all thy might, and with all thy strength; and thy neighbor as thyself." Paul says "All the Law is fulfilled in one wordlove:" "therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Now it is admitted by this philosophy, that the love required by the Law is not a mere emotion, but that it consists in willing, choice, intention; that it consists in the choice of an ultimate end, or in the choice of some thing for its own sake, or which is the same thing, for its intrinsic value. What is this which the Law requires us to will to God and our neighbor? Is it to will the right for the sake of the right? But what has this to do with loving God and our neighbor? To will the right for the sake of the right, is not the same as to love God and our neighbor, as it is not willing any thing to them. Suppose it be said, that the Law requires us to will the good, or highest blessedness of God and our neighbor, because it is right. This, as has been shown, is a contradiction and an impossibility. To will the blessedness of God and our neighbor in any proper sense, is to will it for its own sake, or as an ultimate end. But this is not to will it because it is right. To will the good of God and our neighbor for its own sake, or for its intrinsic value, is right. But to will the right for the sake of the right, is not right. To will the good because it is good, or the valuable because it is valuable, is right, because it is willing it for the right reason. But to will the right because it is right, is not right, because it is not willing the right end. To will the good because it is right, is not to will the good as an end, but the right as an end, which is not right. The Law of God does not, can not require us to love right more than God and our neighbor. What! right of greater value than the highest well-being of God and of the universe? Impossible. It is impossible that the Moral Law should require any thing else than to will the highest good of universal being as an ultimate end. It is a first truth of Reason, that this is the most valuable thing possible or conceivable; and that could by no possibility be law, that should require any thing else to be chosen as an ultimate end. According to this philosophy, the revealed law should read: "Thou shalt love the right for its own sake, with all thy heart and with all thy soul." The fact is, the Law requires the supreme love of God, and the equal love of our neighbor. It says nothing, and implies nothing about doing right for the sake of the right. Rightarianism is a rejection of the Divine Revealed Law, and a substituting in its stead an entirely different rule of Moral Obligation, a rule that deifies right, that rejects the claims of God, and exalts right to the throne.

(2.) "Whether therefore, ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." Does this precept require us to will the right for the sake of the right, or is it in spirit the same as the Law? The same as the Law, beyond a doubt.

(3.) "Do good unto all men, as ye have opportunity." Here again, are we required to will the right for the sake of the right, or to will the good of our neighbor because of its own intrinsic value? The latter, most certainly.

(4.) Take the commands to pray and labor for the salvation of souls. Do such commandments require us to go forth to will or do the right for the sake of the right, or to will the salvation of souls for the intrinsic value of their salvation? When we pray and preach and converse, must we aim at right, must the love of right, and not the love of God and of souls influence us? When I am engaged in prayer, and travail day and night for souls, and have an eye so single to the good of souls and to the glory of God, and am so swallowed up with my subject as not so much as to think of the right, am I all wrong? Must I pray because it is right, and do all I do and suffer all I suffer, not from good will to God and man, but because it is right? Who does not know, that to intend the right for the sake of the right in all these things instead of having an eye single to the good of being, would and must be any thing rather than true religion?

(5.) Examine this philosophy in the light of Scripture de clarations. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him, might not perish, but have everlasting life." Now, are we to understand that God gave his Son, not from any regard to the good of souls for its own sake, but for the sake of the right? Did He will the right for the sake of the right? Did He give His Son to die for the right for the sake of the right, or to die to render the salvation of souls possible, and for the sake of the souls?

(6.) Did Christ give Himself to die and labor for the right for the sake of the right, or for souls from love to souls? Did prophets, and apostles, and martyrs, and have the saints in all ages, willed the right for the sake of the right, or have they labored and suffered and died for God and souls from love to them?

(7.) How infinitely strange would the Bible read, if it adopted this philosophy. The Law, as has been said, would read thus: "Thou shalt love the right with all thy heart;" "Whatsoever ye do, do all for the sake of the right;" "Do the right unto all men for the sake of the right;""God so loved the right

for the sake of the right that he gave his only begotten Son, to do the right for the sake of the right." Should we interrogate the holy men of all ages, and ask why they do and suffer as they do, with this philosophy, they must answer, We are willing and doing the right for the sake of the right. We have no ultimate regard to God or to the good of any being, but only to the right.

(8.) But take another passage which is quoted in support of this philosophy: "Children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right." Now what is the spirit of this requirement? What is it to obey parents? Why, if, as this philosophy holds, it must resolve itself into Ultimate Intention, what must the child intend for its own sake? Must he will good to God and his parents, and obey his parents as a means of securing the highest good, or must he will the right as an end for the sake of the right, regardless of the good of God or of the universe? Would it be right to will the right for the sake of the right, rather than to will the good of the universe for the sake of the good, and obey his parents as a means of securing the highest good?

It is right to will the highest good of God and of the universe, and to use all the necessary means, and fulfill all the necessary conditions of this highest well-being. For children to obey their parents is one of the means, and for this reason it is right, and upon no other condition can it be required. But it is said that children affirm their obligation to obey their parents entirely irrespective of the obedience having any reference to or sustaining any relation to the good of being. This is a mistake. The child, if he is a Moral Agent, and does really affirm Moral Obligation, not only does, but must perceive the. end upon which his choice or intention ought to terminate. If he really makes an intelligent affirmation, it is and must be, that he ought to will an end, that this end is not, and can not be the right, as has been shown. He knows that he ought to will his parents' happiness, and his own happiness, and the happiness of the world, and of God; and he knows that obedience to his parents sustains the relation of a means to this end. The fact is, it is a first truth of Reason, that he ought to will the good of his parents and the good of every body. He also knows that obedience to his parents is a necessary means to this end. If he does not know these things, it is impossible for him to be a Moral Agent, or to make any intelligent affirmation at all; and if he has any idea of obedience, it is, and must be only such as animals

have who are actuated wholly by hope, fear and instinct. As well might we say, that an ox or a dog, who gives indication of knowing in some sense, that he ought to obey us, affirms Moral Obligation of himself, as to say this of a child in whose mind the idea of the good, or valuable to being is not developed. What! does Moral Obligation respect ultimate intention only; and does ultimate intention consist in the choice of something for its own intrinsic value, and yet is it true that children affirm Moral Obligation before the idea of the intrinsically valuable, is at all developed? Impossible! But this objection assumes that children have the idea of right developed before the idea of the valuable. This can not be. The end to be chosen, must be apprehended by the mind before the mind can have the idea of Moral Obligation to choose an end, or of the right or wrong of choosing or not choosing it. The development of the idea of the good or valuable, must precede the development of the ideas of right and of Moral Obligation.

But here again, I must bring into view the fundamental error of this philosophy, to wit, that right is the end to be willed. Right, as we have seen, is objective or subjective. Objective right is an idea, a law. Subjective right is virtue. But virtue, as it consists in love, or willing, can not be an end. Objective right, or law, can not be an end. To will objective right as an end, would be to will the idea, or law, as an end. This is absurd, as we have seen. What sort of a law would that be that required that nothing should be willed as an end but itself? This could, by no possibility, be Law. Law is that which declares what ought to be willed as an end, or for its own intrinsic value; and what law would that be, which instead of requiring the highest good of God and the universe to be chosen as an end, should require the rule, law or idea itself to be willed as the ultimate and supreme good? Surely this would not, could not be law. The law of God, then, is not, and can not be developed in the mind of a child who has no knowledge or idea of the valuable, and who has and can have no reference to the good of any being, in obedience to his parents.

It is one thing to intend that which is right, and quite another to intend the right as an end. For example, to choose my own gratification as an end, is wrong. But this is not choosing the wrong as an end. A drunkard chooses to gratify his appetite for strong drink as an end, that is, for its own sake. This is wrong. But the choice does not terminate on

the wrong, but, on the gratification. The thing intended is not the wrong. The liquor is not chosen, the gratification is not intended, because it is wrong, but notwithstanding it is wrong. To love God is right, but to suppose that God is loved because it is right, is absurd. It is to suppose that God is loved, not from any regard to God, but from a regard to right. This is an absurdity and a contradiction. To love or will the good of my neighbor, is right. But to will the right, instead of the good of my neighbor, is not right. It is loving right instead of my neighbor; but this is not right.

(9.) But it is said that I am conscious of affirming to myself that I ought to will the right. This a mistake. I am conscious of affirming to myself, that I ought to will that the wil ling of which is right, to wit, to will the good of God and of being. This is right. But this is not choosing the right as an end.

(10.) But it is said again, "I am conscious of affirming to myself, that I ought to will the good of being, because it is right." That is, to will the good of being, as a means, and the right as an end! which is making right the supreme good and the good of being a means to that end. This is absurd. But to say, that I am conscious of affirming to myself my obligation to love or will the good of God and my neighbor, because it is right, is a contradiction. It is the same as to say, I ought to love, or intend the good of God and my neighbor, as an ultimate end, and yet, not to intend the good of God and my neighbor, but intend the right.

66

(11.) But it is said, that "I ought to love God in compliance with, and out of respect to my obligation; that I ought to will it, because and for the reason that I am bound to will it." That is, that in loving God and my neighbor, I must intend to discharge or comply with my obligation; and this, it is said, is identical with intending the right. But ought my supreme, object to be to discharge my duty-to meet obligation instead of willing the well-being of God and my neighbor for its own sake? If my end is to do my duty, I do not do it. For what is my obligation? Why, to love, or will the good of God and my neighbor, that is, as an end, or for its own value. To discharge my obligation, then, I must intend the good of God and my neighbor, as an end. That is, I must intend that which I am under an obligation to intend. But I am not under an obligation to intend the right, because it is right, nor to do my duty because it is duty, but to intend the good of God and of my neighbor, because it is good. Therefore, to