On Lying.

 1. There is a great question about Lying, which often arises in the midst of our every day business, and gives us much trouble, that we may not either

 2. Setting aside, therefore, jokes, which have never been accounted lies, seeing they bear with them in the tone of voice, and in the very mood of the

 3. For which purpose we must see what a lie is. For not every one who says a false thing lies, if he believes or opines that to be true which he says.

 4. But it may be a very nice question whether in the absence of all will to deceive, lying is altogether absent. Thus, put the case that a person shal

 5. But whether a lie be at some times useful, is a much greater and more concerning question. Whether, as above, it be a lie, when a person has no wil

 6. On the other hand, those who say that we must never lie, plead much more strongly, using first the Divine authority, because in the very Decalogue

 7. Neither do they confess that they are awed by those citations from the Old Testament which are alleged as examples of lies: for there, every incide

 8. For this reason, from the books of the New Testament, except the figurative pre-significations used by our Lord, if thou consider the life and mann

 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 o

 10. As concerning purity of body here indeed a very honorable regard seems to come in the way, and to demand a lie in its behalf to wit, that if the

 11. But if any man supposes that the reason why it is right for a person to tell a lie for another is, that he may live the while, or not be offended

 12. Thus has the question been on both sides considered and treated and still it is not easy to pass sentence: but we must further lend diligent hear

 13. In which proposition these points may well deserve to be questioned: whether such consent is to be accounted as a deed: or whether that is to be c

 14. “How,” sayest thou, “is it not his doing as well as theirs, when they would not do this, if he would do that?” Why, at this rate we go housebreaki

 15. The whole stress, then, of this question comes to this whether it be true universally that no sin of another, committed upon thee, is to be imput

 16. Or, are some lies, also, to be excepted, so that it were better to suffer this than to commit those? If so, then not every thing that is done in o

 17. But yet if the option were proposed to the man who chose to burn incense to idols rather than yield his body to abominable lust, that, if he wishe

 18. This being from the very first and most firmly established, touching other lies the question proceeds more securely. But by consequence we must al

 19. These sorts of lies having been without any hesitation condemned, next follows a sort, as it were by steps rising to something better, which is co

 20. But haply some may think that there is an exception to be added that there be some honest lies which not only hurt no man, but profit some man, e

 21. If this be absurd, what shall we say? Is it so, that there is no “false witness,” but when one tells a lie either to invent a crime against some m

 22. What then, if a homicide seek refuge with a Christian, or if he see where the homicide have taken refuge, and be questioned of this matter by him

 23. This did a former Bishop of the Church of Thagasta, Firmus by name, and even more firm in will. For, when he was asked by command of the emperor,

 24. But one sometimes comes to a case of this kind, that we are not interrogated where the person is who is sought, nor forced to betray him, if he is

 25. For first to be eschewed is that capital lie and far to be fled from, which is done in doctrine of religion to which lie a man ought by no consid

 26. Touching which matter, there will be some place open for consideration, if first the divine authorities which forbid a lie be diligently discussed

 27. As, when we read in the Gospel, “Thou hast received a blow in the face, make ready the other cheek.” Now as an example of patience can none be fou

 28. It is also written, “But I say unto you, Swear not at all.” But the Apostle himself has used oaths in his Epistles. And so he shows how that is to

 29. As that, “Take no thought for the morrow,” and, “Take therefore no thought what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, or what ye shall put on.” No

 30. Moreover, it was said to the Apostles that they should take nothing with them for their journey, but should live by the Gospel. And in a certain p

 31. Thus then what is written, “The mouth that lieth, slayeth the soul ” of what mouth it speaketh, is the question. For in general when the Scripture

 32. Manifestly also in the Gospel we find the mouth of the heart: so that in one place the Lord is found to have mentioned the mouth both of the body

 33. But, like as it is asked of what mouth the Scripture saith, “The mouth that lieth, slayeth the soul,” so it may be asked, of what lie. For it seem

 34. For what is written in another place, “Wish not to use every lie ” they say is not of force for this, that a person is not to use any lie. Therefo

 35. Moreover what is written “Thou wilt destroy all that speak leasing:” one saith that no lie is here excepted, but all condemned. Another saith: Yea

 36. For, concerning false witness, which is set down in the ten commands of the Law, it can indeed in no wise be contended that love of truth may at h

 37. Likewise, touching that which is written, “A son which receiveth the word shall be far from destruction: but receiving, he receiveth it for himsel

 38. Certain it is, albeit all this disputation go from side to side, some asserting that it is never right to lie, and to this effect reciting divine

 39. And all these sins, truly, whether such whereby an injury is done to men in the comforts of this life, or whereby men corrupt themselves and hurt

 40. Now the things which are to be kept safe for sanctity’s sake are these: pudicity of body, and chastity of soul, and verity of doctrine. Pudicity o

 41. There resulteth then from all these this sentence, that a lie which doth not violate the doctrine of piety, nor piety itself, nor innocence, nor b

 42. It clearly appears then, all being discussed, that those testimonies of Scripture have none other meaning than that we must never at all tell a li

 43. So great blindness, moreover, hath occupied men’s minds, that to them it is too little if we pronounce some lies not to be sins but they must nee

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.”20    Ps. v. 5, 6. [See R.V.] 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:21    Matt. x. 28 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.”22    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.”23    Levit. xix. 18; Matt. xxii. 39 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.”24    John xv. 12, 13 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?

9. Quod si auctoritas mentiendi nec de antiquis Libris proferri potest, vel quia non est mendacium quod figurate gestum dictumve recipitur, vel quia bonis ad imitandum non proponitur quod in malis, cum proficere coeperint, in pejoris comparatione laudatur; nec de Novi Testamenti libris, quia correctio potius quam simulatio, sicut lacrymae potius quam negatio Petri est imitanda.

CAPUT VI.

Mendacium esse iniquitatem, et mortem animae afferre, nec proinde admittendum pro cujusquam salute temporali. Jam illis exemplis, quae de communi vita proferuntur, multo confidentius asserunt non esse credendum. Prius enim docent iniquitatem esse mendacium, multis documentis Litterarum sanctarum, et eo maxime quod scriptum est: Odisti, Domine, omnes qui operantur iniquitatem; perdes omnes qui loquuntur mendacium (Psal. V, 7). Aut enim, ut solet Scriptura, sequenti versu exposuit superiorem; ut quoniam latius solet patere iniquitas, intelligamus nominato mendacio tanquam speciem iniquitatis significare voluerit: aut si aliquid interesse arbitrantur, tanto pejus est mendacium, quanto gravius positum est perdes, quam odisti. Forte enim odit aliquem Deus aliquanto mitius, ut eum non perdat: quem vero perdit, tanto vehementius odit, quanto severius punit. Odit autem omnes qui operantur iniquitatem: at omnes qui loquuntur mendacium etiam perdit. Quo constituto, quis eorum qui haec asserunt commovebitur illis exemplis, cum dicitur: Quid si ad te homo confugiat, qui mendacio tuo possit a morte liberari? Illa enim mors quam stulte timent homines, qui peccare non timent, non animam, sed corpus occidit, sicut Dominus in Evangelio docet; unde praecipit ne ipsa timeatur (Matth. X, 28): os autem quod mentitur, non corpus, sed animam occidit. His enim verbis apertissime scriptum est: Os quod mentitur, occidit animam (Sap. I, 11). Quomodo ergo non perversissime dicitur, ut alter corporaliter vivat, debere alterum spiritualiter mori? Nam et ipsa dilectio proximi ex sua cujusque terminum accepit. Diliges, inquit, proximum tuum tanquam te ipsum (Levit. XIX, 18, et Matth. XXII, 39). Quomodo ergo quisque diligit tanquam se ipsum, cui ut praestet vitam temporalem, ipse amittit aeternam? quandoquidem si pro illius temporali vita suam ipsam temporalem perdat, non est jam diligere sicut se ipsum, sed plus quam se ipsum: quod sanae doctrinae regulam excedit. Multo minus igitur aeternam suam pro 0495 alterius temporali mentiendo amissurus est. Temporalem plane vitam suam pro aeterna vita proximi non dubitabit christianus amittere: hoc enim praecessit exemplum, ut pro nobis Dominus ipse moreretur. Ad hoc enim et ait: Hoc est mandatum meum, ut diligatis invicem sicut et ego dilexi vos. Majorem dilectionem nemo habet, quam ut animam suam ponat pro amicis suis (Joan. XV, 12, 13). Non enim quisquam est ita desipiens, ut dicat aliud quam saluti sempiternae hominum consuluisse Dominum vel faciendo quod praecepit, vel praecipiendo quod fecit. Cum igitur mentiendo vita aeterna amittatur, nunquam pro cujusquam temporali vita mentiendum est. Enimvero isti qui stomachantur et indignantur, si nolit aliquis mendacio perimere animam suam, ut alius senescat in carne; quid, si etiam furto nostro, quid, si adulterio liberari possit aliquis de morte? ideone furandum est, aut moechandum? Nesciunt enim ad hoc se cogere, ut si laqueum ferat homo et stuprum petat, confirmans quod sibi collum ligabit, nisi ei concedatur quod petit, consentiatur propter animam, sicut ipsi dicunt, liberandam. Quod si absurdum et nefarium est, cur animam suam quisque mendacio corrumpat, ut alter vivat in corpore; cum si suum corpus propterea corrumpendum daret, omnium judicio nefariae turpitudinis damnaretur? Proinde non est in ista quaestione attendendum, nisi utrum iniquitas sit mendacium. Quod cum supra commemoratis documentis asseratur, videndum est ita quaeri utrum pro alterius salute mentiri aliquis debeat, ac si quaereretur utrum pro alterius salute iniquus esse aliquis debeat. Quod si respuit animae salus, quae non potest nisi aequitate servari, et se ut praeponamus non solum alterius, sed etiam nostrae saluti temporali jubet; quid restat, inquiunt, quo dubitare debeamus nunquam omnino esse mentiendum? Non enim dici potest esse aliquid in temporalibus commodis, salute ac vita corporali majus aut charius. Unde si nec ipsa praeponenda est veritati, quid objici potest propter quod mentiendum esse contendant, qui aliquando putant oportere mentiri?