In Dr. Thornwell’s view, it is not, as Dr. Paley would have it, that “a lie is a breach of promise,” because as between man and man “the truth is expected,” according to a tacit understanding.  As Dr. Thornwell sees it, “we are not bound by any other expectations of man but those which we have authorized;” and he deems it “surprising to what an extent this superficial theory of ‘contract’ has found advocates among divines and moralists,” as, for example, Dr. Robert South, whom he quotes.[1] “If Dr. Paley had pushed his inquiries a little farther,” adds Thornwell, “he might have accounted for this expectation [of truthfulness] which certainly exists, independently of a promise, upon principles firmer and surer than any he has admitted in the structure of his philosophy.  He might have seen it in the language of our nature proclaiming the will of our nature’s God.”  The moral sense of mankind demands veracity, and abhors falsehood.

[Footnote 1:  Smith’s Sermon, on Falsehood and Lying.]

Dr. Thornwell is clear as to the teachings of the Bible, in its principles, and in the illustration of those principles in the sacred narrative.  The Bible as he sees it teaches the unvarying duty of veracity, and the essential sinfulness of falsehood and deception.  He repudiates the idea that God, in any instance, approved deception, or that Jesus Christ practiced it.  “When our Saviour ’made as though he would have gone farther,’ he effectually questioned his disciples as to the condition of their hearts in relation to the duties of hospitality.  The angels, in pretending that it was their purpose to abide in the street all night, made the same experiment on Lot.  This species of simulation involves no falsehood; its design is not to deceive, but to catechize and instruct.  The whole action is to be regarded as a sign by which a question is proposed, or the mind excited to such a degree of curiosity and attention that lessons of truth can be successfully imparted.”

And so on through other Bible incidents.  Dr. Thornwell has no hesitation in distinguishing when concealment is right concealment, and when concealment is wrong because intended to deceive.

Exposing the incorrectness of the claim, made by Dr. Paley, as by others, that certain specific falsehoods are not lies, Dr. Thornwell shows himself familiar with the discussion of this question of the ages in all the centuries; and he moves on with his eye fixed unerringly on the polar star of truth, in refreshing contrast with the amiable wavering of Dr. Hodge’s footsteps.

“Paley’s law,” he concludes, “would obviously be the destruction of all confidence.  How much nobler and safer is the doctrine of the Scriptures, and of the unsophisticated language of man’s moral constitution, that truth is obligatory on its own account, and that he who undertakes to signify to another, no matter in what form, and no matter what may be the right in the case to know the truth, is bound to signify according to the convictions of his own mind!  He is not always bound to speak, but whenever he does speak he is solemnly bound to speak nothing but the truth.  The universal application of this principle would be the diffusion of universal confidence.  It would banish deceit and suspicion from the world, and restrict the use of signs to their legitimate offices.”