“Truth is, so to speak, the very substratum of Deity.  It is in such a sense the foundation of all the moral perfections of God, that without it they cannot be conceived of as existing.  Unless God really is what he declares himself to be; unless he means what he declares himself to mean; unless he will do what he promises,—­the whole idea of God is lost.  As there is no God but the true God, so without truth there is and can be no God.  As this attribute is the foundation, so to speak, of the divine, so it is the foundation of the physical and moral order of the universe....  There is, therefore, something awfully sacred in the obligations of truth.  A man who violates the truth, sins against the very foundation of his moral being.  As a false god is no god, so a false man is no man; he can never be what man was designed to be; he can never answer the end of his being.  There can be in him nothing that is stable, trustworthy, or good.”

Here is a platform that would seem to be the right standing-place for all and for always.  Dr. Hodge apparently recognizes its well-defined limits and bounds; yet when he comes to discuss the question whether a certain person is, in a supposable case, on it, or off it, he does not seem so sure as to its precise boundary lines.  He begins to waver when he cites Bible incidents.  Recognizing the fact that fables and parables, and works of fiction, even though untrue, are not falsehoods, he strangely jumps to the conclusion that the “intention to deceive” is “not always culpable.”  He immediately follows this non-sequitur with a reference to the lying Hebrew midwives,[1] and he quotes the declaration of God’s blessing on them, as if it were an approval of their lying, or their false speaking with an intention to deceive, instead of an approval of their spirit of devotion to God’s people.[2]

[Footnote 1:  Exod.  I:  19, 20.]

[Footnote 2:  Comp. p. 35 f., supra.]

From the midwives he passes to Samuel, sent of God to Bethlehem; [1] and under cover of the expressed opinions of others, Dr. Hodge says vaguely:  “Here, it is said, is a case of intentional deception commanded.  Saul was to be deceived as to the object of Samuel’s journey to Bethlehem.”  Yet, whoever “said” this was guilty of a gratuitous charge of intentional deception, against the Almighty.  Samuel was directed of God to speak the truth, so far as he spoke at all, while he concealed from others that which others had no right to know.[2] It would appear, however, throughout this discussion, that Dr. Hodge does not perceive the clear and important distinction between justifiable concealment from those who have no right to a knowledge of the facts, and concealment, or even false speaking, with the deliberate intention of deceiving those interested.  In fact, Dr. Hodge does not even mention “concealment,” as apart from its use for the specific purpose of deception.

[Footnote 1:  I Sam. 16:  i, 2.]