argue that it is in the nature of things, and would exist even were there no God; or that it is eternal and coexistent with the existence of the Creator.

But in this attempt to set up and exhibit a ground of right outside the Divine constitution we abstract the Divine constitution, or the eternal Creator, prior to whom there could be nothing, and without whom nothing exists; hence we abstract all-all ideas, all notions, moral or intellectual. The constitution of God must have preceded all nature, and hence all that is true and right in nature and in her relations. Hence the right and the true must be grounded in the constitution of God, which changes not: "Thou art the same to-day, yesterday and forever."

This does not argue a lack of moral freedom in the Divine constitution. We are free when we act in accord with our constitution, yet can act contra to it.

Our conception (idea) of God is of a Being that has power to act contra to his constitution, but who will not, for his will is holy.

The idea of right as having an eternal existence unchangeable is correct; but it is also a necessary idea that this eternal existence of the right has eternally dwelt in the Divine constitution, and necessarily belongs to it.

It might seem that this question and this distinction is not important, for Dr. Haven admits "that the will of God must be regarded as the rule of right and the standard of duty to man; that will itself reposes upon the right and is conformed to it, and

while it is not the source and ground of right, it is nevertheless the source of our knowledge of rightthe rule of duty to us."

But the value of a true doctrine in this regard lies here, namely, that if we set up a ground of right independent of the constitution of God, we have two Gods, a personal one in God the Creator, and an impersonal one in an absolute principle of right, which is not an ideal,'but is an eternal principle that should be obeyed, even though in so doing we might disobey God, the Omnipotent, and we thus reopen the question whether our God-the Creator—is altogether the good God, and whether he might not, and at some time may, disregard this impersonal independent principle of the right.

That the ground of right is in the constitution of God is further evident from the necessary conditions. of a sufficient reason.*

1. Truth and right are ultimate ideas. They must have their source in the primal elementary fount of existence, else streams of life flowing therefrom will not be permeated with pure life-imparting elements. This primal source can be no other than that eternal uncreate existence from which all created existence originates.

2. We recognize the true ground of right when we see in it the source of the highest incentive to duty.

By reference to section 2, we see that in the standard systems of Greek philosophy, honesty is to be sought for itself alone, and not from any advantage to him who cultivates it; and this seeking for itself alone is because of the beauty and excellence of

virtue, if it be possible, as Plato says, to behold this beauty with mortal eyes. They, the ancients, sought this in an ideal perfection of humanity, and this is a legitimate pursuit; but whence this ideal except from the Creator of humanity, who is the reality and completeness of all that is true and right? A true ground of right leads to a true concept of God, and to that of holiness.

30. THE SECONDARY GROUND OF RIGHT.-The secondary ground of right is in Man's nature as in the Divine image. As we have seen, the idea or the notion of the right is an essential principle of the Divine constitution--must be therein or nowhere.

Hence, if man was created in the Divine image, he of right has this same principle in his own constitution. To act right, then, is to act in accord with the requirements of the moral constitution.

The imperative ground of right is in authority-authority emanating direct from God-his acknowledged laws, or else the law of the "still small voice." This law requires truth to nature, hence in morals the true and the right are equivalents. Whatever is true, morally true, is morally right.

We may hardly know the primary ground of right, namely, the constitution of God, or even our own nature. These require much study and reflection, and can never be fully known and apprehended; but there is a certain authority in man's moral nature, called the authority or the voice of the conscience, and a sure authority in God's voice or revealed will,

which is an evident, immediate and imperative ground of right.

31. PRINCIPLE: PRACTICE.-Every science has its own principle, which, however, cannot always be readily applied to particular cases as they occur.

Thus, in keeping accounts, we have the general law or principle that what is received is debit to what is given. This proposition is self-evident, yet its correct application in every transaction that occurs may not be so plain. In the general run of business, it requires experience and practice to determine instantly the proper journal entry, which, in each case, shall be in accord with this principle.

So, in the science of gunnery, the motion of the projectile is in accord with laws which can be formulated. In the art and practice of gunnery, not only the law or the leading principles must be understood, but there must be facility in their application to meet varying circumstances.

Just so is it in morals: a knowledge of principles without a trained and experienced judgment in the use of them, will not enable a man to give a ready and a correct reply to the moral questions with which, in the affairs of a busy life, and under varying circumstances, he is daily confronted; and, on the other hand, without a knowledge of principles, his moral acts will have a mere empiric character, and can never assure of certainty as to the right. This condition gives rise to an uneven, one-sided character, in which fair virtue is disfigured by folly and vice.

Thus, religious zeal for a formal worship, unbalanced by a true principle and spirit of religious liberty, gave rise to contentions and persecutions between Jew and Gentile; between Catholic and Protestant; and in the established church in England and in Germany between Conformists and recusants; and nearer home, to that inconsistency and narrowness of spiritual insight which characterized the Puritans of Massachusetts when they expelled from their midst that man Rodger Williams, who, like Paul, was the personification of soul-liberty, and was the true exponent of that priceless "freedom to worship God," for the sake of which the Puritans themselves and the Pilgrims had braved all dangers and hardships in crossing the tempestuous ocean, landing upon icy, rock-bound coasts, and in effecting settlements in the wilderness of New England.

This principle of conscience-liberty, soul-liberty, religious liberty, cherished by the little band of Mayflower Pilgrims, was, August 1st, 1889, commemorated and emphasized by the dedication at Plymouth of a colossal Faith monument or Pilgrim statue;' and this monument is not local merely, but it is national in character, for it stands for that principle of religious liberty that enters into the laws and the institutions of the American people.

32. PIVOT THOUGHTS IN THE PRINCIPLES.-1. Some duties are self-evident, and our obedience to these helps us to discover those that are disclosed through moral law certified to by the judgments of our intellectual, moral and religious nature acting in