The learned Doctor says:
P. 49. “By conscience, or moral sense, is meant that faculty by which we
discern the moral quality of actions, and by which we are capable of
certain affections in respect to this quality.
“By _faculty_ is meant _any particular part_ of our constitution, by
which we become affected by the various qualities and relations of
beings around us?” * * * “Now, that we do actually observe a moral
quality in the actions of men, must, I think, be admitted. Every human
being is conscious, that, from childhood, he has observed it.” * * * * *
P. 50. “The question would then seem reduced to this: Do we perceive
this quality of actions by a single faculty, or by a combination of
faculties? I think it must be evident from what has been already stated,
that this is, in its nature, simple and ultimate, and _distinct from
every other notion_.
“Now, if this be the case, it seems self-evident that we must have a
_distinct_ and _separate faculty_, to make us acquainted with the
existence of this _distinct_ and _separate quality_.”
And for proof, he adds: “This is the case in respect to all other
distinct qualities: it is, surely, reasonable to suppose, that it would
be the case in this.”
What! have we a distinct faculty by which we determine one thing to be
red, and another distinct faculty by which we discover a thing to be
black; another distinct faculty by which we judge a thing to be a cube,
and another distinct faculty by which we determine it to be a triangle?
Have we one distinct faculty by which we find a melon, and another by
which we find a gourd? What! one distinct faculty by which we determine
a professor of moral philosophy to be a correct teacher, and another by
which we discover him to be a visionary?
This faculty of _moral sense_ puts us in mind of Dr. Testy’s description
of the peculiar and distinct particles upon the tongue, which render a
man a liar, a lunatic, or a linguist; a treacher, a tattler, or a
teacher, and so on. His theory is that every mental and moral quality of
a man has its distinct particle, or little pimple, upon the tongue,
whereby the quality is developed; or, by the aid of which the man is
enabled to make the quality manifest. Long practice in examining the
tongues of sick people enabled him, he says, to make the discovery. We
should like to know what acuminated elevation of the cuticle of the
tongue represented “conscience or moral sense,” as a separate and
distinct faculty!
Why does he not at once borrow support from the extravagancies of
phrenology, and assert, according to the notions of its teachers, that,
since the brain is divided into distinct organs for the exercise of each
distinct faculty, therefore there must be a distinct faculty for the
conception of each idea? There is surely an evident relation between
this theory of the author and the doctrines of Gall; nor will the world
fail to associate it with the phantasies of Mesmer.
But we ask the author and his pupils to apply to this theory the truism
of Professor Dodd: “It is, at all times, a sufficient refutation of what
purports to be a statement of facts, to show that the only kind of
evidence by which the facts could possibly be sustained, does not
exist.”
The theory by which the Doctor arrives at the conclusion that we possess
a separate and distinct faculty for the perception of each separate and
distinct quality, assimilates to that of a certain quack, who asserted
that the human stomach was _mapped_ off, like Gall’s cranium, into
distinct organs of digestion; one solely for beef-steak, one for
mutton-chops, and another for plum-pudding!
It is a great point with certain of the higher class of abolition
writers to establish the doctrine that man possesses a distinct mental
power, which they call _conscience_, or _moral sense_, by which he is
enabled to discover, of himself, and without the aid of study, teaching,
or even inspiration, what is right and what is wrong.
The practice is, the child is taught by them that slavery is very
wicked; that no slaveholder can be a good man; and much of such matter.
Books are put into the hands of the schoolboy and the youth, inculcating
similar lessons, fraught with lamentation and sympathy for the imaginary
woes of the slave, and hatred and disgust towards the master; and when
maturer years are his, he is asked if he does not feel that slavery is
very wicked; and the professors of moral philosophy then inform him that
he feels so because he possesses “a distinct mental faculty”—distinct
from the judgment—which teaches those who cultivate it, infallibly, all
that is right and wrong; that this conscience, or moral sense, is more
to be relied on than the Bible—than the ancient inspirations of God!
Hence, Channing says:
“That same inward principle, which teaches a man what he is bound to do
to others, teaches equally, and at the same instant, what others are
bound to do to him.” * * * “His _conscience_, in revealing the moral
law, does not reveal a law for himself only, but speaks as a universal
legislator.” * * * “There is no deeper principle in human nature than
the consciousness of right.” Vol. ii. p. 33.
And Barnes, on Slavery, says:
P. 381. “If the Bible could be shown to defend and countenance slavery
as a good institution, it would make thousands of infidels; for there
are multitudes of minds that will see more clearly that slavery is
against all the laws which God has written on the human soul, than they
would see, that a book, sanctioning such a system, had evidence of
Divine origin.”
And this same author makes Dr. Wayland say:
P. 310. “Well may we ask, in the words of Dr. Wayland, (pp. 83, 84,)
whether there was ever such a moral superstructure raised on such a
foundation? The doctrine of purgatory from a verse of Maccabees; the
doctrine of papacy from the saying of Christ to Peter; the establishment
of the Inquisition from the obligation to extend the knowledge of
religious truth, all seem nothing to it. If the religion of Christ
allows such a license from such precepts as these, the New Testament
would be the greatest curse that ever was inflicted on our race.”
This book, as quoted by Barnes, we have not seen.
Such is the doctrine of these theologians, growing out of the
possession, as they imagine, of this _distinct moral faculty_,
infallibly teaching them the truth touching the moral quality of the
actions of men. And what is its effect upon their scarcely more wicked
pupils? One of them, in a late speech in Congress, says:
“Sir, I must express the most energetic dissent from those who would
justify modern slavery from the Levitical law. My _reason_ and
_conscience_ revolt from those interpretations which
Torture the hallowed pages of the Bible,
To sanction crime, and robbery, and blood,
And, in oppression’s hateful service, libel
‘Both man and God!’”
The ignorant fanaticism, so proudly buoyant even in repose upon its
ill-digested reason,—here so flippantly uttered,—to us bespeaks a
dangerous man, (as far as he may have capacity,) in whatever station he
may be found. The most hateful idolatry has never presented to the world
a stronger proof of a distorted imagination giving vent to the rankest
falsehood. It is to be deeply regretted that such intellects are ever
permitted to have any influence upon the minds of the young. We deem it
would be a fearful inquiry, to examine how far the strange
assassinations, lately so common at the North, have been the direct
result of that mental training of which we here see an example. We fear
too little is thought of the quick transition from this erroneous
theology to the darkened paths of man when enlightened alone by his own
depraved heart.
The saying is true, however awful: He who rejects or dispels the plain
meaning of the Bible, rejects our God, and is an idolater; and God alone
can give bound to his wicked conceptions.
The foregoing extracts show us a specimen of the arguments and
conclusions emanating from the doctrine that the conscience is a
distinct mental power, and that it infallibly teaches what is right
before God. We deem it quite objectionable—quite erroneous!
We present the proposition: The judgment is as singly employed in the
decision of what is right and wrong, as it is in the conclusion that all
the parts of a thing constitute the whole of it. True, the judgment,
when in the exercise of determining what is right and wrong in regard to
our own acts, has been named _conscience_. But it remains for that class
of philosophers, who argue that man possesses a faculty of
_clairvoyance_, to establish that man has also a sister faculty, which
they call _conscience_, or _moral sense_; and that it exists as an
independent mental power, distinct from judgment.
* * * * *
Most men live without reflection. They think of nothing but the objects
of sense, of pressing want, and the means of relief. The wonderful works
of nature create no wonder. A mine of sea-shells on the Andes excites no
surprise. Of the analogies or dissimilarities between things, or their
essential relations, the mind takes no notice. Even their intellectual
powers exist almost without their cognisance. Their mental faculties are
little improved or cultivated; and, as they are forced to the Gazetteer
for the description of some distant locality, so they would be to their
logic, before they could speak of their own mental functions.
The teaching of this doctrine, untrue as it is, may, therefore, be very
harmful; as ill-informed individuals often form a very erroneous
judgment about right and wrong, and, under the influence of its
teachings, may come to think and believe that their conclusion
concerning right and wrong is the product of their infallible guide, the
_conscience_, or _moral sense_, and therefore past all doubt and beyond
question; that their minds are under the influence and control of a
_new_ and _spiritually higher law_ than the law of the land, or even the
moral law as laid down in the Bible, when not in unison with their
feelings. And we venture to prophesy, in case this doctrine shall gain
general credence, that such will be the rocks on which multitudes will
founder; for simple and ill-informed people may thus be led, and
doubtless are, to do very wicked and mischievous acts, under the
influence of this belief—a belief of their possessing this power, which
no one ever did possess, unless inspired.
“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are
the ways of death.” _Prov._ xvi. 25.
* * * * *
Thus we see there is a class of theologians, who, in hot pursuit of
abolitionism, seem ready to sacrifice their Bible and its religion to
the establishment of such principles as they deem wholly contradictory
to, and incompatible with, the existence of slavery; and it is hence
that they attempt to teach that man possesses an intuitive sense of its
wrong. But shall we not be forced, with regret, to acknowledge, that
there are quacks in divinity as well as in physic?
------------------