ours; yet it has the fault of need. ing itself to be defined.

It is certainly important to discover, if possible, a criterion of lying, which will guide honest minds, and the dishonest also, to an instantaneous recognition of the divine law. This is found in our definition, and in no other a fact which does not indeed prove ours to be correct, but which recommends it to a general adoption, if it is plain on examination that all that, and that only is embraced in it, which the Scriptures denominate lying.

The truth of our definition is perhaps confirmed by the fact, that all those cases of voluntary deception, which are manifestly lawful, are effected without any false declarations. Not that cases of deception by language have never been declared useful and right. Few wicked actions have wanted apologists. But we speak of the general sense of mankind.

III. The next step in our plan is, to show the moral nature of lying. In our opinion the law of veracity forbids under all circumstances, an attempt to deceive others by the use of language. Lying within our definition is invariably wrong. The intention to deceive, which is one element of lying, is not necessarily wrong; but the intention to deceive by falsehood, is wrong-so intrinsically wrong that no benevolent motive of the act, can essentially change its character.

As a general proposition it will not be denied that lying is unlawful. We shall, therefore, direct our argument to evince the unlawfulness of those cases which have the fairest claim to be considered exceptions to the law of veracity.

1. We can not lie with ever so benevolent motives, or under ever so urgent a necessity, without pain and self-reproach. No conscience in which moral sensibility has not been destroyed, can look quietly and approvingly on attempts to accomplish the most laudable ends by falsehood.

Whatever our philosophy may be, it seems to us that human experi ence decides, that lying is in all cases an act of violence to the moral constitution of man.

2. That a lie is invariably sinful, is probable from the absence of any criterion by which to distinguish a radical difference in the moral qual ity of lies. If lies may be innocently uttered for one's country, why not for one's family? If we may lie to save our lives, why not to save our reputation or property? And then why is it not right to lie for the sake of acquiring property, if it can be done without injury to others? In the absence of any guide, where shall we stop?

3. The universal obligation of the law of veracity is fully asserted in the Scriptures. We have already cited several passages which in an unqualified manner inculcate the duty of veracity. They allow no exceptions. "Ye are of your father the devil," says Christ to the Jews. "When he speaketh a lie, he speak eth of his own; for he is a liar and the father of it." "All liars shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone."

4. The example of our Savior confirms our argument. He often deceived others, but never by a falsehood. He sometimes refused to speak; but when he spoke, he adhered inflexibly to the truth, not regarding the danger and difficulty in which it would involve him. Nor can it be doubted, that had he on any occasion, for any purpose, at tempted to deceive men by a false declaration, the whole world would have pronounced him an impostor.

5. Any particular advantage which may result from lying is outweighed by the general evil. Were we to lose our sense of obligation to speak the truth, and our disposition to be lieve the declarations of others, it would be impossible to conduct the affairs of life. We could no longer have the benefit of the past expe

rience of others, and each would be dependent for knowledge on his own limited observation and experience. These consequences of an nulling the law of veracity are not, it is true, to be expected from any single act of lying, nor from many such acts. Yet every lie has this tendency, and in no particular instance can it be certain, or even probable, that the general evil will not exceed the particular advantage of a lie. We are also to bear in mind the magnitude of the evil of infecting the public mind with the doctrine, that lies may innocently be told for good ends, or to persons who have no right to know the truth. Let this be understood to be the rule of duty on the subject, and what confidence would remain on earth? How could we tell at what rate a person addressing us estimates our right to know the truth, or what ideas he has of the utility of deceiving us? Let this opinion prevail, (and if it is true it ought to prevail,) then who could be deceived by a falsehood? In the very cases, in which the necessity of lying is claimed to be so urgent that it ceases to be wrong and becomes a virtue, a lie could have no influence. It is our view of the extent of the law of veracity, which enables any to practice the deceptions that they plead for. Were their views received, there would be an end of the possible utility of lying; a fact which, it seems to us, is a sufficient refutation of their opinion.

The fact, that the moral quality of an action lies in the intention of the agent, and not in the external form of the act, leads some to deny the propriety of asserting the invariable sinfulness of transgressing any precept of the Decalogue. These commandments, they say, are all subject to exceptions; and as an example, they cite the law of the Sabbath. The whole divine law is summed up in benevolence-and since it is sometimes benevolent to

act in direct opposition to the letter of the general rules of duty laid down in the Decalogue, so it is not invariably wrong to worship idols, to steal, to commit adultery, to bear false witness. The motive is to be considered. There all the right and wrong lie. It would be idle to deny that the moral quality of actions lies in the intention. There is no act forbidden in the Bible, which may not be innocently com. mitted by a maniac. But the ques tion before us is, whether a moral agent can attempt to deceive another by a falsehood, with an intention wholly virtuous. It is for the objector to show that one constant element of the intention, namely, to deceive another by falsehood, is not essentially wrong. Other elements of the intention may be laudablethe relief of want, the vindication of right, the promotion of religionbut none of these can sanctify his intention to accomplish these objects by a falsification of his word.

IV. This part of our plan embraces "certain practical lessons." It would certainly be uncivil in us to suggest that any of our readers may be personally benefited by these hints, which still may enable them to form a juster estimate of the conduct of others, and to correct the loose sentiments of the community.

Whoever values his happiness, respectability, and good influence, should remember how absolutely they are suspended on his own regard for the law of veracity. No liar can respect himself, or feel worthy of the respect of others. Nor can he long retain the confi dence of his acquaintance. A single lie often requires other lies to conceal it, each of which is apt to increase the embarrassment, and at length to leave the reputation under a cloud, if not in ruins. The liar is always trembling with the fear of exposure. His mind is in constant alarm; and at length when he

is detected, which happens sooner or later to all habitual liars, he is despised by society, shunned by his friends, scorned by his enemies, and stung by remorse, until abandoning the hope of regaining his standing in the community, he sinks under the contempt, hatred, and neglect of the world. Other stains on one's good name may be erased; this is indelible. Who believes in a liar's professions of reformation? Who for this world is more hopelessly a ruined man?

This ruinous habit is most frequently the effect of lying for the gratification of others. Flattery, exaggerated praise, extravagant compliments, false apologies for neglected courtesies, false professions of friendship, are only less criminal than grosser falsehoods. "White lies," as they are called, first corrupted the character of every habitual liar, first seared his conscience, and made him what he is. The first lies, little lies, lies for amusement, are the forerunners of confirmed, unshrinking mendacity. But if they could have no such effect on the character, they would not be innocent. In some respects the habit of lying in common conversation, or romancing for the entertainment of our company, is worse than lying in a more deliberate way. Certainly, nothing is more painful than to receive the impression, that the conversation of a friend is, perhaps true-perhaps not.

The habit of lying in historical romances is still more reprehensible. The apology of this class of writers is, that there is a general understanding that all which is said is not true. But this is not enough. The reader is not advised that any particular statements are false. Error and truth are mingled without any pretense at accuracy, or means of distinguishing them; a kind of writing opposed to all certainty, and storing the mind of the reader with false notions of men and things.

The same plea is offered in justification of the falsehoods of advo cates in defending their clients in courts of justice. There is a gen. eral understanding that they will not scruple to throw dust in the eyes of the court, by every possible distortion and exaggeration of the evidence. But this is no excuse for their conduct. They profess entire sincerity, and wish to be believed when they utter absolute falsehoods. This disregard of truth, it seems to us, is altogether unnecessary for an able defense of clients, and the faithful practice of the profession of law; but if it is necessary, it would rather prove the essential immorality of the profession than invali date the law of veracity. For what can be the tendency of deception in a court of law, except to defeat the ends of justice?

Lying to the sick, is nearly allied to these "liberties" of the gentlemen of the bar. The good of the client is the apology in one case; the good of the patient in the other. Nothing is more common than to tell the most deliberate falsehoods to the sick, when in the opinion of the attend. ant physician, the truth would be hurtful to him. He is assured that he will recover, and even that he is convalescing, when in fact he is considered in extreme danger; that his friends are well, when perhaps they are dead or dying. No one will deny these to be lies, but the excuse is, that if the sick person knew his critical situation, he would wish to be deceived; or if not, that it is for his good. No doubt the communicating of painful intelligence to a patient, which might en danger his life, should if possible be avoided. Yet in our view, it is the highest prudence to answer all his questions sincerely. Had we a young friend about to enter the medical profession, we would impress on his mind how vitally it concerns his success, that his pa tients should be able to repose im

plicit confidence in all his state ments. Nothing is more painful than the suspicion, that our medical attendant is insincere, that we can not rely on his word. Nor is this all. Whoever suspects, that when he or his friends are in extreme danger, his physician will deny the fact, for fear the truth will injure him, loses the cheering effect of encouragement when the symptoms are all favorable; for how can he distinguish the truth from falsehood? And let it not be forgotten, that if the sick are kept in ignorance of their true state, they are more liable to injure themselves by voluntary imprudence, to suffer from groundless apprehension or suspense, and to neglect their spiritual interests, it may be in the last hours of their probation.

Lying to the insane is a practice no less reprehensible. It is not required either for their benefit or the safety of their attendants. Experience shows that a bold, decided, bold, decided, ingenuous treatment, is the best means of controlling even the wildest maniac. M. Pinel, physician to the Female Lunatic Asylum, Salpetriere, in Paris, remarks, "that insane persons, like children, lose all confidence and all respect, if you fail in your words toward them, and they immediately set themselves to work, to deceive and circumvent you." This is corroborated by the testimony of the best physicians of the insane, both in this country and in Europe.

Lying to enemies is so common a breach of veracity, so mean and so degrading, that we need no apology for speaking of it in unmeas ured terms of reprobation. Every just war can be conducted to an honorable issue, by open warfare and innocent stratagems. But if we must be conquered, or falsify our word to the enemy, let us be conquered. It must be confessed that nations are not apt to break a truce, or any other engagement with their

equals, or with those whose vengeance they fear to encounter. It is the strong that break their treaties with the weak-the United States with feeble Indian tribes—the brave officers of the "star-spangled banner," that entice to their camps the sons of the forest, with false promises of safety!

Another species of lying deserves a distinct place in these hints. We have in mind the "easy man," who is always of the same opinion with his company. He has opinions of his own, but never defends, and seldom utters them in the presence of others. He hears what he considers pernicious errors, or what he knows to be the most unjust opinions of men and things, without contradicting them, and with plain indications of assent and approbation. His whole study seems to be to shape his remarks to please his auditors, and if by chance he is so unfortunate as to express an unpopular opinion, he quickly retracts or modifies it. He can not be said to be without guile, but guile. He is afraid to appear what he is. Although possibly not conscious of deliberate falsehoods, he is painfully conscious of insincerity-of walking in the garb of a false profession. The "artful man" belongs to the same family, an habitual liar; but he lies because he is a knave, not because he is a coward. He is bold in the utterance of his real opinions, and not less bold in uttering falsehood. He may be a zealot in religion-a fiery sectarian-who scruples not to wage his partisan warfare by false interpretations of Scripture, by exaggerated statements, by defamations of better men. Perhaps he is an equally unscrupulous politician, eager for the spoils, a fawning sycophant to the meanest of his own party, a mendacious libeler of his opponents. Who shall compute the number of lies uttered from the press-from the rostrum-from a more sacred

place, by designing men? Who shall add to this list the multitude which are uttered in the heat of party zeal, by men who are less moved by personal considerations than by a benevolent regard for mankind, whose interests they imagine are suspended on the success of their sect or party? What a humiliating reflection it is, that even this "better sort" of men, are not willing that human interests should suffer, rather than pollute their lips with lies!

The lies of children deserve more attention. It is the only point where our moralizing promises to be fruitful. Lying is commonly the first vice of our nature-requiring the earliest checks, the earliest parental discipline. But wherever it gains a fatal ascendency, it is rather the fault of the parents than of the child. They should study the best directions for training up a child in habits of veracity.

Teach them the truth by example. Fulfill your promises to them with the most scrupulous exactness. Speak the truth to them on all occasions, whether talking in earnest or in jest; and if by any unforeseen occurrence it becomes impracticable to fulfill an engagement, do not fail to give them such explanations as shall effectually remove the suspicion that your regard for truth is feeble. Never let your personal inconvenience or mere expense prevent you from keeping a promise. Let them have no cause to doubt your sacred regard for the truth.

Teach them by precept. Assure them in the most serious manner, that lies are offensive to God, and will be punished by him; that they are productive of great evil to men; that every body despises and abhors

the liar; that little lies, prevarications, insincere compliments, false excuses and apologies, and all false declarations designed to deceive others, are all wrong and pernicious.

Teach them by punishment. Let no lie pass without an expression of your displeasure. When reprimands are ineffectual, resort to severer discipline; and when one mode of chastisement is insufficient to awaken a sense of guilt and a purpose of reformation, resort to others, until the propensity to lie is effectually subdued.

Encourage them by reward. When they promptly tell the truth, though alarmed at the prospect of punishment, remit a part of the penalty, as an expression of your approbation of their sincerity; and by all other suitable expedients, teach them the advantage of telling the truth on all occasions, however much pain it may cost them for the time, or to whatever danger it may seem to expose them.

Guard against driving them to falsehood by manifesting anger when you suspect them of a fault. Parents should not call their children to account for misconduct until they are perfect masters of their own passions; certainly not when they are about to elicit the facts of the case by appealing to the veracity of the supposed offender. The manifestation of strong excitement at such a time, will generally so terrify a child, that he will lie, as the only possible refuge from the storm of wrath that he perceives is hanging over him. The parent should keep cool-should inquire calmly into the facts-should seriously, yet kindly represent the wickedness of lying; and he will have the victory.