Yes, it is innate, and is exercised without volition by all, but gains in power and precision, according as it is cultivated. If the reason, especially the trained reason, arrives at the right conclusion without any effort of volition on the part of the thinker, it is practically an infallible guide to conduct? On the contrary, the reason is pledged to pursue a suggestion to its logical conclusion only. Much of the history of religious persecutions and of family and international feuds turns on the confusion which exists in most minds between that which is logically inevitable and that which is morally right. But according to this doctrine any theory whatever may be shown to be logically inevitable? Exactly so; the initial idea once received, the difficulty is, not to prove that it is tenable, but to restrain the mind from proving that it is so. Can you illustrate this point? The child who lets himself be jealous of his brother is almost startled by the flood of convincing proofs that he does well to be angry, which rush in upon him. Beginning with a mere flash of suspicion in the morning, the little Cain finds himself in the evening possessed of irrefragable proofs that his brother is unjustly preferred to him: and “All seems infected that the infected spy As all looks yellow to the jaundiced eye.” But supposing it is true that the child has cause for jealousy? Given, the starting idea, and his reason is equally capable of proving a logical certainty, whether it is true or whether it is not true. Is there any historical proof of this startling theory? Perhaps every failure in conduct, in individuals, and in nations, is due to the confusion which exists as to that which is logically right, as established by the reason, and that which is morally right, as established by external law. Is any such distinction recognised in the Bible? Distinctly so; the _transgressors_ of the Bible are those who do that which is _right_ in their own eyes--that is, that of which their reason approves. Modern thought considers, on the contrary, that all men are justified in doing that which is right in their own eyes, acting “up to their lights,” “obeying the dictates of their reason.” For example? A mother whose cruel usage had caused the death of her child was morally exonerated lately in a court of justice because she acted “from a mistaken sense of duty.” But it is not possible to err from a mistaken sense of duty?