in what forms this instruction, and this light, are to be obtained.

654. The answer, in a general shape, can be no other than this: that the Will of God, so far as it is made known to man, in whatever manner, is the Rule of man's Conscience. Conscience, as Law, is Morality, the Law of our being. But we have already seen, that we are led to consider Morality under two main aspects; the Morality of Reason, and Christian Morality both these give us a knowledge of the Will of God; and these are the two main portions of the Supreme Rule of Conscience.

655. Christian Morality is the Will of God as revealed to us by the coming of Christ; of which Revelation, the authoritative account is contained in the Scriptures. We here include the Scriptures of the Old, as well as the New Testament, for both are parts of the same revelation. The Christian Morality, thus revealed, includes and comprises rational Morality; carries its claims much deeper into our Spiritual being; and invests it with far more certain and more powerful sanctions. Hence it may perhaps be thought by some, that Christian Morality supersedes the Morality of Reason; and that the Scriptures alone may be declared to be the Supreme Rule of the Christian's Conscience.

But a little consideration will show us that we cannot look upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the Supreme Rule of Conscience; that is, as the sole and complete Rule of Human Action.

656. This will appear from the Scriptures themselves, as well as from the reason of the case. The Scriptures themselves take for granted the light of reason, and the natural knowledge of moral rules to which men are thus led. Thus St. Paul says (Rom. ii., 14), When the Gentiles, which have not the law (of the Scriptures), do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law

unto themselves. They show the work of the law written in their hearts; their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another. The precepts of Scripture cannot be a rule to those who have not received the Scripture and such persons have for their proper guide the suggestions of reason, the law written in their hearts. The writings of heathen moralists, and the whole history of heathen life, show that the heathen were aware of a moral rule, and of the guilt incurred by its violation. The conception of sin implies the assumption of a law as St. Paul says (Rom. iv., 15), Where no law is, there is no transgression. As St. John also says (1 John iii., 4), Sin is the transgression of the law. Since then we ascribe sin to heathens, we must suppose them to have a moral law; and this law cannot be the precepts of Scripture, which have not found the way to them. The precepts of Scripture are not the sole rule of action for mankind.

657. But further; even Christians are referred to the natural sense of right on many occasions. Thus Christ says (Luke xii., 57), Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right? St. Paul says (1 Cor. xi., 13, 14), Judge in yourselves . . . doth not nature itself teach you! and again (1 Cor. x., 15), I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. And the same application of the light of the reason, to judge of right and wrong, is implied, whenever Christ and his Apostles express indignation at offences, not expressly forbidden in Scripture, but only necessarily condemned by inference from commands which are given. But it is to be remarked that, in Scripture, appeals to the natural conscience of man are very much mixed up with references to the revealed Divine commands. This results from the nature of the case; since the Divine commands contain a distinct promulgation of the main points of the natural moral

law; and the law thus promulgated was appealed to, both as agreeable to reason, and enjoined by the will of God.

The religious teacher, instead of looking upon the moral law as the dictates of man's Reason, considers it as the law of God, who gave to man his Reason. But this does not prevent his recognizing the law written on the heart of man, as well as the law inscribed on the tables of the Mosaic covenant.

658. There is another reason why we should not look upon the precepts of Scripture as the sole and complete rule of human action. Namely this: it was not the main object of the Scriptures to promulgate laws of human action, but to publish the mode by which men were to find favour with God. St. Paul describes this very distinctly when he speaks to Timothy (2 Tim. iii., 15) of the Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise to salvation. For this purpose, Scripture has to teach us Doctrines, such as have already been spoken of, which the light of human reason could not discover. And the rules of human duty are there set forth, rather in proportion as their connexion with those Doctrines requires, than in such manner as to produce a complete body of moral rules, requiring nothing besides itself for the guidance of human life.

659. Further: if we consider the form, character, and spirit of the books of Scripture, it will appear that we cannot expect to find in them a complete and systematic body of moral rules. For the precepts which the Scriptures contain are of various kinds; some refer to moral conduct, others to ceremonies some apply to all men, others to particular persons; some are temporary, others perpetual commands. Some precepts are delivered by opinion, or by permission. 1 Cor. vii., 6, I speak this by permission (karà ovyyvwv): and verse 40, After my judgment (kara rijv iμì yiopi), as counsels directed to par

ticular times and conditions; other precepts are delivered by commandment (1 Cor. vii., 6) (kar inTayùv), as to be observed by all at all times. We must distinguish these kinds of precepts from each other; the particular from the general, the temporary from the perpetual; and this must be done by the light of reason.

Scripture itself does not always separate these kinds of precepts. Thus (Levit. xix., 18), we have the general precept, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; and in the next verse we have, Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed, neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. No one will doubt that the former precept is a command for all men at all times, the latter a ceremonial command confined to the Jews. We allow the common reason of mankind to draw this distinction between the obligation imposed by these two successive verses; and we thus recognize the authority of human reason conjointly with that of Scripture, in defining the rules of human action.

so.

660. Thus the precepts of Scripture are not the complete and sole Rule of human action for us, because they are evidently not intended by God to be The Will of God, in whatever manner made known to us, whether by Scripture, or by Reason, or by the joint light of the two, is our Rule of action. That by taking advantage of both, we may obtain a body of rules of action in harmony with the will of God as revealed in Scripture, we have endeavoured to show, in the Chapters on Christian Morality.

661. This body of morality is enjoined upon us as a part of man's salvation. James iv., 12, There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. And any part of the legislation which thus expresses the will of God, cannot be superseded by any other obligation. Thus St. Peter and the Apostles declared (Acts v., 29), We ought to obey God rather

than men. And (iv., 19), Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

662. Having thus taken a survey of the Christian Precepts which relate to special classes of Duties, we have still to speak of those religious Principles of action, of which all Duties are manifestations and developments (565). Our Progress towards the condition in which such Principles become operative in us, is our Religious Progress; as our progress towards the condition in which Moral Principles become operative in us, is our Moral Progress. It is a duty to aim at Religious Progress, as it is a Duty to aim at Moral Progress; for our Moral Progress is incomplete, except it go onwards so as to be also Religious Progress. A Belief in God is a part of our Moral and Intellectual Progress; and this Belief, once arrived at, gives a new aspect to our views of Duty and its foundations. We cannot stop short of this belief, and of its influence, without making the progress of thought with regard to the foundations of Duty come to a termination; and to acquiesce in such a termination, is contrary to the nature of the moral and intellectual progress at which we are bound to aim.

Our endeavours to promote this religious Progress in ourselves, or in others, may be termed Religious Culture. Such Religious Culture is one of our Duties; and as was said before of the Duty of Moral Culture (305), this Duty is of so fundamental and comprehensive a character as to include all other Duties. We must now attend to some of the parts of this Duty of Religious Culture of ourselves.