1801.] 
fpirits on hand in ‘warchoufes at Stock- 
holm, to be diftributed by rations; and 
the peafants complain formally of a mea- 
fure which deprives them of a potion 
which they allege to be indifpenfible un- 
der their rural labours; and it is poffible 
that habit may have rendered dram- 
drinking abfolutely neceflary to them! 
An interefting diet, now affembled, it is 
to be hoped will point out the remedies 
neceilary to reftore foundnefs to the body 
politic. 

ae 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
Sir, 
RB* way of general reply to the ob- 
fervations of Mr. Robinfon, I re- 
mark (firft premifing that I have neither 
time nor inclination for long and ela- 
borate difcuffions) that I confider two 
points in morals as demonftrated; fir, 
that obligation is founded on felf-iatcrett ; 
{econdly, that the fymnathetic are gene- 
rated by the felfifh affeCtions. For the 
proof of the former, i refer to. Cooper, 
Tracts Ethical, &c. vol. i. of the latter, 
to Hartley. On this fecond pofition, 
there is a paflage in Cooper on Moral 
Obligation, page 82, which I cannot help 
tran{cribing. “ The generation of the 
focial from the felfith affeGtions has been 
fo evidently explained by Hartley that 
the matter is indifputable. People fhould 
not write on the phenomena of the 
mind, without either adopting or con- 


treme, but juft fufficient to put a feop to 
diffillation, is little, if at all, to be re- 
gretted in that country. Not only 
are fome of the towns become finks of 
debauchery, bui, in fome country dif- 
tris, ardent fpirits are ferved out to 
harveft workers, inftead of the milk, or 
{mall-beer, drank in the fame places 
fome years ago. The Statiftical Account 
of Scotland, fo creditable tothe abilities 
of her clergy, contains almoft as many 
proofs of my affertions as there were 
parifh minifters undeterred from fpeak- 
ing out by the fear of offending their 
hearersandtheir/si: ds,too many of whom 
are interefted in the abufe. Compare, in 
particular, the Statiftical Account of 
Langholm, with the Rev, Mr. Rowland 
Hill’s defcription of a fair in that 
place, at which he was prefent, in his 
late Tour in Scotland. I might de- 
scribe many fuch diforderly fcenes, 
the deplorable efficts of dram-drink- 
ing, from my own obfervation in thet 
country; but fuch teltimonies would 
derive no additional weight from the 
anonymous authority of 
The Tranfator. 
Mr. Cogan’ s Rehly ta Mr. Robinfans 
Bis 
futine the doctrine of affociation.” But 
I will now wave this demonftration of 
Hartley’s, and allow, for the fake of 
argument, that felf-love and fympathy 
are diftiné and independent principles. 
I maintain then, that the profpect of a 
future exiftence affords the ftrongeft ima- 
ginable motive to the fuppreffion of the 
felfifh and fenfual paflions, and the cul- 
“tivation of the fympathetic and benevo- 
lent affections, as it renders every facri- 
fice of prefent gratification or perfonal 
advantage which virtue may coft us, not 
only reafonable but our manifeft interef. 
That the great bulls of mankind, even in 
Chriftian countries, are practical Atheifts, 
and acknowledge in their conduc no 
fanctions of morality but what are de- 
rived from prefent objects,is a fact which 
cannot be controverted, and which’ the 
Chriftian philofopher deplores. But the 
gueftion with me is, whether a mind that 
will reflec? may not find a very powerful 
fupport of virtue in the expectation of a 
future exifteace, which, if ferioufly in» 
dulged, operates with a reftraining in- 
fluence in numberlefs cafes where no for= 
mal calculation is inftituted, and where 
the motives of action may not be very 
diftingtly prefent in the mind of the 
agent. Mr. Robinfon indeed confiders 
the impreflion of future good, as too 
flight and feeble to operate againft the 
more forcible attractions of prefent ob- 
jects. And fo it would be, if- future . 
good were not apprehended to compen- 
fate for its diftance by its magnitude and 
duration. But habitual reflection will cer- 
tainly prefent it to the mind in fomething 
like its juft proportion, and give it its 
proper operation on the conduct. ‘That 
the hope of immortality is not univerfally 
inefficient, many faéts demonftrate. IL 
content myfelf with one. That cannot 
be an inert principle which has conducted 
the martyr to the ftake. Indeed to main- 
tain that man, with full perfuafion that 
virtue is his intereft as an immortal be- 
ing, cannot adapt his conduct to that per- 
fuafion, is at once to deprive him of the 
character of rationality. It may be farther 
obferved, that the theopathetic affeCtions 
alfo, if diligently cherifhed, lend a very 
friendly aid to the formation and eftablifh- 
ment of every generous, fympathetic, and 
benevolent feeling. Mr. Robinfon afks, 
whether, according to my philofophy, it 1s 
eafy to fay that one man is more virtuous 
than another ; and whether it ought nor 
rather to be faid that all men are equally 
virtueus? The moment I leave philol. - 
gical criticifm, no man is le{s anxious 
than myfelf about words. But I call that 
man more virtuovs than another, in whom 
fif is in @ higher degree expanded into 
3U4 bene- 
