Short Notices [pp. 722-738]

8short NVotices.
We take occasion to notice a form of statement relative to
the function of conscience, which has had considerable currency
among a class of writers, who, like our author, in the main
hold correct views of the subject, and are aiming to express an
important truth, in the very phraseology to which we except.
The truth which they aim to express is, that conscience is
liable, like other faculties, to be misguided through negligence,
or wilful inattention to the light within our reach: that the
erroneous judgments it thus forms do not alter the inherent
quality of moral actions performed under their influence; that
they cannot make or unmake right or wrong; that hence men
are culpable for wrong acts done with the sanction of a misguided conscience, and that the true seat of their culpability
lies in their neglect, refusal, or unwillingness, to see the light
which would correct their error. In this sense, and within
these limits, it is true that conscience is not an infallible guide.
And there is scarcely any truth of greater importance.
This, however, is one thing. To say as our author says,
p. 106, "Conscience is not a moral guide," is, in our view,
quite another. If conscience is not a moral guide, what is it?
What other faculty for moral guidance have we? The judgments of conscience are simply jndgments of the mind that
certain actions are right or wrong, that we ought to do or not
do them. Can a man do or be the reverse of what he judges
he ought to do or be, without sin? Never. If he can, then
sin is impossible. If conscience is misguided, the subject of the
delusion, is, in the language of the late Dr. Alexander, "in a
deplorable dilemma." If he obeys its dictates, he does wrong,
he sins. If he disobeys its dictates, he sins, for all disobedience to conscience is and must be sin. He has placed himself
in this dilemma by his sinful refusal to enlighten his conscience. His only remedy lies in coming to the light, as Paul
did at his conversion.
It is perfectly true, that the Bible is the only infallible rule
of right. To this then we are bound to repair for the due
enlightenment of the conscience. But how can we see and
judge this to be our duty until the mind, opening itself to the
evidence of their divinity and infallibility, judges that we ought
to repair to the Holy Oracles, and submit to their guidance?
And must not conscience, i. e. the mind judging on moral subjects, be "our moral guide," in indicating this to be our duty,
and impelling us to perform it? The truth is, it is only through
the conscience as a "moral guide," that we can see our obligation to guide it by any superior light or authority. Whatever
other guidance we ought to adopt, still conscience must be our
VOL. XXX.-NO. IV. 93
729
1858.]