In doubt the question may be:  “To do; is it right or wrong?  May I perform this act, or must I abstain therefrom?” In this case, we inquire whether it be lawful or unlawful to go on, but we are sure that it is lawful not to act.  There is but one course to pursue.  We must not commit ourselves and must refrain from acting, until such a time, at least, as, by inquiring and considering, we shall have obtained sufficient evidence to convince us that we may allow ourselves this liberty without incurring guilt.  If, on the contrary, while still doubting, we persist in committing the act, we sin, because in all affairs of right and wrong we must follow a certain conscience as the standard of morality.

But the question may be:  “To do or not to do; which is right and which is wrong?” Here we know not which way to turn, fearing evil in either alternative.  We must do one thing or the other.  There are reasons and difficulties on both sides.  We are unable to resolve the difficulties, lay the doubt, and form a sure conscience, what must we do?

If all action can be momentarily suspended, and we have the means of consulting, we must abstain from action and consult.  If the affair is urgent, and this cannot be done; if we must act on the spot and decide for ourselves, then, we can make that dubious conscience prudently certain by applying this principle to our conduct:  “Of two evils, choose the lesser.”  We therefore judge which action involves the least amount of evil.  We may embrace the course thus chosen without a fear of doing wrong.  If we have inadvertently chosen the greater evil, it is an error of judgment for which we are in nowise responsible before God.  But this means must be employed only where all other and surer means fail.  The certainty we thereby acquire is a prudent certainty, and is sufficient to guarantee us against offending.

CHAPTER IV.  LAXITY AND SCRUPLES.

In every question of conscience there are two opposing factors:  Liberty, which is agreeable to our nature, which allows us to do as we list; and Law which binds us unto the observance of what is unpleasant.  Liberty and law are mutually antagonistic.  A concession in favor of one is an infringement upon the claims of the other.

Conscience, in its normal state, gives to liberty and to law what to each is legitimately due, no more, no less.

Truth lies between extremes.  At the two opposite poles of conscientious rectitude are laxity and scruples, one judging all things lawful, the other all things forbidden.  One inordinately favors liberty, the other the law.  And neither has sufficient grounds on which to form a sound judgment.

They are counterfeit consciences, the one dishonest, the other unreasonable.  They do unlawful business; and because the verdict they render is founded on nothing more solid than imaginations, they are in nowise standards of morality, and should not be considered as such.