MORAL OBLIGATION---EXPEDIENCY.
By Editor
Much has been said among theologians about the standard of moral obligation. Some of them make it to consist in conformity to reason and nature; others, in the fitness of things; and others still, in utility and expediency. But the advocates of each of these opinions, when they come to apply their theories to practice, have met with insurmountable difficulties. They have found reason and nature too much obscured and depraved to be an exclusive guide. They have found that their abstruse speculations about the fitness of things, though they may be very interesting to the refined, are altogether above the capacities of the mass of mankind, and totally powerless to regulate their lives. And they are compelled to acknowledge, that to judge of a course of action by its utility and expediency requires more comprehensive views than most men possess. In the light of such considerations, we believe the only trustworthy conclusion in the matter is that which refers moral obligation to the simple will of God, as that will is revealed to us in our relations and his written Word. This brings before the mind at once the lawgiver and the subject—the duty enjoined and the best reason why it should be done. It is a standard which may be ever present, easily applied, and can never mislead. It is, therefore, the standard which we need, and to which we ought to bow. But while it is allowed that the will of God is the standard of moral obligation, there is in this age, if we mistake not, a strong disposition to modify and interpret this will by what are supposed to be the demands of expediency. The old-fashioned doctrine, that obedience to God is always expedient, is secretly doubted or openly opposed; the human understanding and man’s judgment of propriety are often substituted for plain commandments, and the Scriptures, instead of being received as a sufficient rule of faith, are criticised and explained according to some system which has been previously adopted. All this is done on the plea of expediency, and not unfrequently with the utmost self-complacency. With such expediency we have no fellowship. It is of the earth, and not from above. Yet there are undoubtedly some circumstances in life with reference to which the Scriptures do not contain any specific rules, and in which, therefore, the judgment that God has given us must be exercised, or, in other words, expediency must be to some extent consulted. We believe it will be found, however, in all such cases, that the general principles of the divine law are a sufficient guide for those who are disposed to apply them and walk in their light. To exercise the judgment in regard to the application of these principles, is not only justifiable, but praiseworthy; and to do it is a very different thing from sitting in judgment upon the principles of the law to decide whether it is expedient or inexpedient to carry them out at all. It is merely deciding how the law shall be carried out in those points—not whether it shall be. Many are the illustrations of that expediency, falsely so called, which sets itself up in opposition to the law of God, and practically denies all moral obligation. It is seen in the pious apologies for slavery, notwithstanding the divine command to "break every yoke and let the oppressed go free." It is seen in the countenance which religious men often give to intemperance, in defiance of the declaration, "woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink." It is seen in the image-worship which prevails, in spite of the command, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." It is seen in those popular church arrangements, where the plain and personal application of the truth is restrained from fear of offending the fashionable and wealthy. But a more palpable illustration than either of the foregoing is seen in the course which is pursued with reference to the fourth commandment. The word of God says, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." Yet leading doctors and religious teachers combine to encourage and practice working upon the seventh day, of which God has said, "in it thou shalt not do any work." When the subject is directly pressed upon them, they often give up all attempt to vindicate their course from Scripture, and rely alone for an apology upon the difficulty and inexpediency of changing the day commonly observed. They deliberately decide, that it would not be expedient to do what God enjoins, and then labor to vindicate their course in the face of the divine commandment. Such are some of the forms in which moral obligation is resisted on the plea of expediency—the law of God made void through the traditions of men. These cases of making the truth subservient to expediency are daily occurring, and we cannot escape the conviction that they are the crying sins of the present day. They weaken the restraining influence which a deep reverence for divine authority was designed to exert; they open a door to almost universal license; and worst of all, they destroy the very foundations of moral obligation. "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"