THE REVISION OF THE OLD LAW
THE character of the citizens of the new kingdom as described by our
Lord was so surprising, so paradoxical, that it was inevitable the
question should arise, Was He a revolutionary who had come to upset
and destroy all the old law――was this a revolutionary movement in the
moral and religious world? To this question, then, our Lord directly
addressed Himself. The rest of the first chapter of the Sermon on
the Mount――St. Matthew v. 17 to the end――is simply a statement of the
relation in which this new righteousness, this righteousness of the new
kingdom, stands to the old righteousness of the Mosaic Law.
Our Lord explains that the new law stands in a double relation to
the old. First, it is in direct continuity with what had gone before
(vv. 17‒19); and, secondly (vv. 20‒48), it supersedes it, as the
complete supersedes the incomplete.
(1) The continuity is thus stated:
“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I
came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in
no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,
and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom
of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be
called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Here we get the divine principle of action. God does not despair of
what is imperfect because it is imperfect. He views every institution
(or person) not as it is, but as it is becoming; not by the level
of its present attainment, but by the character and direction of
its movement. Everything that is moving in the right direction is
destined in the divine providence to reach its fulfilment. This was
the case pre-eminently with the Old Testament. It was imperfect, but
its tendency was directed aright. As St. Irenæus says “The commandments
are common to the Jews and us: with them they had their beginning
and origin, with us their development and completion.”[35] And
St. Augustine: “The New Testament is latent in the Old, and the Old
Testament is patent in the New.”[36] Here then we have our chief
object-lesson in the method of divine education. If we examine the
matter in detail, we shall see that in the New Testament every element
in the Old Testament finds itself fulfilled.
Is it prophecy, in the sense of prediction? In the Old Testament an
ideal is projected into the future by inspired men, and in Christ and
His kingdom it is realized. Moreover, if you look to the beginning
of the Acts of the Apostles or to St. Matthew’s Gospel, you will see
how full the early Christians were of the sense of this realization,
of the sense that in the Old Testament is a forecast and in the New
a fulfilment. Or is it the ritual law? You study its enactments in
Leviticus; and then you read the Epistle to the Hebrews. You see how,
to the mind of the spiritual Jewish-Christian writer, in the old law
is external symbol and in Christ spiritual realization. Or is it the
moral law? You compare the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament with
our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount or St. James’ Epistle. They stand to one
another as preliminary education to final enlightenment. And in another
sense law altogether is represented by St. Paul as only the training of
slaves or children in preparation for the sonship or manhood which is
reached when the Spirit is given.
Or, once more, is it types of character that are in question? You
know the old difficulty about Jacob and Esau. How can we approve of
Jacob who was so deceitful? How can we disapprove of Esau who was so
generous and impulsive? The answer is a deep and true one. It is that
Esau’s impulsive nature led to nothing; he was “profane”;[37] in fact,
Edom――the race of which Esau is the parent and type――produced nothing,
changed nothing, brought nothing to perfection. Jacob, for all his
mendacity, knew what it was to be in covenant with God, and his race
grew into the likeness of God. Israel led to something.
All the imperfect elements in the Old Testament――and, of course, they
are imperfect――reach fulfilment in the New. They enshrine the will
of God at a certain stage. Therefore they are worthy of respect. They
are to be realized, not violated. And so our Lord goes on to warn His
disciples lest, in the enthusiasm of the new teaching, they should
think that they could best show their zeal by disparaging elements in
the old law under which they had been brought up. For it is always the
case that when people have learned something new, their first impulse
is to show what they have learned by disparaging what they knew before.
Thus our Lord warns them of the low place in His kingdom which they
will hold who exhibit towards even the details of the older teaching
a spirit of destructiveness, and of the high esteem which will be
accorded to the reverent handling of it.
(2) Then our Lord passes to the other side of the question. The old
law was imperfect; the new law is to supersede it. The new law is to
supersede it both as it is represented in the actual standard of its
professors, the scribes and Pharisees (v. 20), and then, more than
that, it is to supersede it even in its actual principles (vv. 21‒48).
First, as regards its professors:
“For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed
the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no
wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
It is well known what the scribes and Pharisees represented. They had
left out of consideration the prophetic teaching in the Old Testament
and the prophetic element in the books of Moses――all that made light
of outward observances by contrast with moral holiness or, still more,
as divorced from it. They had made the observance of the ceremonies
“the be-all and the end-all” of religion. Thus their religion was
pre-eminently external and, as such, unprogressive. It was a religion,
again, which with the help of dispensations and evasions could be
practised without much spiritual or moral effort. Hence it ministered
to self-satisfaction and hypocrisy. Thus our Lord continually judges
it, and here He warns His disciples not to suppose that His revision
of the old law is to result in the establishment of an easier religion
than that of scribes and Pharisees. The requirement of obedience will
be deeper and more searching.
But our Lord goes back behind the professors upon the law itself;
and He proceeds in detail to deal with the old moral law, in order to
deepen it into the law of His new kingdom.
There are two points to which I would call attention, which apply to
all these modifications or deepenings of the old law.
First, notice the authority of the teacher. “It was said _to_ them
of old time”――that is by God Himself in the Mosaic Law――Thou shalt not
do this or that; “but I say unto you.” Now this is a new tone, and it
has only one legitimate explanation. All the prophets had said “Thus
saith the Lord”: they had spoken the word of another. Jesus says “I say
unto you,” thus giving one of many indications that He who spoke was
different in kind from all other speakers upon earth; that He was the
fount of the moral law, and could speak as the one supreme legislator
with the voice, with the authority, of God Himself.
Secondly, notice that when our Lord deals with the different
commandments, He deals with them on principles which in each case would
apply to all the others. You could take the distinctive principle which
emerges in His dealing with the law of murder or of adultery, and apply
it to the case of all the other commandments.[38] This is only one
instance which goes to prove that our Lord does not mean to save us
trouble. He teaches in a way which leaves us a great deal to do for
ourselves, and requires of us a great deal of moral thoughtfulness.
THE LAW OF MURDER
“Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt
not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the
judgement: but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with
his brother shall be in danger of the judgement; and whosoever
shall say to his brother, Raca [vain fellow!], shall be in
danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall
be in danger of the hell of fire.”
In explanation of this let us look at the Second Book of the
Chronicles. “And he set judges in the land throughout all the fenced
cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, Consider what
ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord; and he is with you
in the judgement. Now therefore let the fear of the Lord be upon you;
take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God,
nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts. Moreover in Jerusalem did
Jehoshaphat set of the Levites and the priests, and of the heads of
the fathers’ houses of Israel, for the judgement of the Lord, and for
controversies.”[39]
King Jehoshaphat is here said to have appointed a central court in
Jerusalem and local courts in all the towns; and the arrangement was
permanent. The local court or Sanhedrin is apparently what is meant by
“the judgement” in this passage of the Sermon, and the central court
or supreme Sanhedrin is what is meant by “the council.” Now certain
even capital offences could be dealt with by the local courts, but the
gravest only by the central Sanhedrin. Thus there was a gradation of
crimes. Moreover, the Jews believed in an awful penalty after death
for those who had egregiously sinned. Gehenna――that is, the Valley
of Hinnom, close to Jerusalem――was the place where children had been
burnt alive in sacrifice to Moloch; and it had become later a metaphor
for the place of punishment after death. Thus, it appears, the Jews
recognized ordinary offences which came before the local court, special
offences which came before the central court, and an awful penalty
after death for the worst sort of offences.
Now, no offence was brought under the cognizance of the Jewish law at
all which was not a sin in act; the sin of actual murder for instance.
But our Lord raises the whole standard of guilt. He takes no account
of sins of act at all. In the citizens of His new kingdom, sins of
act are, as it were, out of the question. The way He deals with the
law――specifically the law of murder, but in principle all the laws――is,
if we may paraphrase His words, this: Under the new law you are to
think of malicious anger, of anger and malice entertained in your
hearts, as under the old law men were accustomed to think of ordinary
homicide. When this malice of heart expresses itself in the word of
dislike and contempt, that is a graver offence, and shall have attached
to it the same moral guilt as would in the old days have brought a man
before the central court. And the stronger expression of reprobation,
“Thou fool,” is a sin which may bring a man into eternal punishment.
“He is liable (literally) up to the point of the Gehenna of fire.”
Our Lord certainly speaks in metaphor. Because obviously one could not
in fact bring a man under any earthly tribunal for the thoughts of his
heart. But the meaning is plain. Our Lord raises deliberately allowed
sins of thought and feeling to the level previously occupied by
overt acts; and words He counts yet graver sins; and the deliberate
expression of hatred He counts a sin which may destroy the soul.
This is the way in which He deals with the sixth commandment (though it
would apply to all the others). And then He adds a sort of parenthesis
dealing with the duty of _hastening_ to remove any uncharitable
relation in which we may stand towards others.
“If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and
there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee,
leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first
be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art with him
in the way; lest haply the adversary deliver thee to the judge,
and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into
prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out
thence, till thou have paid the last farthing.”
Our Lord is speaking to Jews who were accustomed to bring their
offerings into the temple. He says that if one of them, while engaged
in this religious observance, should remember that his brother has
aught against him, he is to leave his gift before the altar and to
go away hastily, as a man who is leaving an unfinished work, and be
reconciled; and then come back and offer his gift. It is to be done
quickly. This is emphasized in a second metaphor. In case of a debt
you would have to act quickly, or the law would be in train and extreme
consequences would follow. So in moral offences go quickly and satisfy;
purge your conscience and get free; suffer no delay; otherwise the
moral consequences will be in train, and the issue inevitable, and
the final result follow.
He speaks to Jews, but he also speaks to Christians. It is the law
of the new kingdom. We have an altar. We have to offer up spiritual
sacrifices, the worship of God in spirit and in truth. Thus in the
course of the first century Jewish Christians apparently applied this
saying of our Lord to the Holy Communion. In _The Doctrine of the
Twelve Apostles_[40] you find: “Let no man who has a dispute with his
fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled [the word in
St. Matt. v. 24], that your sacrifice be not defiled.” Surely we need
to lay to heart this teaching, that we are to _make haste_ to get rid
of whatever hinders our approach to God. We Englishmen are so apt to
pride ourselves on not being hypocrites. It was once said to me, and
the saying has always remained in my mind, that the great need in our
day is to preach against the Pharisaism of the publican! How many say,
“I don’t come to the sacrament: a man who has to knock about and make
his way in the world must do things and put up with things which if one
comes to the sacrament one is supposed to repent of. And if I do not
profess to be impossibly strict, at least I am not a hypocrite.” So he
goes off. “Lord, I thank thee that I am not one of these hypocrites:
I make no religious professions, thank God!” Now this is what I call
the Pharisaism of the publican. Pharisaism is being satisfied with
ourselves. And the Pharisaism of the man who makes no religious
professions is at least as bad as the Pharisaism of the man who abounds
in them. Our Lord does not bid us abstain from coming to the altar if
we are not fit, but He says, See to it that you make yourselves fit;
and that too in a hurry. “Leave there thy gift before the altar,” but
you cannot leave it long. It will be in the way there. There is an
unfinished work which you are engaged in. Make haste to come back and
finish it. If among my readers are some who belong to the Church and
are not communicants, and are satisfied because they are not hypocrites,
I would say to them――do not be satisfied: begin to approach the altar:
commit yourself to it, by telling your wife or husband, or friend or
parish priest, that you hope to receive the Communion, and when; and
then go your ways quickly and remove the moral obstacles which hinder
your doing so; otherwise the moral train will be set in motion, and the
great and inevitable issue come before you know it.
There is one other point which I will ask you to notice――our Lord’s use
in this passage of the word “brother.” In the Bible the term “brother”
is confined to those who belong to the covenant; in the old law to the
Jews, in the new law to the Christians. Our Lord then is here dealing
with the relation of Christian to Christian, who have realized their
brotherhood in the common fatherhood of God. All men are meant for
brotherhood, but our Lord is speaking here to those who are brothers
in fact.
THE LAW OF ADULTERY
“Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to
lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his
heart.”
We notice that our Lord here brings to light a fresh principle. In
the case of the sixth commandment He notes the sin of allowing even
the feeling of hatred; but he _distinguishes_ the guilt of an allowed
_feeling_, not only from that of an act, but also from that of a word.
But here our Lord _identifies_ with the overt act in guilt even the
desire of the heart when it reaches the point of deliberate _intention_
to sin. The man whom our Lord is here considering must be supposed to
have the deliberate intention to sin; he looks on the woman _in order
to_[41] excite his lust; he is only restrained from action (if it be
so) by lack of opportunity or fear of consequences; in his will and
intention he has already committed the act. Our Lord then says that
to will to sin and deliberately to stimulate sin in oneself has in
His sight all the guilt of sin, even though circumstances may restrain
one from the actual commission of it. This again is a principle which
applies to other commandments besides the seventh.
Then, in view of the difficulty of sexual purity, our Lord goes on to
urge men to take those necessary steps in the way of self-discipline,
which will enable them to be preserved from sin:
“And if thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and
cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy
members should perish, and not thy whole body be cast into hell.
And if thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and
cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy
members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell.”
Here our Lord lays down the important principle of asceticism or
self-discipline, and we should carefully notice some points in His
teaching about it.
1. What our Lord tells us is that a safe life is better than a complete
life. All parts of our nature were made by God. The best thing is that
we should be able to exercise freely all our faculties; but we must be
safe at the centre before we can be free at the circumference. And if
we find that any one of our faculties is so disordered in fact that it
is destroying the roots of our life, we must be remorseless in limiting
ourselves; a limited life is better than a life insecure at the roots.
Whatever exposes us to temptation that is too strong for us must at all
costs be abandoned. Bengel says, with much insight, “How many there are
who have been destroyed by neglecting the mortification of one single
member.”
This principle is easy of application to questions which are
constantly coming up. Is it right to go to the theatre, or to this
or that theatre? Is this or that particular sort of art or literature
legitimate and justifiable? Now to a certain extent these questions
can be answered on general principles. But it does not at all follow,
because on general principles I can justify this or that drama, or
this or that literature, or this or that kind of art, that therefore
it is justified for me. That is quite another question. The question
for me is, what is its effect on me? does it in me stimulate what is
bad? does it put my moral nature to a disadvantage? does it in fact
betray me into sin? If so, I have no right at all to excuse myself from
abstinence on general grounds――unless, indeed, I am one of those people
in whose case conscientiousness has a tendency to become a morbid
scrupulosity. In such cases of mental disease the individual conscience
often needs rectifying by reference to a more healthy common sense. But
these for the moment are not under consideration. The peril which our
Lord has in view is the more usual one of moral carelessness. And His
warning is very solemn. Speaking of course in metaphor, but speaking
metaphor which means something terribly real, He says it is better to
live a maimed life than with all our faculties about us to be destined
to moral death.
2. Here is the distinctive principle of Christian asceticism. If we
go to India, we still find ascetics there whose asceticism is based on
the oriental idea that the body is in itself an evil thing, and that to
be spiritual is to be separated from material things. That is not the
Christian idea. The Christian idea is that the whole of this material
nature, including our bodies, is good in itself and meant to be
consecrated to spiritual uses. We are never to mortify any faculty as
if it were an evil thing to be got rid of. The end of all Christian
self-discipline is that we may have the freedom of our whole nature.
But freedom is only possible where there is rational control. Thus any
sacrifice is worth making sooner than that the lower part of our nature
should lord it over the higher.
Next, as a sequence to this treatment of the seventh commandment, our
Lord deals with the question of divorce.
“It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him
give her a writing of divorcement; but I say unto you, that
every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of
fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry
her when she is put away committeth adultery.”
The Jewish law of divorce is given in Deuteronomy xxiv. 1, 2:
“When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall
be, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found
some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of
divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his
house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and
be another man’s wife.”
This, especially as interpreted in Jewish tradition, had given a
great liberty of divorce, which our Lord here abolishes or restrains.
What we may truly call His legislation on this subject is repeated in
St. Matthew xix. 3‒9:
“And there came unto him Pharisees, tempting him, and saying,
Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And
he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he which made them
from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this
cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave
to his wife; and the twain shall become one flesh. So that they
are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined
together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why then
did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put
her away? He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart
suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it
hath not been so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away
his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another,
committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put
away committeth adultery.”
Now leaving out of question the clause in both passages in which an
exception seems to be made, we notice, first of all, that our Lord
proclaimed, as a prominent law of His new kingdom, the indissolubility
of marriage. And for us as Christians it is perfectly plain that not
all the parliaments or kings on earth can alter the law of our Lord.
And if any ministers of Christ, or persons claiming to represent the
Church of Christ, ever dare to let the commandment of men, in however
high places, override the law of Christ, they are simply behaving in
a way which brings them under the threat which our Lord so solemnly
uttered: “Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this
adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man also shall be ashamed
of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy
angels.”[42] Beyond all question, for the Church, and for all who
desire to call themselves Christians, it is absolutely out of the
question to regard those as married who, having been divorced, have
been married again, contrary to the law of Christ, during the lifetime
of their former partner. It is quite true that this indissolubility of
marriage may press hardly upon individuals in exceptional cases. But
so does every law which is for the welfare of mankind in general; and,
press it hardly or softly, the words of our Lord are quite unmistakable.
He who refused to legislate on so many subjects legislated on this, and
the simple question arises whether we prefer the authority of Christ to
any other authority whatever.
But, secondly, our Lord appears in both passages to make an exception,
and the exception would seem to sanction, or, more strictly, not to
prohibit, the re-marriage of an innocent man who has put away his wife
for adultery.
Various attempts have been made to obviate the force of this exception.
But to the present writer they do not commend themselves as at all
satisfactory.[43] Chiefly it is pleaded that the exception does not
appear in St. Luke’s Gospel or in St. Paul’s epistles where marriage
is dealt with. But it is a law of interpretation that a command with a
specific qualification is more precise than a general command without
any specific qualification; and that the one where the qualification
occurs must interpret the other where this qualification does not
occur.[44] We must recognize also that in the undivided Church there
was great difference of opinion on this subject, that in the Eastern
Church at least the re-marriage of the innocent party has been allowed,
and that, though not tolerated in the Western Church or in the canons
of the English Church, the bishops of the Anglican communion assembled
at Lambeth in 1888 have allowed its recognition. Their resolutions are
as follows:――
“1. That, inasmuch as our Lord’s words expressly forbid divorce,
except in the case of fornication or adultery, the Christian
Church cannot recognize divorce in any other than the excepted
case, or give any sanction to the marriage of any person who has
been divorced contrary to this law, during the life of the other
party.
2. That under no circumstances ought the guilty party, in the
case of a divorce for fornication or adultery, to be regarded,
during the lifetime of the innocent party, as a fit recipient of
the blessing of the Church on marriage.
3. That, recognizing the fact that there always has been a
difference of opinion in the Church on the question whether our
Lord meant to forbid marriage to the innocent party in a divorce
for adultery, the Conference recommends that the clergy should
not be instructed to refuse the sacraments or other privileges
of the Church to those who, under civil sanction, are thus
married.”
I have dealt only with the interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel;
not directly with the present duty of English churchmen. But there is
perhaps no matter which threatens so seriously the peace of the Church
of England as this matter of divorce. And I venture to state my own
view of the best way to meet the difficulty.
I have stated above that the unaltered law of the _Church_ of
England――as distinct from the _State_――allows no exception to the
indissolubility of marriage. Those who assent to the interpretation of
the passages in St. Matthew’s Gospel which has just been given, will
recognize that the church law of England might be modified in the sense
of the Lambeth decisions without any disloyalty to Christ. But it has
not been modified, and, as it stands, it ought to control our action.
Moreover in the present state of feeling, in view of our present social
experiences, and of the difficulty of maintaining the distinction
between the innocent and guilty party, it is probably undesirable to
attempt to modify it by canon. The best course, in my judgement, is to
maintain the existing church law by refusing to allow any re-marriage,
even of the innocent party in a divorce for adultery, with the rites or
in the consecrated buildings of the Church. This would still leave it
open for bishops to act upon the third clause of the recommendation
of the Lambeth Conference, and to instruct their clergy to admit to
communion such “innocent parties” as have been re-married under civil
sanction.
THE LAW OF TAKING AN OATH
“Again, 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; neither by
the heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for
it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the
city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head,
for thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your
speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these
is of the evil one.”
The third commandment, taken with other passages of the Old
Testament,[45] enjoined upon the Israelite to swear only by the name of
Jehovah; and so swearing, to be diligent to perform his oath. And our
Lord both restores the injunction[46] and deepens it.
What, we ask, is the nature of an oath? It is for a man to put himself
solemnly in God’s presence, and assert that, as surely as God is God,
and as he hopes for His blessing on his life, what he is saying is
the truth. The essence of the oath is the solemnly putting oneself _on
special occasions_ in the presence of God. But is not God everywhere
present? Are we ever out of His presence? Does not everything live
simply with His life and depend on His will? Is there then any meaning
in selecting set occasions to put ourselves in God’s presence, when
God is always present and all that exists exists in Him? It is to this
truth of the omnipresence and omnipotence of God that our Lord calls
men’s attention; and He deals with the Jewish commandment by lifting
all conversation, all use of language, in His new kingdom to the level
which had previously been held by declarations on oath. To the Jew
it had been a great thing to forswear himself, but little or nothing
to speak in ordinary talk what was not true. Our Lord says: God is
everywhere and all words are uttered in His presence; therefore truth
is of universal obligation; your yea is always to be yea, and your
nay, nay.
Not only have we in St. James’ Epistle[47] a repetition of this
injunction of our Lord, when it was much needed, but we have an
instructive comment upon it in the distress which it occasioned
St. Paul to be accused unjustly of prevarication and untruth to his
promise.[48] Truth to his word is to be always and everywhere the
characteristic of a Christian. It is not to be at one time “yea, yea,”
and at another time “nay, nay.” How fundamentally the absence of this
characteristic of mutual trustworthiness can hinder social progress
among Christians is, I fear, apparent at the present day in the case
of those whom (by a limitation of the term equally unfortunate for
those who are included in it, and for those who are not) we call the
working-classes.
In this connexion we may notice three points.
1. The duty of truthfulness comes under the third commandment as
deepened by our Lord. In questions for self-examination on the Ten
Commandments, as interpreted for Christians, one almost always sees the
duty of truthfulness brought under the ninth. But that, in view of our
Lord’s words, is certainly wrong, and is due originally to a tendency
to depreciate the sinfulness of lying, except where wrong appears
to be done by it to the reputation or interests of another. Our Lord
brings untruthfulness of all kinds under the prohibition of the third
commandment simply by deepening its fundamental principle.
2. Though our Lord teaches God’s omnipresence, yet He none the less
recognizes degrees of His presence. We very often hear objections made,
if we allege a special presence of God in the church, or at the altar
in the Holy Communion. Is not God, it is asked, present everywhere?
Yes; “heaven is God’s _throne_; the earth is His _footstool_; Jerusalem
is His _city_.”[49] Just because God’s presence is not physical, but
spiritual, therefore it admits degrees of intensity. God is everywhere
present; but He is present in a special way and for a special purpose
where two or three are gathered together; and, again, in a special way
and for a special purpose in the ordinances of His sacramental grace.
Similarly He is, we may say, more present in rational beings than in
irrational; and in good men more than in bad.
3. We must answer the question――Are all oaths prohibited to the
Christian? is it always wrong for a Christian to go into a court of
justice and be sworn? Our Lord Himself, we notice, consented to be
put on oath by the high priest――“I adjure thee by God,”――and to that
adjuration He answered.[50] And on three or four occasions St. Paul
takes God to witness, and says, in effect, As God is my witness, this
is true. With these precedents, I do not think it is possible to say
a Christian may not take an oath in a court of justice, or difficult
to explain why he may. It is for this reason. When a Christian goes to
take an oath in a court of law he should only go to profess openly that
motive to truthfulness which rules all his speech. Even so, the need
that he should take an oath comes of the habitual neglect of truth in
ordinary conversation: in this sense any taking of an oath “is of the
evil one.” And a man is quite below the Christian standard who thinks
himself bound to truth by his oath, but not by his word in common
speech. What are we to say then of the universally attested fact that
even perjury, or false swearing, is in the law-courts of our Christian
country a quite ordinary occurrence?