Satisfaction: But the utmoft Recompence that a reafonable Man will think fit to give, may fall greatly fhort of the real Damage fuftained, which may depend upon fuch a Chain of unknown Caufes, as will make it im-poffible for any Wisdom, lefs than infinite, to fettle the Proportion with any tolerable Exactness. The relative Interefts of Men are so involved a Thing, that a Change in fome small Circumftance, not attended to, may quite ruin a Man's Fortunes; juft as the stopping up one little Channel may turn the whole Courfe of the Water which feeds a Spring, and leave it dry. 2. In Promifes and Contracts, Truth fhould likewife ftrictly be obferved, otherwise the whole Business of the World muft ftop. Every Promise or Contract is underflood to convey Property; for it is a Declaration of the Owner's Confent, which is all that is neceffary to the transferring of Right. To enter into particular Cafes here, would be outrunning all Bounds: I shall therefore make only this general Obfervation, (very neceffary to be attended to in common Life) viz. That a Contract whispered in the Ear, is as much binding up-on Confcience as the fame Engagement repeated in the Prefence of a hundred Witneffes, and executed under all the Formalities of Law. If a Man gives a Promise under his Hand, what else does he do but give Proof of his Confent? If he calls in Witnesses, this is not to ftrengthen the Obligation, (which it cannot do) but to ftrengthen the Evidence of the Contract. If farther, he lays himself under a Penalty, (as in Cafes of Bonds) neither does this add any thing to the Obligation; it only offers a Pledge to enforce the Execution of a Contract already fubfifting, already perfect. Forms of Law are neceffary for the Methods of legal Administration; for the Law can judge of nothing without the proper Evidence of Fact, and where the Law cannot judge, the Law will yield no Remedy: But this does not deftroy the Contract, for the Law does not make the Contract, but finds it; and what the Law does not make, a mere Defect in Law cannot difannul. If a Contract did therefore bind, because the Law gives Help, Help, the Aid of the Law would be effential to the Contract; and if the Law refused its Aid, the Obligation would be void. But on the contrary, the Law gives Help because the Contract binds, for there would be no Juftice in enforcing the Execution of a mere Nullity. One Man fues another for a Sum of Money, and the Law compels him to pay it: Why does the Law compel him? Why, because the Law finds it to be a juft Debt. The Juftice of the Debt therefore is prior to all Effects of the Law, and borrows nothing from it but a compulsive Force to conftrain a Man to do that, which in Conscience he would be bound to do, whether the Law interpos'd or not. One might apply this Reasoning to a Variety of Cafes, which daily occur, and it were much to be wish'd, that all Men would have a strict Regard to it in their Dealings one with another. If a Man executes a Bond or a Deed, which by reason of fome Defect the Law makes void, he is bound bona fide to fulfil the Conditions. So if the Law fays, that a Man fhall not recover a just Debt, unless Suit be commenced in fuch a Time, and the Creditor fuffers a Lapse; an honeft Man will pay the Money: For the Defign of such Laws is not to cancel juft Debts, but to make the Recovery of them more fafe and easy. There may be many Confiderations refpecting the general Ends of Society, which will make it reasonable to pre clude Men from the common Benefit of the Law, but under certain Limitations by Law prefcribed: But tho' fuch Laws may be good, they are certainly bad Men, who take Advantage from them to defraud their Neighbours. To this Purpose we may apply what St Paul fays, 1 Tim. i. 8. The Law is good, if a Man ufe it lawfully. But, 3. The Circumftance which most aggravates the Malignity of a Lie, is when it is confirmed by an Oath, which is the Sin of Perjury. A falfe Oath prefuppofes a Lie as its Foundation; for an Oath does not make any thing to be true or falfe, it only adds to the Bond or Obligation we are under to speak the Truth; 5 Truth; and therefore no one can be at a Lofs to know when, or in what Cafes he forfwears himself, if he confiders, when, or in what Cafes he tells a Lie. If a Man equivocates in an Oath, if he fwears to what he knows nothing of, if he fwears the Truth, but not the whole Truth, he is in all these Cafes forfworn; for these are but different Ways of telling Lies, as you have seen already. And it should be obferved, that a Man may be guilty of the Sin of Perjury, as well by another's A& as by his own. If by a Reward directly or indirectly offered, if by the Influence of Friendship or Authority, or by any other Means, one Man procures, or is inftrumental in procuring, another to take a falfe Oath, both are guilty; for to be inftrumental implies Confent, and to confent is to do the Thing. It may fo happen, that he who is employ'd by another to take an Oath may believe the Thing he fwears to be true, tho' he that employ'd him knows it to be falfe: In this Cafe Perjury falls upon the Suborner, for the other is his Organ or Inftrument. If a Man could influence a Statue to utter a falfe Oath, that should serve the Ends and Purposes of an Oath, it would be Perjury. Now let us a little confider the heinous Nature of this Sin of Perjury. An Oath is an Appeal to the Majefty of GoD, as Judge of the fecret Thoughts and Purposes of Men's Hearts; and is in Effect, and by Conftruction, a Call upon him for Juftice, in cafe we falfify in what we affirm. This is fitly expreffed in that common Form of an Oath now in Ufe among ourfelves, So help me God, i, e. may God fo blefs and profper me, as I deal fincerely, and with Integrity in this Thing. What is this but laying ourselves under a Curfe, if we deal not fincerely? And what does fuch an Act imply less than an abfolute Contempt of the Majefty of GOD? Can fuch a Man be fuppofed to have any Confcience? Or is he fit for Society? If a Man pays no Regard to his Oaths, it is not to be prefumed that he will pay a greater Regard to his bare Word, and therefore he is upon all Accounts an in competent competent Witnefs. Do but fuppofe this to be a general Man upon his own Defence, and if he takes his Mo- ; I have but just now oblerved in the Cafe of Lying, that if a Lie does no Hurt, many are wont to make little or no Account of it. If they should judge in the fame manner with regard to Oaths, the Mischief would be ftill worse. Suppofe, for Inftance, a Man fhould make no Confcience of Custom-houfe Caths, prefuming it to be no Crime to cheat the Publick or, in capital Matters, that a Witnefs fhould give a falfe Evidence, or a Jury bring in a Verdict against Evidence, because the Cafe is very unfortunate, and deferves Compaffion: There would be, in this Way of judging, a double Mistake. For, in the first Place, it is wrong to fuppofe that there is no Crime in cheating the Publick. Publick Cheats are as bad as private Cheats, for in the Event and Conclufion they are one and the fame *. Nor is it more excufable in * This is eaf'y proved; for the publick Stock is the Sum L Point 1 Point of Juftice, for a Witness, or a Juryman to be influenced by the compaffionate Circumstances in any Cafe, to give a falfe Evidence, or a Verdict against E. vidence; for the Compaffion of the Cafe is not before them. Their Bufinefs is to do Juftice as the Cafe appears, Mercy lies in other Hands, upon whofe Right their Act in interpofing to fhew Mercy is an Ufurpation. But in the next Place, suppose there were no Injustice in either Cafe, is there therefore no Perjury ? Or is Perjury therefore no Sin, because it is not an Appendage to Injustice? Is an Adulterer no Sinner, because he is not a Thief? Or a Thief no Sinner, be total of each Man's Allotment to the publick Charges. When every Man's Share is anfwerable to the Interest he has in the Society, he pays in juft Proportion, and this ought always to be prefumed to be the Cafe, when every Man pays his legal Dues; but if, whilft one Man pays what the Law charges, another has (fuppofe) his Commodities Cuftom free; he enjoys the Benefit of Society equally with other Subjects, but contributes to the Charges of it unequally, and is this common Juftice? Put the Cafe, if you pleafe, as it concerns Companies in Trade; (for there is no Difference.) All Companies are Societies, and as Societies they fubfift by the Execution of common Laws, the m ft effential of which is, that every Man's Gains and L ffes be proportional to the Share he has in the common Stock. If any one was to break in upen this Rule, and not bring to Account the whole Gains, but fraudulently fecrete Part of them to his own private Ufe, it would be a Crime of the firft Magritude, and all Mankind would think it fo; yet this is the very Cafe in the Mater now under Confideration; for every Shilling which one Man pays to the publick Duties is as fo much Gain to the reft, because all Deficiences which arise from private Subtractions must be made good at the common Expence, in which every Particular has his Share. It is true, that what one fingle Man gets by fuch Frauds as thefe, may be a very Trifle when divided among the whole Community, which may be the Reafon perhaps that makes them eafily pals; but cannot Men fee, that if one may cheat the Publick, Hundreds or Thousands may do it, and what immenfe Sums fuch Trifles when caft up together may amount to? They can see this faft enough in all other Cafes, and if all that fee this would confider it as they fhould do, it would be impoffible that dealing with common Smugglers for their uncuftomed Goods, (which is making one's felf acceffory to Frauds of this kind, and all the Perjury that commonly attends them) should be the ght fo light a Matter as by many it is esteemed to be, caufe |