spirations and solaces of religion in the present life, and the anticipated possession of that more glorious happiness which religious faith attaches to a future state of exist

ence.

But it should ever be remembered, that the desire of our own happiness, like the other desires which have been mentioned, ought to be subjected to a suitable regulation. An enlightened conscience will explain under what conditions our personal welfare may be pursued, and in what cases, whether it relate to the present or the future, it should be subordinated to considerations of public benefit and of universal benevolence.

§ 336. Of selfishness as distinguished from self-love.

We cannot but suppose, for the reasons that have just been suggested, that the desire of happiness or propensity of personal good is an attribute of man's nature. This opinion is not only accordant with the suggestions of the light of nature, but is sanctioned by other and higher authority. The pursuit of our own happiness is obviously recognised in the Scriptures, and is urged upon us as a duty. While we are required to love our neighbour, it is nowhere said that we must perform this duty to the exclusion of a suitable regard for our own felicity. -The desire of happiness thus implanted in our own constitution, we denominate by a simple and expressive term, SELF-LOVE. But it cannot be denied that the import of the term is frequently misunderstood, and that the term itself is liable to erroneous applications.

This is owing to the fact that the principle is not al ways, and perhaps we should say, is not generally regu lated and restrained as it ought to be; but frequently degenerates into a perversion which ought to be carefully distinguished from its innocent exercise. It is not selflove, but the perversion of self-love, which is properly called SELFISHNESS; and while self-love is always innocent, and, under proper regulations, is morally commendable, as being the attribute of a rational nature, and as being approved by God himself, SELFISHNESS, on the contrary, is always sinful, as existing in violation of what is due to others, and at variance with the will of God.--It

is due to the cause of morals and religion, as well as of sound philosophy, to make this important distinction. Self-love is the principle which a holy God has given; selfishness is the loathsome superstructure which man, in the moments of his rebellion and sin, has erected upon it.

337. Reference to the opinions of philosophical writers.

It would be easy to introduce passages in support of the greater part of the views of this chapter, if it were deemed necessary, from writers whose opinions are received with deference, and are just.y entitled to be so. It appears from the recent work of Dr. Chalmers on the Moral and Intellectual Constitution of Man, that he regards the desire of possession (the possessory principle, as it may conveniently be designated) as connatural to the human mind. (Vol. i., ch. vi., § 8-13.) Mr. Stewart takes the same view in regard to the principle of self-love, or the desire of happiness. (Active and Moral Powers, bk. ii., chap. i.) On this important subject, which in some of its aspects is closely connected with the requisitions and appeals of revealed religion, w, find the following explicit statement in Dr. Wardlaw's recently published treatise, entitled Christian Ethics.

"SELF-LOVE is an essential principle in the constitution of every intelligent creature; meaning by self-love the desire of its own preservation and well-being. By no effort of imagination can we fancy to ourselves such a creature constituted without this. It is an original law in the nature of every sentient existence. In man, it is true, in regard especially to the sources from which it has sought its gratification, it is a principle which, since his fall, has been miserably perverted and debased, degenerating, in ten thousand instances, into utter selfishness, and in all partaking of this unworthy taint. Between selfishness, however, and legitimate self-love, there is an obvious and wide discrepancy. The latter is not at all distinctive of our nature as degenerate, but was interwoven in its very texture as it came from the Creator's hand. The former is proper y the corruption of the latter. It leads the creature, who is under its dominant influence, to prefer self to

fellow-creatures and to God, so as to seek its own real or supposed advantage at the expense of the interests and the honour of both. So far, on the contrary, is self-love from being unwarrantable, that, in that part of God's law which prescribes our feeling and conduct towards our fellow-creatures, it is assumed as the standard measure of the commanded duty, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as THYSELF.' Take away self-love, or suppose it possible that the human heart should be divested of it, and you annihilate the command by rendering it unintelligible.

"There is not, assuredly, any part of the divine word, by which we are required, in any circumstances, to divest ourselves of this essential principle in our constitution. That word, on the contrary, is full of appeals to it, under every diversity of form. Such are all its threatenings, all its promises, all its invitations.”

§ 338. The principle of sociality original in the human mind. Sociality, or the desire of society, is another of the implanted propensities. Men naturally (not moved to it primarily by the influences of education or considerations of interest, but of themselves and naturally) have a desire of the company or society of their fellow-men; a tendency of the mind, expressed by the single term soCIALITY OF SOCIABILITY.-We are aware that the desire of society, as well as some of the other original propensions, has sometimes been regarded as a mere modification of Self-love. It is the fact, however, that, in its first operation, the desire of society acts instinctively, being directed to its object as an ultimate end, wholly irrespective of any pleasure which may subsequently be found attached to its attainment. It is one of the characteristics of Desire, as we have already seen, that the attainment of its object is attended with more or less pleasure. And this is as true of the successful issue of the principle of Sociality as of any other principle, involving as a part of its nature the desiring element. Accordingly, after the experience of pleasure attendant upon its successful exercise, even in a single instance, it is possible that its subsequent action may be prompted rather by a regard to the concomitant enjoyment than to the object which origi

nally called it forth. Such an exercise of the principle under consideration may, with some appearance of propriety, be termed a selfish one; but this is rather a secondary than an original exercise; and does not so much indicate what the principle is by nature, as what it may become by subordinate or by perverting influences. In itself considered, it is innocent and highly useful; it may, indeed, after its first exercise, be indulged from a regard to personal or self-interested considerations; that is to say, from a regard to our own happiness or pleasure; but even the exercise of the principle from such considerations is not to be regarded, as some may suppose, as morally wrong, provided it is so regulated as not to conflict with the proper operation of other principles and with the claims of duty

339. Evidence of the existence of this principle of sociality.

(I.) The existence of the propensity under consideration is shown, in the first place, by what we notice in the early periods of life. No one is ignorant that infants and very young children exhibit a strong attachment to their parents and others who tend upon them, and a desire for their company and uneasiness at their absence. When left alone, even for a very short time, they discover a great degree of unhappiness, which may sometimes be ascribed to fear, but more often to the mere sense of loneliness, and the desire for society.

When other infants and children are brought into their company whom they have never seen before, this propensity is at once shown in their smiles, their animated gestures, and sparkling eyes. And when they are old enough to go out and play in the streets, we find them almost always in groups. Their sports, their wanderings in fields and forests, their excursions in fishing and hunting, are all made in companies; and the privilege of amusing themselves in these ways, on the condition of not being allowed the attendance of others, would be deemed scarcely better than a punishment.

(II.) In the second piace, this propensity, which shows itself with so much strength in children, continues to exist, and to give interesting and decisive proofs of its ex

istence, in manhood and age. It is true, that those wno are further advanced in years, from the circumstance of their finding greater resources in themselves, are in general more capable of supporting retirement and solitude than children But it is very evident, in the maturity as well as in the earlier periods of life, that man's proper element (that in which alone he can secure the developement of his powers and be happy) is society, in some shape and in some degree. Hence the frequency of family meetings, of social and convivial parties, of commemorative celebrations, of religious, literary, and political assemblies, which constantly occur in all communities throughout the world, and which seem to be almost as necessary as the air they breathe or their daily food.

§ 340. Other illustrations of the existence of this principle. So strong is this principle, that men, if deprived of human society, will endeavour to satisfy its demands by forming a species of intimacy with the lower animals; a circumstance which seems to us decisively to evince not only the innate existence, but the great strength of the social tendency. Baron Trenck, for instance, in order to alleviate the wretchedness of his long and dreadful imprisonment, made the attempt, and was successful in it, to tame a mouse. The mouse, according to his account of him, would not only play around him and eat from his hand, but discovered extraordinary marks of sagacity as well as of attachment.

Mr. Stewart, in illustrating this very subject, makes the following statement.- "The Count de Lauzun was confined by Louis XIV. for nine years in the Castle of Pignerol, in a small room where no light could enter but from a chink in the roof. In this solitude he attached himself to a spider, and contrived for some time to amuse himself in attempting to tame it, with catching flies for its support, and with superintending the progress of its web. The jailer discovered his amusement and killed the spider; and the count used afterward to declare, that the pang he felt on the occasion could be compared only to that of a mother for the loss of a child."

More recently we find statements of a similar purport