|
20. I do not rightly know whether errors of this sort
should be called sins--when one thinks well of a
wicked man, not knowing what his character really is,
or when, instead of our physical perception, similar
perceptions occur which we experience in the spirit
(such as the illusion of the apostle Peter when he
thought he was seeing a vision but was actually being
liberated from fetters and chains by the angel (36) )
Or in perceptual illusions when we think something is
smooth which is actually rough, or something sweet
which is bitter, something fragrant which is putrid,
that a noise is thunder when it is actually a wagon
passing by, when one takes this man for that, or when
two men look alike, as happens in the case of
twins--whence our poet speaks of "a pleasant error
for parents"(37) --I say I do not know whether these
and other such errors should be called sins. Nor am
I at the moment trying to deal with that knottiest of
questions which baffled the most acute men of the
Academy, whether a wise man ought ever to affirm
anything positively lest he be involved in the error
of affirming as true what may be false, since all
questions, as they assert, are either mysterious
[occulta] or uncertain. On these points I wrote three
books in the early stages of my conversion because my
further progress was being blocked by objections like
this which stood at the very threshold of my
understanding.(38) It was necessary to overcome the
despair of being unable to attain to truth, which is
what their arguments seemed to lead one to. Among
them every error is deemed a sin, and this can be
warded off only by a systematic suspension of
positive assent. Indeed they say it is an error if
someone believes in what is uncertain. For them,
however, nothing is certain in human experience,
because of the deceitful likeness of falsehood to the
truth, so that even if what appears to be true turns
out to be true indeed, they will still dispute it
with the most acute and even shameless arguments.
Among us, on the other hand, "the righteous man
lives by faith."(39) Now, if you take away positive
affirmation,(40) you take away faith, for without
positive affirmation nothing is believed. And there
are truths about things unseen, and unless they are
believed, we cannot attain to the happy life, which
is nothing less than life eternal. It is a question
whether we ought to argue with those who profess
themselves ignorant not only about the eternity yet
to come but also about their present existence, for
they [the Academics] even argue that they do not know
what they cannot help knowing. For no one can "not
know" that he himself is alive. If he is not alive,
he cannot "not know" about it or anything else at
all, because either to know or to "not know" implies
a living subject.
But, in such a case, by not positively affirming
that they are alive, the skeptics ward off the
appearance of error in themselves, yet they do make
errors simply by showing themselves alive; one cannot
err who is not alive. That we live is therefore not
only true, but it is altogether certain as well. And
there are many things that are thus true and certain
concerning which, if we withhold positive assent,
this ought not to be regarded as a higher wisdom but
actually a sort of dementia.
21. In those things which do not concern our
attainment of the Kingdom of God, it does not matter
whether they are believed in or not, or whether they
are true or are supposed to be true or false. To err
in such questions, to mistake one thing for another,
is not to be judged as a sin or, if it is, as a small
and light one. In sum, whatever kind or how much of
an error these miscues may be, it does not involve
the way that leads to God, which is the faith of
Christ which works through love.
This way of life was not abandoned in that error
so dear to parents concerning the twins.(41) Nor did
the apostle Peter deviate from this way when he
thought he saw a vision and so mistook one thing for
something else. In his case, he did not discover the
actual situation until after the angel, by whom he
was freed, had departed from him. Nor did the
patriarch Jacob deviate from this way when he
believed that his son, who was in fact alive, had
been devoured by a wild beast. We may err through
false impressions of this kind, with our faith in God
still safe, nor do we thus leave the way that leads
us to him.
Nevertheless, such mistakes, even if they are not
sins, must still be listed among the evils of this
life, which is so readily subject to vanity that we
judge the false for true, reject the true for the
false, and hold as uncertain what is actually
certain. For even if these mistakes do not affect
that faith by which we move forward to affirm truth
and eternal beatitude, yet they are not unrelated to
the misery in which we still exist. Actually, of
course, we would be deceived in nothing at all,
either in our souls or our physical senses, if we
were already enjoying that true and perfected
happiness.
22. Every lie, then, must be called a sin, because
every man ought to speak what is in his heart--not
only when he himself knows the truth, but even when
he errs and is deceived, as a man may be. This is so
whether it be true or is only supposed to be true
when it is not. But a man who lies says the opposite
of what is in his heart, with the deliberate intent
to deceive. Now clearly, language, in its proper
function, was developed not as a means whereby men
could deceive one another, but as a medium through
which a man could communicate his thought to others.
Wherefore to use language in order to deceive, and
not as it was designed to be used, is a sin.
Nor should we suppose that there is any such thing
as a lie that is not a sin, just because we suppose
that we can sometimes help somebody by lying. For we
could also do this by stealing, as when a secret
theft from a rich man who does not feel the loss is
openly given to a pauper who greatly appreciates the
gain. Yet no one would say that such a theft was not
a sin. Or again, we could also "help" by committing
adultery, if someone appeared to be dying for love if
we would not consent to her desire and who, if she
lived, might be purified by repentance. But it cannot
be denied that such an adultery would be a sin. If,
then, we hold chastity in such high regard, wherein
has truth offended us so that although chastity must
not be violated by adultery, even for the sake of
some other good, yet truth may be violated by lying?
That men have made progress toward the good, when
they will not lie save for the sake of human values,
is not to be denied. But what is rightly praised in
such a forward step, and perhaps even rewarded, is
their good will and not their deceit. The deceit may
be pardoned, but certainly ought not to be praised,
especially among the heirs of the New Covenant to
whom it has been said, "Let your speech be yes, yes;
no, no: for what is more than this comes from
evil."(42) Yet because of what this evil does, never
ceasing to subvert this mortality of ours, even the
joint heirs of Christ themselves pray, "Forgive us
our debts." (43)
|