PHILOSOPHY, MOPvAL. 
to rivet tlie disputants more firmly in their 
errors. In consEquence, indeed, of such 
(disputes, the intellectual powers may be 
sharpened, and original hints may be sug- 
gested ; but few instances are to be found 
in which tliey do not mislead the disputants 
to a still greater distance from truth than 
before, and render their minds still more 
inaccessible to conviction. 
06. Sixthly, persons in the near relations 
of life, benefactors, dependents, and ene- 
mies, seem to iiave in most cases a prior 
claim to strangers. General benevolence 
arises from the cultivation of the particular 
sources of it. The root nuist therefore be 
clierished before we can expect the 
branches to flourish, and the fruit to arrive 
at its perfection. — Attention to this rule 
leads Hs to avoid all those opinions, which 
attempt to found universal upon the ruin of 
confined benevolence : however specious 
they may appear they are false, because 
they counteract the moral improvement of 
man by checking it at its origin. We par- 
ticularly refer to those which Godwin has 
advanced in his work on Political Justice. 
—-His most general principle is, that every 
individual exertion should be directed so as 
to produce the greatest possible sum of 
good to the species. Hence, that if we 
have the power to save the life or increase 
the happiness of one or two fellow crea- 
tures, we owe our exertions to him who is 
useful, and perhaps extensively useful to so- 
ciety, in preference to him wlio is an use- 
less, or perhaps injurious member of so- 
ciety. The claims of self are excluded by 
the general principle. “ What magic,” says 
Godwin, “ can theie be in the word my 
which should change its operation ?” Hence 
the claims of confined charities ought not to 
oppose the deductions from the general 
principle. Hence it is not our business in 
the direction of our benevolent exertions, 
to consider what is the relation in which the 
individual stands to ns ; but that in which 
he stands to society. Not, is he my pa- 
rent, relative, friend, or benefactor ; but, is 
he a worthy or a worthless member of so- 
ciety. — Godw'iu’s errors are the more inju- 
rious, because they appear to be the errors 
of benevolence ; they result from the inac- 
curate extension and application of princi- 
ples which in themselves are indisputable. 
Whenever private interest interferes with 
the public good, private interest is to be sa- 
crificed ; and this, whether our ow’ii imme- 
diate good is the object, or the good of 
those who are intimately connected witli 
us, by some of the natural bonds; that is, 
those which arise in the mind by the laws of 
our constitution. That the conduct dictated 
by confined charity is to yield to general 
good, cannot be disputed ; but that we are 
in all cases to act totally independently of a 
regard to those confined charities, is a po- 
sition which will not bear the test of expe- 
rience nor of the mental constitution of 
man, — In the first place, benevolence never 
could arise in the human sonl, but through 
their medium. Hove to others is founded 
on feelings originally personal, then it em- 
braces the narrow circle of our immediate 
friends and acquaintance, and then perhaps 
there is little difficulty in extending it to 
those who bear with ns the relation of chil- 
dren to the great parent of mankind. But 
befoi e we can form the desire to do good to 
all men, we must have formed the desire to 
do good to some men ; and tliough the de- 
sire of doing good t6 some, may be of tliat 
confined nature which would lead to the 
promotion of their aggrandisement and 
happiness, at the expense of those of others, 
yet the confined charities form too im- 
portant a part in the great system, to be 
on this account rejected, as not being on 
the whole safe guides. We may lop off the 
excrescences, but it would be folly to de- 
stroy the root.- — But, secondly, admit the 
formation of the feelings of general bene- 
volence independently of the private chari- 
ties, it is obvious that without long culture 
and enlarged views, the general feeling.s 
cannot acquire the vividness, which, by 
their frequent recurrence and particularity, 
the more confined feelings can. Hence 
the removal of misery would be left to 
those who' had thus cultivated the exten- 
sive affections, and consequently the means 
of removing it must be most materially di- 
minished.— Thirdly, it would leave no rule 
for conduct upon which any one could act. 
If we are to be determined in our acts of 
benevolence, particularly in cases of imme- 
diate urgency, merely by the consideration 
of the utility of the individual to society, 
our lives would be a continual series of cal- 
culation, and, in general, of erroneous cal- 
culation, Who is there capable of accu- 
rately appreciating the worth of the indivi- 
dual.^ Our ideas are, in general, formed 
merely upon the appearances vyhich strike 
our attention, and force us to observe them. 
The silent efficacy of example and private 
exertions to remove misery, and still more 
