altered by violence, from a republican to an imperial form; and the ancient line of kings no longer ruled in Judæa.

Such passages, therefore, cannot afford any reason for imagining a religious Duty to oppose or disturb the existing government, in order to restore an ancient Constitution or an ancient Dynasty.

650. On the other hand, these passages do not at all show that, in any State, it may not be the duty of the powers that be to alter the laws, to appoint new magistrates, new magistracies, and the like; and allowable in extreme cases, in cases of necessity (424), to alter the Constitution of the country, or to depose the Sovereign. Whether this is the case, must depend upon considerations belonging to Polity; in which religious as well as civil Polity must be taken into the account.

651. In a constitutional form of government, in which the whole or a large part of the citizens possess more or less political power, the Constitution, as much as the person or family of the Sovereign, may be considered as the ordinance of man, to which all are commanded to commit themselves. And every citizen, who thus possesses by Law a share of political power, is one of the powers that be. Every Christian, in such a situation, may and ought to exert his constitutional Rights, so far as they extend, both to preserve the State and the Laws from all needless and hasty innovation, and to affect such improvements in both as time and circumstances require; using the light of Religion as well as of Morality and Polity, to determine what really is improvement (see 334).

652. It is the office of the State to make Laws regulating the details of its Institutions, and the Duty of the Citizen to obey them (330). In like manner in religious matters, it is the office of the Church to make laws respecting the detail of its Institutions; and it is the Duty of the Christian to conform to such

Laws. Laws, Rules, and Customs on such subjects, are Christian Ordinances; and will be treated of hereafter.

CHAPTER IX.

THE CHRISTIAN RULE OF CONSCIENCE.

;

653. We have already spoken of Conscience and have distinguished it into Conscience as Law, and Conscience as Witness (361). We have further stated, that our Conscience as Law, is that view at which we have arrived, of the Supreme Law of our being; and is thus a stage in our Moral and Intellectual Progress (336). We have added, that we can never rightly assume that we have reached an ultimate stage in this Progress; we must always continue to labour further to enlighten and to instruct our Conscience (366). We have further added, in anticipation of the present part of our work, that in attempting constantly to carry on this process towards its completion, we find the need of light and power which we can only hope to obtain from Religion (367).

Religion presents to us the Supreme Law of our being as the Will of God; and hence, if we now inquire what is the Supreme Rule of Conscience, the answer can only be, that it is the Will of God. But the Will of God becomes the Rule of our Conscience, only by becoming known to us; and it is an important question, where we are to look for that knowledge of the Will of God, which is to be the Rule of our Conscience. Religion is to aid us to instruct and enlighten our Conscience; and we are led to inquire

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 sip 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 pro. mulgate 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 ap pear 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 ovyуvæμ): and verse 40, After my judg ment (kara rñv ¿pîv yown), as counsels directed to par