Acts xxiii. 2, 3. we do not find that either of them turned the other cheek to the injuring person, but expostulated with him for the injury done. These words must therefore be understood to mean only in general, that Christians should not be revengeful, when they are ill used, and should suffer injuries of a slight nature, rather than return them, or even take all the helps of the law to punish the injurious.

40. And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

The Jewish dress consisted of an under close garment, which covered the body, called here a coat, and of a long flowing outer garment, or gown, which is called a cloak, and was the more valuable of the two. The meaning of this passage therefore is; "rather de

« EdellinenJatka »