Lewisburg chronicle. [volume] (Lewisburg, Pa.) 1850-1859, 1851-07-02
Ethics of ExpediencY.

There are two extremes in regard to ex-
pediency, considered as a rule of action.
One is reckless disregard of consequences
on the general plea of duty; the other,
such dispropotionate attention to results
as to invest them with the authority of a
supreme rule If We carry out either idea
exclusively, and to its utmost limits, We
are quite sure to fall into error. On the
one hand we shall become conservatives of
the straitest sect, shouting consequences
from sunrise to sunset, and then dreaming
about them at notwithstanding the
chief end of man to consist "in holding
back"-resisting and even denouncing the
spirit of progress; or, on the other, we
shall be transmitted into fiery steeds,
champing the bit, and trcading the plain
with rapid and violent step-nevcr more
certain of the right rpad than when pitch
ing over the falls of Niagara. Both of
these spirits have their good points, and
both their bad-and neither appreciates
the other Hence, denuncia.ion and mis-
representation are the law of their courtc-
sizes to each other. TO the conservative,
the radicalist is fool-always going be-
fore he is sent ; in the estimate of the
extreme radicalist, the conservative is a
hnavc-the mere tool of sordid and sell
fish policy. They balance the account.
Now, in this controversy are involved
some very important principles. tits not
true as universal proposition, that We
have nothing to do with the consequences
of action in judging of duty; neither is it
that consequences, probable or certain,
form the entire rule.
Where it is already ascertained that a
given act or course is duty, being required
by the will of God as expressed in some
specific precept, or by fair application of
some specific preecpt, Or by fair applica
ton Of some Scripture rule, there We have
no right to evade or decline the service on
the plea of consequences. This will be
treachery to God. His will being known,
immaterial in what way, We must obey it.
There are no consequences possible or
probable, that can cancel the obligation to
obey God on all occasions. Yet, even
here, wise man will seek to perform his
duty in the wisest way. While he ought
not to hesitate moment on the flnda-
mental question, he may bring to his aid
sound discretion as to the manner of his
action-oftcn quite as important as the
matter of it. Paul, forexample, was fully
determined to preach the gospel, even
though he would turn the world upside
down; yet he exercised his wisdom as to
the mode of this duty, and in a qualified
sense became all things to all men that he
might by all means save some. 1t may be
a duty to rebukc an evil, to lift up ones
voice in the clearest remonstrance; yet
there is wise way of doing it, to disre-
gard which is trcspass upon common
sense.
Again, where an actis manifestly sinful,
its moral turpitude being so obvious as to
put its evil character beyond reasonable,
doubt, there no expediency on earth can
ever justify its performance. No consci-
entious man Will ever act on the principle
of doing evil that good may come. He
will never deliberately sin against God or
man, under any imaginable circumstances.
1t not expedient for him, or for others,
that he should sin. Hence he must with
hold his hand and utterly decline the evil
agency, always regarding the declinature