A Lie Never Justifiable
H. Clay Trumbull

Part 3 out of 3

Whewell refers to this charge in his "Elements of Morality" (citing
Paley in its support). He says: "Some moralists have ranked with the
cases in which convention supersedes the general rule of truth, an
advocate asserting the justice, or his belief in the justice, of his
client's cause." But as to an advocate's right in this matter, Whewell
says explicitly: "If, in pleading, he assert his belief that his cause
is just, when he believes it unjust, he offends against truth; as any
other man would do who, in like manner, made a like assertion."[1]

[Footnote 1: Whewell's _Elements of Morality_, sec. 400.]

Chief-Justice Sharswood, of Pennsylvania, in his standard work on
"Legal Ethics," cites this opinion of Whewell with unqualified
approval; and, in speaking for the legal profession, he says: "No
counsel can with propriety and good conscience express to court or
jury his belief in the justice of his client's cause, contrary to the
fact. Indeed, the occasions are very rare in which he ought to throw
the weight of his private opinion into the scales in favor of the side
he has espoused." Calling attention to the fact that the official
oath of an attorney, on his admission to the bar, in the state of
Pennsylvania, includes the specific promise to "use no falsehood," he
says: "Truth in all its simplicity--truth to the court, client,
and adversary--should be indeed the polar star of the lawyer. The
influence of only slight deviations from truth upon professional
character is very observable. A man may as well be detected in a great
as a little lie. A single discovery, among professional brethren, of a
failure of truthfulness, makes a man the object of distrust, subjects
him to constant mortification, and soon this want of confidence
extends itself beyond the Bar to those who employ the Bar. That
lawyer's case is truly pitiable, upon the escutcheon of whose honesty
or truth rests the slightest tarnish."[1]

[Footnote 1: Sharswood's _Essay on Professional Ethics_, pp. 57,
99,102,167 f.]

As illustrative of the carelessness with which popular charges against
an entire profession are made the basis of reflections upon the
ethical standard of that profession, the comments of Dr. Hodge on
this matter are worthy of particular notice. In connection with his
assertion that "the principles of professional men allow of many
things which are clearly inconsistent with the requirements of the
ninth commandment," he says: "Lord Brougham is reported to have said,
in the House of Lords, that an advocate knows no one but his client.
He is bound _per fas et nefas_, if possible, to clear him. If
necessary for the accomplishment of that object, he is at liberty to
accuse and defame the innocent, and even (as the report stated) to
ruin his country. It is not unusual, especially in trials for murder,
for the advocates of the accused to charge the crime on innocent
parties and to exert all their ingenuity to convince the jury of their
guilt." And Dr. Hodge adds the note that "Lord Brougham, according
to the public papers, uttered these sentiments in vindication of the
conduct of the famous Irish advocate Phillips, who on the trial of
Courvoisier for the murder of Lord Russell, endeavored to fasten the
guilt on the butler and housemaid, whom he knew to be innocent, as his
client had confessed to him that he had committed the murder."[1]

[Footnote 1: Hodge's _Systematic Theology_, III., 439.]

Now the facts, in the two very different cases thus erroneously
intermingled by Dr. Hodge, as given by Justice Sharswood,[1] present
quite another aspect from that in which Dr. Hodge sees them, as
bearing on the accepted ethics of the legal profession. It would
appear that Lord Brougham was not speaking in defense of another
attorney's action, but in defense of his own course as attorney of
Queen Caroline, thirty years before the Courvoisier murder trial. As
Justice Sharswood remarks of Lord Brougham's "extravagant" claims: "No
doubt he was led by the excitement of so great an occasion to say what
cool reflection and sober reason certainly never can approve." Yet
Lord Brougham does not appear to have suggested, in his claim, that
a lawyer had a right to falsify the facts involved, or to utter an
untruth. He was speaking of his supposed duty to defend his client,
the Queen, against the charges of the King, regardless of the
consequences to himself or to his country through his advocacy of her
cause, which he deemed a just one.

[Footnote 1: Sharswood's _Legal Ethics_, p. 86 f.]

And as to the charge against the eminent advocate, Charles Phillips,
of seeking to fasten the crime on the innocent, when he knew that his
client was guilty, in the trial of Courvoisier for the murder of Lord
Russell, that charge was overwhelmingly refuted by the testimony of
lawyers and judges present at that trial. Mr. Phillips supposed his
client an innocent man until the trial was nearly concluded. Then came
the unexpected confession from the guilty man, accompanied by the
demand that his counsel continue in his case to the end. At first Mr.
Phillips proposed to retire at once from the case; but, on advising
with eminent counsel, he was told that it would be wrong for him to
betray the prisoner's confidence, and practically to testify against
him, by deserting him at that hour. He then continued in the case,
but, as is shown conclusively in his statement of the facts, with its
accompanying proofs, without saying a word or doing a thing that might
properly be deemed in the realm of false assertion or intimations.[1]

[Footnote 1: See Sharswood's _Legal Ethics_, pp. 103-107, 183-196.]

The very prominence given in the public press to the charges against
Mr. Phillips, and to their refutation, are added proof that the moral
sense of the community is against falsehood under any circumstances or
in any profession.

Members of the legal profession are bound by the same ethical
obligations as other men; yet the civil law, in connection with which
they practice their profession, is not in all points identical
with the moral law; although it is not in conflict with any of its
particulars. As Chancellor Kent says: "Human laws are not so perfect
as the dictates of conscience, and the sphere of morality is more
enlarged than the limits of civil jurisdiction. There are many duties
that belong to the class of imperfect obligations, which are binding
on conscience, but which human laws do not and cannot undertake
directly to enforce. But when the aid of a Court of Equity is sought
to carry into execution ... a contract, then the principles of ethics
have a more extensive sway."[1]

[Footnote 1: Kent's _Commentaries_, Lect. 39, p. 490 f. (4th ed.);
cited in Story's _Equity Jurisprudence_, VI., p. 229 (13th ed.).]

In the decisions of Equity courts, while the duty of absolute
truthfulness between parties in interest is insisted on as vital, and
a suppression of the truth from one who had a right to its knowledge,
or a suggestion of that which is untrue in a similar case("_suggestio
falsi aut suppressio veri_"), is deemed an element of fraud, the
distinction between mere silence when one is entitled to be silent,
and concealment with the purpose of deception, is distinctly
recognized, as it is not in all manuals on ethics.[1] This is
indicated, on the one hand, in the legal maxim _Aliud est celare,
aliud tacere_,--"It is one thing to conceal, another to be silent;"
silence is not necessarily deceptive concealment;[2] and on the other
hand in such a statement as this, in Benjamin's great work on Sales:
"The nondisclosure of hidden facts [to a party in interest] is the
more objectionable when any artifice is employed to throw the buyer
off his guard; as by telling half the truth."[3] It is not in any
principles which are recognized by the legal profession as binding on
the conscience, that loose ethics are to find defense or support.

[Footnote 1: See Bispham's _Principles of Equity_, p. 261, (3d ed.);
Broom's _Legal Maxims_, p. 781 f. (7th Am. ed.); Merrill's _American
and English Encyclopedia of Law_, art. "Fraud."]

[Footnote 2: See Anderson's _Dictionary of Law_, p. 220; Abbott's _Law
Dictionary_, I., 53.]

[Footnote 3: _Treatise on the Law of Sale of Personal Property_, p.
451 f.]

But the profession that has most at stake in this discussion, and
that, indeed, is most involved in its issue, is the ministerial, or
clerical, profession. While it was Jewish rabbis who affirmed most
positively, in olden time, the unwavering obligations of truthfulness,
it was Jewish rabbis, also, who sought to find extenuation or excuse
for falsehoods uttered with a good intention. And while it was
Christian Fathers, like the Shepherd of Hermas, and Justin Martyr, and
Basil the Great, and Augustine, who insisted that no tolerance should
be allowed to falsehood or deceit, it was also Christian Fathers, like
Gregory of Nyssa, and Chrysostom, who having practiced deceit for
what they deemed a good end, first attempted a special plea for such
falsities as they had found convenient in their professional labors.
And it was other Christian Fathers, like Origen and Jerome, who sought
to find arguments for laxity of practice, at this point, in the course
of the Apostles themselves.

All the way along the centuries, while the strongest defenders of the
law of truthfulness have been found among clergymen, more has been
written in favor of the lie of necessity by clergymen than by men of
any other class or profession. And if it be true, as many of these
have claimed, that deceit and falsehood are a duty, on the part of a
God-loving teacher, toward those persons who, through weakness, or
mental incapacity, or moral obliquity, are in the relation to him of
wards of love, or of subjects of guardianship, there is no profession
in which there is more of a call for godly deception, and for holy
falsehood, than the Christian ministry. If it be true that a lie, or a
falsehood, is justifiable in order to the saving of the physical life
of another, how much better were it to tell such a lie in the loving
desire to save a soul.

If the lie of necessity be allowable for any purpose, it would seem
to be more important as a means of good in the exercise of the
ministerial profession, than of any other profession or occupation.
And if it be understood that this is the case, what dependence can be
put, by the average hearer, on the most earnest words of a preacher,
who may be declaring a truth from God, and who, on the other hand, may
be uttering falsehoods in love? And if it be true, also, as some of
these clergymen have claimed, that God specifically approved falsehood
and deception, according to the Bible record, and that Jesus Christ
practiced in this line, while here on earth, what measure of
confidence can fallible man place in the sacred text as it has come to
him? The statement of this view of the case, is the best refutation
of the claim of a possible justification for the most loving lie

The only other point remaining untouched, in this review of the
centuries of discussion concerning the possible justifiableness of a
lie under conceivable circumstances, is in its relation to the lower
animals. It has been claimed that "all admit" that there is no
impropriety in using any available means for the decoying of fish or
of beasts to their death, or in saving one's self from an enraged
animal; hence that a lie is not to be counted as a sin _per se_, but
depends for its moral value on the relation subsisting between its
utterer and the one toward whom it is uttered.

Dr. Dabney, who is far less clear and sound than Dr. Thornwell in his
reasoning on this ethical question, says: "I presume that no man
would feel himself guilty for deceiving a mad dog in order to destroy
him;"[1] and he argues from this assumption that when a man, through
insanity or malice, "is not a rational man, but a brute," he may
fairly be deemed as outside of the pale of humanity, so far as
the obligations of veracity, viewed only as a social virtue, are

[Footnote 1: Dabney's _Theology_ (second edition), p. 425 f.]

Dr. Newman Smyth expands this idea.[1] He says: "We may say that
animals, strictly speaking, can have no immediate right to our words
of truth, since they belong below the line of existence which marks
the beginning of any functions of speech." He adds that animals "may
have direct claims upon our humanity, and so indirectly put us under
obligations to give them straightforward and fair treatment," and that
"truthfulness to the domestic animal, to the horse or the dog, is
to be included as a part of our general obligation of kindness to
creatures that are entirely dependent upon our fidelity to them and
their wants." But he cites the driving of horses with blinders,[2] and
the fishing for trout with artificial flies, as evidence of the fact
that man recognizes no sinfulness in the deceiving of the lower
animals, and hence that the duty of veracity is not one of universal

[Footnote 1: Smyth's _Christian Ethics_, p. 398.]

[Footnote 2: Here is another illustration of Dr. Smyth's strange
confusion of concealment with deception. It would seem as though a man
must have blinders before his own eyes, to render him incapable of
perceiving the difference between concealing a possible cause of
fright from an animal, and intentionally deceiving that animal.]

If, indeed, the duty of truthfulness were only a social obligation,
there might be a force in this reasoning that is lacking when we see
that falsehood and deceit are against the very nature of God, and
are a violation of man's primal nature. A lie is a sin, whenever and
however and to whomsoever spoken or acted. It is a sin against God
when uttered in his sight.

Man is given authority from God over all the lower animals;[1] and he
is empowered to take their lives, if necessary for his protection or
for his sustenance. In the exercise of this right, man is entitled to
conceal from the animals he would kill or capture the means employed
for the purpose; as he is entitled to conceal similarly from his
fellow-man, when he is authorized to kill him as an enemy, in time of
war waged for God. Thus it is quite proper for a man to conceal the
hook or the net from the fish, or the trap or the pitfall from the
beast; but it is not proper to deceive an animal by an imitation of
the cry of the animal's offspring in order to lure that animal to
its destruction; and the moral sense of the human race makes this

[Footnote 1: Gen. 1:28; 9:1-3.]

An illustration that has been put forward, as involving a nice
question in the treatment of an animal, is that of going toward a
loose horse with a proffered tuft of grass in one hand, and a halter
for his capture concealed behind the back in the other hand. It is
right to conceal the halter, and to proffer the grass, provided they
are used severally in their proper relations. If the grass be held
forth as an assurance of the readiness of the man to provide for the
needs of the horse, and it be given to him when he comes for it, there
is no deception practiced so far; and if, when horse and man are
thus on good terms, the man brings out the halter for its use in the
relation of master and servitor between the two, that also is proper,
and the horse would so understand it. But if the man were to refuse
the grass to the horse, when the two had come together, and were to
substitute for it the halter, the man would do wrong, and the horse
would recognize the fact, and not be caught again in that way.

Even a writer like Professor Bowne, who is not quite sure as to the
right in all phases of the lying question, sees this point in its
psychological aspects to better advantage than those ethical writers
who would look at the duty of truthfulness as mainly a social virtue:
"Even in cases where we regard truth as in our own power," he says,
"there are considerations of expediency which are by no means to be
disregarded. There is first the psychological fact that inexactness of
statement, exaggeration, unreality in speech, are sure to react upon
the mental habit of the person himself, and upon the estimate in which
his statements are held by others. In dealing with children, also,
however convenient a romancing statement might momentarily be, it is
unquestionable that exact truthfulness is the only way which does not
lead to mischief. Even in dealing with animals, it pays in the long
run to be truthful. The horse that is caught once by false pretenses
will not be long in finding out the trick. The physician also who
dissembles, quickly comes to lose the confidence of his patient, and
has thereafter no way of getting himself believed."[1]

[Footnote 1: Bowne's _Principles of Ethics_, p. 224.]

The main question is not whether it is fair toward an animal for a man
to lie to him, but whether it is fair toward a man's self, or toward
God the maker of animals and of men, for a man to lie to an animal. A
lie has no place, even theoretically, in the universe, unless it be in
some sphere where God has no cognizance and man has no individuality.

* * * * *

It were useless to follow farther the ever-varying changes of the
never-varying reasonings for the justification of the unjustifiable
"lie of necessity" in the course of the passing centuries. It is
evident that the specious arguments put forth by young Chrysostom, in
defense of his inexcusable lie of love fifteen centuries ago, have
neither been added to nor improved on by any subsequent apologist
of lying and deception. The action of Chrysostom is declared by his
biographers to be "utterly at variance with the principles of truth
and honor," one which "every sound Christian conscience must condemn;"
yet those modern ethical writers who find force and reasonableness in
his now venerable though often-refuted fallacies, are sure that the
moral sense of the race is with Chrysostom.

Every man who recognizes the binding force of intuitions of a primal
law of truthfulness, and who gives weight to _a priori_ arguments for
the unchanging opposition of truth and falsehood, either admits, in
his discussion of this question, that a lie is never justifiable,
or he is obviously illogical and inconsistent in his processes of
reasoning, and in his conclusions. Even those who deny any _a priori_
argument for the superiority of truthfulness over falsehood, and whose
philosophy rests on the experimental evidence of the good or evil of
a given course, are generally inclined to condemn any departure from
strict truthfulness as in its tendencies detrimental to the interests
of society, aside from any question of its sinfulness. The only
men who are thoroughly consistent in their arguments in favor of
occasional lying, are those who start with the false premise that
there is no higher law of ethics than that of such a love for one's
neighbor as will make one ready to do whatever seems likely to
advantage him in the present life.

Centuries of discussion have only brought out with added clearness the
essential fact that a lie is eternally opposed to the truth; and that
he who would be a worthy child of the Father of truth must refuse to
employ, under any circumstances, modes of speech and action which
belong exclusively to the "father of lies."



It would seem that the one all-dividing line in the universe, which
never changes or varies, is the line between the true and the false,
between the truth and a lie. All other lines of distinction, such even
as those which separate good from evil, light from darkness, purity
from impurity, love from hate, are in a sense relative and variable
lines, taking their decisive measure from this one primal and eternal
dividing line.

This is the one line which goes back of our very conception of a
personal God, or which is inherent in that conception. We cannot
conceive of God as God, unless we conceive of him as the true God, and
the God of truth. If there be any falsity in him, he is not the true
God. Truth is of God's very nature. To admit in our thought that a lie
is of God, is to admit that falsity is in him, or, in other words,
that he is a false god.

A lie is the opposite of truth, and a being who will lie stands
opposed to God, who by his very nature cannot lie. Hence he who lies
takes a stand, by that very act, in opposition to God. Therefore if it
be necessary at any time to lie, it is necessary to desert God and be
in hostility to him so long as the necessity for lying continues.

If there be such a thing as a sin _per se_, a lie is that thing; as
a lie is, in its very nature, in hostility to the being of God.
Whatever, therefore, be the temptation to lie, it is a temptation to
sin by lying. Whatever be the seeming gain to result from a lie, it
is the seeming gain from a sin. Whatever be the apparent cost or loss
from refusing to lie, it is the apparent cost or loss from refusing to

Man, formed in the moral image of God, is so far a representative of
God. If a man lies, he misrepresents and dishonors God, and must incur
God's disapproval because of his course. This fact is recognized in
the universal habit of appealing to God in witness of the truthfulness
of a statement, when there is room for doubt as to its correctness.
The feeling is general that a man who believes in God will not lie
unto God under the solemnity of an oath. If, however, it were possible
for God to approve a lie on the part of one of his children, then that
child of God might confidently make solemn oath to the truth of his
lie, appealing to God to bear witness to the lie--which in God's mind
is, in this case, better than the truth. In God's sight an oath is no
more sacred than a yea, yea; and every child of God speaks always as
in the sight of God. Perjury is no more of an immorality than ordinary
lying; nor is ordinary lying any less a sin than formal perjury.

The sin of lying consists primarily and chiefly in its inconsistency
with the nature of God and with the nature of God's image in man. It
is not mainly as a sin against one's neighbor, but it is as a sin
against God and one's self, that a lie is ever and always a sin. If it
were possible to lie without harming or offending one's neighbor, or
even if it were possible to benefit one's fellow-man by a lie, no man
could ever tell a lie, under any circumstances or for any purpose
whatsoever, without doing harm to his own nature, and offending
against God's very being. If a lie comes out of a man on any
inducement or provocation, or for any purpose of good, that man is
the worse for it. The lie is evil, and its coming out of the man is
harmful to him. "The things which proceed out of the man are those
that defile the man,"[1] said our Lord; and the experience of mankind
bears witness to the correctness of this asseveration.

[Footnote 1: Mark 7:15.]

Yet, although the main sin and guilt and curse of a lie are ever on
him who utters that lie, whatever be his motive in so doing, the
evil consequences of lying are immeasurable in the community as a
community; and whoever is guilty of a new lie adds to the burden of
evil that weighs down society, and that tends to its disintegration
and ruin. The bond of society is confidence. A lie is inconsistent
with confidence; and the knowledge that a lie is, under certain
circumstances, deemed proper by a man, throws doubt on all that that
man says or does under any circumstances. No matter why or where the
one opening for an allowable lie be made in the reservoir of public
confidence, if it be made at all, the final emptying of that reservoir
is merely a question of time.

To-day, as in all the days, the chief need of men, for themselves and
for their fellows, is a likeness to God in the impossibility of lying;
and the chief longing of the community is for such confidence of men
in one another as will give them assurance that they will not lie one
to another. There was never yet a lie uttered which did not bring more
of harm than of good; nor will there ever be a harmless lie, while God
is Truth, and Satan is the father of lies.


Abbe Sicard: cited
Abbott, Benjamin V.; cited
Abohab, Isaac: quotation from
Abraham: his deceiving
Achilles, truthfulness of
Act and speech, lying in
Advantages of lying, supposed
Africans, truthfulness among
Ahab's false prophets
Ahriman, father of lies
American Indians, habits of
Ananias and Sapphira
Anderson, Rasmus B.: cited
Animals, deception of
Aquinas, Thomas: cited
Arabs, influence of civilization on
Aristotle: cited
Army prison life, incidents in
Augustine: cited
Aurelius, Marcus: cited

Bailey: cited
Barrow, Sir John: cited
Base-ball, concealment in
Basil, friend of Chrysostom
Basil the Great: cited
Baumgarten-Crusius: cited
Benjamin, Judah P.: cited
Bergk, Theodor: cited
Bethlehem, Samuel at
Bheels, estimate of truth by
Bible: principles, not rules, in
first record of lie in
story of man's "fall" in
standard of right
forbids lying
Bible teachings on lying
Bingham, Joseph: cited
Bispham, George T.: cited
Bock, Carl: cited
Bowne, B.P., quotation from
Boyle, F.: cited
Brahmans, estimate of truth by
Briggs and Salmond: cited
Broom, Dr. Herbert: cited
Brougham, Lord: cited
Budge, E.A.: cited
Bunsen, C.K.J,; cited
Burton, Richard: cited, 30.

Caecinna Paetus: cited
Calvin, John: cited
Carlyle, Thomas: cited
Cartwright, William C.: cited
Chastity, lying to save
Children's right to truth
Choosing between duties
Christ, example of
Christian ethics, basis of
Christian Fathers, discussion by
Christians, early, discussion by
Chrysostom: cited
Cicero: cited
Clergymen, position of
Clive, Lord: cited
Coleridge, S.T.: cited
Concealment, justifiable
Concealment, unjustifiable
Confidence essential to society
Contract, overpressing theory of
Conway, Moncure D.: cited
Court, oath in
Courvoisier, trial of
Crime, lying to prevent
Cyprian: cited

Dabney, Dr. R.L.: cited
Darius, inscription of
David: his deceiving
"Deans, Jeanie," story of
Deception: antagonistic to nature of God
among Phoenicians
by Hebrew midwives
by Rahab
by Jacob
Samuel charged with
Micah charged with
by Abraham
by Isaac
by David
by Ananias and Sapphira
in speech and in act
concealment not necessarily
purposed and resultant
of lower animals
in medical profession
of insane
in flag of truce
teaching of Talmudists as to
Peter and Paul charged with
teaching of Jesuits
of the intoxicated
Elisha charged with
Joshua charged with
in legal profession
in ministerial profession,
Definitions of lie
Denham: cited
De Wette: cited
Dick, Dr., quotation from
Dorner, Dr. Isaac A.: cited
Drona, story of Yudhishthira and
Duns Scotus: cited
Duty: of truthfulness;
of disclosure, conditional;
choosing of more important;
of right concealment;
to God not to be counted out.
Dyaks; their truthfulness

Earl, G.W.: cited
Early Christians, temptations of
East Africans, estimate of truth by
Egyptian idea of deity synonymous with truth
Elisha and Syrians
Enemy, duty of truthfulness to
Esau, deceit practiced on
Eunomius: cited
Evil as a means of good
Exigency, lie of (see _Lie of Necessity_)

False impressions, limit of responsibility for
Falsehood: estimate of, in India;
in Ceylon;
in Persia;
in Egypt;
"Punic faith," synonym of;
in medical profession;
its use as means of good;
spoken in love;
in legal profession.
Family troubles, concealment of
Fichte: cited
Firmus, Bishop: cited
Flag of truce, sending of
Flatt: cited
Forsyth, Capt. J.: cited
Fowler, Professor: cited
Frankness, brutal
Fridthjof and Ingeborg, story of
Fuerstenthal, R.J.: cited

German ideal of truth
Glasfurd: cited
God: killing, but not lying, a possibility with;
cannot lie;
his concealments from man;
is truth;
called to witness lie;
Greeks, ancient: their estimate of truth
Gregory of Nyssa: cited
"Hall of two truths"
Hamburger, Dr. I.: cited
Hannibal: cited
Harischandra, story of
Harkness, Capt. Henry: cited
Harless: cited
Hartenstein: cited
Heber, Bishop: cited
Hebrew midwives
Hebrew spies
Hegel: cited
Heralds' law
Herbart: cited
Hennas, Shepherd of: cited
Herodotus: cited
Hill Tribes of India: their estimate of truth
Hindoo; estimate of truth;
Hodge, Dr. Charles; cited
"Home of Song"
"Home of the Lie"
Hottentot, estimate of truth
Hugo, Victor: cited
Hunter, W.W.: cited

Ilai, Rabbi: cited
Iliad, estimate of truth in
Indians, American, influence of civilization on
Ingeborg and Fridthjof of, story of
Innocent III.: cited
Insane: lying to
their right to truth
Inscription of Darius
Intoxicated, the: their right to truth
Isaac: his deceiving
Isaac, Jacob, and Esau
Ishmael, Rabbi: cited

Jackson, Prof. A.V.W.: cited
Jacob: his deceiving
his lie to Isaac
Jacobi, F.H.: cited
Javanese: their truthfulness
Jehoshaphat and Ahab
Jehuda, Rabbi: cited
Jerome: cited
Jesuits, teaching of
Jewish Talmudists, discussions of
Johnson's Cyclopaedia: cited
Judith and Holofernes
Justin Martyr: cited
Juvenal: cited

Kant, Immanuel: cited
Keating, W.H.: cited
Kent, Chancellor: cited
Khonds of Central India, truthfulness among
Killing an enemy or lying to him
Kirkbride, Dr. Thomas S., testimony of
Kolben, P.: cited
Krause: cited
Kurtz, Prof. J.H.: cited

Lamberton, Prof. W.A.: cited
Lecky, W.E.H.: cited
Legal profession, ethics of
Legends, Scandinavian
Liar: an enemy of righteousness
form of prayer for
Liars, place of
Libby Prison, incident of
Lichtenberger, F.: cited
Life, losing of truth to save
Life insurance, truthfulness in
Lightfoot, Bishop: cited
Liguori: cited
Livingstone, David: cited
Logic swayed by feeling
Loyola, Ignatius: cited
Luther, Martin: cited

MA, symbol of Truth
Macaulay, Lord, on Lord Clive's treachery
Macpherson, Lieutenant: cited
Mahabharata on lying
Mahaffy, Prof. J.P.: cited
Mandingoes: their estimate of truth
Marcus Aurelius, quotation from
Marheineke: cited
Marriage, duty of truthfulness in connection with
Marshman, Joshua: cited
Martensen, Hans Lassen: cited
Martineau, Dr. James, quotations from
Martyrdom price of truth-telling
Mead, Professor: cited
Medical profession, no justifiable falsehood in
Melanchthon: cited
_Menorath Hammaor_, reference to
Merrill, J.H.: cited
Meyer, Dr. H.A.W.: cited
Meyrick, Rev. F.: cited
Micaiah, story of
Midwives, Hebrew, lies of
Mithra, god of truth
Moore, William: cited
Moral sense of man against lying
Morgan: cited
Mueller, Julius: cited
Mueller, Prof. Max: cited Murderer, concealment from would-be
Nathan, Rabbi: cited
Neander: cited
Nitzsch: cited

Oath of witness in court
Omichund, deceit practiced on
One all-dividing line
Origen: cited
Ormuzd, Zoroastrian god of truth

Paley, Dr.: definition of lie
Palgrave, W.G.: cited
Paradise, two pictures of
Park, Mungo: cited
Pascal: cited
Passion-play, Hindoo
Patagonians: their view of lying
Patient, deception of, by physician
Paul and Peter: suggestion of their deceiving
Perjury justifiable, if lying be
Persian ideals
Peter and Paul: suggestion of their deceiving
Phillips, Charles, misrepresented
Philoctetes, tragedy of
Phoenicians: their untruthfulness
Physician, lying by
Pindar: cited
Place of liars
Plato: cited
Pliny the younger: cited
Pope Innocent III.: cited
Prayer, form of, for liar
Principles, not rules, Bible standard
Priscillianists, sect of
Prophets, lying
Plan, lord of truth
"Punic faith," synonym of falsehood
Pylades and Orestes

Quaker and salesman
"Quaker guns," concealment by means of

Ra, symbol of light
Raba: cited
Raffles, Sir T.S.: cited
Rahab the harlot, lying of
Rawlinson, Prof. George: cited
Reinhard: cited
Responsibility, limit of
Robber: concealment from
lying to
Roberts, Joseph, quotation from
Rock of Behistun, inscription on
Roman Catholic writers, views of
Roman matron, story of: cited by Pliny
Roman standard of truthfulness
Rothe, Richard: cited

St. John, Sir Spencer: cited
Samuel at Bethlehem
Sapphira: her deceiving
Satan, "father of lies"
Sayce, Prof. A.H.: cited
Scandinavian legends
Schaff, Dr. Philip: cited
Schaff-Hertzog: cited
Schleiermacher: cited
Schoolcraft, H.R.: cited
Schwartz: cited
Scott Sir Walter: cited
Self-deception in others, limit of responsibility for
Semple, J.W.: cited
Sharswood, Chief-Justice: cited
Shepherd of Hermas, quotation from
Sherwill: cited
Shorn, Dr. J.: cited
Sick: their right to truth
Simplice, Sister, story of
Sin _per se_, lying
Smith and Cheetham: cited
Smith and Wace: cited
Smyth, Dr. Newman: cited
Sonthals, truthfulness among
South, Dr. Robert: cited
Sowrahs, truthfulness among
Speech and act, lying in
Spencer, Herbert: cited
Spies, Hebrew, Rahab and
Spy denied soldier's death
Stephen, Leslie: cited
Story, Justice: cited
Surgeon's responsibility for his action
testimony as to deceiving patient
Symonds J.A.: cited
Syrians, Elisha and

Talmud, teachings of
Talmudists, discussion among
Taylor, Jeremy; cited
Teaching of Jesuits
Temptations influencing decision
Tertullian: cited
Theognis: cited
Thornwell, Dr. James H.: cited
Tipperahs: their habit of lying
Todas, truthfulness among
Tragedy of Philoctetes
Truce, flag of, use of
Truth: universal duty of telling
God is
not every one entitled to full
dearer than life
justifiable concealment of
unjustifiable concealment of
Truth, estimate of: among Hindoos
among Scandinavians
in ancient Persia
in ancient Egypt
among Romans
among ancient Greeks
among ancient Germans
among Hill Tribes of India
among Arabs
among American Indians
among Patagonians
among Africans
among Dyaks
among Veddahs
among Javanese

Ueberweg, F.: cited
Ulysses, reference to
Urim and Thummim

Veddahs of Ceylon: their truthfulness
Veracity: duty of
of Greeks
of Persians
of primitive and civilized peoples compared
of Hill Tribes of India
of Arabs
of American Indians
of Africans
of Dyaks
of Veddahs
of Javanese
Viswamitra and Indra, story of
Von Ammon: cited
Von Hirscher: cited

Walker, Helen, example of
War: justifiable concealment in
duty of veracity in
Westcott, Bishop: cited
Wheeler, J. Talboys; cited
Whewell, Dr. William: cited
"White lie"
Wig, concealment by
Wilkinson, Sir J.G.: cited
Witness, oath of, in court
Woolsey, President: cited
Wuttke, Dr. Adolf: cited

Yudhishthira and Drona, mythical story of

Zoroastrian designation of heaven and hell


1: 28
2 and 3
3: 6, 7
9: 1-3
12: 10-19
12: 14-20
16: 1-6
25: 27-34
26: 6-10
27: 1-40
27: 6-29
28: 1-22
39: 8-21

1: 15-19
1: 15-21
1: 19, 20
1: 20, 21

8: 8
18: 5
19: 2, 12, 13, 34-37
19: 11

23: 19

29: 29

2: 1-21
8: 1-26
24: 3

7: 15-17
9: 22-24
11: 14, 15
13: 14
15: 29
16: 1, 2
16: 1-3
20: 29
21: 1, 2

11: 1-27

22: 1-23

6: 14-20
7: 6
20: 12-19

18: 1-34
20: 7

31: 5
58: 3
62: 4
63: 11
101: 7
116: 11
120: 2
146: 6

6: 16, 17
14: 5
19: 5, 9, 22

41: 8
51: 2

3: 9

6: 48
7: 15

24: 28

7: 8
8: 44
14: 6
16: 12

5: 1-11
13: 22

3: 4
3: 7, 8
4: 12

2: 11-14
3: 9

4: 25

3: 9

1: 2

6: 18
11: 31

2: 23

5: 7

21: 5-8


Back to Full Books