Hor. The Fear of Shame cannot restrain Men in Things that are done in Secret, and can never be known. Men of Honour are true to their Trust, where it is impossible they should be discover'd. Cleo. That is not universally true; tho', without doubt, there are many such. The grand Characteristick of a Man of Honour, at least of Modern Honour, is, that he takes no Affront without resenting it, and dares fight Any body without Exception; and such there are that have not common Honesty, and are noted Sharpers. Besides, by Education and conversing constantly with Men of Honour, and some of real Honour and Probity, Persons may contract a strong Aversion to every Thing that is dishonourable. The most effectual method to breed Men of Honour, is to inspire them with lofty and romantick Sentiments concerning the Excellency of their Nature, and the superlative Merit there is in being a Man of Honour. The higher you can raise a Man's Pride, the more refin'd you may render his Notions of Honour. Hon. The Substance of this you have said twenty Times; but I don't understand your adoring of one's self. Cleo. I'll endeavour to explain it to you. I am acquainted with Men of Honour, who seem to have a very slender Belief, if any, of future Rewards and Punishiments, and whom yet I believe to be very just Men. Of these there are several, whom I could entirely confide in, and whose Words I would much rather take in Business of Moment than any Bishop's, whom I know Nothing of. What is it that keeps these Men in Awe? What keeps them true to their Word, and steady to their Engagements, tho' they should be Losers by it? Hor. I don't know any Thing but the Principle of Honour, that is deeply rooted in them. Cleo. Still the Thing, whatever it be, which a Man loves, fears, esteems, and consequently reverences, is not without, but within himself. The Object then of Reverence, and the Worshiper, who pays it, meeting and remaining in the same Person, maynot such a Person be justly said to adore himself: Nay, it seems to be the common Opinion, that this is true; for unless some Sort of Divinity was supposed, to reside in Men of Honour, their affirming and denying Things upon that Principle could never be thought an Equivalent for an Oath, as to Some it is allow'd to be. Pray, when a Man asserts a Thing upon his Honour, is it not a Kind of Swearing by himself, as others do by God? If it was not so, and there was supposed to be the least Danger, that Men, endued with the Principle of Honour, could deceive or prevaricate, I would fain know, why it should be binding and acquiesc'd in. Hor. You may say the same of the Quakers; and that there must be supposed to be some Divinity in them, that their solemn Affirmation should be thought equivalent to an Oath.