~<a~fz<M of tbt ~n~f~ ~<M~ who – Page viii This principle bas had in Come a phitotbphica!, in others a religious orig!a ib. It ha< been cafr!ed farther by the religious party than by the philofophical ix Thé phiio&phical branch of it bas had moft influence among portons of education, the religious among the vulgar – – – tb Thé pnncipte of afceticifm bas never been iteadity applied by either party ta thebuHne&ofgovernment x Thepr!ncip!eofz<cet!ci<<n,in!t<origin,wasbutth~ofutH!~m!&ppited xi tt can never bc confiftently purfued – – xit T~f ~n<tf~ ~/ya)~~A)' and antipathy, what – – ib. This is rather the negation of-all principle, than any thing pofitive ib. SentMnenNofapafttMnofthepnneipteofanttpathy – xiii The fyftems that have been ïbnned concerning the~<Mbr~ right and wrmg, are aU reductMe to this princ!ple – – io. Vanom phrafes, that have ferved Il the chMtaen&lc marks of<b many pre-
tended <yNenM – – – – ib.
t. JMM/&~ – – – ih. t. CMMtMt – – – –– tb' $. Mt~<M~~ – – – – xiv J!~ ~A~ – – – ib. s. F<M~~?t/~ – – – – ib. 6. Z<fM~w – – – &. 7. ~M~ ~J:<~x, i!~ J!~w, A~M-a/ ye/?~, A~<f<'</ C~Or~ ib. 8.?~ – – – – ib. 9. fM~<M~'F&~ew – –.xv to. ~~<<Mf~ A~tM~t –. – – ib. MMehieftheypreduee – – – ih. Whether «tUtty it a&ttâUy the Me gTeaad of aU thé approbation we ever
be<hw,u<tdiNerent<onËdefttMm – – *– xvi
This principle will frequently coincide w:th that of ut:îy ==- – xiv This pmtcipÏe is moft apt to err on the fide ofy~t'<~ – – xvt! But ern, in tome initances, on the fide of&M~ – – xvtii Thé ~~tM/M~ what-not a feparate principle – – ib. Tte priacipte oftheobgy how redaeibie to one or another of thé other three
priacipte* – – – –
Antipathy, let the a~MM it dilate! be ever fo right, is never of tdetf a right gnMtndofa~ion
C 0 N T E N T S.