Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1877-03-01
(Origlnal.]
CONSCIENCE.

1t ls much easier to Understand tne import
of some words, than it is to give clear and
unmistakable definition Of them. Conscience
is often, by good writers, called the "moral
faculty." This can scarcely be regarded as
definition; for we may ask what is the
"moral faculty ?" Noah Webster, an author
ity rarely called in question, thus defines con-
science "The faculty, power or principle
which decides on the lawfulness or unlawful
ness of our acts or affections, and approves
or condemns them." Worcester, another
standard author, says it is "the faculty of
Judging of ones conduct with reference to
some standard of right and wrong" The
definitions given by these photographers
agree in the main.
It seems needless to inquire whether con-
science is an endowment bestowed by the
creator upon the creature, or is the result of
circumstances. To say that conscience is ca
| pable Of being educated, so that it becomes
exqusitely delicate, or obtuse and feelingless,
as piece of flesh when scared with hot
iron, does not prove that it is creature of
education, any more than because constant
exercise strengthens the muscles proves that
exercise creates muscle.
The old school men were accustomed to
say "nothing produces nothing" If we be-
| gin with nothing, we must end with nothing.
If we have no moral faculty, we cannot edu-
cate it. Nothing can be more absurd than
to attempt to draw out or develop nothing.
It is not denied that conscience is capable
of being educated. 1t is the faculty which
decides upon the lawfulness or unlawfulness
of acts or affections, not by instinct or intui
ton, but with reference to some standard.
There are some kinds of acts upon which con-
science is never called to give decision.
These are acts to which the idea of right or
wrong does, in no way, attach. The acts up
on which conscience is called to render de-
cision, are moral acts The standard with
reference to which conscience always decides,
is the moral precepts in which We have been
instructed The code out of which we have
learned right and wrong, may be the veriest
foolishness-it may be full Of absurdities
still, if we know no other law, what it COM
mands, our consciences approve as right; and
what it forbids, they condemn aswrong:
This being true, it is evident that an indi-
vidual may do the most abominably wicked
acts, and still his conscience approve of his
course. 1t is dangerous delusion to con-
cude that we are doing right because our
consciences do not condemn US. 1t is true
that we do wrong when we do not follow the
dictates of conscience !; but we may do wrong
BY doing what conscience decides is right
Conscience is guide that we must follow
or do wrong, and yet conscience is very fall
lible guide and we often do wrong in follow
ing it. All depends upon the standard with
reference to which it makes Its decision. The
only source from which the human family
can learn what is right and what is wrong in
the sight of God, is the Bible. With the
greatest propriety is the Bible said to be a
law unto US, light to out feet and lamp to
our path. What God approves is right
what he condemns is wrong. How can we
learn what God approves or what be con-
demns except from his Word? We are &C.
customed to place great stress upon what are
called scruples of conscience. All this is we'll
enough. It may prevent some evil, but hard.
ly accomplish much good. Our scrupes OF
conscience may amount to no more than
"strainng at gnat and swallowing camel
The first and most important thing for every
man to do, is SEARCH the scriptures" They
are the standard of right and wrong.