21. If this be absurd, what
shall we say? Is it so, that there is no “false witness,” but
when one tells a lie either to invent a crime against some man, or
to hide some man’s crime, or in any way to oppress any man in
judgment? For a witness seems to be necessary to the judge for
cognizance of the cause. But if the Scripture named a “witness” only so far as that goes, the Apostle would not say, “Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ: whom He raised not up.” For so he shows that it is false witness to tell a lie, yea, in falsely praising a person.
Or peradventure, doth the person
who lies then utter false witness when he either invents or hides
any man’s sin, or hurts any man in whatever way? For, if a lie
spoken against a man’s temporal life is detestable, how much more
one against eternal life? as is every lie, if it take place in
doctrine of religion. And it is for this reason that the Apostle
calls it false witness, if a man tell a lie about Christ, yea, one
which may seem to pertain to His praise. Now if it be a lie that
neither inventeth or hideth any man’s sin, nor is answered to a
question of the judge, and hurteth no man, and profits some man, are we to say that it is neither false witness, nor a reprehensible lie?