of conduct upon the whole, show us what is the will of God in the individual case.

4. The will of God is abundantly made known to us in the holy Scriptures. I subjoin a few examples:

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor." Ex. xx, 16. 66 Lying lips are an abomination to Keep thy tongue from evil,

the Lord." Prov. vi, 16. 66 and thy lips that they speak no guile.' Psalm xxxiv, 13 Those that speak lies are called children of the devil, that is, followers, imitators of the actions of the devil. John viii, 44. See also the cases of Ananias and Sapphira, and of Gehazi. Acts v, and 2 Kings v, 20-27. "All liars shall have their portion in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone." Rev. xxi, 8. "There shall in no wise enter therein (into heaven) any thing that maketh a lie." Ibid, verse 27.

From what has been said, the importance of strict adherence to veracity is too evident to need further remark. I will, however, add, that the evil of falsehood in small matters, in lies told to amuse, in petty exaggerations, and in complimentary discourse, is not by any means duly esti mated. Let it be always borne in mind, that he who knowingly utters what is false, tells a lie; and a lie, whether white, or of any other color, is a violation of the command of that God by whom we must be judged. And let us also remember that there is no vice which, more easily than this, stupifies a man's conscience. He who tells lies frequently, will soon become an habitual liar; and an habitual liar will soon lose the power of readily distinguishing between the conceptions of his imagination and the recollections of his memory. I have known a few persons, who seemed to have arrived at this most deplorable moral condition. Let every one, therefore, beware of even the most distant approaches to this detestable vice. A volume might easily be written on the misery and loss of character which have grown out of a single lie; and another volume of illustrations of the moral power which men have gained by means of no other prominent attribute than that of bold, unshrinking veracity.

If lying be thus pernicious to ourselves, how wicked must it be to teach it, or specially to require it of others! What shall we say, then, of parents, who, to accomplish a momentary purpose, will not hesitate to utter to a child the most flagitious falsehoods? Or what shall we say of those heads of families, who direct their children or servants deliberately to declare that they are not at home, while they are quietly sitting in their parlor or their study? What right has any one, for the purpose of securing a momentary convenience, or avoiding a petty annoyance, to injure for ever the moral sentiments of another? How can such a man or woman expect to hear the truth from those whom they have deliberately taught to lie? The expectation is absurd; and the result will show that such persons, in the end, drink abundantly of the cup which they themselves have mingled. Before any man is tempted to lie, let him remember that God governs this universe on the principles of veracity, and that the whole constitution of things is so arranged as to vindicate truth, and to expose falsehood. Hence, the first lie always requires a multitude of lies to conceal it; each one of which plunges the criminal into more inextricable embarrassment; and, at last, all of them will combine to cover him with shame. The inconveniences of truth, aside from the question of guilt and innocence, are infinitely less then the inconveniences of falsehood.

24

CHAPTER SECOND.

VERACITY IN RESPECT TO THE FUTURE.

THE future is, within some conditions, subject to our power. We may, therefore, place ourselves under moral obligations to act, within those conditions, in a particular manner. When we make a promise, we voluntarily place ourselves under such a moral obligation. The law of veracity obliges us to fulfil it.

This part of the subject includes promises and contracıs. I. Of PROMISES.

In every promise, two things are to be considered: the intention and the obligation.

1. The intention. The law of veracity, in this respect, demands that we convey to the promisee the intention as it exists in our own minds. When we inform another that we intend to do a service for hin to-morrow, we have no more right to lie about this intention than about any other

matter.

2. The obligation. The law of veracity obliges us to fulfil the intention just as we made it known. In other words, we are under obligation to satisfy, precisely, the expectation which we voluntarily excited. The rule of Dr. Paley is as follows: "A promise is binding in the sense in which the promiser supposed the promisee to receive it."

The modes in which promises may be violated, and the reasons for believing the obligation to fulfil promises to be enforced by the law of God, are so similar to those mentioned in the preceding chapter, that I will not repeat

them.

I therefore proceed to consider in what cases promises are not binding. The following are, I think, among the most important:

Promises are not binding,—

1. When the performance is impossible. We cannot be under obligation to do what is plainly out of our power. The moral character of such a promise, will, however, vary with the circumstances under which the promise was inade. If I knew nothing of the impossibility, and honestly expressed an intention which I designed to fulfil, I am, at the bar of conscience, acquitted. The providence of God has interfered with my intention, and I am not to blame. If, on the other hand, I knew of the impossibility, I have violated the law of veracity. I expressed an intention which I did not mean to fulfil. I am bound to make good to the other party all the loss which he may have sustained by

my crime.

2. When the promise is unlawful. No man can be under obligation to violate obligation; for this would be to suppose a man to be guilty for not being guilty. Much less, can he be under obligation to violate his obligations to God. Hence, promises to lie, to steal, or in any manner to violate the laws of society, are not binding. And the duty of every man, who has placed himself under any such obligation, is, at once, to confess his fault, to declare himself free from his engagement, and to endeavor to persuade others to do the same. Here, as in the former instance, there are two cases. Where the unlawfulness was not known, the promiser is under no other obligation than that of informing the promisee of the facts as soon as possible. Where the unlawfulness was known to the promiser, and not to the promisee, I think that the former is bound to make good the loss to the latter, if any occur. When it is known to both parties, either is at liberty to disengage himself, and neither is under any obligation to make any restitution; for the fault is common to both, and each should bear his own share of the inconvenience.

3. Promises are not binding where no expectation is voluntarily excited by the promiser. He is bound only to fulfil the expectation which he voluntarily excites; and if he have excited none, he has made no promise. If A tell B that he shall give a horse to C, and B, without A's knowledge or consent, inform C of it, A is not bound. But, if he

directed B to give the information, he is as much bound as though he informed C himself.

4. Promises are not binding when they are known by both parties to proceed upon a condition, which condition is subequently, by the promiser, found not to exist. As, if A oromise to give a beggar money on the faith of his story. and the story be subsequently found to be a fabrication, A, in such a case, is manifestly not bound.

5. As the very conception of a promise implies an obligation entered into between two intelligent moral agents, I think there can be no such obligation entered into where one of the parties is not a moral agent. I do not think we nan properly be said to make a promise to a brute, nor to violate it. I think the same is true of a madman. Never. theless, expediency has, even in such cases, always taught the importance of fulfilling expectation which we voluntarily excite. I think, however, that it stands on the ground of expediency, and not of obligation. I do not suppose that any one would feel guilty for deceiving a madman, in order to lead him to a madhouse.

These seem to me to be the most common cases in which promises are not binding. The mere inconvenience to which we may be exposed by fulfilling a promise, is not a release. We are at liberty, beforehand, to enter into the obligation, or not. No man need promise unless he please but, having once promised, he is holden until he be morally liberated. Hence, as, after the obligation is formed, it cannot be recalled, prudence would teach us to be ex tremely cautious in making promises. Except in cases where we are, from long experience, fully acquainted with all the ordinary contingencies of an event, we ought never to make a promise without sufficient opportunity for reflection. It is a good rule, to enter into no important engage ment on the same day in which it is first presented to our notice. And I believe that it will be generally found, that those who are most careful in promising, are the most conscientious in performing; and that, on the contrary, those who are willing, on all occasions, to pledge themselves ou the instant, have very little difficulty in violating their en gage nents with correspondent thoughtlessness.