nd by his word, though he secretly give a
different direction to his intention, and with-hold himself both from
a resolution, and from willing an obligation. But though the expression
makes on most occasions the whole of the promise, yet it does not always
so; and one, who should make use of any expression, of which he knows
not the meaning, and which he uses without any intention of binding
himself, would not certainly be bound by it. Nay, though he knows its
meaning, yet if he uses it in jest only, and with such signs as shew
evidently he has no serious intention of binding himself, he would not
lie under any obligation of performance; but it is necessary, that the
words be a perfect expression of the will, without any contrary signs.
Nay, even this we must not carry so far as to imagine, that one, whom,
by our quickness of understanding, we conjecture, from certain signs,
to have an intention of deceiving us, is not bound by his expression or
verbal promise, if we accept of it; but must limit this conclusion
to those cases, where the signs are of a different kind from those
of deceit. All these contradictions are easily accounted for, if the
obligation of promises be merely a human invention for the convenience
of society; but will never be explained, if it be something real and
natural, arising from any action of the mind or body.

I shall farther observe, that since every new promise imposes a new
obligation of morality on the person who promises, and since this new
obligation arises from his will; it is one of the most mysterious and
incomprehensible operations that can possibly be imagined, and may even
be compared to TRANSUBSTANTIATION, or HOLY ORDERS [I mean so far, as
holy orders are suppos'd to produce the indelible character. In other
respects they are only a legal qualification.], where a certain form of
words, along with a certain intention, changes entirely the nature of an
external object, and even of a human nature. But though these mysteries
be so far alike, it is very remarkable, that they differ widely in other
particulars, and that this difference may be regarded as a strong proof
of the difference of their origins. As the obligation of promises is
an invention for the interest of society, it is warped into as many
different forms as that interest requires, and even runs into direct
contradictions, rather than lose sight of its object. But as those other
monstrous doctines are mere priestly invention