The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1882-09-28

can, with no guaranty from me that
they judge correctly. So my truth
fulness is not involved. No man ever
processes, or is expected, or is sup
posed to tell the world, or even any
one person, all about his thoughts
and his affairs. Simple silence and
veracity.
How is it about deception? Many
respond, at once, that all deception is
wrong and involves lying. Others
claim that deception is not necessarily
wrong; at least in certain cases, which
do not involve the slightest element
Of falsehood. To reach safe and
reasonable conclusion, we need a guild
ing principle which shall distinguish
between quite different kinds Of de-
ception. | take it that the principle
is this: deception is right when the
act is so related as to convey or imply
no pledge Of veracity as to the ideas
seemingly conveyed; no assurance
that the judgment Of the observer is
correct as to what is meant or as to
what the facts are. Thus an artist so
initiates flowers On canvas or in wax
as to deceive me, and l approach to
smell or gather one. No element Of
falsehood inheres in his act of decep-
tion, for it was not of such nature
as to involve pledge Of truthfulness
on his part. l do not call him a liar
when | discover my mistake. My
hasty judgment, at distance, was
made on my own responsibility. Many
(not all) stratagems in war or against
private foes are thus defensible in
morals. They are simply misleading
actions, which the enemy beholds,
and construes in a certain way as re-
CARDS the intentions Of his opponent,
and acts accordingly; but he knows,
all the time, that he judges on. his
own responsibility solely, that his op-
ponent gives him no assurance that
he makes true and safe inference
from what he sees. A man wishes to
burn my house, i'll my absence, and
watches me as l go to the railway
train, and sees ME enter car just be-
fore it moves away. Aware Of his
plan, however, | pass out of the other
end of the car, and, avoiding him,
reach home, and arrest him when he
attempts to burn the house. He was
purposely deceived; but no lie was in
volVed, since we had no communica-
ton whatever, and he made a wrong
inference from what he saw, on his
own responsibility entirely.
But deceptive act may be wrong;
for in other cases it may involve, on
the part Of him who performs it,
pledge Of truth, an assurance of good
faith in the meaning which it is un-
derstood by both parties to convey.
Then it is an acted lie and is wicked
Thus, when Judas stepped up to Jesus,
in the Garden, and kissed him, the
deceptive kiss was a falsehood, be-
cause intended to convey to his VIC
tim the usual pledge of sincere friend
ship. If a teacher, speaking to
school Of a wrong act which some of
the scholars have committed, says
''Let all who are innocent stand up"
and guilty scholar rises, he lies,
though he utters no word So, in war,
to misuse flag of truce, to display it
and then perform under it hostile
act, is regarded as the hight of perfdy.
1t is Of the kind of deception which
involves falsehood, because it gives
and violates pledge Of veracfty to
the other.
Now, in all lands and in every state
Of society assertion made to another,
in spoken or written words, are always
and necessarily regarded as conveying
this pledge Of veracity; because Ian
guage is the recognized and indis-
pensable instrument Of communica-
ton. lie this cannot be trusted, men
may as well cease to have faith in one
another. A purposely incorrect state
ment mot a joke, of course) is lie
and an immortality. This is usually
admitted; but it is claimed by some
that the lie becomes white and pure.
free from all tain5 Of sin, when it can
be made the means Of preventing a
great wrong, like murder or some
other heinous crime. Is this SO?
I. Does Scripture sanction actual
falsehood an any circumstances? 1t
records the lies told by some good
men when in straits, as it does their
other imperfections Of character; but
it not only expresses no approval, but
also records the evil consequences
which resulted from the lies, the re-
proofs which sometimes were admins
tered, and the retributions which fol-
lowed. Ancient saints only gradually
learned and practiced the right on this,
as on many other moral subjects; but
the right was the same, and the Bible
doctrine is clear in both Old and New
Testaments and is always stated with
out exceptions. 1t is nowhere said:
DO not lie, unless you can thereby
prevent a great evil or do a great
good" 1t would have ruined Christ's
character as a perfect man had
single lie been recorded Of him, no
matter what might have been the in
ducement to utter it. Does not every
one indistinctively feel and know this
to be so?
9. Does the moral laW of our reason
euer sanction lie? | think not, on
any theory Of the foundation of vir-
tue. If the obligation of truthful
ness is distinct, absolute, and indie
pendent affirmation of the reason,
then, Of course, it can know no eXcep-
tions. If it be only one application
of the comprehensive duty Of benevo-
lence to all being, constituting nee
essary condition Of social intercourse,
and thus of individual and general
happiness, we still are driven to the
same conclusion. For the rule to be
of value, it must be absolutely trust
worthy always and everywhere, so
that the statements of every man of
known virtue may command uniform
and instant confidence To admit
| that a lie NAV riphtfully he told when