In the discussion of the application to emergencies, in practical life, of the eternal principle which he points out at the beginning, Dr. Hodge is as far from consistency as in his treatment of Bible narratives.  “It is generally admitted,” he says, “that in criminal falsehoods there must be not only the enunciation or signification of what is false, and an intention to deceive, but also a violation of some obligation.”  What obligation can be stronger than the obligation to be true to God and true to one’s self?  If, as Dr. Hodge declares, “a man who violates the truth, sins against the very foundation of his moral being,” a man would seem to be always under an obligation not to violate the truth by speaking that which is false with an intention to deceive.  But Dr. Hodge seems to lose sight of his premises, in all his progress toward his conclusions on this subject.

“There will always be cases,” he continues, “in which the rule of duty is a matter of doubt.  It is often said that the rule above stated applies when a robber demands your purse.  It is said to be right to deny that you have anything of value about you.  You are not bound to aid him in committing a crime; and he has no right to assume that you will facilitate the accomplishment of his object.  This is not so clear.  The obligation to speak the truth is a very solemn one; and when the choice is left a man to tell a lie or lose his money, he had better let his money go.  On the other hand, if a mother sees a murderer in pursuit of her child, she has a perfect right to mislead him by any means in her power [including lying?]; because the general obligation to speak the truth is merged or lost, for the time being, in the higher obligation.”  Yet Dr. Hodge starts out with the declaration that the obligation “to keep truth inviolate,” is highest of all; that “truth is at all times sacred, because it is one of the essential attributes of God;” that God himself cannot “suspend or modify” this obligation; and that man is always under its force.  And now, strangely enough, he claims that in various emergencies “the general obligation to speak the truth is merged, or lost, for the time being, in the higher obligation.”  The completest and most crushing answer to the vicious conclusions of Dr. Hodge as to the varying claims of veracity, is to be found in the explicit terms of his unvaryingly correct premises in the discussion.

Dr. Hodge appears to be conscious of his confusion of mind in this discussion, but not to be quite sure of the cause of it.  As to his claim that the general obligation to speak the truth may be merged for the time being in a “higher obligation,” he says:  “This principle is not invalidated by its possible or actual abuse.  It has been greatly abused.”  And he adds, farther on, in the course of the discussion: 

“The question now under consideration is not whether it is ever right to do wrong, which is a solecism; nor is the question whether it is ever right to lie; but rather what constitutes a lie.”