It is not an uncommon thing to hear people say in defence of their action: “I acted according to my conscience,” thereby implying that they had done right. But, underlying that statement is the assumption that the conscience is always right. This is not so for unless the knowledge be right the conscience will not be right. “My conscience does not reprove me,” said Queen Mary to John Knox. “Conscience, madame, requires knowledge,” replied the intrepid Reformer.
“This is one of the most perplexing questions in the science of morals. Many are of opinion that all that is necessary to render an action good is that the agent act agreeably to the dictates of his own conscience. This may be considered a vulgar [common] opinion, usually taken up without much consideration. But there is an opinion nearly akin to this, which has been advocated by some of the greatest men of the age, namely, that men are not responsible for their opinions or belief. It is thought that the adoption of this as a maxim is the only effectual method of putting an end to the bitter animosities and controversies among the advocates of different creeds. It is not wonderful that they who make the moral sense in a sort, infallible, and the ultimate standard of right and of wrong, should hold that men cannot go astray if they will honestly listen to the voice of conscience and obey her dictates.
But as has been shown, conscience is the judgment of the mind respecting duty and as no man’s knowledge is perfect or infallible it follows therefore that so far as there is error in the understanding in relation to matters of duty, just so far the conscience will be misguided. The question at issue, therefore, is whether an action wrong in itself, can be considered as a good and virtuous act if the agent believes that it is right. If the affirmative were true then the discovery of truth would be of no value for obviously upon this principle error is just as good as truth. But as soon would we believe that darkness is as good as light to direct us in the way we wish to travel.
*The above quotation is from Dr. Archibald Alexander’s Outlines of Moral Science, whose sermon on the Deceitfulness of the Human Heart appeared recently in the Magazine. The noted Princeton divine discusses in the forementioned volume a number of interesting points with more than ordinary ability.—Editor.
Again, this theory supposes a man is under no law but his own opinion, or the dictates of his conscience, that, therefore, which is a sin in one man may be a duty to another in precisely the same external circumstances and relations, which would be to confound all moral distinctions. This theory would go to sanction every form of religion, however corrupt and superstitious; and to make the vilest immoralities virtuous; for there can be no doubt that the votaries of idolatry, in their most cruel and abominable rites follow the dictates of an erring conscience . . . Every species of persecution may be justified on this principle. Instead, therefore, of putting an end to all animosities it would bring back all their horrors, the days of persecution, for conscience sake.”
The conscience as it is in fallen man is not given us as the only rule of faith and duty. From our childhood’s years the only rule that God has given us to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him is the Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The Holy Spirit can apply the truth to the conscience and the conscience under divine guidance is a safe guide, but that is very different from saying our natural conscience is always a safe guide and that we have unburdened ourselves when we say in regard to any action or course we have taken that we have so according to our conscience.