oaths. 



271 



or wrong*, neither the moralist uorthc legislator might 

 greatly regret its effects, however both might lament 

 that its use had not Ijeen superseded by more legiii- 

 mate armour. 



Society has unfortunately no shield against menda- 

 city na directed towards lite, property, or fame, than 

 what must lie derived from a conscience undebased by 

 superstition and bad passions, from manly feeling, 

 and instrueted understanding. Ii wuuld be diffi- 

 cult, if not impossible, to fix the degree in which all, 

 or any, of ilex- exist, or act, or are deficient, amongst 

 thenative population, where superstition prevails, and 

 education is neglected; niL-aninii that s:»rt of education 

 which gives a healthy tone to the miud. 



The legislators of almost every country on the 

 globe, and of those around us here in particular, lune 

 proceeded on the straightforward principle tliat truth 

 will not be spoken unless in casts where (he matter 

 at issue is indifferent to the person adjured; and it is a 

 striking iiistanreof the belief prevalent in the world, 

 of the little reliance to be placed on any religion for 

 counteracting 1 the mendacity of the human mind* that 

 tlie professors of Christianity are perhaps the most 

 rigid in enforcing the test of an oath, even on occa- 

 sions where, if the religion had an) influence, an oath 

 would be unnecessary. Custom alone has reconciled 

 the conscientious individual to the odium which he 

 would otherw ise have felt to attach to him, for taking 

 ■an oafh, hecttuse he was suspected of a want of vera- 

 city. The public, that is the law, may question a 

 mail's veracity. Can a private person do so and not 

 give a ji\>t oflbnee ? 



The mahnmetan religion — -next to Christianity in its 

 various branches — occupies the second place in the 

 religions of the world, and would act steadily, and 

 perhaps pou erfully, on the conscience, were it pro- 



