hood is the work of the man rather than of his nature; the second indicates a state of mind more or less approaching the regions of insanity. In addition to these cases, it may be said further, that sometimes, under the influence, perhaps, of a sudden and powerful temptation, men of acknowledged veracity are betrayed into the utterance of an untruth. But still the general fact, to which these cases must be regarded merely in the light of exceptions, remains good. The utterance of the truth is in conformity with nature; falsehood is against it. And this is so much the fact, that in ordinary cases, the utterance of thousands of truths secures to a man no especial credit, for this is what we naturally expect; while the utterance of a very few falsehoods will be likely to destroy his reputation forever.

§ 130. Of the twofold action of the propensity to truth.

The principle of Veracity, as might be supposed from the circumstance of its being admitted into the class of the propensions, has the twofold action already often mentioned. In all ordinary cases, the probability is, that its action is INSTINCTIVE. A thousand times a day, in answer to the questions of others, or in giving directions, or on some other occasions, we utter what is true in fact, or what we suppose to be true. And we do this without stopping to reflect whether it is a matter of duty, but apparently and in reality by a natural or instinctive movement, just as the hungry man instinctively seeks to gratify his appetite for food.

In other cases, the action is obviously VOLUNTARY. If, for instance, a man is strongly tempted, by the presentation of some pecuniary inducement, to utter a falsehood, the instinctive action of the principle is interrupted. By an effort of the Will we check it; we stop; we examine the nature and weight of the inducement which is presented; conscience is called in to give its decision in the case; and the action of the principle under such circumstances evidently becomes a voluntary one. It is, indeed, difficult in some cases to draw the line distinctly between the instinctive and voluntary action; but it is the latter alone which can properly be said to have a moral

character. When, under the influence of a strong temptation, the instinctive tendency is overruled, and we utter the truth in compliance with the mere dictates of conscience, we are the subjects of moral merit. When, on the other hand, we deliberately and voluntarily utter falsehood, we are the subjects of crime. And it may also be added, that the circumstance of the utterance of the truth being in all ordinary cases instinctive, increases the crime of its violation; because falsehood under such circumstances generally implies a high degree of deliberate and voluntary effort.

§ 131. Propensity of self-love, or the desire of happiness.

We proceed to explore this part of our sensitive nature still further, by adding that the desire of enjoyment or happiness appears to be an original or connatural element of the mental constitution. No one will presume to assert that the desire of suffering is natural; that we ordinarily rejoice in the prospect of coming woes, and endure them with gladness of heart. Nor are there satisfactory grounds for the opinion that enjoyment and suffering are indifferent to the human mind, and that there is no choice to be had between them. Such a supposition would be contrary to the common experience and the most obvious facts. On the contrary, our own consciousness and what we witness in others effectually teach us, that the desire of happiness is as natural as that of knowledge or esteem, and even hardly less so than it is to desire food and drink when we experience the uneasy sensations of hunger and thirst.

Under the instigation and guidance of this strong propensity, men not only flee from present evil and cling to present happiness, but, foreseeing the events of the future, they prepare raiment and houses, fill their granaries in anticipation of a day of want, and take other measures for the prolonging of life, health, and comfort. It is kindly provided that they are not left, in taking precautions subservient to their preservation and well-being, to the suggestions and the law of reason alone, but are guided and kept in action by this decisive and permanent principle. And it is proper to add, that this desire oper

ates not only in reference to outward and bodily comforts, but also in relation to inward consolations, the inspirations 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 existence. 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.

◊ 132. 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 always, and perhaps we should say, is not generally regulated 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 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. Selflove 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.

133. Modifications of selfishness; pride, vanity, and arrogance. Selfishness, it will be kept in mind, is employed as the general name for any excessive or inordinate exercises of self-love whatever. But selfishness is susceptible of various modifications, and exhibits itself to the notice of others in different ways and under different aspects. One of the most marked and important of its modifications is Pride.

Pride not only implies an inordinate estimate and love of our own interests, but appears to be distinguished from the other forms of selfishness in being attended with a desire that others, either for the sake of our own gratification or for the sake of humbling them, should be made sensible of what we suppose to be our superiority.-Accordingly, the feeling of pride is not to be considered as limited, in the occasions of its exercise, to the possession of any one object or quality, or to any single circumstance or combination of circumstances. It will be likely to attach itself to any object whatever which becomes predominant in our affections, and in which we suppose ourselves to have the advantage over others. One is proud of his ancestry, another of his riches, a third of his intellectual ascendancy, and a fourth of the beauty of his dress or person.

We may not only consider pride as one of the modifications of selfishness, but pride itself seems to be susceptible of some subordinate modifications, so distinct as to be known by appropriate names. When, for instance, it is very officious, and makes an ostentatious display of those circumstances in which the subject of it supposes his superiority to consist, it is termed VANITY. When it discovers itself, not so much in the display of the circumstances, or supposed circumstances of superiority, as in a contempt, and in sneering disparagements of the infe

rior qualities of others, it is termed Haughtiness or arro

GANCE.

It may be further added, that we are always, if we would be exact in our discrimination of the sources of human action, to make a distinction between pride and a mere desire of esteem, which has already come under our notice. The desire of esteem may exist in all its forms distinct from pride; and, when properly regulated, is not only useful, but is morally commendable. But pride, considered as distinct from the desire of esteem, and as essentially a modification of selfishness, is morally evil. Perhaps no state of mind, if we consider our numerous infirmities and wants, is less suited to our situation, or is more fitted to bring upon us the disapprobation and rebukes of our Maker.

§ 134. 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 justly 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 be conveniently designated) as connatural to the human mind. (Vol. i., chap. ví., § 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, we 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