>33_^ 3^ ^>>3^3^= 30^ 33\_ 33 > ) 33 3>3>>33 >33> 333^ >3 "^~ S3^- *>3 ►3 ^f>X>33> I> 2> ^^^Rfm #33^00* 3 23S^ -> I> dSm ^3 3P3QL3 ^^r>3Sl5>>3 3 3>33 >^^^3 > 33 333 : ~3§>3 r ^>3 : OS I 5>3 3 3 333i ">\> 33>3> 3:£S 3»io 3> j 1* 3 ~> 3> 3 3 3r^) 3> 3 ^> 333 3 3D 3> z> 333 3> ~^»3 ^ - 3»^?« - 3>. >3>53& 33>I3 »»3> 3 ^»3> 33>I> > >>3> 3 » 3 3> 35>3 3 S3 3) 3333> 3 3 I >>>33 >3 3 - ^ -~^ 3 3 _ 333»3 3> 3BWM? [ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. U 5SL 33^ 333»mj* ^m 3 3 33 ^3 3 3, 111))^ ^> 3fe> 3 3 32 333 3,3 3 . 3«> 3»3^ ^3 > 3PD 3Q2> 3 - 313 3^5> ^ 333 3 3 3 3 ■3 3 ^ 33 _ 33 ^ 3 3 _ =^^ * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 33 _ *>> _^ 3 3 ^ >3 3 3 3 3 3> 33 3^3 33.33 J3 3>|S* >3 3^ 3 3-< ► 3 313 > 33Z> , >.o^ 33>~> 3 2i I 3 L 3 & '13>3j> >3 3 03. ^ 3> 0)L 3X3 3 33 X^I> 3:>^3 3 ) ;d -> ~> > - >3 3333^a>3yr & -3 .:v3 J»:^'Z>Xi: 33 3 »:;■>;> 3 :C » 3» 3lx^^3 3 3 3£>3B >T3,C ®13i>3^3. >^S»>3^3 H 3KO.jS>3 3 a3 3t> 3 1 3X>^>3 )333X>33 »imD 3 :» ' »>^33 s> :u :»3)^^ > S^^3^S 3D 33 23P 3£> ^» > >7 "233 » . 331>>2 ^"'»T>3 3 33 3") 3 si^D^ 3 33 33 % > 3> 3333 > 33 33)3 3 > 3^> 313T > 33d; 3 »_ >_>333: > > 3> 3 3 . > >>3>33 > '->3>33r » .,:» 3>33* 333T > l»u33) 3^33 2 3s>3»J33> ^ 3^^333 3 B) .0 33 3 J» :*> 33 3 ^^p3p ££>. -•-■-- 31 :k ^>fe» :;2>^> :23fe> . ; r S^E* 15l^ - j ran >^)l> 1 1 3^ SH^ a > 3> )> >:5> > > ©: ^ > 5> >> >3>':;> 33 )3> 3> )J> !>;> >> 3 : 3> ■-^j^^Sp; ^S>> '7>vT>''.-"i>"-" THE SUPEEMACT OBLIGATION OF CONSCIENCE: CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSITE EEEOES OF ROMANISM AND PROTESTANTISM. THE REV. SAMUEL SEABURY, D.D., ECTOR OF THE CHURCH OF THE ANNUNCIATION, NEW YORK NEW YOEK: DANIEL DANA, JR., 381 BROADWAY. I860. :/m 4€ Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, By Daniel Dana, Jr., In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the Southern District of New York. Billin & Brother, Printers and Stereotypers, 20 North William Street. PREFACE. Soon after the return of the Eev. Dr. Forbes from the Koman communion to his old home, I delivered the following discourse on the Supremacy of Conscience. The publication of it was at the time desired by several persons who heard it ; but with every disposition to gratify the wishes of friends from whom I have received nothing but kindness, I was yet reluctant to publish the discourse, especially in the present temper of the public mind, and not exhibit, more distinctly and fully than its design allowed, those divine laws without the observance of which liberty of conscience is only another name for licentious- ness. I therefore reserved the discourse until a suitable opportu- nity occurred for following it with another on the Obligation of Conscience. With this natural sequel to the first discourse, I felt quite free to comply with the wishes that had been kindly expressed for its publication. I have two other reasons for publication : The one is that as I am willing now as always to protest against the errors of the Roman Church, so am I desirous always, and especially at this present time, to enter my humble but earnest protest against that fanatical spirit which has always been the assailant of our Church, and which now threatens the constitution of our country. The other is that, considering loose and erroneous views of consci- ence to be the main spring and support of this fanatical spirit, I wish to see some attempt made to counteract them. I am deeply conscious, indeed, of my inability to treat the sub- ject to my own satisfaction, and much more to the satisfaction of the many acute and vigorous minds on whose sympathies I flatter myself I may count to some extent, but whose traditions, I fear, render them indisposed to accept several of the posi- tions which I have thought it necessary to take ; but I thought it quite possible that my humble essay might, in the course of Divine Providence, be the means of drawing out others, in the same direction, who are better qualified to give the subject the profound consideration which the times demand. The reader who is acquainted with the admirable lectures of Bishop Sanderson will see that I have followed him not only in his general outlines, but in several particulars, most of which are specified in the notes. I confess that I found it diffi- cult to write on Conscience without being indebted to this famous casuist ; and if what I have said shall have the effect to excite inquiry and demand for his writings on the subject, I shall think my own labors amply rewarded. The discourses have been in part re-written since they were preached ; a circumstance which I deem it proper to mention, in order that I may be held alone responsible for their sentiments. S. S. New York, January, 1860. THE SUPREMACY OF CONSCIENCE. ST. JAMES IV., 12. " There is one lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy : who art thou that judgest another ?" In the preceding verse the apostle exhorts the Christians of his day to refrain from passing rash judgments on the persons and actions of their brethren. In order to perceive the force of the exhortation, we must bear in mind the differences which had sprung up in the early Christian Church, in regard to the Mosaic ceremonies, and which are often either tacitly or openly alluded to in the writings of the New Testament. " Speak not evil one of another, brethren." So far, the exhortation is general, such as all persons would take to themselves, and acknowledge to convey a wholesome admonition ; and such, therefore, as is fitted to conciliate, and not to repel, those whom the apostle wished to rebuke. " He that speaketh evil of his brother and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law and judgeth the law." Here the inspired writer passes from evil speaking in general to that particular kind of evil speaking which flows from rash — 6 — judgment. Now, from St. Paul's discourse on this subject,* it appears that they, who refused to be bound by the Mosaic ceremonies, were apt to speak contempt- uously of their opponents, and that they who insisted on the obligation of these ceremonies were the persons who were addicted to rash judgment. In these words, then, the Judaizing Christians would see that they were aimed at, though they were not expressly named ; for they were not content to observe the ceremonies themselves, but they condemned their brethren for not observing them, although they were not enjoined by the law of Christ. Consequently, as St. James here argues, they did not merely speak evil against their brethren and judge their brethren, but they spake evil against the law of Christ and judged the law of Christ, arraigning it as defective in not requiring an observance of the Mosaic ceremonies. And thus, as the apostle further argues, they raised themselves from subjects, or doers of the law, to the throne of the Judge, and virtually reviled the law and usurped the prerogative of Almighty God. The whole passage is a model of public pastoral reproof, naming no persons or parties, and containing no invidious reflections ; but advancing general propo- sitions which carry conviction to the minds of the mis- taken party, and in such a way as to abate their preju- dices, without flattering the pride of their opponents. My present object, however, is to direct your atten- tion to the concluding passage, " There is one law- giver who is able to save and to destroy : who art thou that judgest another?" The apostle had just observed, that they who pass rash judg- * Rom. xiv. ment on their brethren for not observing things which Christ had not commanded, usurp the office of God. In order to evince the folly and wickedness of this rash judgment, he next declares that, " There is one lawgiver," viz., God. Now this argument would have little or no force, if it merely meant that God was the one lawgiver, in the way of eminence or dis- tinction above others. The meaning plainly is, that God is the one lawgiver, in an exclusive sense : i. e., in a sense in which no human being is or can be. For the apostle adds : " Who art thou that judgest another V A question which is equivalent to a dis- tinct and strong affirmation, that no man has a right to judge the conscience of another ; that this is the sole prerogative of Almighty God ; and that as He is, the only judge of the conscience, so is He the only law- giver : in other words, that all those laws which bind the conscience, derive their binding authority from God alone. This is also evident from that which the apostle adds as a further support of his argument, viz., that the one lawgiver to whom he refers is able to save and to destroy. For this ability, in its full sense, can- not be affirmed of any human lawgiver. The power of human governors is limited to this world ; and it is the power of God alone which can bestow those rewards, and punishments with which an immortal being is chiefly concerned. God alone, then, as this holy apostle teaches us, has authority to bind laws directly on the conscience. The parent has authority over his child, the State over its citizens, and the Church over her members ; but the parent, the State, and the Church derive from God whatever authority they have to enact laws which oblige the conscience ; whereas, the laws of God de- rive their binding force and efficacy from none other, but are directly and immediately obligatory on the conscience. That God alone has this direct power over the conscience may also be inferred from reason. For he alone who knows the inward springs and movements of the conscience, can prescribe laws to the conscience ; since the law cannot rule or determine in matters which are beyond the cognizance of the lawgiver. But God alone, who " searches the hearts of men," knows the inward springs and movements of the con- science ; and therefore, all laws which oblige the conscience must flow from the fountain of His divine authority. Hence it is that human laws, while they can compel men to an outward conformity, have no power of their own to bind their thoughts and affec- tions ; as we see exemplified, not only in the sufferings of Christian martyrs, but also in the lives of some good and great men among the heathen, who have main- tained their integrity in opposition to the cruelty of tyrants and " the madness of the people," because they knew that human power could reach the body only, and not the soul. To the same effect are the words of our blessed Lord : u Fear not them which kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do, but fear Him, which, after He hath killed, hath power to cast into hell : yea, I say unto you, fear Him." As if He had said : Human governors have, by God's per- mission, power over the bodies of men, but over their souls and consciences they have no power ; they cannot impose laws and penalties which reach to the inner man ; God alone has power over the whole man ; He alone can punish the soul as well as the body, and condemn the whole man, soul and body, to eternal punishment. Therefore fear Him. The same may be inferred from the nature of con- science, which intervenes between God and the will of all mankind,. So that it may be truly said of the conscience of every man, that it is inferior to God alone, and knows no superior on earth. To seek to dethrone it from this supremacy is to invade the cita- del of heaven.* To substitute an outward authority in its stead, or to arrogate the right to bind it by laws and commands of direct and immediate obligation, is an attempt to rob God of His glory and to usurp His prerogative. The laws of God which bind the conscience, are both inward and outward. The inward law is that written in the heart, and consists in those notions of truth and duty which are discoverable by reason, and * Bishop Sanderson (to the fourth of whose lectures "De Obligatione Conscienti^ Oxonii in Schola Theologica habitae, Anno Domini, MDCXLVII," I am indebted in great part for the above exposition of the text,) remarks: "Memorabile est Maximiliani primi Imperatoris quod legimus dictum illud, Conscientiis dominari velle est arcem cceli invadere!" A noble apothegm, and worthy of the man who abolished the exec- rable tribunal known as "Judicium occultum Westphaliae," and called in German " Geheim Gericht." The modes of proceeding used by this court were the most tremendous that can be imagined. The judges were unknown, and their meetings shrouded with darkness and mystery. When cited by them it was next to impossible for a victim to escape. If he at- tended their mysterious summons, he probably fell by their sentence, and summary execution ; if he was desperate enough to attempt contumacy or flight, he was sure to be assassinated, whether guilty or innocent, the abet- tors of the court being sworn to destroy such offenders by whatever means they could find practicable. (See New Biogr. Diet., sub voce, London, 1792.) For one such saying, and one such deed, let the man's vices be forgotten and his name remembered ! 10 are known and acknowledged of all men. The out- ward law is that which is revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures, or made known to us from without by- means of what ministry soever God has appointed for the purpose. Sometimes the inward law is called sub- jective, being, as it were, impressed on the very being of him who is subject to it ; and the outward law is called ohjective, because it is no part of our inward being, but is presented to us as an object out of our- selves. In both cases, however, the law is a different thing from the conscience, and is intended for its guidance. In both cases, also, it is conscience which governs us, in the one case by the inward, in the other by the outward law. But conscience, whether it govern us by a law discoverable in the heart, or by a law manifested from without, is equally supreme. In the Litter case the Holy Scriptures are the chief rule of conscience, and the Church is the informant and min- ister of this rule , but neither the Scripture nor the Church was ever designed by our Maker to become its substitute. These remarks, warranted, as I suppose, by our text, may be condensed in the two following propositions : — 1st. The conscience of each particular Christian, is, under God, the supreme governor of his own moral actions. 2d. The conscience of each particular Christian is directly accountable to God, and obliged to obey the rule which God has given it for its direction. Before, however, I make any application of these principles, I beg leave, at the hazard of repetition, to explain more distinctly and fully what I understand to be the nature and office of conscience. — 11 — By conscience, then, I understand that power or faculty of the mind by which we determine our con- duct in moral matters ; that is, matters of right and wrong. This faculty is superior to the other faculties of the mind, inasmuch as it aims at higher ends, and is capable of summoning the will and the reason to their performance. But this is not what I now intend by the supremacy of conscience. For when I say that conscience is supreme, I mean that every man in gen- eral, and every Christian in particular, has the supreme control and determination of his own moral conduct on his direct responsibility to his Maker. Not that any Christian is able to govern himself aright by his own strength. No ; I suppose that God gives him the grace of His Holy Spieit — the light of His divine Word, and the ministry of His Church. All these aids and succors are indispensable to the Christian in order to the just government of his moral conduct. But I mean that after all these aids and succors are conferred on him, the government of his conduct ulti- mately depends on himself. Whatever helps and ad- vantages our Creator bestows on us for guiding and keeping us in the way of life, He still devolves on us the ultimate responsibility of choosing and determin- ing our own conduct. " See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil ; in that I have commanded thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in His ways and to keep His command- ments and His statutes and His judgments. . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death ; blessing and cursing ; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live ; that thou may est love the Loed thy — 12 — God, and that thou mayest obey His voice, and that thou may est cleave unto Him ; for He is thy life I" This choice and determination is the office of con- science ; made so by the very constitution of human nature ; so that no man can delegate the office of con- science to another, or admit a substitute in its place without debasing his moral nature and forfeiting his dignity as an accountable creature. To suppose that God has made us accountable creatures, and holds us accountable to himself for our actions, and that He has at the same time erected a power outside of our- selves, to take the place of conscience and to act as its substitute, is to suppose a contradiction ; for the sup- position implies that God, at one and the same time, both makes the man accountable and unmakes him. If it be said that God by His prophets or apostles, or other delegated ministers, governs the members of His Church, the answer is that God governs us by enabling us to govern ourselves. I do not deny, but, on the contrary, firmly maintain, that human laws, en- acted by competent authority, so far as they are agree- able to, or do not contravene the Word of God, are binding on the conscience ; binding not of themselves, but in virtue of that divine authority into which they can be resolved. But what I say is, that our submis- sion to Church authority, our obedience to rules and canons, must be chosen and voluntary, and such as our conscience approves and prompts us to render. And the reason is, that God's government of His Church is not coercive and compulsory, like the governments of this world, but of a moral and spiritual nature. Its sanctions are promises and threats, which are to be ful- filled in a future life, and which leave us free to choose 13 and determine, albeit at our peril, our behavior and conduct in this life. It is of the essence of God's moral government that it is adapted to reasonable creatures who have liberty to choose or refuse the good. The law written on the heart is not like a me- chanical force impressed on brute matter and operating by a physical necessity, but it is the remains of that light which God originally infused into the mind of man, that the conscience of every man might apply it to the government pf his moral actions. And now that this inward light is dimmed and obscured by our sins and evil customs, the revealed law is given and infused into our hearts to supply its defects and to answer the same end: not to move and direct us by an outward and physical necessity, but to enable us, as free and ac- countable agents, so to govern ourselves as to secure the approbation, and to avoid the displeasure, of our Al- mighty Creator and Judge. Kevealed religion, therefore, makes no change in the nature and office of conscience: only by shedding on it greater light and knowledge, it enables it to act with a higher discernment and a loftier purpose. Neither the words of prophets and apostles, as they are contained in the holy and inspired Scriptures, nor, with reverence be it said, even the words of our bless- ed Lord, as they fell from His divine lips, are designed to deprive us of the power of governing ourselves. On the contrary, they suppose that we have this power, and they set before us the way to govern ourselves, the path wherein we are to walk in order to the attain- ment of eternal life. They speak so as to convince the reason but not to overpower it. They command and argue, persuade and entreat ; but they leave it to us, — 14 — after hearing their commands and persuasions, to deter- mine and to act. In a word, they are not a substitute for conscience, but a rule for its guidance and direc- tion, and a law to oblige it. That you may the better see the design of these re- marks, permit me to state briefly the error which they are intended to cover. It is this : that the supremacy of conscience is peculiar to the system of natural religion, and that under a system of revealed religion, an outward authority is meant to take the place of conscience. Conscience, it is said, was the proper guide for the heathen, and they did well to follow it; but since the Incarnation of our blessed Lord, it is an outward and not an inward guide, to whose supremacy we Christians must bow ; and since our blessed Lord has ascended into heaven and left His Church to repre- sent Him on earth, the voice of the Church is the sub- stitute for the voice of conscience ; the supremacy of the Church, (and by the favorers of this hypothesis the Church is virtually the See of Koine,) abolishes and takes the place of the supremacy of conscience ; and to this external authority every particular Chris- tian is bound directly and implicitly to submit. It is now more than thirteen years since in discours- ing to you from this very text, I took occasion to read to you a passage from an eminent author, in which this doctrine of the substitution of the voice of the Church for the voice of conscience is distinctly avowed.* * I annex the passage from Dr. Newman's Development of Christian Doctrine, and the substance of the remarks, with which, on the occasion referred to, I ventured to accompany it. " Moreover, it is to be borne in mind that, as the essence of all religion is authority and obedience, so the distinction between Natural Religion and — 15 — That author, before the publication of the passage, gave in his adhesion to the Church of Rome. The circum- stance has been recalled to my mind by a fact of recent occurrence : a distinguished clergyman of our Church, who some ten years ago withdrew from its communion, and submitted himself to the See of Rome, has re- Revealed lies in this, that the one has a subjective authority, and the other an objective. Revelation consists in the manifestation of the Invisible Divine Power, or in the substitution of the voice of a Lawgiver for the voice of conscience. The supremacy of conscience is the essence of natural religion ; the supremacy of Apostle or Pope, or Church, or Bishop, is the essence of revealed ; and when such external authority is taken away, the mind falls back again upon that inward guide which it possessed even before Revela- tion was vouchsafed. Thus, what conscience is in the system of nature, such is the voice of Scripture, or of the Church, or of the Holy See, as we may determine it, in the system of Revelation. It may be objected, indeed, that conscience is not infallible ; it is true ; but still. it is ever to be obeyed. And this is just the prerogative which controversialists assign to the See of St. Peter ; it is not in all cases infallible, it may err beyond its special pro- vince, but it has even in all cases a claim on our obedience. * • * * And as obedience to conscience, even supposing conscience ill-informed, tends to the improvement of our moral nature, and ultimately of our knowledge, so obedience to our ecclesisatical superior may subserve our growth in illu- mination and sanctity, even though he should command what is extreme or inexpedient, or what is external to his legitimate province." — Newmarts Essay on Development, p. 124. London ed. A more astute defence of the blind obedience which is the boast of the Jesuits, and makes every one of them a corpse (perinde ac cadaver, is Loyola's expression) to be moved by the will of his superior, never before distilled from mortal pen. Let us examine it. " The distinction between Natural Religion and Revealed, lies in this, that the one has a subjective authority, and the other an objective." Divested of its scholastic form of expression, and reduced to plain and proper English, the meaning of the author is, that the distinction between Natural Religion and Revealed is, that under the one a man is the governor of his own actions, and that under the other he is governed by a power exterior to himself. Here, I apprehend, is the prime fallacy of the argument, and it consists in overlooking the fact that the light of Divine Revelation, though it proceed from without, is yet infused into the mind, and when so infused becomes as much an inward principle of action as the light innate. It would therefore, I think', be a more correct statement of the distinction between Natural and Revealed Religion, to say that under the one man governs him- self by the light innate, i. e., the light of nature, and under the other by the light infused, i. e., the light of Divine Revelation. " Revelation consists in the manifestation of the Invisible Divine Power, or 16 cently had the courage and magnanimity to acknowl- edge his error. And the remarkable feature of the case is that the reason which he has assigned for aban- doning the Church of Rome, is his experience of abuses growing directly out of the very error we have been considering : viz. — the substitution of the voice of the in the substitution of the voice of a lawgiver for the voice of conscience." But nature as well as revelation is a manifestation of the Invisible Divine Power. Why, then, should conscience live under the one manifestation and expire under the other ? It had, I think, been more correct to say that Revelation consists in the supernatural manifestation of the Invisible Divine Power, or in illuminating the conscience with a light above and beyond what is fur. nished by Natural Religion. In this way of statement, it would be seen that conscience (always obliged by God) is, under both systems, equally supreme in governing us ; only that in the one case it governs us by the light of Nature, and in the other by the light of Divine Revelation. " The supremacy of conscience is the essence of Natural Religion ; the supremacy of Apostle, or Pope, or Church, is the essence of Revealed ; and when such external authority is taken away, the mind falls back again upon that inward guide which it possessed, even before Revelation was vouchsafed." If the foregoing strictures are correct, we ought to say that the supremacy of conscience is the essence both of Natural Religion and Revealed ; only in the one case conscience governs us by the light innate, otherwise called the light of nature, and in the other case it governs us by that infused and supernatural light which proceeds from Divine Revelation ; and that when this infused supernatural light is extinguished or withdrawn, the mind falls back on that innate or natural light which it had before Reve- lation was vouchsafed. " Thus, what conscience is in the system of nature, such is the voice of Scripture, or of the Church, or of the Holy See, as we may determine it, in the system of Revelation." On the contrary, I would say, that what con- science is in the system of nature, it is the same in the system of Revelation ; always obliging us and obliged itself by God ; and that the distinction is in the rule by which the conscience proceeds ; which, in the system of nature is the light of nature, and in the system of Revelation is the light of Revelation, whether conveyed to us by the Scripture, by the Church, or by what ministry soever God has appointed for the purpose. " It may be objected that conscience is not infallible : it is true ; but still it is ever to be obeyed. And this is just the prerogative which controversialists assign to the See of St. Peter ; it is not in all cases infallible ; it may err be- yond its special province ; but it has even in all cases a claim on our obedience.' 17 Church for the voice of conscience. So that Dr. Forbes, after a ten years' experience, gives us the results, as they forced themselves on his observation, of that sys- tem of blind obedience to which the author of " The Development of Christian Doctrine," had led the way. " The supremacy of conscience," said Dr. Newman, in The inference which the reader is expected to draw is, that if the Roman See be substituted by God in the place of conscience, then are we bound to obey it even if in error, for the reason that it is safer to follow an erroneous conscience than to act against it. True on the supposition ; but the supposi- tion itself is, I apprehend, confused and sophistical. For there can be no such thing as a substitute for conscience ; the conscience itself is supreme ; and the man must of necessity, and in the exercise of his own judgment, ac- cept or reject (in the case supposed) the decision of the Roman See as his rule of action. To deprive himself of his rationality and humanity, to sink into some lower order of being, a brute, a corpse, or a staff, so as to be moved and impelled by a power exterior to himself is simply impossible ; and the attempt of a reasonable creature to attain to such a state of passivity can only result, so far at least as I can comprehend the movement, from a crazy jumble of fanaticism and folly. Now comes the climax. "And as obedience to conscience, even suppos- ing conscience ill-informed, tends to the improvement of our moral nature, and ultimately of our knowledge, so obedience to our ecclesiastical superior may subserve our growth in illumination and sanctity, even though he should command what is extreme, or inexpedient, or teach what is external to his legitimate province." Daintily expressed ! But how comes the subject to know or believe that his ecclesiastical superior has commanded what is "extreme," or "inexpedient," or "external to his legitimate province?" And if the command has been so " extreme" as to put vice for virtue, wrong for right, how comes the man to discern the foulness of the command, and to hate and reject it, as he must if he have remaining in him a spark of hu- manity ? Evidently because he applies, and cannot but apply, the light of his own mind to determine the moral character of the act proposed. In other words conscience — which is the man himself thinking, willing, and acting in matters of a moral nature — reviews the command of the ecclesias- tical superior, compares it with its own light, innate or infused, and judges it by that light. ' Thus the conscience asserts its own supremacy, and the man — as man — cannot perform the superior's command without having first obeyed or disobeyed the dictate of his own conscience. Obedience, there- fore, to our ecclesiastical superior, in order to subserve our growth in illumi- nation and sanctity, must have the previous and concurrent sanction and 2 — 18 — the ardor of his first love, " is the essence of natural, as the supremacy of Apostle, or Pope, or Church, or bishop, is the essence of revealed religion." " This conviction," says Dr. Forbes, the conviction, namely, of the supremacy of the See of Rome, "I have not been able to sustain in face of the fact that by it the natural rights of man and all individual liber- ty must be sacrificed ; nor only so, but the private con- science often violated, and one forced by silence at least to acquiesce in what is opposed to moral truth and justice." This is a statement of fact and not of doctrine ; the testimony of a reliable witness, founded on his personal observation and experience, for a period of ten years, in the very heart of the Roman Church. And the point of his testimony is, if I understand him, that he found himself disquieted and embarrassed by the claims of two conflicting principles, the supremacy of the See of Rome and the supremacy of conscience. approbation of conscience ; for if rendered blindly and without regard to conscience, it is not obedience in the proper sense of the word ; and if in op- position to the dictates and remonstrances of conscience, it involves a de- parture from moral truth and justice, and opens the way for every species of turpitude and vice. The statement that obedience to conscience, even supposing conscience ill-in- formed, tends to the improvement of our moral nature, etc., is to be taken with some qualifications. Thus much is certain, that it is safer to obey an erro- neous conscience (so it be honest) than to act against it. But, admitting the alleged improvement, the reason is that conscience is God's vicegerent in the soul ; that, however ill-informed, it can never, except through our own fault, cease to be good and honest ; and that it cannot from its nature teach what is foreign to its legitimate province. Not one of these things can be affirmed of our ecclesiastical superior; for he is God's vicegerent out of the soul, and not in it ; he may be not only ill-informed, but dishonest and depraved, without any fault of ours ; and he may teach what is foreign to his legitimate province. The argument, therefore, from the one obedience to the other is unsound, and the conclusion false. — 19 — Supremacy on the part of the ruler implies submis- sion on the part of the subject. If the supremacy is absolute, the submission must be without 'reserve or condition. The one is necessary to the other ; both together form one essence, for " the essence of all religion is authority and obedience." If, then, the ab- solute supremacy of the See of Home is of the essence of Revealed Religion, an unreserved submission to that See is the sum total of all Christian virtues. The rights, liberty and conscience of the Christian are, of necessity, merged in this one virtue of submission to the See of Rome. He has no rights, except such as the See of Rome consents to recognize. He has no liberty to think or act, except as that See allows or directs. He has no conscience, no rule of conscience, I mean, except such as that See prescribes ; and as for conscience, considered as that power of the- soul which is obliged directly by the law of God, and ac- counts directly to Him for the observance of that law, there is no such thing in his creed, (which holds him directly accountable to the See of Rome,) and as far as his creed can accomplish the end there must be no such thing in his nature. Every movement of his soul towards a measure of right and liberty which the Roman See may not concede, every conviction of truth and duty which it does not approve, is rebellion in thought, and to be sternly repressed, lest it issue in re- bellion in act. For the most part, the system works smoothly enough, for the submission, as a general rule, is unreserved and implicit ; and then the Church is dis- creet and merciful in the exercise of her authority. But if the submission be reserved or qualified ; if the voice of Nature (speaking, it may be, from a parent's heart) — 20 — claims rights which the Church refuses to concede ; if reason suo'orests that the Law of Cheist and His Church, the adequate rule and measure of Christian liberty, may not in every particular harmonize with the law of the confessional ; and if conscience assert its prerogative, as it sometimes will, and permit neither Bishop nor Pope to stand between itself arid its God, terrible is the conflict ! Terrible, but most unequal ; for what can an individual accomplish against a system — the wonder of the world — which brings the collected force and cunning appliances of ages to bear on him and to keep him in subjection? For one who resists its strength, .breaks through its meshes, and vindicates to the bitter end the supremacy of his conscience, how .many, exhausted by the struggle, seek relief from its secret perplexities and sorrows, by a profounder sub- mission to authority, and the more abject adoption of a criterion of "moral truth and justice" which a healthy conscience would reject ! " If the light that is within thee be darkness," said our blessed Saviour, " how great is that darkness !" It matters not how the conscience is extinguished, whether it be by a course of sin rendering it incapable of discernment between right and wrong, or by a debasing sophistry that leads men to substitute an outward authority in its place : the result, in one re- spect, is the same — intense darkness to the soul. The man who surrenders his conscience, who deliberately and on principle confesses that conscience is not his guide ; who deliberately and on principle devotes him- self to a course of blind obedience to the mandates of his superior, this man has effectually put out the light of his soul ; and to him, as well as to the man who has 21 seared his conscience by inveterate sin, we may apply the words, " If the light within thee be darkness, how great is that darkness I" No such doctrine was ever taught by our Lord and His apostles as this substitution of authority for con- science. The Church that holds their doctrine in trust for the salvation of man, fears not to recognize the conscience of every Christian as the representative and vicegerent of God within him, clothed with supreme power over his moral actions, and accountable for the exercise of its power to God alone. The system that denies the supremacy of conscience is the growth of a later age ; and to understand its operation, we must look to the power that wields it. That infallibility which Catholic theologians ascribe to the Universal Church, and limit in its exercise to the essentials of Christian faith and duty, is assumed by the modern partisans of the Church of Rome, to be unlim- ited and absolute, and to be virtually vested in the See of Rome ; so as to make the decrees and definitions of this See to be, both theoretically and practically, parts of the essential faith and morals of Christianity ; and to make its authority, practically, the ground of belief in all points of religion and morality, and the source of all discipline. This power, emanating from Rome as a centre, furnished with an inexhaustible magazine of de- crees and definitions, rules and directions, and acting through the instrumentality of a trained and extensively ramified priesthood, is enabled to bring its whole weight, for good or for evil, on every individual that owns alle- giance to it. Escape from it on the part of the indi- vidual, whatever be his secret doubts and distrust, is ordinarily impossible. His soul is mapped out; 22 every point in it has been dotted down and studied with curious precision, until it is better known to the directing power than to its owner ; all questions that can possibly arise as to the right of occupancy are anti- cipated and provided for, and a refined casuistry comes in as the ally of authority : to resist their combined influence is not in human nature ; so that the man who would maintain the supremacy of his conscience and act on its honest dictates, has no other way than boldly to burst asunder the ties that bind him to the antag- onist system, and resolutely renounce the principle that upholds it — the supremacy of the See of Rome. Fail- ing this, the only alternative consistent with the peace of his soul, is to resign himself to a course of blind obedience, and to become as passive as clay in the hands of the potter. It is therefore, I think, no exaggeration to say, that the voice of the Roman See, in the practical working of its system, is made to be the substitute for the voice of conscience. Both the doctrine and the fact appear to be the legitimate consequence of the theory of infallibility as understood and acted on in that communion. For the theory, if logically carried out, annihilates the conscience;* and whether logically * If any one doubt this, let him weigh the following passage in Loyola's Letter on Obedience : * * " Perit Celebris ilia Obedientiae caecae simplicitas, cum apud nos ipsos in quaestionem vocamus, recte ne praecipia- tur, an secus : atque etiam fortasse damnamus Superiorem quod ea mandet, quae nobis non ita jucunda sunt : perit humilitas quoniam etsi ex altera parte paremus, ex altera tamen nosmetipsos Superiori praeferimus." That is, " There is an end of the glorious simplicity of blind obedience, when we question with ourselves whether the command of our Superior be right or not, and perhaps even blame him for laying on us commands not so pleasant to us : an end of humility [also] since though on the one hand we obey, yet — 23 — carried out or not, it naturally begets the attempt to adjust the movements of every man's understanding and will, in every particular, to the precise definitions and prescriptions of an outward and supposed infallible judge, instead of encouraging him to follow, under the counsel and instruction, indeed, of his spiritual guides, but on his direct responsibility to his Maker, the great principles and precepts of duty which God has deliver- ed. Such an attempt, in proportion as it succeeds, turns the man from a moral agent into a machine. Obedience, in the proper sense of the word, it banishes from the Church of God, and substitutes in its place a mere conformity to physical law, which is a property of brutes and of inanimate matter, but not of reason, nor of men considered as reasonable creatures.* To on the other we put ourselves above our Superior." The acute founder of the Jesuits saw plainly enough that the two principles — the supremacy of the Pope, and the supremacy of the conscience — could not co-exist, and that the one could only flourish on the ruins of the other. The conscience must either be supreme or die ; for if it suggest even a doubt or question on the Superior's command, it sits in judgment on it, and thus the individual, as Loyola says, sets himself above his Superior. So that, logically, we must take our choice between a blind submission to absolute infallibility and a total extinction of conscience ; or an assertion of the supremacy of conscience and a total rejection of absolute infallibility. * Obedience, in the proper sense of the word, is not mere conformity to law ; for we never speak of the obedience of ants, or bees, or brutes of any description — which however, conform with unerring precision to the laws of their being — but it is the conformity of a reasonable creature to law, and reason supposes choice, reflection, and judgment. Conformity to law is indispensable to mechanism, and is enough for outward regimen ; but it is obedience in the proper sense of the word which qualifies a probationary creature for that service of God, which is perfect freedom, and fits him for the employments of a higher sphere. Mere conformity to law, without discre- tion or forethought, makes good soldiers for an earthly chieftain ; but to form soldiers of Christ on the same principle, is to mistake figure for reality, and to turn the grace of God into compulsion. — 24 — use the favorite illustrations of the greatest admirers and supporters of the system, the man becomes as a corpse or a staff in executing the will of his superiors ; having no judgment of his own, but ready to follow their directions with a blind submission. And while the dominant party in the Roman Church sanction this theory of infallibility, an infallibility which is as- sumed to be absolute, and so vested in the successor of St. Peter, that whatever he decrees ex cathedra becomes in virtue of his decree an essential point of faith or morals, and which is applied in practice to the minute regulation of the thoughts and deeds of private life; while they give countenance to those societies in which the principle of blind obedience, as it is absurdly called, is religiously adopted, and hold them up to the emula- tion of the faithful as models of the Christian life,* * The best authorities in the Roman Church define obedience to be a moral virtue, which renders the mind prompt to comply with the will of a lawful Superior, and to perform his commands to the full ; and very con- sistently with this definition they make the first condition of obedience to be that it shall be Mind and neither look at the defects of a Superior, nor ex- amine the reasons of his precepts. " Obedientia," say the Salamancan fathers, "est virtus moralis quae reddit animum promptum ad obtemperan- dum legitimo Superiori, ej usque jussa adimplenda." And of the four con- ditions of a perfect obedience, they make the first to be " Quod sit caeca turn ad inspiciendos Superioris defectus, turn ad rationes praecepti scrutandas." Observe it is the will of the lawful superior; not his will in things indifferent, not his godly admonitions and directions, but his will absolutely, and with- out the least qualification, or the least concession of liberty to the conscience to compare the commands of the lawful superior with the rule of God's com- mandments. But with all due deference to such high authority, what can be plainer than that compliance with the will of a lawful Superior is, in itself alone, not a Christian virtue, and only becomes such when it flows from the love of God and squares with the law of Christ? And yet this sort of obedience (if it deserve the name) is a distinctive feature of what is techni- cally called, in the Roman Church, the religious life. It is not characteristic of the Jesuits alone. Their founder was chiefly remarkable for pushing out — 25 — what else can be expected than that the policy of the Eoman See should "be acted out to the proscrip- tion of natural rights and individual liberty and pri- vate conscience, so far as they come in collision with it ? Promulgated laws and canons, (in those countries which are favored with them,)* would indeed be a pro- this definition of obedience to its logical consequences, with a profound un- consciousness, or at least an utter disregard of their absurdity and impiety. Not only must the will be prompt to do as the Superior wills, but the under- standing, as Loyola teaches, must be prompt to think as the Superior thinks ; the subject must see in the person of the Superior, not a frail man, but Christ himself, who is the wisdom of God, and can neither deceive nor be deceived ; he must impress it on his mind that whatever his superior enjoins is the will and command of God himself; and, he must bring himself, without a moment's inquiry, to do whatever his Superior tells him, with a certain blind impulse of a will eager to obey. As you instantly apply yourselves, he says in his letter to his brethren, to believe what the Catholic faith proposes, " Sic ad ea facienda, qusecunque Superior dixerit, cseco quodam impetu volun- tatis parendi cupidae, sine ulla prorsus disquisitione feramini." This blind and unreserved submission to a lawful superior is required in the Church of Rome of those who are called, by way of eminence, the religious, and who have taken, or are preparing to take, the vow of obedience. Hence, it not only passes for Christian obedience, but is, in the popular belief, the perfec- tion of this virtue, and constitutes the most eminent sanctity ; and thus be- comes, practically, the doctrine of the Eoman Church. An inevitable con- sequence of the doctrine is that obedience to the lawful superior, is paramount to (as including) all other virtues, and that not only the lighter deviations from moral truth and justice may be connived at, but even vices, or at least vicious acts may be leniently dealt with, provided obedience to the lawful su- perior be inflexibly maintained. * It is well known that the Roman Canon Law, which in many countries of Europe is a protection to the rights of the inferior clergy, has never been introduced into this country so that the power of the Roman prelates in this country is absolute and arbitrary. I use the word arbitrary in no offensive sense, for I am willing to believe that they govern their clergy for the most part with kindness and courtesy ; but I mean only to say that their authority is not restrained and regulated by law, but only by such principles as their own good sense and discretion (if they are so happy as to be gifted with these virtues) may lead them to adopt. This fact was first brought to my attention by the late Father Levins, (a worthy and estimable man in spite of his controversial pro- clivities,) and his own history, as he stated it, is an instance in point. — 26 — tection if men were trained to govern themselves by them ; but of what avail are they when the supremacy of conscience is denied, and the power of self-govern- ment is so far abjured that no man, not even the sovereign Pontiff himself is permitted to act in matters which concern his own soul, on his direct responsi- bility to his Maker ?* We, at least, when we think on these things, and consider that the power of govern- ment is vested in human functionaries, who, in this country, are responsible only to a foreign power which is itself responsible to no tribunal on earth, are not surprised that a voice from those who are subject to the See of Rome should from time to time reach us, confessing that it is impossible to sustain the convic- tion of the supremacy of that See in face of the fact that by it a the natural rights of man, and all indi- vidual liberty must be sacrificed; nor only so, but the private conscience often violated, and one forced by silence at least to acquiesce in what is opposed to moral truth and justice."! Levins had been suspended by Bishop Dubois, it is said, for an act of diso- bedience not involving his moral character ; the suspension was continued ^or several years, and, in fact, was never removed ; and he himself used to refer to it (how justly I know not) as an instance of the oppression to which the Roman clergy in this country were subjected for want of the Canon Law. Whether any other laws are promulged in this country for the protection either of the clergy or people against the" abuses inseparable from arbitrary authority, is more than I am able to say. * "In the Catholic Church," says Cardinal Wiseman, "no one is ever allowed to trust himself in spiritual matters. The Sovereign Pontiff is obliged to submit himself to the direction of another in whatever concerns his own soul." — Preface to the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola. t As reference is made to the letter of Dr. Forbes, it seems proper to annex a copy. As the testimony of an upright and intelligent witness to the practical working of the Roman system as it came under his own obser- vation, the letter is worth preserving, the more so from its terseness and its tone of moderation and firmness : — 21 — . To the claims of such authority we oppose the de- claration of our text — " There is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy ; who art thou that judgest another V This Lawgiver is the supreme Lord of con- science, and conscience is the supreme lord of man. As God is the only sovereign of the conscience, so is His will the only rule of the conscience. The will of God is intimated in nature, revealed in Scripture, and assumed as the basis of all legitimate government in the Church, the family, and the nation ; and in what way soever this Divine will is applied to the conscience, it becomes the law of the conscience. God obliges the conscience of every man, to whom the rule is manifested, to adopt it; and the conscience of every man, so enlightened, obliges him to follow it. Your ecclesiastical superior New York, October 17, 1859. Most Reverend John Hughes, D. D., Archbishop, etc. : — Most Reverend Sir — It is now nearly ten years since, under your auspices, I laid down my ministry in the Protestant Episcopal Church, to submit myself to the Church of Rome. The interval, as you know, has not been idly spent ; each day has had its responsibility and duty, and with these have come experience, observation and the knowledge of many things not so well understood before. The result is that I feel I have committed a grave error, which, publicly made, should be publicly repaired. When I came to you, it was, as I stated, with a deep and conscientious conviction that it was necessary to be in communion with the See of Rome ; but this conviction I have not been able to sustain, in face of the fact that by it the natural rights of man and all individual liberty must be sacrificed — nor only so, but the private conscience often violated, and one forced, by silence at least, to acquiesce in what is opposed to moral truth and justice. Under these circumstances, when I call to mind how slender is the foundation in the earliest ages of the Church upon which has been reared the present Papal power, I can no longer regard it as legitimately imposing obligations upon me or any one else. I do now, therefore, by this act, disown and withdraw myself from its alleged jurisdiction. I remain, most reverend sir, your obedient servant, John Murray Forbes, D. D., Late Pastor of St. Anne's Church, iV. Y. 28 informs you of this rule, but he does not create it ; he- exhibits it to your conscience, but it is not he who gives it its binding force : and if he makes aught else besides this divine law to be of the same binding force with the divine law ; if he teaches what your con- science rejects, and requires compliance with his direc- tions in opposition to its dictates ; if he enjoins what is extreme or inexpedient, or external to his legitimate province, and condemns you for withholding obedience to it, then he speaketh evil of the law and judgeth the law ; and infringes on the province of that Law- giver who alone is able to save and to destroy. THE OBLIGATION OF CONSCIENCE. 1 CORINTHIANS, IY. 4. " Foe i know nothing by myself, yet am i not heeeby justified ; but he that judgeth me is the lokd." Our attention has been lately directed to the Su- premacy of Conscience, i. e., to the right of every man to govern his moral actions on his direct accountability to his Maker. But every right involves a correlative duty ; and if a man has a right to govern his moral ac- tions, it is his duty to do so in the way which his Maker prescribes. To take the right and to shun the duty is weak and wicked ; and I will not do you the injustice to suppose that you will be pleased with an assertion of your right in this respect, and yet be displeased with an honest attempt to remind you of the obligations in- volved in its exercise. The subject is brought to our attention in the Epistle for the day,* and particularly in the words which I have chosen for my text. From the previous chapter it appears that invidious comparisons had been drawn * The Discourse was delivered on the Third Sunday in Advent. — 30 — between the apostle and certain false teachers, and that unjust imputations had been cast upon him. In reference to which, he says, " Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ," that is, as persons commissioned by Christ, and acting under Him ; (for the original word denotes one who has been set in a subordinate trust or office of a public nature) ; " and as stewards of the mys- teries of God." In both these relations a man is bound to obey the instructions of his superior, and to be always ready to render to him a faithful account of his transac- tions. Hence having premised that fidelity is required in the ministers and stewards of Christ, the apostle adds, " But with me it is a very small thing that I be judged of you or of man's judgment." For conscious that he must render an account of his office and stewardship at the tribunal of Christ, he made it his chief concern to approve himself to God by following His directions, and regarded the judgments of those to whom he ministered, and of the generality of men, as matters of compara- tively little importance. Nay, he carries the principle still further ; for though he knew more of himself than others could possibly know of him, and was conscious of no fault in the administration of his office, yet he dared not absolutely affirm his own rectitude, because he knew that he was to be judged at a higher tribunal than that of his own conscience. " I know nothing by myself," he says, i.