religion, in Christian countries. But the fact undoubtedly is, that, on suitable inquiry, we may find evidences, in a diminished degree, of benevolent efforts and traces of benevolent institutions, such as have been now referred to, in lands not thus highly favoured. Denham, for instance, after remarking that hospitality was ever habitual to the Arabs, a class of people with whom we are accustomed to associate everything which is most remote from kindness, goes on to remark: "Nor does this feeling of liberality extend to the chiefs alone, or to Arabs of high birth. I have known the poor and wandering Bedouin to practise a degree of charity and hospitality far beyond his means, from a sense of duty alone."*" De Lamartine, a distinguished French traveller well known to the literary world, speaks of the Arabs much in the same. manner. Among other things, he has translated and published the interesting narrative of another traveller among those wandering tribes, who remarks: "We were universally well received. In one tribe it was a poor widow who showed us hospitality. In order to regale us, she killed her last sheep, and borrowed bread. She informed us that her husband and three sons had been killed in the war against the Wahabees, a formidable tribe in the neighbourhood of Mecca. When we expressed our astonishment that she should rob herself on our account, her reply was, 'He that entereth the house of the living and does not eat, is as though he were visiting the dead." "+

We e repeat, we do not mean to assert that the benevolence of, those nations who are not enlightened by Christianity, and are not stimulated to benevolent exertion by considerations drawn from that source, is such as it should be. It is enough for our purpose to show that it is not, as an attribute of human nature, extinct; but has a real, although, compared with what it ought to be, a feeble existence. Nor is the benevolence of Heathen or Pagan nations limited, as some * Denham's Travels, Introductory Chapter.

† De Lamartine's Pilgrimage to the Holy Land, vol. iii., p. 212.

may be led to suppose, to individual instances and solitary acts, such as have been referred to. There are traces among some unchristianized nations (however cruel, owing chiefly to their mistaken systems of religion, their conduct may appear in some things) of permanent institutions of benevolence. In the recently-published life of the missionary Swartz (chap. xi.), we find the following incidental remark, which throws light upon the state of things in India. Speaking of the territory of Tanjore, the writer says, " Its capital, bordering on the Delta of the Coleroon and the Cavery, is wealthy and splendid, adorned with a pagoda, which eclipses in magnificence all other structures in the south of India; and exceeding, in the number of its sacred buildings and charitable institutions, all the neighbouring provinces."

Among other facts, kindred with those which have now been alluded to, it. is well known that, when any portion of the human race have been subjected, by fire, war, famine, the pestilence, or some convulsion of nature, to great affliction, an interest is felt and efforts are made in their behalf in other countries. As an illustration of what we mean, it will suffice to remark, that when, some years since, the Greek nation, and, still more recently, the inhabitants of the Cape De Verd Islands, were in a state of extreme want, although they were a remote people and scarcely known among us, a number of vessels, in both cases, were sent from this country to their assistance, loaded with provisions at the expense of private individuals. Many facts of this kind might be mentioned, which are obviously inconsistent with the idea that man is indifferent to the welfare of his fellow-man, much more that men are naturally hostile to each other.

§ 179. Other remarks in proof of the same doctrine. In the fourth place, the principle of HUMANITY is requisite, in order to render human nature at all consistent with itself. We have, for instance, implanted within us the desire of Esteem, which is universal in

its operation. But why should we be so constituted as naturally to desire the esteem of those, whom, at the same time, we naturally hate or are indifferent to? There is no question that Sociality, or the desire of society, is connatural to the human mind; but is it presumable that men are so created as earnestly to covet the society of others, when, at the same time, those whose company they seek are, by the constitution of nature, the objects of entire indifference or of decided aversion? We have within us, as we shall have occasion to notice hereafter, the distinct principle of Pity or Sympathy, which prompts us both to prevent suffering and to relieve it when it exists; a principle which no one supposes is designed by nature to be limited in its operation to the immediate circle of our relatives and friends, but which has men as such for its object, and the wide world for the field of its exercise. But on what grounds of wisdom or consistency is it possible that nature should prompt men to relieve or prevent the sufferings of others, whom she also imperatively requires us to regard with sentiments of hostility, or, at least, with unfeeling coldness? Furthermore, our conscience requires us to treat our fellow-men, in all ordinary cases, with kindness, and we experience an internal condemnation when we do not do it, which would, at least, not be the case if we were the subjects of a natural hostility to them.-It is on such grounds, we assert, that human nature, in order to be consistent with itself, requires a principle of good-will or love to man, considered simply as possessing a kindred origin and na

ture.

Add to these considerations the fact that the lower animals, as a general thing, evidently discover an affection for those of their own kind. In some cases there are antipathies existing among those of different tribes, but never, it is believed, as a characteristic of those of the same species. And why should a barrier, either by the mere negation of love or the presence of actual hostility, be raised between man and

man? A condition of things which, in a very important respect, places him below the brutes.

§ 180. Objection from the contests and wars among mankind. We are aware that the frequent wars which have existed among mankind may be brought forward as an objection against these views. But, although wars may be considered as in some sense incidental to the operations of human nature in the present state of things, yet it does not follow, and is not true, that war is the natural state of man. The simple fact is, that mankind, owing to a concurrence of unpropitious circumstances, have been placed in a wrong and most unfortunate position in respect to each other, which they at length begin to perceive.

In the first place, nations have frequently been led into wars in consequence of a misapprehension of the actual state of things. They have been made to believe (we do not undertake to say under what influences or in what way) that they are bound to maintain what are called national interests at any expense whatever. In making an estimate of the hazard and injury of these interests, as preparatory to a state of war, they have frequently laboured under great mistakes. In other words, in placing an estimate on their own interests, they have not allowed enough for the peculiar situation, the passions, and the interests of others. Either from being too intensely occupied with their own concerns, or from wanting suitable means of information, or from hasty and inaccurate judgments on the facts that have come to their notice, they have supposed others to be prompted by a deeper hostility towards them than was actually the case. And they have too frequently acted upon this erroneous supposition. If they had been so situated as to understand each other better, the natural sentiments of kindness would have gained the ascendency, and they would not have committed the great error of placing the supposed claims of their country above the claims of mankind. This error they begin in some degree to perceive. But this is not all.

In the second place, nations have frequently been plunged into war, and have shed the blood of other nations, when the great mass of the people have never been consulted in respect to it, or if they have been consulted, their feelings have been disregarded. Owing to the prevalence of monarchical and despotic forms of government (a state of things which is undergoing a rapid modification), the destiny of nations has often been placed in the hands of individuals, who were too ignorant, prejudiced, or unjust to sustain a responsibility so immense. The result has frequently been, that the most trifling circumstances, operating upon minds of such a structure, have plunged nations into wars, when, at the same time, the great body of the people entertained towards each other entirely friendly sentiments. We will illustrate what we mean by a single instance out of hundreds, perhaps we may say, thousands of others. Frederic of Prussia (Frederic the Great, as he is commonly designated in history) entered into a war with Maria Theresa, the queen of Hungary and Bohemia. This king afterward wrote a history of the war. In the manuscript history, as it was originally written, he gave the following concise statement of the motives under the influence of which he engaged in it: "I had troops entirely prepared to act; this, the fulness of my treasury, and the vivacity of my character, were the reasons why I made war on Maria Theresa, queen of Hungary and Bohemia." In a few sentences afterward he added more explicitly some other motives, which are to be united with these: "Ambition, interest, and a desire to make the world speak of me, vanquished all, and war was determined on."* It certainly cannot be pretended that such a war as this is a proof that the Prussians, Bohemians, and Hungarians possess an implanted or connatural enmity to each other. The probability is, that they were as much taken by surprise, and as much astonished, as

* See the Memoir of Voltaire, appended to Condorcet's Life of Voltaire.