A MODFBX "SYMPOSIUM." 



25 



poor grenadiers had something to say for them- 

 selves. Mr. Hutton has already suggested that, 

 if Mr. Harrison had studied the Christian con- 

 ception of the future life, he could not have 

 written some of his most startling passages, and 

 has protested against the misapplication of the 

 word " selfishness," which in this, as in other 

 controversies, quietly begs the question proposed 

 for discussion. The fact is, that this theory 

 of " altruism," so eloquently set forth by Mr. 

 Harrison and others of his school, simply con- 

 tradicts human nature, not in its weaknesses 

 or sins, but in its essential characteristics. It is 

 certainly not the weakest or ignoblest of human 

 souls who have felt, at the times of deepest thought 

 and feeling, conscious of but two existences — 

 their own and the Supreme Existence, whether 

 they call it Nature, Law, or God. Surely this 

 humanity is a very unworthy deity, at once a 

 vague and shadowy abstraction, and, so far as it 

 can be distinctly conceived, like some many-head- 

 ed idol, magnifying the evil and hideousness, as 

 well as the good and beauty, of the individual 

 nature. But, if it were not so, still that individ- 

 uality, as well as unity, is the law of human 

 nature, is singularly indicated by the very nature 

 of our mental operations. In the study and per- 

 ception of truth, each man, though he may be 

 guided to it by others, stands absolutely alone ; 

 in love, on the other hand, he loses all but the 

 sense of unity ; while the conscience holds the 

 balance, recognizing at once individuality and 

 unity. Indeed, the sacredness of individuality is 

 so guarded by the darkness which hides each soul 

 from all perfect knowledge of man, so deeply im- 

 pressed on the mind by the consciousness of in- 

 dependent thought and will, and on the soul by 

 the sense of incommunicable responsibility, that 

 it cannot merge itself in the life of the race. 

 Self-sacrifice or unselfishness is the conscious 

 sacrifice, not of our own individuality, but of that 

 which seems to minister to it, for the sake of 

 others. The law of human nature, moreover, is 

 such that the very attempt at such sacrifice in- 

 evitably strengthens the spiritual individuality in 

 all that makes it worth having. To talk of " a 

 perpetuity of sensation as a true hell" in a being 

 supposed capable of indefinite growth in wisdom, 

 righteousness, and love, is surely to use words 

 which have no intelligible meaning. 



No doubt, if we are to take as our guiding 

 principle either altruism or what is rightly desig- 

 nated " selfishness," we must infinitely prefer the 

 former. But where is the necessity ? No doubt 

 the task of harmonizing the two is difficult. But 



all things worth doing are difficult ; and it might 

 be worth while to consider whether there is not 

 something in the old belief which finds the key 

 to this difficult problem in the consciousness of 

 the relation to One Supreme Being, and, recog- 

 nizing both the love of man and the love of self, 

 bids them both agree in conscious subordination 

 to a higher love of God. What makes our life 

 here will, we believe, make it up hereafter, only 

 in a purer and nobler form. On earth we live at 

 once in our own individuality and in the life of 

 others. Our heaven is not the extinction of 

 either element of that life — either of individual- 

 ity, as Mr. Harrison would have it, or of the life 

 in others, as in that idea of a selfish immortality 

 which he has, I think, set up in order to denounce 

 it — but the continued harmony of both under an 

 infinitely increased power of that supreme prin- 

 ciple. 



Mr. W. K. GREG. — It would seem impossible 

 for Mr. Harrison to write anything that is not 

 stamped with a vigor and racy eloquence pecul- 

 iarly his own ; and the paper which has opened 

 the present discussion is probably far the finest 

 he has given to the world. There is a lofty tone 

 in its imaginative passages which strikes us as 

 unique among negationists, and a vein of what is 

 almost tenderness pervading them, which was not 

 observed in his previous writings. The two com- 

 bined render the second portion one of the most 

 touching and impressive speculations we have 

 read. Unfortunately, however, Mr. Harrison's 

 innate energy is apt to boil over into a vehe- 

 mence approaching the intemperate ; and the an- 

 tagonistic atmosphere is so native to his spirit 

 that he can scarcely enter the lists of controversy 

 without an irresistible tendency to become ag- 

 gressive and unjust; and he is too inclined to 

 forget the first duty of the chivalric militant logi- 

 cian — namely, to select the adversary you assail 

 from the nobler and not the lower form and rank 

 of the doctrine in dispute. The inconsistencies 

 and weaknesses into which this neglect has be- 

 trayed him in the instance before us have, how- 

 ever, been so severely dealt with by Mr. Hutton 

 and Prof. Huxley, that I wish rather to direct 

 attention to two or three points of his argument 

 that might otherwise be in danger of escaping 

 the appreciation and gratitude they may fairly 

 claim. 



We owe him something, it appears to me, for 

 having inaugurated a discussion which has stirred 

 so many minds to give us on such a question so 

 much interesting and profound, and more espe- 

 cially so much suggestive, thought. We owe him 



