to maintain the good name of others. To take away our neighbour’s good
name, is to take away one of the most valuable privileges he is
possessed of, the loss whereof may be inexpressibly detrimental to him.
And sometimes it may affect his secular interest; so that hereby we may
be said to take away his wealth and outward estate, and prevent his
usefulness in that station of life in which providence has fixed him.
Accordingly we are to express a due concern for the honour and
reputation of others as well as ourselves. Thus concerning the duties
required in this Commandment.
II. We proceed to consider the sins forbidden therein; which are
contained in that general expression bearing false witness: This may
either respect ourselves or others. A person may be said to bear false
witness against himself; and that either in thinking too highly or
meanly of himself; in the former respect we value ourselves, or our
supposed attainments, either in gifts or graces, too much, in which we
are, for the most part, mistaken, and pass a wrong judgment on them, and
are ready to say, with the church at Laodicea, _I am rich and increased
with goods, and have need of nothing; and know not that we are wretched,
and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked_, Rev. iii. 17. These, on
the one hand, mistake the common gifts of the Spirit, for grace, and
conclude themselves to be something, when they are nothing: And, on the
other hand, many conclude, that they have no grace, and rank themselves
among hypocrites and unbelievers, when their hearts are right with God,
and they have had large experience of the powerful influences of his
Spirit, but are not sensible thereof. Thus Christ says to the church in
Smyrna, _I know thy poverty; but thou art rich_, chap. ii. 9. In these
respects persons may be said to bear false witness against themselves.
But that which is principally forbidden in this Commandment, is, a
person’s bearing false witness against his neighbour; and that when he
either endeavours to deceive, or do him prejudice, as to his reputation
in the world; the one is called lying, the other back-biting or
slandering. As to the former of these, when we speak that which is
contrary to what we know to be truth, with a design to deceive, this is
what we call telling a lye; and when we act that which is contrary to
truth, it may be deemed a practical lye; both of which are very great
sins.
1. A person is guilty of lying, when he speaks that which is contrary to
truth, with a design to deceive: This the old prophet at Bethel did, to
the prophet of the Lord; upon which occasion it is said, that he _lyed
unto him_, 1 Kings xiii. 18. That this may be farther considered, let it
be observed, that it is not barely a speaking what is contrary to truth;
for that a person may do, and be guiltless; as,
[1.] When there is some circumstance that discovers him to speak
_ironically_; and therefore he does not appear to have a design to
deceive those, to whom he addresses his discourse. Thus when the prophet
Micaiah said to Ahab, _Go and prosper, for the Lord shall deliver it_,
viz. _Ramoth-Gilead, into the hands of the kings_, chap. xxii. 15. it is
plain that he spake the language of the false prophets, and that Ahab
understood him in this sense, or suspected that he spake _ironically_;
and therefore says, _How many times shall I adjure thee, that thou tell
me nothing but that which is true?_ ver. 16. Upon which, the prophet
tells him, without an _irony_, though in a metaphorical way, which Ahab
easily understood; _I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep
that have not a shepherd: And the Lord said, These have no master, let
them return every man to his house in peace_, ver. 17. which was an
intimation, that, if he went up to Ramoth-Gilead, he should fall in
battle: Upon which occasion Ahab says to Jehoshaphat, _Did I not tell
thee, that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil_, ver. 18.
by which it appears, that the prophet did not deceive him,
notwithstanding the mode of speaking, which he at first made use of,
without considering it as an irony, seemed to intimate as much.
[2.] A person may speak that which is contrary to truth, being imposed
on himself, without any design to deceive another. This cannot, indeed,
according to the description before given, be properly called a lie:
However, he may sin by asserting too positively, that which he thinks to
be true from probable circumstances, or uncertain information;
especially if what he reports, carries in it that which is matter of
scandal, or censure. This was the case of Job’s friends, who did not
tell a lie against their own consciences: Nevertheless, they were too
peremptory in charging him with hypocrisy, without sufficient ground;
therefore God imputes _folly_ to them, in that _they had not spoken of
him the thing which was right_, Job xlii. 8.
Here it may be enquired, whether a person, who designs not to deceive,
nor speaks contrary to the dictates of his own conscience; yet if he
promises to do a thing, and does it not, is guilty of lying? To which it
may be replied,
_1st_, That if a person promises to do a thing, which, at the same time
he really designs, and afterwards uses all the endeavours he could, to
fulfil his promise, and something unforeseen happens, in the course of
providence, which prevents the execution thereof, he cannot, properly
speaking, be said to be guilty of a lie; though we ought not to promise
any thing but upon this supposition, that God enables us to perform it.
_2dly_, If a person intends to do a thing, and, accordingly, promises to
do it, but afterwards sees some justifiable reason to alter his mind, he
is not guilty of a lie; since all creatures are supposed to be mutable.
Thus the angels told Lot, that they would _abide in the street all
night_; but afterwards, upon his intreaty, they _went into the house
with him_, Gen. xix. 2,
3. And our Saviour, when he walked with his disciples to Emmaus, _made
as though he would have gone farther: But they constrained him, saying,
abide with us; and he went in to tarry with them_, Luke xxiv. 28, 29.
But, notwithstanding this if a person promises to do any thing that is
of advantage to another, as the paying a just debt, _&c._ it is not a
sufficient excuse, to clear him from the guilt of sin, if he pretends
that he has altered his mind, supposing that it is in his power to
fulfil it: For this is, indeed, a breach of the eighth Commandment, and
in some respects, it will appear to him, to be a violation of this.
That we may more particularly speak concerning the sin of lying which
multitudes are chargeable with, let it be observed, that there are three
sorts of lies,
_1st_, When a person speaks that which is contrary to truth, and the
dictates of his own conscience, with a design to cover a fault or excuse
himself or others: This we generally call an officious lie[6].
_2dly_, When a person speaks that which is contrary to the known truth,
in a jesting way; and embellishes his discourse with his own fictions,
designing hereby to impose on others: This they are guilty of, who
invent false news, or tell stories for truth, which they know to be
false. This is to lie in a jesting, ludicrous manner[7].
_3dly_, There is a pernicious lie, _viz._ when a person raises and
spreads a false report with a design to do injury to another; which is a
complicated crime, and the worst sort of lying[8].
Here there are two or three enquiries which it may not be improper to
take notice of;
(1.) Whether the midwives were guilty of an officious lie, when they
told Pharaoh, in Exod. i. 19. that _the Hebrew women were delivered of
their children ere they came in unto them_; concerning whom it is said,
in the following verse, _that God dealt well with the midwives_ for this
report, which carries in it the appearance of a lie.
_Answ._ To this it may be replied,
[1.] That they seem not to have been guilty of a lie; for it is not
improbable, that God in mercy to the Hebrew women, and their children,
might give them uncommon strength; so that they might be delivered
without the midwives assistance: Or,
[2.] If this was not the case of all the Hebrew women, but only of some,
or many of them, the midwives report contains only a concealing part of
the truth, while they related in other respects, that which was matter
of fact. Now a person is not guilty of telling a lie, who does not
discover all that he knows. There is a vast difference between
concealing a part of the truth, and telling that which is directly
false. No one is obliged to tell all he knows, to one, who, he is sure,
will make a bad use of it. This seems to be the case of the midwives;
and therefore their action was justifiable, and commended by God, they
being not guilty, properly speaking, of an officious lye.
(2.) Another enquiry is, what judgment we must pass concerning the
actions of Rahab, the harlot, who invented an officious lye, to save the
spies from those who pursued them, in Josh. ii. 4, 5. it is said, _she
took the two men and hid them_; and, at the same time, pretended, so
those who were sent to enquire of her concerning them, that _she wist
not whence they were_; but that they _went out of the city about the
time of the shutting of the gate; though whither they went she knew
not_. The main difficulty we have to account for, is what the apostle
says, in which he seems to commend this action, in Heb. xi. 31. _By
faith Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had
received the spies with peace._
_Answ._ To which it may be replied, that the apostle says, indeed, that
she _received the spies with peace_, that is, she protected, and did not
betray them into the hand of their enemies: But this act of faith does
not relate directly to the lie that she invented to conceal them; for,
doubtless, she would have been more clear from the guilt of sin, had she
refused to give the messengers any answer relating to them, and so had
given them leave to search for them, and left the event hereof to
providence. This, indeed, was a very difficult duty; for it might have
endangered her life; and her choosing to secure them and herself, by
inventing this lie, brought with it a degree of guilt, and was an
instance of the weakness of her faith in this respect.
But, on the other hand, that faith which the apostle commends in her,
respects some other circumstances attending this action; and,
accordingly, it is not said, that _by faith_ she made the report to the
messengers concerning the spies; but _she received them with peace_: And
there are several things in which her faith was very remarkable, as,
[1.] That she was confident that _the Lord would give them the land_,
which they were contending for, Josh. ii. 9.
[2.] In that she makes a just inference relating to this matter, from
the wonders that God had wrought for them in the red sea, ver. 10. And,
[3.] In that noble confession which she makes, that _the Lord their God,
is God in heaven above, and the earth beneath_, ver. 11.
[4.] Her faith appears, in that she put herself under their protection,
and desired to take her lot with them; which was done at the hazard of
her own life; which she might have saved, and probably, have received a
reward, had she betrayed them. This, I conceive to be a better
vindication of Rahab’s conduct, than that which is alleged, by some who
suppose, that by entering into confederacy with the spies, she put
herself into a state of war with her own country-men, and so was not
obliged to speak truth to the men of Jericho; since this would have many
ill consequences attending it, and give too much countenance to persons
deceiving others, under pretence of being in a state of war with them.
And, as to what the Papists say in her vindication, that a good design
will justify a bad action; that it is not true in fact; and therefore
not to be applied to her case.
(3.) It might be farther enquired, what judgment ought we to pass on the
method that Jacob took to obtain the blessing, when he told his father,
_I am Esau, thy first-born; I have done according as thou badest me_,
Gen. xxvii. 19. whether he was guilty of a lie herein?
_Answ._ There is not the least doubt but that he was. Some, indeed,
endeavour to excuse him, by alleging, that he had, before this, bought
the birth-right of Esau; and, upon this account he calls himself Isaac’s
first-born. But this will not clear him from the guilt of a lye; since
it was an equivocation, and spoken with a design to deceive. Others own
it to have been a lye; but extenuate it, from the consideration of God’s
having designed the blessing for him before he was born, chap. xxv. 31.
But these do not at all mend the matter: For, though God may permit, or
over-rule the sinful actions of men to bring about his own purpose; yet
this does not, in the least, extenuate their sin.
That which may therefore be observed, with reference to this action of
his, and the consequence thereof, is, that good men are sometimes liable
to sinful infirmities, as Jacob was; who, was followed with many sore
rebukes of providence, which made the remaining part of his life very
uneasy.
_1st_, In his living in exile twenty years, with Laban, an hard master,
and an unjust and unnatural father-in-law.
_2dly_, In the great distress that befel him in his return; occasioned
first by Laban’s pursuit of him, and then by the tidings that he
received of his brother Esau’s _coming out to meet him_; (being prompted
hereto by revenge which he had long harboured in his breast) _with four
hundred men_, from whom he expected nothing less than the destruction of
himself, and his whole family.
_3dly_, He did not obtain deliverance from the hand of God without
_great wrestling_, chap. xxxii. 24-25. and this attended with _weeping_,
as well as _making supplication_, Hos. xii. 4. and, though he prevailed,
and so obtained the blessing, and therewith forgiveness of his sin; yet
God so ordered it, that he should carry the mark thereof upon him, as
long as he lived, by touching the hollow of his thigh, which occasioned
an incurable lameness.
(4.) Another enquiry is, whether the prophet Elijah did not tell a lie
to the Syrian host, who were before Dothan, in quest of him, when he
said, in 2 Kings vi. 19. _This is not the way, neither is this the city:
Follow me, and I will bring you to the man you seek. But he led them to
Samaria?_
_Answ._ If what he says to them be duly considered, it will appear not
to be a lie; for he told them nothing but what proved true, according to
the import of his words; for,
_1st_, He does not say, I am not the man ye seek, which would have been
a lie; neither does he say, the man is not here: but he tells them, _I
will lead you to the place where ye shall find him_, or have him
discovered and presented before you.
_2dly_, When he says, _This is not the way; neither is this the city_;
he does not say, this is not the way to Dothan; neither is this the city
so called; for then they would have been able to have convicted him of a
lie; for they knew that they were at Dothan before they were struck with
blindness: But the plain meaning of his words is, that this is not your
way to find him; since the men of this city will not deliver him to you;
but _I will lead you to the place where you shall see him_; and _so he
led them to Samaria_, upon which their eyes were opened, and they saw
him: So that this was not a lie. And the reason of his management was,
that the king of Israel, and the Syrian host, might be convinced, that
they were poor creatures in God’s hand, and that he could easily turn
their counsels into foolishness, and cause their attempts to miscarry
with shame, as well as disappointment.
(5.) It may be farther enquired, whether the apostle Paul was guilty of
a lie; when, being charged, in Acts xxiii. 4, 5. with _reviling God’s
high priest_, he says, _I wist not that he was the high priest_? How was
it possible that he should entertain any doubt concerning his being the
high priest; which none, who were present, could, in the least,
question?
_Answ._ We may suppose, that the apostle, when he says, _I wist not that
he was the high priest_, intends nothing else, but I do not own him to
be the high priest, as you call him; for he is not an high priest of
God’s appointing or approving; which, had he been, he would have acted
more becoming that character; and then I should have had no occasion to
have told him, _God shall smite thee, thou whited wall_; for that would
have been a _reviling him_; since I know that scripture very well, that
says, _Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people_; therefore
he intimates, that, though he was an high priest of man’s making, he was
not one of God’s approving; and accordingly he was to be treated with
contempt, instead of that regard which was formerly paid to the high
priests, when they were better men, and acted more agreeable to their
character. No one, that deserves to be called God’s high priest, would
have ordered a prisoner, who came to be tried for his life, instead of
making his defence, to be smitten on the mouth.
But, suppose we render the words agreeably to our translation, I did not
understand that he was the high priest, he may be vindicated from the
charge of telling a lie, if we consider,
_1st_, That this was a confused assembly, and not a regular court of
judicature, in which the judge, or chief magistrate, is known to all, by
the place in which he sits, or the part he acts in trying causes.
_2dly_, The high priest, in courts of judicature, was not known by any
robe or distinct habit that he wore, as judges now are; for he never
wore any other but his common garments, which were the same that other
people wore, except when he ministered in offering gifts and sacrifices
in the temple. Therefore the apostle could not know him by any distinct
garment that he wore.
_3dly_, Through the corruption of the times, the high priest was changed
almost every year, according to the will of the chief governor, who
advanced his own friends to that dignity, and oftentimes sold it for
money; it is therefore probable, that Ananias had not been long
high-priest; and Paul was now a stranger at Jerusalem, and so might not
know that he was high priest. Thus, if we take the words in this sense,
in which they are commonly understood, the apostle may be sufficiently
vindicated from the charge of telling a lie.
(6.) It may be farther enquired, what judgment we may pass concerning
David’s pretence, when he came to Abimelech, in 1 Sam. xxi. 2. that _the
king commanded him a business_, _which no one was to know any thing of_;
and that he had _appointed his servants to such and such a place_; and
also of his _feigning himself mad_, before the king of Gath, ver. 13.
which dissimulation can be reckoned no other than a practical lie.
_Answ._ In both these instances he must be allowed to have sinned, and
therefore not proposed as a pattern to us; and all that can be inferred
from it is, that there is a great deal of the corruption of nature
remaining in the best of God’s people. What he told Abimelech was
certainly a lye; and all that he expected to gain by it, was only a
supply of his present necessities; the consequence whereof was, the poor
man’s losing his life, together with all the priests’, except Abiathar,
by Saul’s inhumanity. And David seems to be truly sensible of this sin,
as appears from Psal. xxxiv. which, as is intimated in the title
thereof, was penned on this occasion; in which he arms others against
it, in ver. 13. _Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking
guile_: And in ver. 18. he seems to relate his own experience, when he
says, _The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart, and saveth
such as be of a contrite spirit._
As to his behaviour before the king of Gath, which was a visible lie,
discovered in his actions; it can, by no means, be excused from being a
breach of this Commandment. It is, indeed, alleged by some, to extenuate
his fault; that he was afraid that his having killed Goliah, would have
induced Achish to take away his life; as appears from what is said in
ver. 11, 12. Nevertheless, it may be considered as an aggravation of his
sin,
[1.] That his fear seems to have been altogether groundless; for, why
should he suppose that the king of Gath would break through all the laws
of arms and honour, since Goliah had been killed in a fair duel, the
challenge having first been given by himself? why then should David fear
that he would kill him for that, more than any other hostilities
committed in war? Besides, it is plain from what Achish says, in ver.
15. _Have I need of mad-men, that ye have brought this fellow to play
the mad-man in my presence? should this fellow come into mine house?_
that the king of Gath was so far from designing to revenge Goliah’s
death on him, that he intended to employ him in his service, and take
him into his house; but this mean action of his made him despised by
all; for it seems probable, by Achish’s saying, _Have ye brought this
fellow to play the mad-man?_ that he perceived it to be a feigned, and
not a real distraction. And this was overruled by the providence of God,
to let the Philistines know, that the greatest hero is but a
low-spirited man, if his God be not with him.
[2.] If we suppose that there had been just ground for his fear, the
method taken to secure himself, contained a distrust of providence;
which would, doubtless, have delivered him without his dissembling, or
thus demeaning himself, or using such an indirect method in order
thereunto. Thus concerning the violation of this Commandment, by
speaking that which is contrary to truth.
2. This Commandment is farther broken, by acting that which is contrary
to truth; which is what we call hypocrisy: And this may be considered,
(1.) As that which is a reigning sin, inconsistent with a state of
grace; in which respect an hypocrite is opposed to a true believer. Such
make a fair shew of religion; but it is with a design to be seen of men,
Matt. vi. 5. They are sometimes, indeed, represented as _seeking_ God,
and _enquiring early_, or with a kind of earnestness after him, when
under his afflicting hand; but this is deemed no other than a
_flattering him with their mouth, and a lying unto him with their
tongues_; inasmuch as _their heart is not right with him_, Psal.
lxxviii. 34,-37. And elsewhere, they are said to _love the praise of men
more than the praise of God_, John xii. 43.
(2.) It may be farther considered, as that which believers are sometimes
chargeable with, which is an argument that they are sanctified but in
part; but this rather respects some particular actions, and not the
tenor of their conversation: Thus the apostle Paul charges Peter with
dissimulation, Gal. ii. 11,-13. though he was far from deserving the
character of an hypocrite, as to his general conversation. And our
Saviour cautions his disciples against hypocrisy, as that which they
were in danger of being overtaken with, Luke xii. 1. though he does not
charge them with it as a reigning sin, as he did the Scribes and
Pharisees, whom he compares to _painted sepulchres_, Matt. xxiii. 27,
28. nor were they such as the apostle speaks of, whom he calls
_double-minded men, who are unstable in all their ways_, James i. 8.
As to that hypocrisy which we may call a reigning sin, this may be
known,
[1.] By a person’s accommodating himself to all those whom he converses
with, how much soever this may tend to the dishonour of Christ and the
gospel: And this may give us occasion to enquire,
_First_, Whether the apostle Paul was in any respects, chargeable with
this sin, when he says, in 1 Cor. ix. 20-22. _Unto the Jews, I became as
a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as
under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them
that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but
under the law to Christ) that I might gain them that are without law. To
the weak, became I as weak, that I might gain the weak; I am made all
things to all men, that I might by all means save some._ For the
understanding of this scripture, and vindicating the apostle from the
charge of hypocrisy, let it be considered,