CHAP. XV.-LIES.

A lie is a breach of promise; for he who speaks seriously to another, tacitly promises to speak the truth; because he knows the truth is expected.

Or, the obligation to veracity may rest on the ill consequences resulting from a breach of it. The ill consists in some specific injury to an individual, or the general injury to society, by the destruction of mutual confidence. Hence, a lie may in its tendency be mischievous, and therefore criminal, though harmless in its individual application.

All falsehoods are not criminal.

1. Where no one is deceived; as in parables, fables, tales, &c. where the speaker means to divert merely; or in servants denying their master; or an advocate asserting the justice of his client's cause; because in these and similar cases no confidence is destroyed, for none was reposed; no promise violated, for none was given to speak the truth.

[Concerning the practice of requiring servants to "deny" their masters, Mr. Dymond says, "This childish and senseless custom has had many apologists, I suppose because many perceive that it is wrong. It is not always true that such a servant does not in strictness lie: for, how well soever the folly may be understood by the gay world, some who knock at their doors have no other idea than that they may depend upon the servant's word. Of this the servant is sometimes conscious, and to these persons, therefore, he who denies his master, lies. An uninitiated servant suffers a shock to his moral principles when he is first required to tell these falsehoods. It diminishes his previous abhorrence of lying, and otherwise deteriorates his moral character. Even if no such ill consequences resulted from this foolish custom, there is this objection to it, which is short, but sufficient, nothing can be said in its defence."]

2. Where the person to whom you speak has no right to know the truth, or more properly, when little or no incon

170 What is a lie? Why? What follows from this?

171 For what other reason are we bound to speak the truth?

172 What is the ill effect of lying?

173 Are all falsehoods criminal?

174 What is the first class that are not? Why?

175 What does Mr. Dymond say of the practice of denying masters? 176 What is the second class that are not lies? Give examples.

venience can arise from the want of confidence; as, to tell a falsehood to a madman for his own advantage; to a robber to conceal your property; to an assassin to defeat or divert him from his purpose. For, here the inconvenience is only to individuals, which is balanced by the advantage gained by individuals also; nor can any consequences generally hurtful be drawn from such insulated falsehoods.

Hence, it is allowable to deceive an enemy by false colors, false intelligence, and other deceptions, in time of war but not during a truce; for in the latter period, confidence is, in the former is not, placed in the acts of either party. Hence, too, the immorality of falsehood in hoisting feigned signals of surrender or distress; for, on the faith of such signals, one opponent lays down the character of a foe for that of a friend, and supposes that the other has done so likewise. Here then is a deception during a period of apparent truce, and consequently it is wrong; because the general consequences of such conduct would be to disbelieve such signals, and to increase the sum of the misery of towns besieged, or of ships in distress.

On this article Dr. Dewar remarks,

["A rule thus founded on the principle of expediency, allows, or rather authorizes us, to utter falsehoods as often as we can induce ourselves to believe that little inconvenience will result from the want of confidence. Can we conceive any maxim more anti-scriptural, or more immoral in its tendency? It is substituting as the rule of moral conduct, in room of the will of God, our own limited and partial views of the consequences of actions." And Mr. Dymond says, "Such a doctrine would be equivalent to saying that we are at liberty to disobey the Divine laws when we think fit. And if I may tell a falsehood to a robber in order to save my property, I may commit parricide for the same purpose; for lying and parricide are placed together and jointly condemned in the revelation from God."-1 Tim. i. 9, 10.]

177 Why does Dr. Paley think that they are not criminal? 178 What is allowed by the laws of war? What is not? 179 What is said of feigned signals of distress or surrender? 180 What does Dr. Dewar say that this principle of expediency will lead to ?

181 What else does he remark of it?

182 What does Mr. Dymond say of it?

Some lies, harmless in their motive, may become mischievous in their effects, and consequently are to be avoided, as morally wrong; such, for instance, are the falsehoods told by those persons who give exaggerated accounts of acts performed by themselves or others. Such falsehoods,

if inoffensive in other points, are wrong, because they tend to produce in the speaker the habit of lying. Disregard to truth, shown by a person in matters of no importance, tends to destroy confidence in his veracity where his narrations are connected with the promotion of his own interests, or the depreciation of others. Now, since much of the pleasure, and all the benefit of conversation, depends on the existence of such confidence, the want of it will only serve to perplex the hearer, who is uncertain to what extent he ought or ought not to believe.

Pious frauds, as they are improperly called, such as the forgery of new, and the interpolation or castration of old books, counterfeit miracles, and pretended inspirations, even if they should be done with a good design, are both foolish and immoral; immoral, because they tend to destroy confidence in documents really genuine; and foolish, because they miss the very object aimed at. Christianity has suffered more injury from this than from all other causes put together.

As there may be falsehoods which are not lies, so there may be lies without the appearance of direct falsehood. Of this kind are prevarications, which are falsehoods in reality, though not in appearance, on account of being disguised under the ambiguity of language. But it is the wilful deceit that makes the lie; and the deceit is wilful when the words are not true in the sense in which the hearer does and must take them, according to the custom of the language.

A man may also act a lie, as by pointing to a wrong direction, when asked the road; or where a tradesman shuts up his windows to induce his creditors to believe that he is

183 What is said of exaggeration? Why is it wrong? 184 What is said of disregard to truth in small matters? 185 What effect has it upon the hearer?

186 What is the character of pious frauds?

187 Why are they immoral? Why are they foolish?

188 Can there be a lie without a direct falsehood?

189 What makes the lie? And when is the deceit wilful? 190 What must the words of truth be according to?

191 How may a man act a lie? Why?

abroad; for to all moral purposes, speech and action are the same, the former being only a mode of the latter.

There are also lies of omission. For instance, if an historian of the reign of Charles I. wilfully suppresses evidence of that prince's despotic measures, he may be said to lie by omission; for, by the very title of his book, he tacitly promises to tell all the truth he knows of the events of that period.

CHAP. XVI.-OATHS.

1. Forms of oaths. II. Signification. IV. Obligation. v. What oaths do not bind. are to be interpreted.

III. Lawfulness.

VI. How oaths

1. The forms of oaths, like other religious ceremonies, have in all ages varied, consisting generally of certain words accompanied with a bodily action.*

Amongst the Jews, the juror held up his right hand towards heaven. Hence, we find in the 144th Psalm, "Whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood." The same form is retained in Scotland still. An oath of fidelity was taken amongst the Jews by the servant putting his hand under the thigh of his lord, as Eliezer did to Abraham, Gen. xxiv. 2; whence, probably, is derived the form of doing homage, by putting the hands between the knees and within the hands of the liege; as is done in some places.

Amongst the Greeks and Romans, in private contracts, the parties took hold of each other's hand, whilst they swore to the performance; or they touched the altar of the god by whose divinity they swore. But on more solemn occasions, they slew a victim; and as the beast was struck

192 What is the last-mentioned class of lies? Give an example. 193 What is the general form of oaths?

194 What was the form among the Jews?

195 Is this practice continued among other nations?

196 What was the form among the Greeks and Romans?

*It is commonly thought that oaths are denominated corporal oaths from the bodily action which accompanies them, of laying the right hand on a book containing the four Gospels. This opinion, however, appears to be a mistake; for the term is borrowed from the ancient usage of touching, on these occasions, the corporale, or cloth which covered the consecrated elements.

down with certain ceremonies, the parties were said, as in English, "to strike a bargain."*.

The forms of oaths differ in Christian countries; but in none do they convey either the meaning or sanctity of an oath worse than in this country and in England. Here the juror, after repeating the promise or affirmation which the oath is intended to strengthen, adds, "So help me God." The force of this formula rests in the particle so; that is, on condition of my speaking the truth, or performing the promise, may God help me; otherwise, not. The juror, while he hears or repeats the words of the oath, holds his right hand on a Bible, or other book containing the four Gospels, and, at the conclusion of the oath, kisses the book: but this act seems to be done rather out of reverence to the book, than as forming a part of the oath.

But it is not so much the form of the oath, as the levity with which it is administered, that has produced a general disregard to the sanctity of the obligation; to say nothing of the multiplicity of frivolous oaths, especially those connected with the revenue. A pound of tea, for instance, cannot travel from the ship to the consumer without costing half a dozen oaths; and the highest and lowest functionaries in the state are equally sworn into office. If some security beyond a man's word be required, let the law annex, if it will, to direct falsehoods and indirect prevarications, penalties proportioned to their mischiefs; but let it spare the solemnity of an oath.

II. Whatever may be the form of an oath, its signification is the same. God is called to witness, or to notice, what we swear; and it is "invoking his vengeance or renouncing his favor, if what we say be false, or what we promise be not performed."

III. Quakers, Moravians, and many others refuse to swear at all, in obedience to Christ's prohibition, "Swear not at all." Matt. v. 34.

197 What is said of the forms in this country?

198 On what word rests the strength of the oath ?

199 What besides the form of the oath has occasioned a disregard of it?

200 How might the evil be remedied?

201 What is the signification of an oath?

202 Why do many refuse to swear?

* In Greek, Tivav ögxov: in Latin, " ferire pactum."