Itistobeobserved，however，thatwheneversuchpromisesareviolated，thoughforthemostnecessaryreasons，itisalwayswithsomedegreeofdishonourtothepersonwhomadethem。Aftertheyaremade，wemaybeconvincedoftheimproprietyofobservingthem。Butstillthereissomefaultinhavingmadethem。Itisatleastadeparturefromthehighestandnoblestmaximsofmagnanimityandhonour。Abravemanoughttodie，ratherthanmakeapromisewhichhecanneitherkeepwithoutfolly，norviolatewithoutignominy。Forsomedegreeofignominyalwaysattendsasituationofthiskind。Treacheryandfalsehoodarevicessodangerous，sodreadful，and，atthesametime，suchasmaysoeasily，and，uponmanyoccasions，sosafelybeindulged，thatwearemorejealousofthemthanofalmostanyother。Ourimaginationthereforeattachestheideaofshametoallviolationsoffaith，ineverycircumstanceandineverysituation。Theyresemble，inthisrespect，theviolationsofchastityinthefairsex，avirtueofwhich，forthelikereasons，weareexcessivelyjealous；andoursentimentsarenotmoredelicatewithregardtotheone，thanwithregardtotheother。Breachofchastitydishonoursirretrievably。Nocircumstances，nosolicitationcanexcuseit；nosorrow，norepentanceatoneforit。Wearesoniceinthisrespectthatevenarapedishonours，andtheinnocenceofthemindcannot，inourimagination，washoutthepollutionofthebody。Itisthesamecasewiththeviolationoffaith，whenithasbeensolemnlypledged，eventothemostworthlessofmankind。Fidelityissonecessaryavirtue，thatweapprehenditingeneraltobedueeventothosetowhomnothingelseisdue，andwhomwethinkitlawfultokillanddestroy。Itistonopurposethatthepersonwhohasbeenguiltyofthebreachofit，urgesthathepromisedinordertosavehislife，andthathebrokehispromisebecauseitwasinconsistentwithsomeotherrespectabledutytokeepit。
Thesecircumstancesmayalleviate，butcannotentirelywipeouthisdishonour。Heappearstohavebeenguiltyofanactionwithwhich，intheimaginationsofmen，somedegreeofshameisinseparablyconnected。Hehasbrokeapromisewhichhehadsolemnlyaverredhewouldmaintain；andhischaracter，ifnotirretrievablystainedandpolluted，hasatleastaridiculeaffixedtoit，whichitwillbeverydifficultentirelytoefface；andnoman，Iimagine，whohadgonethroughanadventureofthiskindwouldbefondoftellingthestory。
Thisinstancemayservetoshowwhereinconsiststhedifferencebetweencasuistryandjurisprudence，evenwhenbothofthemconsidertheobligationsofthegeneralrulesofjustice。
Butthoughthisdifferenceberealandessential，thoughthosetwosciencesproposequitedifferentends，thesamenessofthesubjecthasmadesuchasimilaritybetweenthem，thatthegreaterpartofauthorswhoseprofesseddesignwastotreatofjurisprudence，havedeterminedthedifferentquestionstheyexamine，sometimesaccordingtotheprinciplesofthatscience，andsometimesaccordingtothoseofcasuistry，withoutdistinguishing，and，perhaps，withoutbeingthemselvesawarewhentheydidtheone，andwhentheother。
Thedoctrineofthecasuists，however，isbynomeansconfinedtotheconsiderationofwhataconscientiousregardtothegeneralrulesofjusticewoulddemandofus。ItembracesmanyotherpartsofChristianandmoralduty。Whatseemsprincipallytohavegivenoccasiontothecultivationofthisspeciesofsciencewasthecustomofauricularconfession，introducedbytheRomanCatholicsuperstition，intimesofbarbarismandignorance。