On Lying 28–42

It is also written: "But I say to you, do not swear at all." Yet the apostle himself swore in his letters, and so showed how what was said was to be taken, "I say to you, do not swear at all": namely, lest by swearing one come to readiness in swearing, from readiness to habit, and so from habit fall into perjury. And so he is not found to have sworn except when writing, where more careful consideration does not have a hasty tongue. And this is certainly "from evil," as it is said, "whatever is more than this is from evil"; not his own evil, however, but the weakness of those whom he was trying to convince even in this way. For whether he swore when speaking, not writing, I do not know that any scripture has recorded of him. And yet the Lord says "at all," "do not swear"; for he did not allow this to be lawful for those who write. But since it is wicked to say that Paul was guilty of violating a command, especially in letters written and published for the spiritual life and salvation of peoples, it must be understood that the word "at all" was put there so that, as far as lies in you, you should not seek, not love, not desire an oath with any delight as though it were a good.

So too that saying: "Do not be anxious about tomorrow," and: "Do not, therefore, be anxious about what you will eat and what you will drink and what you will wear." But when we see that the Lord himself had a purse, in which what was given was put so that it could be kept for uses necessary at the time, and that the apostles themselves provided many things for the relief of the brothers, not only for tomorrow but even for the longer time of a threatening famine, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, it is clear enough that those commands are to be understood thus: that we should do nothing of our work out of love of obtaining temporal things or fear of want, as though under necessity.

Likewise it was said to the apostles that, carrying nothing with them on the journey, they should live by the gospel. And in one place the Lord himself also indicated why he said this, when he added, "For the laborer is worthy of his wages." There he showed clearly enough that this was permitted, not commanded, lest perhaps one who did this, so as to take something for the uses of this life from those to whom he preached in the work of preaching the word, should think he was doing something unlawful. Yet that it can more praiseworthily not be done is shown clearly enough in the apostle Paul. When he said, "Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches," and showed in many places that this is done to their health by those to whom the word is preached, yet "I," he says, "have not made use of this right." So the Lord gave a right when he said these things; he did not bind by a command. Thus, being unable to understand many things in the words, we gather from the deeds of the saints how what would easily be taken in another direction ought to be taken, unless it were called back by example.

So, then, as to what is written, "But the mouth that lies kills the soul," it is asked of which mouth it spoke. For often when Scripture says "mouth" it means the very receptacle of the heart, where whatever is also stated through the voice, when we speak the truth, is approved and decided; so that he lies in the heart who approves of lying, but one can avoid lying in the heart who brings forth through the voice something other than is in his mind in such a way that he knows he is admitting an evil for the sake of avoiding a greater evil, though both displease him. And those who assert this say that we must also understand in this way what is written, "who speaks truth in his heart," because truth must always be spoken in the heart, but not always in the mouth of the body, if some reason of guarding against a greater evil requires something other than is in the mind to be brought forth by the voice. And that there is a mouth of the heart can be understood from this, that where there is speech, there a mouth is not absurdly understood. It would not rightly be said, "who speaks in his heart," unless a mouth in the heart were also rightly understood. Although in that very place where it is written, "But the mouth that lies kills the soul," if the context of the reading is considered, perhaps nothing other than the mouth of the heart is meant. For the answer there is called "obscure" where it is hidden from men, who cannot hear the mouth of the heart unless the mouth of the body sounds with it. And Scripture says in that place that that mouth reaches the hearing of the Spirit of the Lord, who has filled the world, so that it even mentions lips and voice and tongue in that place, and yet the meaning does not allow all these to be taken except of the heart, because it says that what is said is not hidden from the Lord; whereas what is said with this sound that reaches our ears is not hidden from men either. For so it is written: "For the spirit of wisdom is kindly, and will not free the evil speaker from his lips, since God is witness of his inmost parts, and a true searcher of his heart, and a hearer of his tongue. For the Spirit of the Lord has filled the world, and that which holds all things has knowledge of the voice. Therefore he who speaks unrighteous things cannot be hidden, nor will the judgment that reproves pass him by. For there will be inquiry into the thoughts of the ungodly; and the report of his words will come from the Lord to the reproof of his iniquities, since the ear of jealousy hears all things, and the tumult of murmurings will not be hidden. Guard yourselves, therefore, from murmuring, which profits nothing, and spare your tongue from slander; for an obscure answer will not go for nothing, but the mouth that lies kills the soul." He seems, then, to threaten those who think that what they turn over and ponder in their heart is obscure and secret; so clear did he wish to show that this is to the ears of God that he even called it a "tumult."

We also find the mouth of the heart plainly in the gospel, so that the Lord is found to have mentioned in one place both the mouth of the body and the mouth of the heart, where he says: "Are you also still without understanding? Do you not understand that everything that enters the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drain? But what comes out of the mouth comes out of the heart, and these defile a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, acts of sexual immorality, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are what defile a man." Here, if you understand only one mouth, that of the body, how will you understand, "But what comes out of the mouth comes out of the heart," since spittle and vomit also come out of the mouth? Unless perhaps a man is not defiled when he eats something unclean, but is defiled when he vomits it up. If that is most absurd, it remains that we understand the mouth of the heart to have been explained by the Lord when he says, "What comes out of the mouth comes out of the heart." For theft too, since it can be, and often is, committed in the silence of bodily voice and mouth, it is utterly mad to understand this so as to think that someone is contaminated by the sin of theft when he confesses or discloses it, but to judge him undefiled when he commits it silently. But if we refer what was said to the mouth of the heart, no sin at all can be committed silently; for it is not committed unless it comes out from that inner mouth.

But just as it is asked of which mouth it said, "But the mouth that lies kills the soul," so it can be asked of which lie. For it seems to speak properly of the lie by which someone is slandered. For it says: "Guard yourselves, therefore, from murmuring, which profits nothing, and spare your tongue from slander." This slander is done through ill will, when someone not only brings forth with the mouth and voice of the body what he invents against someone, but even silently wishes such a person to be believed so (which is certainly slandering with the mouth of the heart); and this, it says, cannot be obscure and hidden from God.

As for what is written in another place, "Do not wish to lie any lie," they do not want it to have the force that no one should lie any lie at all. So when one person says that from this testimony of Scripture every lie is to be detested so universally that even if someone wishes to lie, even if he does not lie, the will itself is already to be condemned, and interprets it to this effect, that it is not said, "Do not lie any lie," but, "Do not wish to lie any lie," so that no one should dare not only to lie but even to wish to lie with any lie; another says: "No, in saying, 'Do not wish to lie any lie,' it meant that the lie must be banished and removed from the mouth of the heart, so that from some lies one must abstain with the mouth of the body, especially those that pertain to the teaching of religion, but from some one need not abstain with the mouth of the body, if the cause of avoiding a greater evil requires it; but with the mouth of the heart we ought to abstain wholly from every lie." Here "do not wish" must be understood; for the will itself is taken as the mouth of the heart, so that it does not concern the mouth of the heart when we lie unwillingly, guarding against a greater evil. There is also a third interpretation, by which you take it thus: "not any lie," so that it allows you to lie with some lies excepted. As if it said, "Do not wish to believe every man," it would certainly not be warning that no one should be believed, but that not all, and yet some, should be believed. And what follows, "for the continual use of it will not profit for good," sounds as though it seemed to forbid not lying but continual lying, that is, the habit and love of lying. Into this anyone would surely slip who either thought every kind of lie could be freely used (for so he would not guard even against the lie told in the teaching of piety and religion, than which what more wicked thing could you easily find, not among all lies but among all sins?), or accommodated the assent of his will to any lie, however easy, however harmless, so as to lie not unwillingly for the sake of escaping a greater evil, but willingly and gladly. So, since there are three things that can be understood in this sentence, either "Do not only not lie any lie, but do not even wish to lie," or "Do not wish to, but lie even unwillingly when something graver is to be fled," or "Not any lie, so that with some lies excepted the rest are permitted," one is found here for those who hold that one must never lie, and two for those who think that one must sometimes lie. But yet I do not know whether what follows, "for the continual use of it will not profit for good," can support the first of these three meanings; unless perhaps in this way: that it is the precept for the perfect never at all not only to lie but even to wish to lie, while continual lying is not permitted even to those making progress. As though, when it was commanded that one must never at all lie, nor even have the will to lie, it were objected from examples that some lies have been approved even by great authority, and it were answered that these are indeed of those making progress, which have in this life some sort of duty of mercy, but that every lie is so far evil and to be fled in every way by perfect and spiritual souls that not even to those making progress is the continual use of it to be permitted. For it has already been said of the Egyptian midwives that in lying they were approved for their disposition to make progress toward better things, because it is some step toward loving true and everlasting salvation when someone lies mercifully even for someone's mortal safety.

Likewise, of what is written, "You will destroy all who speak a lie," one says that no lie is excepted here, but every lie is condemned. Another says: "Yes indeed, but those who speak a lie from the heart, according to the earlier discussion; for he speaks truth in his heart who hates the necessity of lying, which he understands to be a punishment of this mortal life." Another says: "God will indeed destroy all who speak a lie, but not every lie; for there is some lie that the prophet was then pointing to, in which no one is spared: that is, if someone, refusing to confess his sins, rather defends them and will not do penance, so that it is not enough that he works iniquity, but, wishing even to seem righteous, he does not submit to the medicine of confession." And the very distinction of the words seems to indicate nothing else: "You hate all who work iniquity" (but you will not destroy them, if in repentance they speak the truth in confession, so that by doing this truth they come to the light, as is said in the Gospel according to John, "But he who does the truth comes to the light"); "you will destroy all" who not only work what you hate, but also speak a lie, putting forward a false righteousness and not confessing their sins in penance.

As for false witness, which is placed in the ten commandments of the law, it can in no way be contended that love of truth is to be kept in the heart while something false is brought forth to the one before whom the testimony is given. For when it is said to God alone, then truth need be embraced only in the heart; but when it is said to a man, the truth must also be brought forth with the mouth of the body, because man is not a searcher of the heart. But it is not at all absurd to ask, about testimony itself, before whom one is a witness. For we are not witnesses before everyone we speak to, but before those for whom it is fitting and to whom it is owed to know or believe the truth through us: such as a judge, so that he may not err in judging; or one who is taught the teaching of religion, so that he may not err in faith or waver in doubt about the very authority of the teacher. But when a man questions you or wishes to learn something from you who is seeking a matter that does not concern him, or which it is not fitting for him to know, he is seeking not a witness but a betrayer. So if you lie to him, you will perhaps be free of false witness, but you will certainly not be free of lying. Granting, then, that it is never permitted to bear false witness, it is asked whether it is ever permitted to lie. Or if every lie is false witness, we must see whether it admits of compensation, so that it may be said to be for the sake of avoiding a greater sin; just as what is written, "Honor father and mother," is set aside when a more important duty claims us: hence one who is called by the Lord himself to proclaim the kingdom of God is forbidden to pay the last honor of burial to his father.

Likewise, of what is written, "The son who keeps the word will be far from destruction; but in receiving he receives it for himself, and nothing false proceeds from his mouth," someone says that "the son receiving the word" is to be taken here as nothing but the word of God, which is truth. So "the son receiving the truth will be far from destruction" is referred to what was said, "You will destroy all who speak a lie." And what follows, "but in receiving he receives it for himself," what else does it suggest but what the apostle says: "But let each one test his own work, and then he will have glory in himself and not in another"? For he who receives the word, that is, the truth, not for himself but to please men, does not keep it, when he sees that they can be pleased by a lie. But he who receives it for himself, nothing false proceeds from his mouth, because even when a lie pleases men, he does not lie who has received for himself the truth by which he would please not them but God. So there is no reason why it should be said here, "He will indeed destroy all who speak a lie, but not every lie," since all lies universally are cut off in what was said, "and nothing false proceeds from his mouth." But another says it is to be taken as the apostle Paul took what the Lord said, "But I say to you, do not swear at all." For here too all swearing is cut off, but from the mouth of the heart, so that it should never be done with the approval of the will, but from the necessity of another's weakness, that is, from the evil of another who does not seem able to be persuaded of what is said unless faith is given by an oath; or from that evil of ours, that, still wrapped in the skins of this mortality, we cannot show our heart; if we could, there would certainly be no need of an oath. Although in this whole sentence too, if what was said, "the son who keeps the word will be far from destruction," was said of the Truth itself, through which all things were made, which remains always unchangeable, since the teaching of religion strives to lead to the contemplation of it, it may seem that "and nothing false proceeds from his mouth" was said so that he should say nothing false that pertains to the teaching. This kind of lie is to be undertaken for no compensation at all, and is to be avoided wholly and above all. Or if it is absurd to take "nothing false" otherwise than as referring to every lie, then he who thinks one must sometimes lie contends that "from his mouth" is to be taken, according to the earlier discussion, as the mouth of the heart.

Although all this discussion certainly alternates, some asserting that one must never lie and citing divine testimonies to this effect, others contradicting and seeking room for a lie among the very words of the divine testimonies, yet no one can say that he finds, either in the example or in the word of the Scriptures, that any lie seems to be loved or not hated; but only that sometimes by lying one must do what one hates, so that what is more to be detested may be avoided. But in this men err, that they put precious things below cheaper ones. For when you have granted that some evil must be admitted so that another graver one may not be admitted, each measures evil not by the rule of truth but by his own desire and habit, and thinks that graver which he himself shudders at more, not that which is really more to be fled. This whole fault is born of the perversity of love. For since there are two lives of ours, one everlasting, which is promised by God, the other temporal, in which we now are, when anyone has begun to love this temporal one more than that everlasting one, he thinks everything must be done for the sake of this one which he loves, and thinks no sins graver than those that injure this life and either take away some advantage from it wrongly and unlawfully, or take it away altogether by inflicting death. And so they hate thieves and robbers and those who insult, torturers and murderers, more than the wanton, the drunken, and the dissolute, if these trouble no one. For they do not understand, or do not care at all, that these do injury to God, not indeed to any disadvantage of his, but to their own great ruin, when they corrupt his gifts in themselves, even the temporal ones, and by these very corruptions turn away from the eternal, especially if they have already begun to be the temple of God, as the apostle says to all Christians: "Do you not know that you are the temple of God and the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone corrupts the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, which you are."

And all these sins, whether those by which injury is done to men in the very advantages of this life, or those by which men corrupt themselves and harm no one unwilling, all these sins, then, even if they seem to serve this temporal life for some delight or advantage (for no one commits any of them with another purpose and end), nevertheless hinder in every way those entangled in them from that life which is everlasting. Of these, some hinder only those who do them, others also those against whom they are done. For those things which are kept for the sake of advantage pertaining to this life, when they are taken away by wrongdoers, only those sin and are hindered from eternal life who do this, not those to whom they do it. So even if someone consents to their being taken from him, either so that he may not do something evil or so that he may not suffer some greater disadvantage in these very things, not only does he not sin, but he does the former bravely and praiseworthily, the latter usefully and blamelessly. But those things which are kept for the sake of holiness and religion, when wrongdoers wish to violate them, are to be redeemed even by lesser sins, though not by injuries to others, if the condition is proposed and the opportunity given. And then those acts cease to be sins which are undertaken to avoid graver ones. For just as in useful things, such as money or some other bodily advantage, what is lost for the sake of a greater gain is not called a loss, so too in holy things what is admitted so that something graver may not be admitted is not called a sin. Or if that too is called a loss which someone loses so as not to lose more, let this also be called a sin, provided that no one doubts that it must be undertaken so that more may be avoided, just as no one doubts that the lesser loss must be suffered to guard against the greater.

These are the things that must be kept for the sake of holiness: chastity of the body, purity of the soul, and truth of teaching. No one violates the chastity of the body without the soul's consent and permission. For whatever happens in our body by greater force, when we are unwilling and give no power, is no unchastity. But there can be some reason for permitting, none for consenting. For we consent when we approve and will; but we permit even when unwilling, for the sake of avoiding some greater shame. Consent to bodily unchastity certainly violates the purity of the mind as well. For the purity of the mind lies in good will and sincere love, which is not corrupted except when we love and desire what truth teaches is not to be loved and desired. The sincerity of love for God and neighbor, then, must be guarded (for in this the purity of the mind is sanctified), and we must strive with all the strength we can and with devout prayer that, when the chastity of our body is sought to be violated, not even the outermost sense of the soul, which is entangled with the flesh, be touched by any delight; but if this cannot be, at least that the purity of the mind be preserved in not consenting. In the purity of the mind there must be guarded, as regards love of neighbor, innocence and benevolence, and as regards love of God, piety. Innocence is that by which we harm no one; benevolence, that by which we also do good to whom we can; piety, that by which we worship God. But the truth of the teaching of religion and piety is violated only by a lie, since the supreme and inmost Truth itself, whose teaching this is, can in no way be violated; to arrive at that Truth, and to remain in it in every way and cleave to it wholly, will not be permitted until "this corruptible has put on incorruption and this mortal has put on immortality." But since all piety in this life is an exercise by which one tends toward that Truth, and this teaching provides the leadership for that exercise, conveying and making known that very Truth by human words and by the seals of bodily sacraments, therefore this teaching too, which can be corrupted by a lie, must be kept above all uncorrupted, so that if anything in that purity of mind has been violated, it may have a means of repair. For once the authority of the teaching is corrupted, there can be no course, or return course, to purity of mind.

From all this, then, this opinion is drawn: that a lie which violates neither the teaching of piety, nor piety itself, nor innocence, nor benevolence may be admitted for the sake of bodily chastity. And yet, if someone resolved to love truth so, not only the truth that lies in contemplation but also that in stating truly what is true in each kind of thing, and not to bring forth any statement with the mouth of the body otherwise than it is conceived and seen in the mind, so that he put the truthful beauty of good faith before not only gold and silver and gems and pleasant estates, but before the whole of temporal life itself and every good of the body, I do not know whether anyone could wisely say that he errs; and if he rightly put this before all such things of his own and valued it more, rightly also before the temporal things of other men, whom he ought to preserve and help by his innocence and benevolence. For he would love perfect good faith, not only in rightly believing what is told him by excellent authority worthy of belief, but also in faithfully stating what he himself judged should be said and said it. For faith (fides) is so called in the Latin language from this, that what is said is done (fit quod dicitur); and it is plain that one who lies does not show this. And although it is violated less when someone lies in such a way that he is believed without any disadvantage or ruin, with the added intention of protecting either someone's safety or bodily chastity, yet it is violated, and a thing is violated that belongs to keeping the purity and holiness of the mind. Hence we are compelled, not by the opinion of men, which is often in error, but by the Truth itself, which is above all and alone most unconquerable, to put perfect good faith even before bodily chastity. For purity of the mind is ordered love, not putting greater things below lesser. And whatever can be violated in the body is less than whatever can be violated in the mind. For certainly, when someone lies for the sake of bodily chastity, he sees that it is not his own but another's lust that threatens to corrupt his body; yet he takes care not to become a sharer at least by permitting it. But where is that permitting, except in the mind? Even bodily chastity, then, cannot be corrupted except in the mind: if the mind neither consents nor permits, bodily chastity is in no way rightly said to be violated, whatever has been done in the body by another's lust. Hence it is gathered that much more must the purity of the mind be kept in the mind, in which is the safeguard of bodily chastity. Therefore, as far as lies in us, both must be fortified and fenced by holy conduct and way of life, so that they are not violated from any side. But when both cannot be, who does not see which is to be disregarded for which? When he sees which is to be put before which, the mind before the body or the body before the mind, purity of the mind before chastity of the body or chastity of the body before purity of the mind, and which is more to be guarded against among sins, the permitting of another's deed or the committing of your own.

It is clear, then, when everything has been examined, that those testimonies of Scripture warn of nothing else than that one must never lie at all, since no examples of lies worthy of imitation are found in the conduct and deeds of the saints, as far as concerns those Scriptures that are referred to no figurative signification, such as the events in the Acts of the Apostles. For all the Lord's actions in the gospel which seem lies to the less skilled are figurative significations. And when the apostle says, "I have become all things to all men, that I might win all," he is rightly understood to have done this not by lying but by compassion, so that he acted with such love in freeing them as if he himself were in that evil from which he desired to heal them. One must not lie, then, in the teaching of piety; for it is a great crime and the first kind of detestable lie. One must not lie with the second kind, because no injury is to be done to anyone. One must not lie with the third kind, because no one is to be helped with injury to another. One must not lie with the fourth kind, for the lust of lying, which is faulty in itself. One must not lie with the fifth kind, because not even the truth itself is to be stated with the aim of pleasing men, how much less a lie, which is in itself, because it is a lie, certainly shameful! One must not lie with the sixth kind; for not even the truth of testimony is rightly corrupted for anyone's temporal advantage and safety. And no one is to be led to everlasting salvation with the help of a lie; for he is not to be converted to good conduct by the bad conduct of those who convert him, because if it is to be done toward him, he too, once converted, ought to do it toward others, and so he is converted not to good but to bad conduct, when what was shown him in converting him is offered to him to imitate once converted. Nor must one lie with the seventh kind; for no one's advantage or temporal safety is to be preferred to the perfecting of faith. Nor, if someone is so badly affected by our right deeds that he becomes even worse in mind and farther removed from piety, are right deeds therefore to be abandoned, since we must above all hold to that to which we ought to call and invite those whom we love as ourselves; and with the bravest mind we must drink in that sentence of the apostle: "To some we are the fragrance of life to life, to others the fragrance of death to death. And who is sufficient for these things?" Nor must one lie with the eighth kind, because among goods purity of the mind is greater than chastity of the body, and among evils what we ourselves do is greater than what we allow to be done. In these eight kinds, however, one sins the less when one lies the more one rises toward the eighth, and the more the more one sinks toward the first. But whoever thinks there is some kind of lie that is not sin will deceive himself shamefully, when he thinks himself an honorable deceiver of others.