Mankind in any other Light, is, to degrade them even below the Beafts. What a defpicable Opinion must that Man entertain of the Order of Beings, to which he belongs, what Regard for Virtue ! Pardon me, good Philocles, if I cannot forbear interrupting you. Men of an elevated Spirit are conftantly exalting their Species to the Skies, and branding all thofe, who talk more temperately on the Subject, as Enemies to Virtue. But you greatly mistake me, if you imagine I have taken this Side of the Queftion with any Intention to weaken the Caufe of Morality. It is your Way to paint Mankind, as your generous Warmth inclines you to wish they had been formed; whilst Men of cooler Temper are content to view Things as they really are, rather than as a false, though pleafing Light may represent them. They find nothing to fupport those high Notions you entertain of the intrinfic Dignity of the Species,no Principles in Mankind, which lead directly and neceffarily to combining Fellowships. Man, fay they, was created frail and weak, subject to Wants, which in a single Capacity he could not fupply, and obnoxious to Dangers, against which his own unaffifted Arm was not a fufficient De-fence. An Union of the Many was therefore formed, as a Remedy for the Imbecillity of separate Individuals. Hence Juftice arose; and the Rule of Right was afcertained and enforced, as a neceffary Means to maintain the Plan of focial Order. You affert, that the Law of Equity is an original implanted Principle in the human Breaft. Breast. But if I were inclined to difpute this Point with you; I might afk, what Occafion would there have been for fuch a Law, if Man had been framed with fo ardent an Affection towards his Species, as you contend for? Where Love reigns in full Power, Property cannot be a Subject of Contention. So far is the from doing Violence and Wrong, that fhe is ever tender of the Welfare and Intereft of the Object beloved, and even lavish in her Munificence. I do not contend, faid Philocles, that the focial and kind Affections are fo ftrong as to fubdue all the reft; but only that there are fuch Paffions in Mankind, in Conjunction with others. The Love of our Species cannot therefore be faid to fuperfede the Love of Equity; On the contrary, they are entirely compatible with each other. Nor does it feem in the leaft to follow, that, if the Cafe be as I have ftated it, univerfal Peace and Juftice muft for ever prevail. For Man being liable to great Errors, not only from the Mif-rule of his Paffions, but the Imperfection of his Reafon, many Occafions of moral Evil muft neceffarily arife, notwithstanding the focial Affections are allowed to exist in all the Strength, which I contend for. But had mutual Affection, returned Sophronius, been only a leading Paffion in us; or had it been equally ballanced with Self-regard, all legal Reftraints had been entirely unneceffary. Man would have been in no Danger from the fecret Attempts of Fraud, or the bold Attacks of barcfaced N 4 Dial. I. faced Oppreffion: His whole Life would have been one continued Scene of Security and Happinefs. But the Legiflators found his real State to be quite another Thing. If they did perceive that Nature had clearly dictated the Law of Equity; yet Experience taught them, "That the Admi"niftration of that Law was fo incompetently "and irregularly executed, as to inflame rather "than heal the Evils of the undisciplined State, "whilft there was no common Arbiter to adjust "and enforce its Operations [p]". These are the Reasons, which induce me to. believe, that Dangers and Neceflities gave Birth to the Plan of Government. And when Society was established upon a proper Bafis, and equitable Laws had given Security to Mankind, the Community had full Experience of its happy Effects. But as Particulars ftill felt many Wants, for which the public Combinations afforded no Relief; it was natural for them to look out for a Supply to this Deficiency. The most obvious feems to be private Fellowships; which by an Union of Hearts, and amicable Intercourfes, might procure Enjoyments, which do not refult from general Affociations. This I take to be the true Source of Friendthip: Nor does it appear to me any Derogation to the Lovelinefs of the Affection. For, what but the Imbecillity of our Frame gives Rife to that Passion, which is looked upon as the most amiable belonging to our Nature? Had the Firm[P] W's D. Legat. nefs of our Minds been greater, our Compaffion had certainly been lefs. For it is ever found, that as the fofteft Metals are most easily diffolved; fo the tendereft Minds fooneft melt into Pity. This, perhaps, is the Reason, why that Sex, whofe Characteristic is, by no means, Strength, are most liable to the Impreflions of this afflicting Passion. Pity, returned Philocles, can hardly be faid to flow from Weaknefs in the fame Senfe that you suppofe focial Affection to do: In the latter, Weakness is the Attribute of that Subject, from whence the Affection is supposed to proceed; Men united, because they found themselves too weak to subsistin a feparate State:-But in the former, Weakness can only be the Attribute of that Subject, on which the Paffion is fuppofed to operate. It is not the Weakness of the diftreffed Object, but of him who beholds it, which produces the fympathizing Sorrow. Imbecillity therefore cannot give Rife to focial Inclinations, in the fame Way you imagine it does to Compaffion. The only Inference, that can fairly be drawn from your Argument, feems to be, that the Tenderness of Senfations, or Weaknefs (if you will call it fo) is the Means whereby the Paffion operates upon any Subject: But it does not therefore follow, that it is the Fountain of the Paffion; or that it is grounded on no other Principle in Nature. For why fhould Sophronius afcribe this Sufceptibility of Compaffion, to a Weakness of Mind? Is it not far more reafonable to derive it from the quick Feeling of the Sentiments of Humanity, and the fudden Exertion of generous Sympathy? Examine the Condition of your own Breaft under a lively Senfe of Pity; and tell me whether you do not always find, that it gives you an exalted Idea of the Generofity of your Temper, when it is touched in this kind and benevolent Way? And though it may, perhaps, draw Tears from your Eyes; yet they are the Tears of manly Affection, and not the Meltings of weak Effeminacy. For furely, Sophronius, there can be no Weakness in Compaffion, purely and abftractedly confidered; fince the nobleft Souls are open to the ftrongest Impreffions of this Kind. Homer, who had a complete Infight into Human Nature, and fo well understood what it was that gave the finishing Excellence to a Character, represents the Hero of his Poem, the great Achilles himself, melting into Pity at the Miferies of a venerable aged Monarch, on his Knees begging him to restore the Body of his Son Hector. Nay, he not only makes him relent, but even endeavour to affuage the Sorrows of the unhappy Prince, with the most tender, as well as rational, Confolations [9]. Pity then; in the Estimation of this judicious Poet, who was always χειρος αυτή, [9) Aulix' am Spores welo, regola de "Not |