“And besides, one would have to listen to the reasons which the thief and the murderer might plead, and have to weigh them in the balance of circumstances, in order to know whether he who has robbed because he was in desperate need, or who has struck a rival or an enemy in a moment of maddening rage, is not more excusable than he who has received good training and counsels, never been in want, never been tempted to murder, and yet has suffered himself to be carried away by some other passion, not to speak of those classes which make their fortune by dishonest means, at the cost of their fellow men! How many are there who, to commit a crime, want nothing but the occasion and the certainty of impunity!
“The result then of the various definitions you have given in answer to my question, ‘Who is an honest man?’ is that nothing would be more difficult than to understand you; you have no clear answer to give me.
“Now I will, as I promised you, explain my own thoughts, and prove my opinion.”
At these words the general attention was doubled, though there was an air of constraint in the company. Everybody appeared to experience a kind of resentment against his own conscience, because it would not permit him wholly to deny the truth of what the officer had said; and also against the officer, because he appeared to be in league with their consciences.
He continued: “First of all let me say, that your expression ‘an honest man’ means nothing at all, for everybody lays claim to the title. Therefore, if you say, that every religion is good, provided one is honest, I must ask permission to distinguish between an honest man according to the world, and an honest man according to God. Further, if you tell me that every religion is good, provided one is honest according to the world, I deny it at once, because a religion which leaves us habitual liars, drunkards, etc. etc., and exceptional thieves, or murderers, is not a good religion. I repeat then once more: You say nothing at all, unless you define what the term ‘an honest man’ means. It is a garment which fits everybody. You have not advanced one single step by a definition with which no one agrees. But if, on the contrary, you say: ‘All religions are good, provided one is an honest man according to God,’ you utter a great truth, because no one can become an honest man according to God, except in the way of the only true religion. And we now find that only he is ‘an honest man’ who believes in Jesus Christ, and obeys Him.”
“But,” exclaimed Ernest, “it cannot be denied that there are ‘honest’ people who are not devotees. I could give you a great many examples of my own acquaintance. But to mention only one of them. There lives in this town a most upright man, the father of the poor, the comforter of the afflicted, everybody’s friend, a good citizen, a good husband; about his character there is only one voice. Well, here we have an honest man, yet he is no devotee at all.”
“An honest man ‘according to the world,’ replied the officer, but not ‘according to God.’ This is what I will endeavor to make you understand. Mark well, you mention to me one of the fine exceptions of the men of this world, a man reputed to be excellent by all the inhabitants of the town. All the better! If I prove what I want to prove, this example will suffice us.”
“First then, let me mention a general truth to which everyone here present will assent, viz., that everyone in the world has more or less considerable faults. Now, I ask you, what is a fault, if it is not something that offends God, or does injury to our fellow men? And how can you be perfectly honest towards God and men, if you sin against Him, or against them? If you then talk of a man who is perfectly honest and yet has faults, you commit a flagrant contradiction. For his faults are either a violation of what is right and good, and then he cannot be an ‘honest man’; or they do not violate any divine or human law, and then they are no longer faults. If you can skew me a perfect man, then, and only then, I will confess that such an one is a perfectly ‘honest’ man. Is the person of whom you speak, perfect?”
“I do not enter into all these reasonings,” said Ernest, whose vexation increased in the same degree as the officer’s logic proceeded in its inexorable conclusions. “All I say is this, that nobody, either friend or enemy, will dispute of the one of whom I am going to speak, the quality of an honest man. Gentlemen, I appeal to you all,” continued Ernest, raising his voice: “What do you think of Mons. Duval? Although he is present, I must do violence to his modesty for the truth’s sake.”
All the guests looked with an expression of approbation at the person who sat at the right hand of the officer. The latter perceived that Ernest wanted to embarrass him by putting him in a delicate position in placing him face to face with one whom everybody recognized as ‘an honest man.’
“I see,” he said in a tone of perfect ease, turning to his neighbor on the right, “I see that Monsieur unites all the voices in his favor. Permit me to add mine also, for no one understands better than the disciple of Christ how to admire that which is good and lovable, wherever it may be found. But at the same time I wish it to be well understood, that this homage ought not to be made a weapon against me. For, however sincere that homage on my part may be, it does not disprove anything of what I want to prove. You will please remember that I seek ‘an honest man’ from God’s point of view, not through the eye-glass of the world. I honor, esteem, and love one who makes himself useful to his fellow men, but I do not consider him to be ‘an honest man’ according to God.”
“Monsieur!” replied the honest man of the world to the right, with a semi-curvature of his back indicating his satisfaction at hearing his praise from the lips of the rigorous soldier, whilst his pinched lips betrayed his presentiment of some hard truth with which the inflexible adversary would soon upset his pretended perfection, “Monsieur, I deserve neither blame nor praise. I wish no man evil, and do all the good I can, because my heart impels me to do so.”
“I do not believe in a heart impelling one to that which is good,” replied the officer, “because I have found that my own heart impelled me to that which is evil. But permit me to continue the discussion. An historic fact will serve for that purpose.”
“Certainly, everybody will agree that ingratitude is detestable. Well! a rich and mighty man met on his way a poor miserable wretch ready to perish. He had him carried into his own house, restored him to life, and treated him as a friend. Having thus restored him he said to him, ‘I will take care of you; I will nourish, and clothe, and lodge you; whithersoever you go, you shall never suffer want.’ The rich man kept his promise. He gave his protege, not only the necessaries of life, but abundance. With what gratitude must the rescued recipient of such benefits have been filled, think you? What love must he have felt for the one who had so generously treated him! You think he would have devoted his whole life to him, and become his most zealous servant! One can scarcely conceive that it should have been otherwise. But you will be surprised to hear that the very opposite really happened. Not only did he forget his benefactor, though the latter had remembered him, but he actually joined his enemies. Nay, whilst he was receiving his benefits all the time, if any one happened to speak of his benefactor, the heart of the object of all this care and goodness was plunged into such ingratitude, that disdainful laughter and loud murmurs greeted the friends of his benefactor.”