The Ethics of Lying.—It is amazing how lightly most people regard lying. Many would not care to tell what is commonly called a deliberate, barefaced lie but while they draw the line here they light-heartedly add that there are circumstances which justify the telling of a lie. Now, if lying is a sin and the Scripture leaves us in no doubt about this, then no circumstances in which we are placed will be sufficient ground for telling a lie. Many may think this rather rigid ethics but when it is borne in mind that liars and whoremongers are linked together as those who are to be excluded from heaven it will be seen how strait is the ethical code of God. These remarks have been suggested by two articles which appeared some weeks ago in The Christian from the pen of T. Miller Neatby, M.A., M.D. Dr. Neatby lays his finger on the real crux of the matter when he says: “But lying is a breach of the moral law. ‘Lying lips are an abomination’ to the God of truth. Lying is forbidden sans phrase, and the ‘vengeance of eternal fire’ is denounced not merely against ‘whosoever loveth’ but against ‘whosoever maketh a lie.’ The plea of ‘the lesser of two evils’ logically makes the law of God ‘of none effect.’ It drives a coach and four clean through the Decalogue. Who shall say what are the circumstances that make lying or any other breach of God’s law justifiable? Upon this baleful principle is built up the whole casuistical system that Pascal denounced with such brilliant invective in his Provincial Letters.”
Do Circumstances Justify Lying?—Dr. Neatby puts the question and answers it by asking are there any circumstances in which we may be placed that will justify us in breaking God’s law? If so, where are we to draw the line—if it is sin then we are not permitted to commit it however terrible the alternative may be by refusing and in putting the matter thus he is careful to point out that every sin is not equally heinous in the sight of God though all God’s commands are equally binding. He sums up the matter thus and makes reference to his own
experience as a physician: “As has been already urged, a lie is not merely sinful, as being a breach of God’s law. It is inherently vicious, because it is destructive of society which rests on credit. Even more is it fundamentally worthless, because it is destructive of itself. Nemesis does not suffer the lie to live. It is condemned in this very life. The present writer in his professional capacity has more than once found it a task of real difficulty to convince a patient of the genuineness of a favourable forecast in grave illness, because of the sick man’s deep suspicion that medical men ‘prophesy smooth things’ to those doomed to die. The nemesis of the lie is that not only is the lie not believed, but even the truth itself is not believed. So rotten is a lie in the very bones of it.”
A Right Decision.—It is gratifying to be able to report that the International Conference at Geneva has rejected the so-called Calendar Reform Proposals. These proposals meant the setting aside of the present Gregorian Calendar and the substitution in its place of a thirteen months Calendar with twenty-eight days each. By this arrangement it was proposed to have a blank day each year (two in Leap years) to make up the 365 days. This looks quite a good idea but it so happens that its adoption would mean the dislocation of the divinely appointed order of the Sabbath. If a Blank Day were introduced the sequence of the order of the Sabbath would be broken. The Lord’s Day Observance Society entered a strong protest against the proposed change and were supported by other religious organizations. Unfortunately the reasons given by the International Conference, financial and economic, while not satisfactory from our standpoint, killed the proposal at Geneva. The matter is dealt with in an article which owing to pressure on our space is held over until next issue.
Gospel Book Mission to the Army and Navy.—We have received from Mr. Brider his Annual Report of the above Mission. Like many another good cause this Mission through death and owing to the financial state of the country is suffering severely in its funds. Mr. Brider endeavours to send sound literature
to our sailors and soldiers and it will be a thousand pities if he is handicapped in this praiseworthy work for lack of funds. Mr. Brider adds a personal word to the Report in which he says: “As my friends know, I do not possess any private means whatever, neither do I take anything from the Mission Funds, but am wholly dependent upon the Lord for any personal support.” We are sure that those of our readers who can help will keep this useful Mission in view.
The South African Heresy Case.—Last year we commented on the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in retiring Prof. Du Plessis from his post in Stellenbosch Theological College. From the nature of the evidence as reported in the press of this country there could be no doubt but Prof. Du Plessis held heretical views on the early chapters of Genesis. A news-agency now reports that the case had been taken to the Supreme Court of Cape Colony and decided in favour of the Professor. It would be unwise with our limited information to say much on this case but it is on the face of it an extraordinary position if the civil court has given a decision that Professor Du Plessis can teach the views condemned by the Synod and yet remain a teacher of the Dutch Reformed Church. In this country the Disruption Fathers fought a noble battle maintaining that the civil court had no right to interfere with the Church’s disciplinary jurisdiction over its members where there were no civil interests involved. When the Rev. John Maemillan was suspended from the ministry by the General Assembly and made an appeal to Caesar to have an interdict issued (though Lord Kinloch refused to do so) against the sentence of suspension he was summoned before the Assembly and asked if he had made such an appeal; on answering in the affirmative he was deposed from the ministry without more ado. He then brought an action against the General Assembly. The Free Church authorities advanced the plea that it was not within the jurisdiction of the civil court to deal with purely ecclesiastical offences. Maemillan, through a hint from the Lord President, dropped his original pleas and brought an action specifying malice against certain individuals.
Whether the poor man realised that he had a fair share of that ugly vice himself or not cannot now be known but he saw his headstrong course was leading him nowhere so he sent a flag of truce pleading for generous treatment but his request was treated with disdain and Maemillan retired into obscurity, a defeated man. Whatever may have been the issue had the case been fought out to the bitter end one cannot say; but one thing is certain that the Free Church leaders made it plain that the doctrine of the Church was that the civil courts had no jurisdiction to deal with purely ecclesiastical matters of discipline. They sternly set their faces against any of their members in such matters appealing to Caesar. In later times it has become quite fashionable to make such appeals and to consult lawyers on matters that strictly belong to the ecclesiastical courts by some who need instruction.
“The Truth of Christianity.”—This widely advertised and highly praised book from the pen of Lieut.-Colonel Turton, dealing with the evidences of Christianity, is not all that could be desired. It has now reached its eleventh edition and the fact that it has such a wide circulation calls for a warning to those who may purchase it in the belief that it is sound on all the great matters of the faith. This is not so, for the author accepts evolution. He, also, evidently holds the theory of pre-Adamite men. His doctrine of inspiration is also seriously at fault for he says: “Some Bible difficulties, as they are called, are fatal to the theory of verbal inspiration or that every word of the Bible is true. This is now held by scarcely anyone.” Then what can Col. Turton mean when he says: “Christ did not suffer in our stead; Christ did not bear man’s punishment” or again; “Christ did not strictly speaking bear man’s punishment, yet His sufferings and death procured man’s pardon; He suffered on our behalf but not in our stead.” In a book that deals with the truth of Christianity its omission of the doctrines of Ruin by the Fall, Redemption by Christ, and Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is not only a very serious, but fatal defect.