I own, in one Case, whenever a Man’s Conscience does accuse him (as it seldom errs on that Side) that he is Guilty; and, unless in melancholy and hypochondriac Cases, we may safely pronounce upon, that there is always sufficient Grounds for the Accusation.
But, the Converse of the Proposition will not hold true,—namely, That wherever there is Guilt, the Conscience must accuse; and, if it does not, that a Man is therefore Innocent.—This is not Fact:—So that the common Consolation which some good Christian or other is hourly administring to himself,—That he thanks God, his Mind does not misgive him; and that, consequently, he has a good Conscience, because he has a quiet one.—As current as the Inference is, and as infallible as the Rule appears at first Sight, yet, when you look nearer to it, and try the Truth of this Rule upon plain Facts, you find it liable to so much Error, from a false Application of it:—The Principle on which it goes so often perverted:—The whole Force of it lost, and sometimes so vilely cast away, that it is painful to produce the common Examples from human Life, which confirm this Account.
— Laurence Sterne in “The Abuses of Conscience”
