The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1878-08-29
From the N. Y. Observer
Pious Frauds, or, Doing Evil That Good
May Come.

In the chapel of Park street church,
Boston, few days ago. almost disturb
ance arose over question of intense i'm
portance in the prosecution of moral re-
FORMS One of the speakers was asked if
he had practiced certain sepcifc acts and
arts of deception by which he had obtain
ed evidence necessary to convict offenders
against the law. And upon his frankly
stating that he had, an uproar arose
somewhat like that in the Ephesian tenn
pie in the time of Paul.
There was diversity of opinion as to
the morality of the measures. The old
question, which has taxed the casuistry
of moral philosophers in all ages, was
suddenly started; the one part was di
vided against the other, and the meeting
adjourned in some confusion.
The same question has been started
anew in this city in another department
of reform. A detective seeks the convic
tion of man who sells liquor without
license Is it right for him to induce the
man to sell, and to employ deception in
order to effect his purpose?
Is deception the essence of falsehood
Is lie properly defined to be an inten-
ton to deceive? Is deception iustfable?
Is it ever right 10 tell lie2
All these questions are more or less of
the same character, and are variously an
swered by casuists Of different schools.
The Roman Catholic school of Jesuit
ism has made this subject a science and
boldly affirmed the dangerous doctrine
that the intention is the test of morality
if the intention is a good one the action
is right. 1t was early introduced into
the Church and, very naturally, came
from heather source. The disciples Of
Plato and Pythagoras held this principle
Augustine resisted it nightly. There
were some in his day who taught it is
right to commit a fraud for a good pur
pose. DR.. Hodge gives synopsis of the
argument in his discussion of the ninth
commandment. Augustine held that it
is not lawful for any purpose whatever
and he specially condemns all frauds com
mitted in the pretended service of reli
gion. Such were called "pious frauds" !"
Jerome defended them. He went so far
as to say that. in dealing with an adver-
sary, man may do as he pleases.
1t is not every deception that is fifty
called a falsehood, lie. Instances are
on record in the Word Of God where de-
ception met with divine appreciation.
See Exodus, i: 49, 20; Sam, xvi: l, 2;
II Kings, vi: 1920.
The stratagems of war are justified by
the best authorities, on the ground that
there is q fair understanding on both
sides, and the conduct of neither party is
to be judged by appearances. To make
deception criminal, it is contended, there
must be not only the intimation Of what
is not true, but also the violation of an
express or implied obligation. In the
intercourse of society we act upon the
conceded principle that every man speaks
the truth: society could not cohere on
any other basis There is an obligation
on every man to speak the truth, so uni
versal that it is right to say heshas prom
ised to be true But promise is to be
construed as the one who makes it sup
poses the other understood it. The Ro
manist school do not admit this defni
ton. They teach that the mind of thu
speaker-the ntention-governs thu