The application of that truth is left to us in the guidance of personal procedure; and this is an exercise unspeakably higher than guidance by detailed rules. The possibilities of such a life involve the possibility of likeness to the Deity Himself.

10. The name of Conscience has always been, and will always continue to be, popularly used in a much wider sense than that in which the designation can be employed under strict philosophic warrant. It is thus commonly made to embrace all that is connected with our moral decisions, within the sphere of personal consciousness. Thus our moral judgments are attributed directly to conscience itself, and that even when they are discredited as erroneous. So in like manner all experience of moral sentiment is referred directly to Conscience.

11. With this wide popular use of the term Conscience, a variety of phrases descriptive of the condition of the faculty has found currency in popular discourse. Of these, the following may be taken as examples :- An unenlightened Conscience, a scrupulous Conscience, a tender Conscience, a hardened Conscience, an upbraiding Conscience.

The philosophic interpretation of such phrases may be secured by discriminating between these three things-the Conscience properly so called, the moral judgments, and the moral sentiments, all of which are popularly referred to one power. In some of the phrases a mixed reference may be found; but they commonly apply either to the moral judgments or to the action of the moral sentiments.

12. THE DIVERSITY OF MORAL JUDGMENTS AMONG MEN is the main difficulty in vindicating an intuitional theory of Conscience, and is the great leading objection of its opponents.

In treating of this difficulty, the following points need attention:

First, The extent to which diversity prevails. All nations admit a distinction between right and wrong in human conduct

There is very general agreement as to the forms of rectitude, such as truthfulness, justice, benevolence. There is no nation which is known so to transpose moral distinctions as to place these forms of moral excellence in the list of qualities morally wrong. Diversity of opinion on moral subjects is much more concerned with the determination of what is wrong, than with deciding what is right. Men excuse deceit, who do not condemn integrity; they approve advantage taken of another, but they do not condemn honesty; they applaud cruel vengeance, but they still admire benevolence. There is thus a want of consistency in the case of many of the judgments pronounced. Compare the law of theft in ancient Sparta ; in Caffre-land, famous for cattle-lifting; and in the nations of modern civilization.

Secondly, The philosophical explanation of diversity among the moral judgments of men. Men differ not as to the principles, but as to their application in given circumstances. Epictetus explains it thus,—“The same general principles are common to all men. . . . Where, then, arises the dispute? In adapting these principles to particular cases,' I. 23. Contradictory moral judgments imply error somewhere; that error is capable of being detected and exposed; its detection and exposure imply possession of a common, unvarying standard of morals. An adequate explanation of diversity of moral judgments is therefore possible. The key to diversities in personal judgments, will afford the key to national diversities. The question is this-If the first principles of morals are selfevident truths, of which a reasoned contradiction cannot be given, how can the rational nature of man accept and act upon a tacit contradiction of them? The answer is twofold, partly Ethical, partly Psychological.

(1.) ETHICAL EXPLANATIONS.-(a.) There are dispositions belonging to our nature, and impelling to action, which are out of harmony with conscience, and the exercise of which is a practical violation of the authority of conscience. Selfish

ness and Malice may be taken as the root forms of these. This fact affords, primarily, an explanation of wrong acting, but it is at the same time a step towards the explanation of erroneous thinking. Hence it happens that the diversity of opinion on Morals is much more concerned with what is wrong, by way of excusing it, than with what is right, by way of condemning it.

(b.) There is often great difficulty in deciding what is present duty, when there is none as to what is morally right. Hence it happens that there is much more diversity of opinion as to the dutiful in special circumstances, than as to what is right in all circumstances. It is the relation of the agent to circumstances, which originates questions of casuistry, and not the decision as to what courses of conduct are right in themselves. All such diversity of opinion concerns the application of the standard, not the nature of the standard, and is therefore to be laid aside as irrelevant when the discussion is concerned with the standard of moral distinctions. Men may agree that Benevolence is morally right, and yet may altogether differ as to the duty of helping a beggar. Diversity of opinion on this latter point, though it is connected with morals, is not concerned with the standard of morality.

(2.) PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION.-The following laws of mind come into view as bearing on the question :

(a.) Dispositions swaying the conduct have power to bias the judgments. What a man inclines to do, that he is ready to think right. Liability to error being at any rate characteristic of the reasoning power, the risk of contentment with fallacious reasoning is greatly heightened, when cherished dispositions favour the accepted conclusions. In this way, the rational nature is often content to place false generalizations in the room of self-evident truths.

(6.) Prevailing opinions may be accepted without independent investigation. It is not merely in the ethical sphere, but in every department of thought, that illustration may be

found of this tendency in the rational nature. In the development of mind, prevailing opinions are first accepted on authority, and then retained without personal investigation. Besides, if the practice sanctioned is in harmony with an evil disposition common to our nature, there is double inducement to adopt it. Authority and Inclination combine their forces. Where social custom establishes a practice, unreasoning acquiescence is easy.

(c.) The moral sentiments cluster around a false judgment, as readily as around a true. There is not, indeed, the same security in both cases for the continuance of these sentiments. But if a man, whether correctly or incorrectly, only approve an action, he will experience self-approbation in doing it. If, whether accurately or not, he only disapprove of an action, he will experience a sense of shame, or even of remorse, in doing it. Of all the recognised laws of mind, this is the one to which most prominence is to be given, in accounting for the astonishing diversity of opinion, founded upon appeals to conscience. If a South Sea Islander approve of vengeance, he may have a sense of well-doing while he tortures an enemy. If an Indian believes that the Deity requires him to wash in the Ganges, he may have a sense of remorse in neglecting what he regards as duty. Moral sanctions may thus gather around even gross immorality. When this law of union between judgment and sentiment is recognised, it is clear that sentiments afford neither the basis of moral distinctions, nor any certain guidance as to such distinctions. Moral responsibility hangs upon the possession of rational nature.

Man, as a rational being, has intrusted to him the application of the principles of morality (v. sec. 9 of this chap.) In deciding questions of morals, he may either seek a clear view of moral law, or he may accept a current rule of conduct without inquiring as to its rational validity. In the former case, he accepts self-evident truth, capable of vindication. by every test. In the latter, he proceeds upon a rule the

rational insufficiency of which may be proved at every step. If individual and national history give evidence that men often prefer the latter course to the former, there is ample explanation, ethical, intellectual, and sentimental, and that explanation does not affect the reality of self-evident moral principles, or impinge upon their authority as moral laws.

13. PROBLEMS.-(1.) Can personal feeling possess the authority of moral law? (2.) Critically examine the following,—'As each man's Reason may err, and thus lead him to false opinions, so each man's Conscience may err, and lead him to a false moral standard.'-Whewell's Elements of Morality, sec. 368, 1. 238. Distinguish between what is here pointed to as fact, and what is presented by way of interpretation and explanation of the fact. (3.) If Conscience be represented as 'a power of reflection,' can its supremacy be competently maintained? (4.) Does the philosophical doctrine of an unerring Conscience imply infallibility of judgment in morals on the part of its possessor? 'The universal Conscience and Reason, of which Dr. Whewell speaks as infallible, must reside in some men endued with Conscience and Reason. We ask, who are these infallible men, or this infallible Council?' — Prof. Bain, Emotions and Will, p. 267. (5.) When sovereignty is attributed to conscience, what is the nature and measure of power involved in this sovereignty? (6.) Are the functions usually assigned to conscience compatible with the hypothesis that this faculty finds exercise only in consequence of an action having been done?