9. But if no authority for
lying can be alleged, neither from the ancient Books, be it because
that is not a lie which is received to have been done or said in a
figurative sense, or be it because good men are not challenged to
imitate that which in bad men, beginning to amend, is praised in
comparison with the worse; nor yet from the books of the New
Testament, because Peter’s correction rather than his simulation,
even as his tears rather than his denial, is what we must imitate:
then, as to those examples which are fetched from common life, they
assert much more confidently that there is no trust to be given to
these. For first they teach, that a lie is iniquity, by many proofs
of holy writ, especially by that which is written, “Thou, Lord,
hatest all workers of iniquity, thou shall destroy them that speak
leasing.”2322
For either
as the Scripture is wont, in the following clause it
expounds the
former; so that, as
iniquity is a term of a wider meaning, leasing
is named as the particular sort of
iniquity intended: or if they
think there is any difference between the two, leasing is by so
much worse than
iniquity as “thou wilt
destroy” is heavier than
“thou hatest.” For it may be that
God hates a person to that
degree more mildly, as not to
destroy him, but whom He
destroys He
hates the more exceedingly, by how much He punisheth more severely.
Now He hateth all who
work iniquity: but all who speak leasing He
also destroyeth. Which thing being
fixed, who of them which assert
this will be moved by those examples, when it is said, suppose a
man should
seek shelter with thee who by thy
lie may be
saved from
death? For that
death which men are foolishly afraid of who are not
afraid to
sin,
kills not the
soul but the body, as the
Lord
teacheth in the
Gospel; whence He charges us not to
fear that
death:
2323
but the
mouth which
lies kills not the body but the
soul. For in these
words it is most plainly written, “The mouth that lieth slayeth
the
soul.”
2324
| 2324 Wisdom 1.11" id="v.v.x-p4.1" parsed="|Wis|1|11|0|0" osisRef="Bible:Wis.1.11">Wisd. i. 11;
“belieth,” E.V. |
How then
can it be said without the greatest perverseness, that to the end
one man may have
life of the body, it is another man’s
duty to
incur
death of the
soul? The
love of our
neighbor hath its bounds
in each man’s
love of himself. “Thou shall
love,” saith He,
“thy
neighbor as thyself.”
2325
How can a man be said to
love as
himself that man, for whom that he may
secure a temporal
life,
himself loseth
life eternal? Since if for his temporal
life he lose
but his own temporal
life, that is not to
love as himself, but more
than himself: which exceeds the rule of sound
doctrine. Much less
then is he by telling a
lie to lose his own
eternal for another’s
temporal
life. His own temporal
life, of course, for his
neighbor’s
eternal life a
Christian man will not hesitate to
lose: for this example has gone before, that the
Lord died for us.
To this point He also saith, “This is my
commandment, that ye
love one another as I have
loved you. Greater
love hath no man than
this, that a man lay down his
life for his
friends.”
2326
For none
is so foolish as to say that the
Lord did other than
consult for
the
eternal salvation of men, whether in doing what He hath charged
us to do, or in charging us to do what Himself hath done. Since
then by
lying eternal life is lost, never for any man’s temporal
life must a
lie be told. And as to those who take it
ill and are
indignant that one should refuse to tell a
lie, and thereby
slay
his own
soul in order that another may grow old in the
flesh; what
if by our committing
theft, what if by committing
adultery, a
person might be
delivered from
death: are we therefore to
steal, to
commit whoredom? They cannot
prevail with themselves in a case of
this
kind: namely, if a person should bring a halter and demand
that one should yield to his
carnal lust, declaring that he will
hang himself unless his request be granted: they cannot
prevail
with themselves to comply for the sake of, as they say,
saving a
life. If this is absurd and
wicked, why should a man
corrupt his
own
soul with a
lie in order that another may
live in the body,
when, if he were to give his body to be
corrupted with such an
object, he would in the
judgment of all men be held
guilty of
nefarious turpitude? Therefore the only point to be attended to in
this
question is, whether a
lie be
iniquity. And since this is
asserted by the texts above rehearsed, we must see that to ask,
whether a man ought to tell a
lie for the
safety of another, is
just the same as asking whether for another’s
safety a
man
ought to
commit iniquity. But if the
salvation of the
soul rejects
this, seeing it cannot be
secured but by equity, and would have us
prefer it not only to another’s, but even to our own temporal
safety: what remains, say they, that should make us doubt that a
lie ought not to be told under any circumstances whatsoever? For it
cannot be said that there is aught among temporal goods greater or
dearer than the
safety and life of the body. Wherefore if not even
that is to be preferred to truth, what can be put in our way for
the sake of which they who think it is sometimes right to lie, can
urge that a lie ought to be told?
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
