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

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 manners of the Saints, their actions and sayings, nothing of the kind can be produced which should provoke to imitation of lying. For the simulation of Peter and Barnabas is not only recorded, but also reproved and corrected.9    Gal. ii. 12–21 For it was not, as some suppose,10    S. Jerome Ep. inter Augustinianas, 75, n. 9–11. out of the same simulation that even Paul the Apostle either circumcised Timothy, or himself celebrated certain ceremonies11    Sacramenta according to the Jewish rite; but he did so, out of that liberty of his mind whereby he preached that neither are the Gentiles the better for circumcision, nor the Jews the worse. Wherefore he judged that neither the former should be tied to the custom of the Jews, nor the Jews deterred from the custom of their fathers. Whence are those words of his: “Is any man called being circumcised let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.”12    1 Cor. vii. 18–20 How can a man become uncircumcised after circumcision? but let him not do so, saith he: let him not so live as if he had become uncircumcised, that is, as if he had covered again with flesh the part that was bared, and ceased to be a Jew; as in another place he saith, “Thy circumcision is become uncircumcision.”13    Rom. ii. 25 And this the Apostle said, not as though he would compel either those to remain in uncircumcision, or the Jews in the custom of their fathers: but that neither these nor those should be forced to the other custom; and, each should have power of abiding in his own custom, not necessity of so doing. For neither if the Jew should wish, where it would disturb no man, to recede from Jewish observances, would he be prohibited by the Apostle, since the object of his counselling to abide therein was that Jews might not by being troubled about superfluous things be hindered from coming to those things which are necessary to salvation. Neither would it be prohibited by him, if any of the Gentiles should wish to be circumcised for the purpose of showing that he does not detest the same as noxious, but holds it indifferently, as a seal,14    Signaculum the usefulness of which had already passed away with time; for it did not follow that, if there were now no salvation to be had from it, there was destruction to be dreaded therefrom. And for this reason, Timothy, having been called in uncircumcision, yet because his mother was a Jewess and he was bound, in order to gain his kindred, to show them that he had not learnt in the Christian discipline to abominate the sacraments of the old Law, was circumcised by the Apostle;15    Acts xvi. 1–3 that in this way they might prove to the Jews, that the reason why the Gentiles do not receive them, is not that they are evil and were perniciously observed by the Fathers, but because they are no longer necessary to salvation after the advent of that so great Sacrament, which through so long times the whole of that ancient Scripture in its prophetical prefigurations did travail in birth withal. For he would circumcise Titus also, when the Jews urged this,16    Gal. ii. 3, 4 but that false brethren, privily brought in, wished it to be done to the intent they might have it to disseminate concerning Paul himself as a token that he had given place to the truth of their preaching, who said that the hope of Gospel salvation is in circumcision of the flesh and observances of that kind, and that without these Christ profiteth no man: whereas on the contrary Christ would nothing profit them, who should be circumcised because they thought that in it was salvation; whence that saying, “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”17    Gal. v. 2 Out of this liberty, therefore, did Paul keep the observances of his fathers, but with this one precaution and express declaration, that people should not suppose that without these was no Christian salvation. Peter, however, by his making as though salvation consisted in Judaism, was compelling the Gentiles to judaize; as is shown by Paul’s words, where he says, “Why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”18    Gal. ii. 14 For they would be under no compulsion unless they saw that he observed them in such manner as if beside them could be no salvation. Peter’s simulation therefore is not to be compared to Paul’s liberty. And while we ought to love Peter for that he willingly received correction, we must not bolster up lying even by the authority of Paul, who both recalled Peter to the right path in the presence of them all, lest the Gentiles through him should be compelled to judaize; and bare witness to his own preaching, that whereas he was accounted hostile to the traditions of the fathers in that he would not impose them on the Gentiles, he did not despise to celebrate them himself according to the custom of his fathers, and therein sufficiently showed that this has remained in them at the Coming of Christ; that neither to the Jews they are pernicious, nor to the Gentiles necessary, nor henceforth to any of mankind means of salvation.19    Salutares

8. Et ideo de libris Novi Testamenti, exceptis figuratis significationibus Domini, si vitam moresque sanctorum et facta ac dicta consideres, nihil tale proferri potest, quod ad imitationem provocet mentiendi. Simulatio namque Petri et Barnabae non solum commemorata, verum etiam reprehensa atque correcta est (Galat. II, 12, 13). Non enim, ut nonnulli putant, ex eadem simulatione etiam Paulus apostolus aut Timotheum circumcidit, aut ipse quaedam ritu Judaico sacramenta celebravit ; sed ex illa libertate sententiae suae, qua praedicavit nec Gentibus prodesse circumcisionem, nec Judaeis obesse. Unde nec illos astringendos ad consuetudinem Judaeorum, nec illos a paterna deterrendos censuit. Unde illa verba ejus sunt: Circumcisus quis vocatus est? non adducat praeputium. In praeputio quis vocatus est? non circumcidatur. Circumcisio nihil est, et praeputium nihil est; sed observatio mandatorum Dei. Unusquisque in qua vocatione 0493vocatus est, in ea permaneat (I Cor. VII, 18-20). Quomodo enim potest adduci praeputium quod praecisum est? Sed non adducat dixit, non ita vivat, quasi praeputium adduxerit; id est, quasi in eam partem quam nudavit, rursus tegmen carnis attraxerit, et quasi Judaeus esse destiterit: sicut alibi dicit, Circumcisio tua praeputium facta est (Rom. II, 25). Et hoc non tanquam cogens dixit Apostolus, aut illos manere in praeputio, aut Judaeos in consuetudine patrum suorum: sed ut neutri in alteram cogerentur ; potestatem autem haberet quisque manendi in sua consuetudine, non necessitatem. Neque enim si vellet Judaeus, ubi nullum perturbaret, recedere a Judaicis observationibus, prohiberetur ab Apostolo; quandoquidem consilium in eis permanendi ad hoc dedit, ne superfluis perturbati Judaei, ad ea quae saluti essent necessaria non venirent. Neque ab illo prohiberetur si vellet quisquam Gentilium ideo circumcidi, ut hoc ipsum ostenderet non se detestari quasi noxium, sed indifferenter habere tanquam signaculum, cujus utilitas jam tempore praeterisset: non enim, si salus ex eo jam nulla esset, etiam exitium inde metuendum fuit. Ideoque et Timotheus cum in praeputio vocatus esset, tamen quia de Judaea matre ortus erat, et ostendere cognatis suis debebat ad eos lucrifaciendos, non hoc se didicisse in disciplina christiana, ut illa sacramenta quae Legis veteris essent abominaretur, circumcisus est ab Apostolo (Act. XVI, 1 et 3): ut hoc modo demonstrarent Judaeis, non ideo Gentes non ea suscipere, quia mala sunt et perniciose a patribus observata; sed quia jam saluti non necessaria post adventum tanti sacramenti, quod per tam longa tempora tota vetus illa Scriptura propheticis figurationibus parturivit. Nam et Titum circumcideret, cum hoc urgerent Judaei, nisi subintroducti falsi fratres ideo fieri vellent, ut haberent quod de ipso Paulo disseminarent, tanquam eorum veritati cesserit, qui spem salutis evangelicae in circumcisione carnis atque ejusmodi observationibus esse praedicarent, et sine his nemini Christum prodesse contenderent (Galat. II, 3, 4): cum contra nihil prodesset Christus eis qui eo animo circumciderentur, ut ibi esse salutem putarent; unde est illud, Ecce ego Paulus dico vobis, quia si circumcidamini, Christus nihil vobis proderit (Id. V, 2). Ex hac igitur libertate Paulus paternas observationes observavit, hoc unum cavens et praedicans, ne sine his salus christiana nulla putaretur. Petrus autem simulatione sua, tanquam in Judaismo salus esset, cogebat Gentes judaizare: quod verba Pauli ostendunt dicentis, Quomodo gentes cogis judaizare (Id. II, 14)? Non enim cogerentur, nisi viderent eum sic eas observare, quasi praeter illas salus esse non posset. Petri ergo simulatio libertati Pauli non est comparanda. Et ideo Petrum amare debemus libenter correctum, non autem astruere etiam de Pauli auctoritate mendacium: qui et Petrum coram omnibus 0494 in rectam viam revocavit, ne Gentes per eum judaizare cogerentur; et ipse suae praedicationi attestatus est, qui cum putaretur hostis paternarum traditionum, eo quod nolebat eas imponere Gentibus, non aspernatus eas ipse more patrio celebrare, satis ostendit hoc in eis Christo adveniente remansisse, ut nec Judaeis essent perniciosae, nec Gentibus necessariae, nec jam cuiquam hominum salutares.