Now, _partial truth_, as has been affirmed already, _is not, in its
proportion, less true than the full orb of truth_.[A] And many are the
times and many are the circumstances in this strangely chequered human
life of ours, with its endless movements and its perpetual
vicissitudes, when apparently conflicting and antagonistic duties can
be in justice, equity, and honour reconciled on one condition only,
namely, that man shall leave to Omniscience alone, “from Whom no
secrets are hid,” a knowledge of the full orb of certain degrees of
some particular kind of truth, governing some particular
subject-matter under consideration.[165][B]
[Footnote A: _It is never morally lawful to tell a lie_, that is, to speak
contrary to one’s mind, or to deceive by word contrary to that law of
justice which bids a man render to all rational creatures their due.
_To act a lie_ is as base and wicked as to tell a lie, and often more
unmanly and contemptible besides: else might the deaf and dumb be unjustly
deceived with impunity.]
[Footnote B: The noble science of casuistry is founded on the fact that
_partial truth is not less true, in its measure and in its degree, than
the full orb of truth_.
A knowledge of casuistry, that is, of the principles of moral science
scientifically applied to the living facts of the living present, will be
of primal necessity to British statesmen in the twentieth century, which
will be a century of few, but strong, principles, and of few, but strong,
men to apply those principles.
Efficiency, and efficiency through scientific exactitude, will be the
characteristic aim of all the great Imperial Powers of the world in the
near future. Here, in England, with all our intellectual, moral, and
physical virtues (which indeed are neither few nor contemptible), we have
been too apt to allow a number of persons to speak for us, able in their
way, no doubt, but of limited mental vision, and hopelessly incapable of
grappling with the problems that confront a world-wide Empire, embracing a
fifth (some say a fourth) of the human race. A democratic Empire must
choose leaders that are _wise_, just, self-controlled, courageous; and
then that Empire must entrust freely and fearlessly their destinies with
such leaders, who must not be afraid faithfully to go “full tilt” against
ignorant prejudice or short-sighted prepossession.
Now, wisdom (or prudence) is the cardinal virtue which presides over all
the other three virtues. And wisdom (or prudence) tells us that strategy
in war, that sometimes necessary evil; diplomacy betwixt the
representatives of nations; and above and beyond all the imparting to the
general body of the people only so much knowledge of the tendencies of
current events as is for the common good, can have intellectual and moral
justification on this one fundamental ethical principle only, namely, that
_partial truth is not less true, in its measure and in its degree, than
the full orb of truth_.
Again; where a sound intellectual and moral basis is not consciously held,
man, by the rules that govern his rational nature, will not “walk
sure-footedly.” Moreover, it is impossible for a self-respecting free
people to allow that essential _unity_ does not prevail betwixt the
fundamental principles of both private action and public action. _For just
wars and politics are not the pawns of a game that has been devised and
patented by the devil._ Just wars and politics are ethics working in the
living present, in the wider field of human conduct. And, properly
understood, they are, after their kind, and must be, if they are lawful to
rational creatures, as noble and as much under the reign, rule, and
governance of the _Ideal Man_ as are those solemn acts of life which have
been (amongst other purposes) devised to remind man of the transcendental
nature of his origin and destiny.]
Just as on some wild, tempestuous night, the full orb of the silvery moon
is obscured to the eye of the gazer by a dark, driving cloud.
Now, it has been said that, partly, _because_ Oldcorne inferred
insincerity of heart in Humphrey Littleton, and, partly, _because_
Oldcorne inferred in his questioner pernicious purposes in propounding the
question he did propound respecting the moral lawfulness, or otherwise, of
the Gunpowder Plot, _therefore_ Oldcorne gave Littleton an answer sounding
in partial——that is, in this case, in abstract, in speculative——truth
alone.
Oldcorne’s own expressed words are as follow:——
“_In this warie sort I spake to him bycause I doubted he came to entrap
me_, _and that he should take no advantage of my words whither he reported
them to Catholics or to Protestants._”
Unquestionably, this must have been _a_ reason——_one_ reason, that is——for
Father Oldcorne’s flanking, evasive reply, sounding in partial——that is,
in this case, in abstract, in speculative——truth alone.
For otherwise a man of such approved goodness and established character
would have never declared it to be a reason. The contrary supposal it is
impossible to entertain.
But because Oldcorne’s declared reason was undoubtedly _a_ reason, it does
not follow——regard being had to persons, times, and circumstances——either
from the demands of universal reason or moral fitness, that it was _his
only and sole reason_, nor (still less) that it was his _paramount and
predominant reason_ for his action in question, that is, for his mode of
couching the aforesaid Declaration in partial truth alone.
What leads to the conclusion with resistless force that Oldcorne’s alleged
reason cannot have been his paramount, his predominant, reason is the
simple, indisputable fact that such an aim so egregiously miscarried.
Therefore, in the case of so astute and clever a man, as all the evidence
we have concerning Oldcorne to demonstration proves him to have been, it
is rendered probable, to the degree of moral certainty, that the great
casuist had some far stronger reason latent within him than the reason he
chose to put forth for couching an answer to Humphrey Littleton, sounding
in partial truth alone.
Besides the sufficient, indeed, _yet inferior reason_, grounded on the
primal instinct of personal self-preservation, or, in other words, to put
the matter bluntly, the mere brute instinct of not being entrapped, wisdom
suggests that Oldcorne must——his moral character being what we know it
was——have had a reason latent deep down within the depths of his conscious
being, which was not only a sufficient but _superior reason_, not only a
true but a sublime reason, for severing in this grave matter, and holding
suspended, truth _in thought_ from truth _in action_.
Yea, Father Oldcorne, I maintain, gave Humphrey Littleton the flanking,
evasive answer that he did give him, notwithstanding the inevitable,
possible, and even probable dangers attendant thereon, because he
(Oldcorne) felt within himself, “to the finest fibre of his being,” a
_freedom_, a _three-fold freedom_, which warranted, justified, and
vindicated him in so answering.
Now this freedom was a three-fold freedom, because it was a
thrice-purchased freedom.
_And it was a thrice-purchased freedom because it had been purchased by
the merits_:——
(1) Of the personal, actual repentance of the revealing plotter himself.
By the merits
(2) Of the imputed (or constructive) repentance of that penitent’s
co-plotters. And by the merits
(3) Of the laudable action of Oldcorne himself.