Study

18. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives. He was not reduced to a more moderate course by equity or mercy; but because he dared not openly expose to slaughter the wretched and harmless infants at their birth, lest such atrocity should arouse the wrath of the Israelites to vengeance, He therefore secretly sends for the midwives, and inquires why they have not executed his murderous command? I doubt not, however, that he was restrained rather by the fear of rebellion than by shame.²⁰²⁰     Lightfoot, in his Sermon on Difficulties of Scripture, (Pitman’s edition, 7. 209,) says, “How many, in expounding that place, do roundly conclude, they told a lie to save their stake; when, as I suppose, it were no hard thing to shew, that the thing they spake was most true,” etc. And, again, in his “Handful of Gleanings out of the Book of Exodus,” vol. 2. 357, he has a short dissertation, headed, “The words of the Hebrew Midwives not a lie, but a glorious confession of their faith.” In opposition to Calvin, he considers them to have been Egyptian women. In the answer of the midwives two vices are to be observed, since they neither confessed their piety with proper ingenuity, and what is worse, escaped by falsehood. For the fabulous story which the Rabbins invent to cover their fault, must be rejected, viz., that they did not come in time to the Hebrew women, because they had warned them of the wicked design of the king; and so it came to pass that they were not present when they were delivered. What can be more tame than this invention, when Moses shews in his narrative that they were guilty of falsehood? Some assert that this kind of lie,²¹²¹     “Qui tend a faire plaisir;” which tends to give pleasure. — Fr. which they call “the lie officious, or serviceable,” is not reprehensible; because they think that there is no fault where no deceit for the purpose of injury is used.²²²²     Mendacium dividitur ratione culpae et finis; officiosum, jocosum, et perniciosum. — S. Thom., a. 2. Mendacium officiosum dicitur, quod committitur solum causa utilitatis propriae vel alienae; e.g., quis dicit, se non habere pecuniam, ne iis spolietur a militibus. — Dens. Tractatus de reliquis virtutibus justitiae annexis. Coloniae, 1776, tom. 3, p. 396. The subject is discussed by Peter Martyr, Loci Communes, Classis Secunda, cap. 13, with much reference to the Treatises of Augustin de Mendacio, in which this passage is treated of. In Augustin’s letter to Jerome, 82., speaking of the “mendacium officiosum,” he says, “non tam usitatum est in ecclesiasticis libris vocabulum officii.” But I hold, that whatever is opposed to the nature of God is sinful; and on this ground all dissimulation, whether in word or deed, is condemned, as I shall more largely discuss in explaining the law, if God grants me time to do so. Wherefore both points must be admitted, that the two women lied, and, since lying is displeasing to God, that they sinned. For, as in estimating the conduct of saints we should be just and humane interpreters; so also superstitious zeal must be avoided in covering their faults, since this would often infringe on the direct authority of Scripture. And, indeed, whensoever the faithful fall into sin, they desire not to be lifted out of it by false defences, for their justification consists in a simple and free demand of pardon for their sin. Nor is there any contradiction to this in the fact, that they are twice praised for their fear of God, and that God is said to have rewarded them; because in his paternal indulgence of his children he still values their good works, as if they were pure, notwithstanding they may be defiled by some mixture of impurity. In fact, there is no action so perfect as to be absolutely free from stain; though it may appear more evidently in some than in others. Rachel was influenced by faith, to transfer the right of primogeniture to her son Jacob; a desire, undoubtedly, pious in itself, and a design worthy of praise, anxiously to strive for the fulfillment of the divine promise; but yet we cannot praise the cunning and deceit, by which the whole action would have been vitiated, had not the gratuitous mercy of God interposed. Scripture is full of such instances, which shew that the most excellent actions are sometimes stained with partial sin. But we need not wonder that God in his mercy should pardon such defects, which would otherwise defile almost every virtuous deed; and should honor with reward those works which are unworthy of praise, or even favor. Thus, though these women were too pusillanimous and timid in their answers, yet because they had acted in reality with heartiness and courage, God endured in them the sin which he would have deservedly condemned. This doctrine gives us alacrity in our desire to do rightly, since God so graciously pardons our infirmities; and, at the same time, it warns us most carefully to be on our guard, lest, when we are desirous of doing well, some sin should creep in to obscure, and thus to contaminate our good work; since it not unfrequently happens that those whose aim is right, halt or stumble or wander in the way to it. In fine, whosoever honestly examines himself, will find some defect even in his best endeavors. Moreover, by the rewards of God, let us be encouraged to the confidence of thus obtaining good success, lest we should faint at the dangers we incur by the faithful performance of our duty; and assuredly no danger will alarm us, if this thought be deeply impressed upon our hearts, that whatever ill-will our good deeds may beget in this world, still God sits in heaven to reward them.