162 



CLEMENT C. J. WEBB^ ESQ., M.A., ON 



disapproves. The statement of St. Paul that : " I verily thought 

 within myself that I ought to do many things contrary to Jesus of 

 Nazareth " wants looking into a little bit. " Yerily I thought within 

 myself." " I reasoned within myself." 



Taking Conscience to be what most people mean by it, it is not 

 merely a moral faculty, but an intellectual judgment as well, as 

 to whether an action is good or right. This is exactly what I dissent 

 from. I say Conscience is nothing but a moral faculty which 

 intuitively compares moral qualities and their opposites with the 

 moral standard, the divine law, approving or disapproving ; I 

 limit Conscience to that. If you bring in also inferences drawn 

 by the intellectual judgment, and call the compound thing Con- 

 science, you will get into serious difficulties, and your Conscience 

 will certainly be a fallible thing. The categorical imperative, as 

 Kant calls it, that we should do right and avoid wrong — is 

 the function of Conscience. It is the production of a good will, 

 that is, will which will continually go with the right, never with 

 the wrong. That is what I understand by Conscience. " I verily 

 thought within myself." It was not his conscience told him to 

 do that. It was his mistaken judgment, his mistaken reasoning. 

 What did his conscience tell him to do 1 His conscience told him 

 he should have sought in prayer to God to know the right. That 

 is what Conscience told him to do, and what it tells every human 

 being to do. I should define Conscience as the faculty of Duty. 



Lecturer's Reply. 



I thank you for the kind vote of thanks you have given me. In 

 the short time that remains I shall not be able to deal with all the 

 interesting points that have been raised. Mr. Maunder's apologia 

 for me on the subject of what I said respecting the Society of 

 Friends is one which I completely accept. It was far from my wish 

 to minimize the immense services which the nation, the Church, and 

 the whole of the human race owe to the Society of Friends in many 

 directions. I did not wish for a moment to deny that, while at the 

 same time contending, as I still do, that there is the distinction that 

 Mr. Maunder discovered in my paper, and pointed out. 



I should like to say something with regard to the three faculties 

 that Dr. Schofield mentioned, but must forbear. I do not think that 



