Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 24:95 (Jul 1867)
Article: The Moral Faculty As Distinguished From Conscience
Author: Daniel J. Noyes

BSac 24:95 (July 1867) p. 401

The Moral Faculty As Distinguished From Conscience

Rev. Daniel J. Noyes

There is hardly any word in our language which is so convenient, and at the same time so inconvenient, that is, so difficult of satisfactory explanation to those who freely use it, as conscience. It is obvious, on a moment’s reflection, that both the convenience and the inconvenience are owing to the same cause—its comprehensive meaning. Conscience is not a single faculty. It embraces exercises of the understanding, the reason, and the emotional nature; and expresses the result of their combined action in moral conduct. Now if all these powers were in their normal state, and the action of each absolutely correct, absolute correctness might be affirmed of the result of their united action; and a single word might exactly and truly express it. Or if, when the action of one of these elements of conscience is wrong, or in any way defective, the action of the others were also absolutely as well as relatively wrong, then the whole wrong might be predicated of the combined result without particular discrimination; and a single term might be used to express that result. But if one of the elements is always right in its action, while that of another is sometimes wrong, as is

BSac 24:95 (July 1867) p. 402

the tact, it is not proper to regard their united result as wholly characterized by the action of either; as wholly right, when the action of but one is right, or wholly wrong, when the action of but one is wrong. We cannot, therefore, say that the decisions of conscience are always in all respects right; for the decisions of one of its elements are sometimes manifestly wrong. Nor, on the other hand, can we say that they are ever in all respects wrong; for the decisions of one of its elements, and the one too which is generally regarded as constituting all that is embraced in the word “conscience,” are always right.

It is not strange, therefore, that confusion of thought should often take place in the use of this familiar word. More than this, practical evil here, as elsewhere, is likely to follow errors in judgment. If we take the ground, without very careful discrimination, that the judgments of conscience are not always correct, that it is liable to err in its decisions; our confidence in its authority is likely to be weakened. It will be regarded as essentially on a level with those impulses of our nature which are merely constitutional, und which often mislead us. It will not be recognized as the voice of God, but of man—of man, too, ignorant and fallible. Great practical evil is doubtless the result of this view of the subject. Attention is thus unduly fixed upon the element of conscience which is liable to err in its judgments. On the other hand, if ...