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.

Cleo. That's quite another Thing. The Quakers take all Oaths whatever,
whether they are made before a Magistrate or otherwise, to be sinful,
and for that Reason they refuse to Swear at all. But as it is their