however, may suffice to convince the reader that Jesus, in the passage cited above, is not described by the evangelist as taking his oath.

When an ancient Jew was examined in a court of justice, he swore to the fact to which he might be deposing, in the following, or some equivalent, terms: "Behold, I swear by the name of the Lord God of Israel, that such or such is the truth;" or otherwise he was put upon his oath, or sworn by the judges, who said, "We make thee swear by the Lord God of Israel, that such or such is the truth:" to which adjuration the deponent was accustomed to reply, "Amen;" see Buxtorf. Synag. p. 682. Now, it does not apppear that, in the present instance, the Lord Jesus either swore himself, or was sworn hy his judges. He was not attending the court as a witness, neither was there any fact to which he was called upon to depose. He was accused of having assumed the divine character: the evidence brought in proof of the point was of a suspicious and unsatisfactory description; and it was evidently for the purpose of entrapping him into the repetition of his supposed crime, that the High Priest solemnly enjoined him to declare to the Sanhedrim whether he was or was not the SON of GOD. With this solemn injunction Jesus complied: and no sooner had he uttered his answer, than “the High Priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy;" verse 65. Schleusner, in his Lexicon of the Greek Testament, expressly remarks that the verb, rendered in this pas sage, "I adjure," does not here signify, "I make to swear, or put upon oath;" but only, "I solemnly, and in the name of God, exhort and enjoin." That this verb, in its more simple form,3 is repeatedly employed 3 ὁρκίζω.

2 ἐξορκίζω.

in this latter signification, such of my readers as are accustomed to peruse the New Testament in its original language will be well aware. Thus the evil spirit cried out to Jesus, "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou torment me not;" Mark v, 7. Thus Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, "Icharge (or adjure) you by the Lord, that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren;" I Thes. v, 27. Thus, also, in Canticles ii, 7; v, 8, (passages in which we find the same verb in the Septuagint version, and a corresponding one in the Hebrew text), the spouse exclaims, "I charge ( ́or adjure) you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, that ye stir not up my love till he please: I charge (or adjure) you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved, that ye tell him I am sick of love." The comparison of these passages of Scripture with that now under consideration, appears to afford ample evidence that the Lord Jesus, when he complied with the solemn injunction of the High Priest, no more took an oath than the Thessalonians did, when they read Paul's epistle unto all the holy brethren-than the daughters of Jerusalem did, when they abstained from waking the bridegroom, and when they delivered to him the message of the bride-or than our Lord himself did, when he acceded to the earnest entreaty of the evil spirit.

in

It is objected, in the second place, that the apostle Paul, in some parts of his epistles, has made use of oaths. "God is my witness," says he to the Romans, "that without ceasing I make mention of you always my prayers;" Rom. i, 9. And again, to the Thessalonians, he says, "Neither at any time used we flattering words-God is witness;" I Thes. ii, 5. It is almost needless to observe that, in these passages, the apostle does not swear, but confines himself to the declaration of a truth which no man could dispute;

namely, that God was the witness of his secret exercises and of his plain address. Again, on another occasion, when describing to the Galatians the course which he pursued after his conversion, the apostle expresses himself in a somewhat similar manner. "Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not;" Gal. i, 20. Here was a solemn affirmation, made in the confessed presence of that Being who alone searches the heart; but no oath, no imprecation, no calling down upon himself of any dreaded penalty. Precisely the same remark will, I believe, be found to apply to another passage, in which Paul appeals still more directly to the Deity: "Moreover," says he to the Corinthians, "I call God for a record (or a witness) upon my soul (or of my mind) that, to spare you, I came not as yet unto Corinth;" II Cor. i, 23.

Although that appeal to an omniscient Deity which, in the former of these passages, is implied, and, in the latter, plainly expressed, can by no means be considered as, in itself, constituting an oath, it may be freely allowed, on a principle stated in the first part of the present chapter, that such an addition to a deliberate yet simple yea or nay, in confirmation of their truth, would be of dangerous application in the common af fairs of life. But we are to remember that the apostle was an inspired man, and that, in the promulgation of the Gospel, as well as in the government of the churches, he was, in a preeminent degree, invested with the sanctions of a divine authority. That authority he was very frequently led to assert; Rom. i, 1; I Cor. i, 1; ii, 13; xiv, 37; Gal. i, 1, &c. When, therefore, we consider the peculiar circumstances under which he was thus placed, we may very reasonably interpret, as instances of such assertion, the appeals here made to that Almighty Being, by whose inspir

ation he was protected from errour, and by whose direction his whole conduct, as an apostle, was so conspicuously regulated.

Here, however, it ought to be acknowledged, that the latter of these passages contains certain expressions which have been very usually interpreted in such a manner as to give to the appeal, there made to the Deity, the force of a complete oath. The expressions alluded to* are, in our common English version, rendered, upon my soul. If we take the preposition here rendered "upon" in the sense of against (a sense in which it is sometimes used) and the substantive rendered "soul" as meaning either the natural life or the immortal spirit, we must conclude, with many commentators, that Paul, when he declared to the Corinthians, that to spare them he came not again unto Corinth, not only called upon God as the witness of that truth, but actually staked either his natural life, or his soul, on the veracity of his assertion, and thus involved himself in a real oath.

Now, on the supposition of the propriety of such an interpretation, it may be observed, in the first place, that the apostle's oath related to a branch of his conduct, in which he was immediately directed of the Lord, and in reference to which, while he continued under the influence of inspiration, it was impossible for him to promulgate any falsehood. An oath taken by such a person, under these extraordinary circumstances, appears to afford no real countenance to the swearing of uninspired persons, on matters of a merely temporal nature. And secondly, though there is an obvious difficulty in reconciling the supposition that the apostle Paul has sworn in his epistles with that comprehensive and absolute prohibition of the practice which was issued by his divine Master, yet, I appre

· ἐπὶ τὴν ἐμὴν ψυχήν.

hend that no reasonable Christian, in the regulation of his own conduct, would pretend to justify himself by the example of Paul, in the infringement of the late of Christ.

The signification of that law is, I would submit, far too plainly ascertained to be affected by the supposed collateral circumstance, that the apostle Paul has here made use of an oath. But now, on the other hand, it may be observed, that the very existence of such a law naturally and very properly leads us to a different interpretation of the apostle's expressions--an interpretation of which they are unquestionably capable, and which at once removes from the passage before us the true characteristick of an oath. The substantive already alluded to, as sometimes signifying the natural life, or the immortal spirit, still more frequently denotes the mind-the seat of the intentions, thoughts, and dispositions. The apostle, therefore, may here be understood, as is observed on the authority of two eminent criticks,5 in Poole's Synopsis, simply to appeal to the Deity as the witness of his condition of mind— of his real motives and intentions-that, to spare them, he came not again unto Corinth. "The holy apostle," says Theodoret, "wishing to persuade them of the truth of his assertions, calls in the testimony of Him who was the inspector of his thoughts."

5 Vatabus and Castalio.

sworn

ἐν

6 It is observed by Pye Smith, in his valuable work entitled, The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, that Paul, in his epistles, has by Christ." Such is the interpretation given by this writer to the expression έv Xgior, in Rom. ix, 1; a passage which he renders, "I speak the truth, by Christ! I lie not;" see vol. ii, part II, ch. iv, p. 637. That , followed by a dative, is sometimes used in the formula of an oath appears from Matt. v, 34; Rev. x, 6, &c. But surely it is altogether unnecessary to attribute to the apostle so light and irreverent a use of the name of his Saviour. The expressions, v Xgior, are of a very frequent occurrence in Paul's