moral love, namely, the "love of the true, the right and the good," but is not grounded in it. It is grounded in instinct.

All animals-man included-have an instinctive dread of bodily harm. Self-love as instinct, relates to the preservation of what we already possess-not at all to the gratification of appetite.

When we eat bread for the sustenance of the body, it is from self-love, or an innate desire of selfpreservation; when for sake of the pleasure in it, it is to gratify the appetite.

Self-love can never become selfishness, except by a degeneration and by a passage from the bounds of a good nature to those of a base nature. Nor is self-love cold and calculating. It acts prompt, and by a natural impulse. We do not acquire anything through self-love; we only hold on to what we have. Hence one's self-love may be appealed to, and often is, as a motive to obey and follow the right.

This, however, does not at all argue that "the true and the right" is not to be followed solely for the sake of itself-in accord with the true nature bestowed upon man at his creation. It only argues that self-love or some visible good is a proper incentive to help the soul in its warfare against the hindrances that tend to divert it from a straightforward course in its love of the right.

That self-love is entirely distinct from selfishness is also apparent from the scope of the second great commandment "love your neighbor as yourself "which would have no value nor virtue in it, were self-love commensurate with selfishness.

27. LOVE TO THE NEIGHBOR.--This love is grounded in moral love. Were our neighbor entirely loveable, we would love him necessarily, just as we love the true, the right, the good. It is a moral necessity, and so is without the element of virtue.

If, however, our neighbor is not loveable--has characteristics disagreeable and averse to true loveand we yet love him, this love is a virtue, and exists, not in the plane of self-love, but is contra to it.

To love our unloveable neighbor is an abnegation of self. We sacrifice our natural feeling of love for the beautiful, the pure; our sympathy for what is like ourselves for what we have experienced in our soul's associations; we sacrifice these for the sake of the good, not of ourselves, but of our neighbor.

Good may result to ourselves from this selfsacrifice, but if we do good to our neighbor merely for sake of the good resulting to ourselves, there is no self-sacrifice nor virtue in it. It then becomes a matter of self-love.

The scope of the second great commandment is in this: We love our neighbor as ourselves, when we love him as we love ourselves perforce of our selflove, and when we, with the same instinctive readiness, minister to him in all things necessary to maintain in him life and its proper possessions. We are to have the same regard for his rights and welfare as for our own. We must not minister to ourselves at

his expense, but may minister to him at our expense.

28. THE GROUND OF DUTY.--It is the ground of what ought to be. Anyone can say what a duty is,

can give a dictionary definition similar to Webster's, as a something which we ought to do or not to do; but now what we seek is the ground of this idea of duty.

Some say that the sense of duty is a natural inborn feeling elementary in the soul, and hence as a simple element cannot be further elucidated, or defined as to its essential nature.

This is true of the naked abstract idea of duty, but when we say ground of duty, we mean to inquire what moral element in human nature gives rise to the abstract idea of duty. In Philippians 2:3 we read, "Let each esteem other better than themselves," and it would be difficult to find in words a fitter expression for the ground of duty. It is in a feeling of self-abnegation for sake of all dear to us.

When Lord Nelson at the battle of Trafalgar cries out to his men, "England expects that every man this day will do his duty," there was a reminder and an appeal to that sense of loyalty to their country. by which every true Englishman valued his native land, her institutions and his kindred, friends, countrymen, and the government he lived under, more than he did himself--more than his own life even.

It is this feeling of the soul, this affinity for other souls, that underlies the notion of duty-is its groundprinciple.

Lord Nelson's men responded to the call manfully, not because of obligation on account of their stipend of forty shillings per month; not because the laws of England protected them in their rights; not because of love for kin or for friend or loved one they had left at home, however strong the feeling. These

considerations might, any or all of them, if called to mind, be proper incentives to duty; but they are not the ground of duty. That lies deeper. It is an inborn feeling of affinity that a man has for whatever is like himself, and which he thus necessarily regards. as a part of his own being. It is natural and instinctive as the desire of self-preservation, which leads to prompt action without stopping to inquire into the reasons for it.

There is an affinity or attraction in dead matter called gravity, by which each body of matter, large or small, tends towards all other bodies. We do not know what this force is, except by its effects. We know not the why nor the how, except that it is a principle in matter, that the Creator has put there of his own will and wisdom.

Just so the principle of duty has been implanted by the Creator in the nature of man, each to act for the good of all others conditioned like himself. This feeling of duty has its source inherent within the soul-is à priori in character; and is not to be debased by being grounded in the à posteriori-in external conditions and considerations. These have their value: they are motives to duty, but are not the primary law of duty.

The ground of duty is, then, in the attitude of the soul towards kindred souls--in the elementary principle involved when we esteem others--when we gladly become servant to all, like the Master, who "took upon himself the form of a servant"--hence not in any servile sense, but in the sense of a native desire to do good.

The idea of duty involves feeling more than intellect. Nelson's men could not have done their duty had they gone into action with the precision indeed, but yet with the coldness of a morning parade.

In general, the idea of duty antedates and dominates that of the right. as it did with Lord Nelson's men; but not always, for as to the moral precept of Jesus, "Love your enemies," it may be that we must find reasons for it, must argue ourselves into the truth of it, before we see the duty in it.

And so it is as to the commandment, "Love God." If we know that Jehovah says this, we know that it is right and duty to obey; but we cannot obey this commandment till our reason and judgment and moral feeling the entire consciousness or else the Spirit's power, convinces us that God is a being altogether loveable.

Had this point been well considered, some distinguished writers' on morals would not have mistaken the ultimate end of man for the underlying principle in a science of morals, for to do so starts the seeker after moral truth on his voyage without rudder or compass. He must do his duty by obedience to God, prior to love-before he can love--and exactly this is the philosophy of Jesus: “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine." (John 7:17.)

29. GROUND OF RIGHT.-The primary ground is in the Divine constitution. It is in what is in the eternal existence-in the "I am."

Some philosophers-Dr. Haven, for instance