Bicknell on Article XXXIX: Of a Christian man's Oath

considered. In Mt. 5°* ff. our Lord says, ‘ Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all… But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay ; and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.’ His words are re-echoed by St. James 512, ‘ Above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath ; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay (let yours be the yea, yea and the nay, nay, R.V. mg.), that ye fall not under judgment.’ These are the passages alluded to in the Article.

To grasp the spirit of our Lord’s command, we must consider the meaning of an oath. The idea of any obligation to speak the truth at all times and to all men is quite a late idea. Primitive man only felt himself bound to speak the truth to particular men, ¢.g. his own kinsfolk, or under particular circumstances. As the narratives of the Old Testament show, no moral blame whatever was felt to attach to untruthfulness to a stranger or an enemy. Gradually the circle of men to whom truthfulness was felt to be a duty widened. Christian morality proclaims that all men have a right to expect the truth (Eph. 4%). Lying is anti-social. The Christian, if he is faithful to Christ, is bound to speak the truth. This is the real thought that underlies the exhortations of our Lord and St. James. The oath is in origin a device to obtain truthfulness on a particular occasion, when truthfulness was not necessarily to be expected. It is the solemn calling upon God to bear witness that a statement is true. The use of oaths has always tended to produce a double standard of truthfulness. Men come to feel that they are bound to speak the truth when they are on oath, but not otherwise. Further, men try to evade the sanctity of oaths by quibbles and subterfuges. Some oaths are held to be binding and others not (cp. Mt. 231°), In short, the whole system of oaths, though necessary, is at best a makeshift. What is wanted is not a code of oaths but a spirit of truthfulness. Human selfishness and ingenuity will always endeavour to evade an oath, unless there is the right inward disposition. Our Lord commands His dis- ciples to speak the truth always, as being always in the presence of God. Hence the need of oaths is removed. The Christian will not have two standards of truth, one when he is on oath

and one when he is not. His simple ‘ yea’ or ‘nay’ will be sufficient. His whole speech will be on that high moral level to which the speech of the non-Christian is raised -only tem- porarily and partially by the taking of an oath.

If, then, the world was a Christian world and all men were disciples, our Lord’s command would be obeyed literally. Oaths would rightly be abolished as contrary to the spirit of Christ. But, as we saw, the State is not as yet a Christian society. Its members are not all Christians. Its action, therefore, cannot be guided by the full principles of Christian morality. Hence it is compelled to retain and enforce oaths. And the Christian as a member of the State, will conform to the State’s rule in matters that concern the State. To him, indeed, the oath will be superfluous, as he is equally bound to speak the truth at all times. He will, however, be content to follow the example of His Master, who, though He gave the command ‘swear not at ‘all,’ yet was willing to be put on oath by Caiaphas and recog- nized the authority of the State (Mt. 26%).*

• The solemn asseverations used from time to time by St. Paul (e.g. 2 Cor. 1°%, Gal. 1°°, etc.) may be considered a form of oath. They were needed because his converts had hardly yet reached the full Christian standard of morality. They do not violate any Christian principle, since they in no way imply a double standard of truthfulness.

INDEX