Notes:
Sermon 105: On Conscience
In his Journal for March 3, 1788, Wesley reports that he ‘went on to Bristol and, having two or three quiet days, finished [his] sermon on Conscience’. This was then published with that title in SOSO, VIII.213-31 (there is no record of Wesley’s previous use of 2 Cor. 1:12 as a preaching text).
When the sermon appeared in the September and October issues of the Arminian Magazine, 1788 (XI.453-58, 508-13), numbered ‘Sermon XLVII’ (but without a title), it was dated ‘Bristol, April 8, 1788’. According to the diary, however, Wesley was in Stockport on April 8 (Sermon XLVIII, which appeared in the November and December issues of the Arminian Magazine, is dated ‘Stockport, April 9, 1788’). The diary confirms that Wesley did indeed arrive in Bristol on March 3, and worked on a sermon on March 4, 5, 6, and 8 (the date he probably finished transcribing it), and supports our dating it from the Journal rather than from the Arminian Magazine.
What seems clear, in any case, is that Wesley was under pressure to complete the fourteen sermons that would make up the concluding volume of his Sermons on Several Occasions. This present sermon, ‘On Conscience’, is a summing up of reflections on a theme that had fascinated Wesley all his life, as it had his Puritan forebears. Thus, the crucial point, that our universal ‘moral sense’ is not ‘natural’ (as Francis Hutcheson had argued) but rather the effect of prevenient grace, had already been made in No. 85, ‘On Working Out Our Own Salvation’, and in many another text as well. And, Wesley’s conscious link with the Puritans on this point is emphasized by his inclusion of an untypically extensive quotation from a century-old sermon by his maternal grandfather, Samuel Annesley. It was as if grandfather and grandson were able to speak with one voice on one of the basic presuppositions of Christian ethics.
03:480 On Conscience2 Corinthians 1:12
For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience.
11. How few words are there in the world more common than this—‘conscience’! It is almost in everyone’s mouth. And one would thence be apt to conclude that no word can be found which is more generally understood. But it may be doubted whether this is the case or no, although numberless treatises have been written upon it. For it is certain a great part of those writers have rather puzzled the cause than cleared it, that they have usually ‘darkened counsel by uttering words without knowledge’.
Cf. Job 38:2.
22. The best treatise on the subject which I remember to have seen is translated from the French of Mons. Placette,
I.e., Jean La Placette (1639-1718), a Huguenot exile, whose Divers traités sur des matières de conscience… (1697) had been translated by Basil Kennett as The Christian Casuist; or, A Treatise of Conscience (1705). Wesley’s complaint about the inadequacy of the ‘numberless treatises [that] have been written upon [conscience]’ is an echo of La Placette’s preface but ignores his citation of Bishop Sanderson’s ‘uncompleted’ but ‘promising inquiry’ which had ‘induced [La Placette] to lend [his] hand to the service’. The complaint is puzzling in any case, since Wesley’s views are not strikingly different from the ‘numberless treatises’ of Richard Baxter, Jeremy Taylor, Dean Swift, the Danish bishop J. R. Brochmand, Robert South, et al., save on the particular point of conscience as a constant work of prevenience and, therefore, supernatural. And it may well be that it was this point that Wesley regarded as crucial. (The original ‘Placatt’ is altered to ‘Placette’ in notes added to Wesley’s own copy of AM.)
An indication that Wesley was using the Kennett translation, which is octavo; the original is duodecimo.
1I. 1. And, first, I am to show the nature of conscience. This a very pious man in the last century (in his sermon on Universal Conscientiousness
This was Samuel Annesley (1620-96), father of Susanna Wesley. His sermon (on Acts 24:16) was published in The Morning-Exercise at Cripplegate, a sermon collection which he had edited in 1661. Wesley had abridged and published it in the Christian Lib., XXXVIII.297-338, where it is mistakenly attributed to ‘The Rev. Matthew Pool’ (author of the Annotations). A long quotation from the same sermon, correctly attributed, appears below as Wesley’s conclusion (I.19).
Cf. Poole, Annotations, on Job 16:19: ‘Besides the witness of men and of my own conscience, God is witness of my integrity.’
Cf. Robert Sanderson, De obligatione conscientiae… (1660), I.17:23.
Annesley’s quotation (garbled) from the Danish Lutheran polemicist, J. R. Brochmand (1585-1652), Universae Theologiae Systema (1658), I.i.3:7.
22. To view it in a somewhat different light, conscience, as well as the Latin word from which it is taken, and the Greek word συνειδήσεως,
Cf. 2 Cor. 1:12; the nominative form is συνειδήσις (variations of which occur twenty-five times in the New Testament).
33. Conscience, then, is that faculty whereby we are at once conscious of our own thoughts, words, and actions, and of their merit or demerit, of their being good or bad, and consequently deserving either praise or censure. And some pleasure generally attends the former sentence, some uneasiness the latter. But this varies exceedingly, according to education and a thousand other circumstances.
44. Can it be denied that something of this is found in every man born into the world? And does it not appear as soon as the 03:482understanding opens? as soon as reason begins to dawn? Does not everyone then begin to know that there is a difference between good and evil, how imperfect soever the various circumstances of this sense of good and evil may be? Does not every man, for instance, know, unless blinded by the prejudice of education (like the inhabitants of the Cape of Good Hope
For Wesley’s knowledge of the Cape of Good Hope and its inhabitants (‘the Hottentots’), cf. Nos. 28, ‘Sermon on the Mount, VIII’, §9 and n.; and 69, ‘The Imperfection of Human Knowledge’, II.5 and n.
55. This faculty seems to be what is usually meant by those who speak of ‘natural conscience’, an expression frequently found in some of our best authors, but yet not strictly just. For though in one sense it may be termed ‘natural’, because it is found in all men, yet properly speaking it is not natural; but a supernatural gift of God, above all his natural endowments.
Cf. Nos. 85, ‘On Working Out Our Own Salvation’, III.4; and 129, ‘Heavenly Treasure in Earthen Vessels’, I.1.
Cf. John 1:9.
Cf. Mic. 6:8.
66. It may give a peculiar force to that beautiful passage to consider by whom, and on what occasion, the words were uttered. The persons speaking are Balak the King of Moab, and Balaam, then under divine impressions (it seems, then, ‘not far from the kingdom of God’,
Mark 12:34.
Micah 6:5-8. [Note the anachronistic conflation here of Balaam and Micah.]
77. To take a more distinct view of conscience, it appears to have a threefold office. First, it is a witness, testifying what we have done, in thought, or word, or action. Secondly, it is a judge, passing sentence on what we have done, that it is good or evil. And thirdly, it in some sort executes the sentence, by occasioning a degree of complacency in him that does well, and a degree of uneasiness in him that does evil.
Cf. the parallels between conscience and the judicial process, as in No. 15, The Great Assize, IV.4 and n.
88. Professor Hutcheson, late of Glasgow,
Both early texts have ‘Hutchinson’ here, but Wesley’s own copy of AM has it correctly in the margin. The reference is to Francis Hutcheson (see No. 12, ‘The Witness of Our Own Spirit’, §5 and n.) and to his Essay on the Nature and Conduct of the Passions and Affections with Illustrations Upon the Moral Sense (1726), which was prescribed reading for the scholars at the Kingswood School (cf. A Short Account of the School in Kingswood, Supplement, 1768). Wesley, however, had decided that Hutcheson’s ethical theory excluded the supernatural on principle and thereby denied the concept of prevenience on which he himself set such great store; cf. JWJ, Dec. 17, 1772, and Nov. 9, 1773; see also No. 90, ‘An Israelite Indeed’, proem. Hutcheson’s analysis of the various moral senses is on pp. 4-6 of his Essay. Cf. his System of Moral Philosophy (1755), where he adds yet another ‘sense’: viz., ‘the sense of the admiration of excellence’.
99. All this is in some sense undoubtedly true. But it is not true that either the ‘public’ or the ‘moral sense’ (both of which are included in the term conscience) is now natural to man. Whatever may have been the case at first, while man was in a state of innocence, both the one and the other is now a branch of that supernatural gift of God which we usually style ‘preventing grace’. But the professor does not at all agree with this. He sets God wholly out of the question. God has nothing to do with his scheme of virtue from the beginning to the end. So that to say the truth, his scheme of virtue is atheism all over.
That Wesley and Hutcheson stood poles apart in their theories of ethical motivation is obvious. But that Hutcheson’s theory ‘sets God wholly out of the question’ is a misreading at the very least. ‘As endowed by our Creator’ is a phrase as pat in Hutcheson as ‘moral sense’ (the two are often linked). ‘Good dispositions…must be originally implanted in our nature by its Great Author…’; cf. An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue (2nd edn., 1726), p. 270; see also xiv, 44, 46, 50, 93, 101, 166, 184, 211, etc.
1010. But do we not mistake him? Do we take his meaning right? That it may be plain enough, that no man may mistake him, he proposes this question: ‘What if a man in doing a virtuous, that is, a generous action, in helping a fellow-creature, has an eye to God, either as commanding or as promising to reward it? Then’, says he, ‘so far as he has an eye to God, the virtue of the action is lost. Whatever actions spring from an eye to the recompense of reward have no virtue, no moral goodness in them.’
Hutcheson’s point, throughout, is that virtue must be disinterested, devoid of any motive of reward, even from God. Cf. William T. Blackstone, Francis Hutcheson and Contemporary Ethical Theory (Athens, Georgia, Univ. of Georgia Press, 1965), pp. 11-40.
The two early texts here read ‘assertion’; ‘appellation’ appears as a marginal correction in Wesley’s own copy of AM.
Dr. John Taylor (1694-1761), Unitarian minister of Norwich, against whose The Scripture-Doctrine of Original Sin: Proposed to Free and Candid Examination (1740) Wesley published The Doctrine of Original Sin (1757). Cf. the 4th edn. of Taylor (1767), p. 75: ‘The worthiness of Christ is his consummate virtue. It is virtue, obedience to the truth, or the divine will, and benevolence to his creatures that wins every prize, that carrieth every cause to heaven.’ P. 74: ‘What was it that gave this glorious personage, emblemized by the Lamb (Rev. 5) his superior WORTHINESS, his prevailing interest in God beyond all others in heaven and earth? Evidently, it was his being slain, and having redeemed us unto God by his blood. This is to say, it was his obedience to God and goodwill to men—it was his consummate virtue.’ Elsewhere (pp. 73, 65, 47, 45, etc.), Taylor speaks of Christ’s perfect obedience, even unto death, as the ground and power of our redemption. This is, at best, an exemplarist theory of atonement; even so, Jesus Christ, for Taylor, was more than merely ‘a man of consummate virtue’; cf. pp. 82-83. See also No. 123, ‘On Knowing Christ after the Flesh’, §4; and note that in No. 70, ‘The Case of Reason Impartially Considered’, II.6, Wesley had applied the term, ‘consummate virtue’, to Socrates.
1111. But to return. What is conscience in the Christian sense? It is that faculty of the soul which, by the assistance of the grace of God, sees at one and the same time, (1), our own tempers and lives, the real nature and quality of our thoughts, words, and actions; (2), the rule whereby we are to be directed; and (3), the agreement or disagreement therewith. To express this a little more largely: conscience implies, first, the faculty a man has of knowing himself, of discerning both in general and in particular his own tempers, thoughts, words, and actions. But this it is not possible for him to do without the assistance of the Spirit of God. Otherwise self-love, and indeed every other irregular passion, would disguise and wholly conceal him from himself. It implies, secondly, a knowledge of the rule whereby he is to be directed in every particular, which is no other than the written Word of God. Conscience implies, thirdly, a knowledge that all his thoughts and words and actions are or are not
The phrase, ‘or are not’, stands as a marginal note in Wesley’s copy of AM, though not in his own hand; clearly it improves the sense here.
Cf. 1 John 2:20.
1212. This is properly the account of a good conscience, which may be in other terms expressed thus: a divine consciousness of walking in all things according to the written Word of God. It seems, indeed, that there can be no conscience which has not a regard to God. If you say, ‘Yes: there certainly may be a consciousness of having done right or wrong without any reference to him.’ I answer, This I cannot grant. I doubt whether the very words, ‘right and wrong’, according to the Christian system, do not imply, in the very idea of them, agreement and disagreement to the will and word of God. If so, there is no such 03:486thing as conscience in a Christian if we leave God out of the question.
1313. In order to the very existence of a good conscience, as well as to the continuance of it, the continued influence of the Spirit of God is absolutely needful. Accordingly the Apostle John declares to the believers of all ages: ‘Ye have an unction from the Holy One; and ye know all things:’
Ibid.
Cf. Acts 24:16.
Cf. 1 John 2:27.
1414. Proceed we now to consider, in the second place, the several sorts of conscience.
Cf., for the basic argument from here on, Dr. Annesley’s sermon in The Morning-Exercise at Cripplegate (1661), pp. 7-13.
Cf. Acts 23:1.
Cf. Acts 24:16.
2 Cor. 1:12.
Ibid.
1515. Nearly allied to this (if it be not the same placed in another view, or a particular branch of it) is a tender conscience. One of a tender conscience is exact in observing any deviation from the Word of God, whether in thought, or word, or work, and immediately feels remorse and self-condemnation for it. And the constant cry of his soul is,
John and Charles Wesley, ‘Watch in All Things’, Hymns and Sacred Poems (1742), p. 218 (Poet. Wks., II.273); see No. 12, ‘The Witness of Our Own Spirit’, §19 and n.
1616. But sometimes this excellent quality, tenderness of conscience, is carried to an extreme. We find some who fear where no fear is, who are continually condemning themselves without cause; imagining some things to be sinful which the Scripture nowhere condemns; and supposing other things to be their duty which the Scripture nowhere enjoins. This is properly termed a ‘scrupulous’ conscience, and is a sore evil. It is highly expedient to yield to it as little as possible; rather it is a matter of earnest prayer that you may be delivered from this sore evil, and may recover a sound mind: to which nothing would contribute more than the converse of a pious and judicious friend.
1717. But the extreme which is opposite to this is far more dangerous. A ‘hardened’ conscience is a thousand times more dangerous than a scrupulous one: that can violate a plain command of God without any self-condemnation, either doing what he has expressly forbidden, or neglecting what he has expressly commanded, and yet without any remorse; yea, perhaps glorying in this very hardness of heart! Many instances of this deplorable stupidity we meet with at this day—and even among people that suppose themselves to have no small share of religion. A person is doing something which the Scripture clearly forbids. You ask, ‘How do you dare to do this?’ and are answered with perfect unconcern, ‘Oh, my heart does not condemn me.’ I reply: ‘So much the worse. I would to God it did. You would then be in a safer state than you are now. It is a dreadful thing to be condemned by the Word of God, and yet not to be condemned by your own heart!’ If we can break the least of the known commands of God without any self-condemnation, it is plain, the god of this world
2 Cor. 4:4.
Eph. 4:19.
1 Tim. 4:2 (Notes); see also No. 85, ‘On Working Out Our Own Salvation’, III.4.
1818. I have now only to add a few important directions. The first great point is this: suppose we have a tender conscience, how shall we preserve it? I believe there is only one possible way of doing this, which is—to obey it. Every act of disobedience tends to blind and deaden it, to put out its eyes, that it may not see the good and the acceptable will of God,
See Rom. 12:2.
Cf. Luke 9:23.
Luke 14:26, 27, 33.
1919. I cannot conclude this discourse better than with an extract from Dr.
Annesley’s sermon on Universal Conscientiousness.
Dr.
Annesley (my mother’s father), was rector of the parish of
Cripplegate. [The quotation begins in Annesley on p. 21 and runs
through p. 24. It is severely abridged and freely revised; all of
Annesley’s annotations are omitted.]
Be persuaded to practise the following directions, and your conscience will continue right.
(1). Take heed of every sin; count no sin small; and obey every command with your might. Watch against the first risings of sin, and beware of the borders of sin. Shun the very appearance of evil. Venture not upon temptations or occasions of sin.
(2). Consider yourself as living under God’s eye: live as in the sensible presence of the jealous God. Remember all things are naked and open before him! You cannot deceive him; for he is infinite wisdom. You cannot fly from him; for he is everywhere. You cannot bribe him; for he is righteousness itself! Speak as knowing God hears you: walk as knowing God besets you on every side. The Lord is with you while you are with him; that is, you shall enjoy his favourable presence while you live in his awful presence.
(3). Be serious and frequent in the examination of your heart and life. There are some duties like those parts of the body, the want of which may be supplied by other parts; but the want of these nothing can supply. Every evening review your carriage through the day: what you have done, or thought, that was unbecoming your character; whether your heart has been instant upon religion, 03:489and indifferent to the world. Have a special care of two portions of your time, namely morning and evening: the morning to forethink what you have to do, and the evening to examine whether you have done what you ought.
(4). Let every action have reference to your whole life, and not to a part only. Let all your subordinate ends be suitable to the great end of your living. ‘Exercise yourself unto godliness.’
Cf. 1 Tim. 4:7.
(5). Do not venture on sin because Christ hath purchased a pardon; that is a most horrible abuse of Christ. For this very reason there was no sacrifice under the law for any wilful sin; lest people should think they knew the price of sins, as those do who deal in popish indulgences.
(6). Be nothing in your own eyes: for what is it, alas, that we have to be proud of? Our very conception was sinful, our birth painful, our life toilsome, our death we know not what! But all this is nothing to the state of our soul. If we know this, what excuse have we for pride?
(7). Consult duty, not events. We have nothing to do but to mind our duty. All speculations that tend not to holiness are among your superfluities; but forebodings of what may befall you in doing your duty may be reckoned among your sins; and to venture upon sin to avoid danger is to sink the ship for fear of pirates. O how quiet, as well as holy, would our lives be had we learned that single lesson, to be careful for nothing but to do our duty, and leave all consequences to God! What madness for silly dust to prescribe to Infinite Wisdom! To let go our work and meddle with God’s! He hath managed the concerns of the world, and of every individual in it, without giving cause of complaint to any, for above these five thousand years. And does he now need your counsel? Nay, it is your business to mind your own duty.
(8). What advice you would give another, take yourself: the worst of men are apt enough to lay burdens on others, which if they would take on themselves they would be rare Christians.
(9). Do nothing on which you cannot pray for a blessing. Every action of a Christian that is good is sanctified by the Word and prayer.
Cf. 1 Tim. 4:5.
(10). Think, and speak, and do what you are persuaded Christ himself would do in your case were he on earth. It becomes a Christian rather to be an example than to follow one. But by imitating Christ you become an example to all, who was, and is, and ever will be, our absolute pattern. O Christians, how did Christ pray and redeem time for prayer? How did Christ preach, out of whose mouth proceeded no other but gracious words? What time did Christ spend in impertinent discourse? How did Christ go up and down doing good to men, and what was pleasing to God? Beloved, I commend to you these four memorials: i, mind duty; ii, what is the duty of another in your case is your own; iii, do not meddle with anything if you cannot say, ‘The blessing of the Lord be upon it’; iv, 03:490above all, sooner forget your Christian name than forget to eye Christ! Whatever treatment you meet with from the world, remember him and follow his steps, ‘who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth! Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.’
1 Pet. 2:22-23.
Bristol, April 8, 1788
Place and date as in AM; but see above, No. 105, ‘On Conscience’, intro.
How to Cite This Entry
Bibliography:
, “.” In , edited by . , 2024. Entry published February 25, 2024. https://wesleyworks.ecdsdev.org/sermons/Sermon105.About this Entry
Entry Title: Sermon 105: On Conscience