_What_ Conscience is, and that it is the ground and antecedent of
human (or _self-_) consciousness, and not any modification of the
latter, I have shown at large in a work announced for the press, and
described in the Chapter following.[62] I have selected the preceding
extract as an Exercise for Reflection; and _because_ I think that in
too closely following Thomas à Kempis, the Archbishop has strayed from
his own judgment. The definition, for instance, seems to say all, and
in fact says nothing; for if I asked, How do you define the _human
mind_? the answer must at least _contain_, if not consist of, the
words, "a mind capable of _Conscience_." For Conscience is no synonime
of Consciousness, nor any mere expression of the same as modified by
the particular Object. On the contrary, a Consciousness properly human
(that is, _Self_-consciousness), with the sense of moral
responsibility, presupposes the Conscience, as its antecedent
condition and ground. Lastly, the sentence, "It is a fruitless verbal
debate," is an assertion of the same complexion with the contemptuous
sneers, at verbal criticism by the contemporaries of Bentley. In
questions of Philosophy or Divinity, that have occupied the learned
and been the subjects of many successive controversies, for one
instance of mere logomachy I could bring ten instances of
_logodædaly_, or verbal legerdemain, which have perilously confirmed
prejudices, and withstood the advancement of truth in consequence of
the neglect of _verbal debate_, that is, strict discussion of terms.
In whatever sense, however, the term Conscience may be used, the
following Aphorism is equally true and important. It is worth
noticing, likewise, that Leighton himself in a following page (vol.
ii. p. 97), tells us that a good Conscience is the _root_ of a good
Conversation: and then quotes from St. Paul a text, Titus i. 15, in
which the Mind and the Conscience are expressly distinguished.
[62] See Aphorisms on Spiritual Religion, p. 103.--ED.