30.12.2013 Views

PHI LOS 0 P H Y . - Classic Works of Apologetics Online

PHI LOS 0 P H Y . - Classic Works of Apologetics Online

PHI LOS 0 P H Y . - Classic Works of Apologetics Online

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

ProT/lises.<br />

lOS<br />

whatever she asked, even to the half <strong>of</strong> his kingdom."<br />

The promise was not unlawful, in the terms in which<br />

L\';~<br />

H ~"""rl v,"", d.,li\.·prpcl _"A • ______ it· , ~nd ...... ttYhen •• l-A. l beca"'e UA so -. by the<br />

daughter's choice, by her demanding "JoHN the<br />

Baptist'~·head," Herod was discharged from the obiigation<br />

<strong>of</strong> it, for the reason now laid down, as well<br />

as for that gh'en in the last paragraph.<br />

This rule, " that promises are void, where the per-(<br />

formance is unlawfIJI," extends also to imperfect ob~<br />

ligations: for the reason <strong>of</strong> the rule holds <strong>of</strong> all obi<br />

ligaticns. Thus, if you promise a man a place, <strong>of</strong><br />

your \~ote,<br />

and he afterwards re!lder himself unfi~ to<br />

receive either, you . are absolved from the obligation<br />

<strong>of</strong> your promise ; or, if a better candidate appear,<br />

and it be a case in which you are bound by oath, or<br />

otherwise, to govern yourself by the qualification,<br />

-the promise must be broken through.<br />

And here I would recommend, to young persons<br />

especially, a caution, from the neglect <strong>of</strong> which, many<br />

involve them~e!vcs in embarrassment and disgrace;<br />

and that is, " never to give a prumise which may in ..<br />

terfere in the event with their duty;" for if it do<br />

5(', Il."~rfere, thf'!r duty must be discharged, though<br />

at the expense <strong>of</strong> their promise, and no~ unusuClJly <strong>of</strong><br />

1 -<br />

tllelr goo d name. ,,-<br />

The specific performance <strong>of</strong> promises is reckoned ~l<br />

a perfect obligation. And many casuists have iaid<br />

do\vn, in opposition to what has been here asserted,<br />

that, where a perD~ct and an imperfect obligation<br />

dash, the perfect ohligation is to be preferred. For<br />

which opinion, however, tl1ere seems to be no reason,<br />

but \vhat arise~ frorn tte terms "perfect" and "imperfec~,"<br />

the impropriety <strong>of</strong> which has been remark.<br />

ed above. The truth is, <strong>of</strong> two contradictory obli.<br />

gations, that ought to prevail which is prior in point<br />

<strong>of</strong> tinle.<br />

It)~_Jh~_ perjorma},!cc being unlawful, and not any<br />

unfawfulness in the subje'ct or motive <strong>of</strong> the promise;<br />

\V hich dt;stroys its validity; therefore a bribe, after I<br />

o

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!