faculty in us, is the remedy for deficiencies; for in this only it is that the deficiency can exist. This we can easily see is a necessary and absolute deduction of the Science of Morals.

Again, there is another deduction, as necessary to be made. When we look at the bodily organs and their deficiencies, we see at once two things. In the first place, there is the organization visible and tangible, and as such formed and purposed for a certain function; in the second place, there is the function itself. The organization is the means towards effecting that end, and the function is the end. Now in judging of bodily organs, the means being visible and tangible, we are judges of the means to the end; as for instance, of the arm, we know all its functions, such as reaching, pushing, holding, and so forth, and have in our mind a full notion of all. And more than that, we have all the machinery for those functions before our eyes, and can judge of the suitableness of it towards the end. We can say, because such and such a bone, muscle, or nerve is deficient, diseased, or inadequate, therefore such and such a function of the organ is unfulfilled. But with regard to faculties, moral or mental, the function is actually the only thing that we know; the organization by which that particular faculty works, of that we know nothing.

And, therefore, from this at once we come to a conclusion of very great value, as a means of limiting our researches,-that is, that it is vain to attempt to penetrate into mental or moral organization, for it cannot be known; or in some fancied organization, supplied by own over-daring, to place the cause of deficiencies.

To illustrate this, we shall take the memory; "the memory is the faculty that remembers;" we know not the organization of it as a faculty,—that is, the means by which remembrance is brought about. We only know its function, "that it remembers." Hence that "memory" shall be good that "remembers well," that remembers firmly, and readily, and fully, and particularly, and so forth: everything that can come under the word "remember," and the word "well;" that shall be a bad "memory," whose function of remembrance is characterized by all those defects which come under the word badly. It is not powers and organizations that we know, but functions.*

* In Mathematics, the "function" of a quantity is always expressed in "terms of that quantity," 2x, x2, x3, d.x, all these are functions of x, the

To apply the principle, then, the deficiencies of the Conscience, are those by which it does not fulfil the functions that belong to the Conscience; and if we have fully and truly described its functions in the previous chapter, the perfect Conscience shall be that which effects these functions perfectly, the imperfect Conscience that which effects them imperfectly. A Conscience, then, that Checks or Withholds adequately when evil approaches, that Records, and, according to its law, re-presents to the man the evil done, and that Prophesies of a future recompense in the same measure, that shall be a good Conscience. A Conscience whose effects are less than this, is not a good Conscience, but an imperfect one.

Having thus stated wherein the deficiencies of Conscience are to be found, it now remains for us to enter upon the consideration of them under these limitations.

The Conscience, then, may be considered as faulty by excess, or as faulty by deficiency in reference to any of its three divisions of function.

That Conscience, for instance, that does not warn against that which is actually evil, is in one degree a thoughtless Conscience; in a higher, a careless Conscience; higher still, a hardened Conscience; yet higher, a callous Conscience; and, highest of all, a "seared" or "dead" Conscience,-all these terms implying deficiency in the sensibility of the faculty to that which is actually evil.

And then, again, an over sensibility, tending to present to us as evil that which is not actually evil, a tendency which any one that considers the analogy to the eye or the ear can at once comprehend, is represented to us as a "weak" Conscience, a scrupulous" Conscience, or a "sore" Conscience. The true Withholding Conscience being that which is faulty by neither deficiency or excess, and therefore is called the "sure" or "perfect" Conscience.

Now with regard to the second part of the Conscience, its deficiencies are manifestly in reference to the power of recording or re-presenting, first, faults of deficiency or faults of superabundance,

original quantity x, is seen in them all. So in the example in the text of "Good memory, ""bad memory," "feeble memory," all the phrases we use bring in and employ the word "memory," they are "functions" of that unknown quantity. The nature and the machinery of the faculty is unknown as far as they are concerned.

wherein that which is evil, when done, is not represented to our minds as evil, that is, the record written is not brought out, and that which is not evil is represented as such. These cases are denoted by the same terms as we have noted in the first.

But more than this, there is a peculiar fault belonging to the second kind by its very nature, when the actions recorded and re-presented have the peculiar note that we call "Stain" attached to them; so that they shall be recorded with this note, and when brought up again to the recollection shall have it associated with them, and shall rouse the feeling of "Shame" in the mind.

This Conscience, in reference to that "Stain," is called a "foul," a "polluted," or a "defiled" Conscience; and the opposite, that in which the record is in a more or less degree without "Stain," a "pure," or "clean," or "undefiled" Conscience.

Again, with reference to the Prophetic Conscience, the same remarks that were made with reference to the second function of the faculty may be made with regard to it as to deficiency or excess. But with reference to its operation, as it presents actions in respect to the future, and in connection with liability to punishment, that is, as we have established it, "Guilt," in reference to this, the Conscience, in which, when acts done and past are presented to the mind in connexion with this liability, is called " a guilty Conscience;" and that in a degree more or less according to the number and flagrancy of the acts: and a Conscience the opposite is called an "innocent" Conscience.

Thus does it appear that with regard to the function, the worst of all kinds of Conscience is that which is "insensible," or has lost its warning power, commonly called a "seared" or "dead" Conscience; that to which evil is good and good evil, the discriminating power being wholly lost.

With regard to the effect-the Conscience that is "foul" or defiled, and that which is "guilty" or covered with "Guilt," this is the worst of all.

Here comes up a question which once was one very much debated, and still is in some measure interesting: "Can there be naturally such a thing as that one should be born without a Conscience?" This question we believe we have in a degree forestalled, and as it were given our readers the means of deciding it; we therefore merely indicate it, and so pass on.

The best, then, of all shall be that Conscience which in refer

ence to these functions, is tender, in reference to the Recording faculty, is pure, or free from Stain, to the Prophetic part, is "innocent,” or free from Guilt.

And between these two extremes there are various degrees, all of which are combinations of these elements, and therefore enumerated "in posse" by the enumeration of them.

And also there is a multitude of practical questions, of the most interesting kind, which it is enough to have indicated, as the examination of them in detail is to our object, which is a "system" of Moral Philosophy, unnecessary. We shall, therefore, in the mode of all proper science, leave the multitude of problems deducible from our main principles, to be as exercises for the student in the application of these principles, and content ourselves with those that are leading and absolutely necessary.

The next subject, therefore, that will most naturally engage our attention is the question, "How and by what means we are to so regulate the Conscience that it shall be for the individual man in the best possible condition that it can be in; that is, what means shall we pursue, if we would derive all the advantages from the power and faculty of Conscience, which God intended that we should derive?" This, manifestly, is a question of the most serious importance, for there is no doubt but that the majority of mankind, so far from subordinating the action of their passions and appetites to any rule or to any governance, are actually led by these appetites. And some are actually so audacious as to set forth a philosophy that says, "that an appetite, a passion, a desire craves gratification, is a sign that it should be gratified to the fullest extent! and that the outward frame of Society imposes some restraint, indicates that that frame-work is wholly wrong! and must make way for a new one, all whose end and rule shall be, 'that all appetites, all passions, all desires shall be gratified to the utmost of their demands!'" a horrid and brutal Philosophy, that gives liberty to all vice, and destroys the very basis of all Morality.

In view of this fact, I think it is of no small importance to vindicate the Supremacy of the "governing" or "moral" powers, and to point out to the individual man, who is desirous to live according to the law of God, the means whereby he shall be enabled to give to the first of these governing powers, the Con

science, its due perfection, that is, the "supremacy" which it should possess over the rest of our nature.

Now the reader, on looking back to Chapter VI. of Book I., will find there laid down, that there are Governing Faculties whose office, by their very position, is that they are to govern, and that the Conscience is one of them. Again: he will find that of these governing faculties there are laws, in consequence of the obedience to which and by which, from their very nature, they attain and uphold their "supremacy": guided, then, by those rules, they uphold their station; abandoning these, the laws of their being as Governing faculties, they abandon their sway.

Their laws, as governing faculties are, first, that they must govern. Secondly, that they must govern always. Thirdly, that they must govern by a law not by themselves. He, then, that would have a Conscience pure and perfect, must apply these rules unto its action upon his nature, and by these rules, and by these alone, can it attain to the completeness that it is by God intended to possess, and is by its nature capable of having. Let us apply these rules.

66

The first says, that unto a perfect Conscience it is necessary that it should govern; that is, that no Conscience is a sure" guide, or can be appealed to as such, or trusted in, save and except that as a principle of life it be made supreme by the man.

This may be seen to be so from the very nature of man's constitution in even his bodily faculties. When extreme sensibilities are given against any emotion or sensation that is injurious, if that emotion or sensation be pressed upon the feeling, then the sensibility becomes sometimes almost wholly dead, so as to cease being any guard or protection. So would it seem that the faculty that warns against evil, by its warnings being neglected, loses its power altogether, and resigns its seat to inferior competitors.

This analogy from bodily faculties would be of itself sufficient to illustrate, and to rest our proof upon, backed, as it is, by the experience of the whole world, and of all both heathen and Christian moralists; for who is there who does know how easily one step downward from the straight course of steady and conscientious action, will end in plunging the man in guilt, of which a little before he deemed himself wholly incapable? Who does not know what a fatal fascination evil once familiarized to us has? There would be proof enough in defence of the assertion that we