THE REPORTER.
"'TIS PLEASANT, THROUGH THE LOOP-HOLES OF RETREAT, TO PEEP AT SUCH A WORLD-- TO SEE THE STIR OF THE GREAT BABEL, AND NOT FEEL THE CROWD."
VOL. II. NO. 4.	WASHINGTON, (PA.) MONDAY, JUNE 19th, 1820.	WHOLE NO. 56.

      SIR--I have seen the quizz of Mr. Gulielmus--which recently appeared in your paper. This writer appears conscious of the weakness of the cause of the moral societies, and endeavors not to support them, but wishes to screen them under the palladium of the laws. On the same principle the papal inquisition, could have been supported a few months ago, by any of its auxiliaries in Old Spain. This gentleman in the performance alluded to resembles a certain animal well known in some parts of the western country, which unable to defend itself by any valorous weapon, so contaminates the air, by a certain effluvia, as to prevent the approach of any opponent. We shall suffer him then to inhale his own effluvia without any further disturbance. I resume my argument and proceed more fully to demonstrate that the moral societies are unscriptural. So repugnant are they to the letter and spirit of christianity that I conceive they are condemned in almost every precept respecting morality, and undefiled religion. Nor will I, I hope, appear so fanciful in my interpretation of scripture, as a gentleman of whom I once heard, who said he could prove, the solemn league and covenant--out of any text of the Bible, even out of Ezra, 1st and 9th. "And Cyrus brought out nine and twenty knives."

      I am, however, in the mean time resolved to take one clause of sacred scripture, that seems most remotely to affect the subject, merely to shew with what great facility they can be proved a moral evil, from the whole spirit and letter of Christianity--Previous to stating my text, I must mention one first principle, which is, as it were, the pole star of my course. It is this, I agree with all Christendom in this proposition, that the only system of pure and and unexceptional morality whichever appeared, is the morality of the Bible, especially of the New Testament, consequently it must point out the only sure and efficient means of encouraging and promoting it. To suppose the contrary, would be a reproach to its author.

      In the Epistle of James, I read these words--"He that said thou shalt not commit adultery, said also thou shalt not steal." The doctrine deduced from these words, is, that as it is the same authority, that prohibits all vices, all immoralities, he that is guilty of any one of them, equally offends that authority, as he who is guilty of another; or, as he who is guilty of all. "If a man keep the whole law and yet offend in one point he is guilty of all." Now sir, how I shall bring this to bear upon the subject, you will see when I have done.

      The law of Pennsylvania, I understand, values the profanation of the Sabbath at 4 dollars, the profanation of the Divine name at less than one dollar, Drunkenness at so much, &c.¹ Now let me ask why is each sin valued at a different price, and why is any of them at a fixed price? Sins like other commodities, if they are to be valued at a certain price, should bear a proportion to the state of the currency; what was worth 4 dollars three years ago, is worth but two now. From a parity of reason I would suppose, that two dollars, is the full value of the above sin, provided, that 4 dollars was its full value three years ago. But why fix upon 4 dollars if this was not supposed the full equivalent of the guilt contracted. Why was it not 1000 dollars, or only 6¼ cents if they did not think that 4 dollars was the precise price? If 1000 dollars was too much, and if 6¼ cents was too little--4 dollars must, in their judgment, be something equivalent.

      Then why is the violation of the third commandment fixed at about one fourth of the sum, which pays for the violation of the fourth--Is the former a sin only against a Demi-God and the latter a sin against the mighty Jove?--Or, is there but one fourth of the guilt, in profaneing the Lord's name; that there is in profaneing the Lord's Day--He that said thou shalt sanctify the seventh day, said also "thou shalt not take the name of God in vain"--So much for my text--But, sir, it is not because there is four times as much demerit in the sin of Sabbath breaking, as there is, in that of profaneing the Lord's name, that this difference in the price is allowed. I will make you acquainted with the Philosophy of the principle--When a man sins against his Maker by profane swearing, he sins against Heaven alone--But when he does not observe the seventh day, he sins against Heaven and the Clergy, in not honoring them with his presence to hear them preach--Now sir, all sins being alike as they affect the Creator, the one dollar pays for the sin in that sense as it pays for the other sins, but the three dollars pays for the insult offered to the Clergy. What other grounds there are for this difference I cannot see. Again, when a man is fined for any offence; the fine is proportioned to the damage he has done, and the fine is designed to cover the damages so as to become an equivalent to the injury sustained. Thus when a man is fined for slander, the fine is proportioned to the injury done the slandered, and the slandered receives it as a compensation for the loss sustained. Thus when a man is fined for Sabbath breaking, the fine is unquestionably, as in other cases, designed to atone for the damages. The informer is to receive a part for the damages he has sustained, in giving the information, and the risk to which he has exposed himself in so doing. The injured party in this case if we are to suppose the crime to affect Heaven cannot receive the fine; but it is bequeathed to his favorites on earth, to dispose of for their own ends.--If they cannot shew such a bequest, I dont know by what authority, they take it. It comes naturally to this conclusion from the above considerations, that it is as immoral to take that, from a fellow creature, to which we have no right, as it is for him to sin against the Divine law. And he that pockets the 4 dollars is as great a sinner, as he who breaks the Sabbath! There are some interesting conclusions, resulting from the above considerations, which I may intersperse with other illustrations in my subsequent numbers.

      [We again inform those who feel inclined to take up the pen against "Candidus" that our paper is at their service. We must not be considered as taking part on either side.--EDITOR]

[The Reporter, 19 June 1820, p. 1.]