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. 40	WASHINGTON, (PA.) MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26th, 1821.	WHOLE NO. 92.

      MR. EDITOR.--Without any introductory remarks, I proceed to the examination of Candidus' 5th objection to the laws of this state respecting vice and immorality.¹ The substance of it is as follows: "while it prohibits many from industry allowable on all other days; it allows them to spend the day reading newspapers, writing letters of business or amusement; talking politics or speculating upon any carnal or temporal topic." The principle on which this objection rests was stated and refuted in our first No. We shall, however, make a few additional remarks on it here. It was before intimated, that there are many degrees of the same crime, and that it would be absolutely impossible to make laws which would reach all crimes, in all their degrees. This remark, we trust, is so obvious to the view of every one possessed of ordinary understanding, that it would be superfluous to spend time, in attempting to prove it. That the crime of Sabbath breaking, in all its branches, and degrees, cannot be punished by human laws, we have before shewn. We have seen, also, that the same observation will apply to the crime of murder, and indeed every other breach of the moral law. It, then, belongs to the legislator to enact such laws only as are capable of being executed, that is to say, such as respect overt acts, and acts that are, in ordinary cases, susceptible of proof, and that militate more directly against the peace, and good order of society. Crimes, also, that are in their nature public, operate by way of example; and this is a further reason why they demand the attention of those who make, and who execute the laws. Besides, it is not only proper, but the indispensible duty of the legislature to enact, and of the magistrate to execute such laws as are necessary to secure to the orderly and moral part of the community the undisturbed exercise of their religious privileges. All these reasons, and many more of a similar nature, might be urged in favour of our laws respecting vice and immorality, especially the one under consideration. Now, there are persons enough, who would not be restrained, by any scruples of a religious nature, from violating the Sabbath by sports and business, in such a manner as necessarily to endanger the good order of society, interrupt and disturb the exercises of public worship, especially in our towns and cities, and also to corrupt public morals in their very source, by destroying that respect for the Sabbath which is essential to their preservation. And yet Candidus tells us, that the law in question does not "secure any thing to the interests even of common morality" because it permits people to spend the day in reading newspapers, writing letters of business, and talking politics! That is, because the law cannot prohibit sabbath breaking in every degree, therefore it should not prohibit it in any--and, for the same reason, because it cannot prevent people from hating (or despising) Mr. Candidus, therefore it should not forbid the taking away his life. But, however paradoxical it may seem, we are able to prove from undeniable principles, (undeniable by C. we mean for they are his own,) that, provided the law could extend so far as to prohibit "reading newspapers, writing letters" on the sabbath, &c. it would be, in fact, so much the worse, and that could it only prevent all profanation of that holy day it would be completely detestable. For, he tells us, he "cannot advocate any coercion in religion, nor any thing that even looks like it." How tender! How scrupulous! He would, we see, avoid every appearance of evil. By coercion, however, he must mean coercion from overt acts of a criminal nature; for if he means any thing more, or any thing less than this, his observation is altogether aside from the subject. Now, if coercion, in this sense, is a bad thing, bad, as he supposes, in its own nature not by accident--then, the further it extends, the worse. So that, if it should extend to the prohibition of all criminal acts, it would become completely detestable. Admirable moralist! Ye Rushes, ye Lockes, ye Grotiuses, hide, hide your diminished heads! Demolish, citizens! demolish, your prisons, your penitentaries, as worse than so many Bastiles. Away with statute books, courts of justice, judges and legislators! You are all, but so many props of a system of vile and detestable coercion, invented for the purpose of preventing the honest part of mankind from acting without restraint, according to the native biass of their propensities!

      Again; Candidus tells us "that all those whose regard to it in any shape (the Sabbath) is compulsory would be better employed in ploughing or reaping, in planting or building than in yielding a forced respect to it." This seems to be one of C's favourite doctrines; for he repeats it frequently. By paying a "compulsory regard to it," he must mean observing the Sabbath from a principle of fear--the fear of suffering the penalty of the law. He has not told us, however, in what sense it would be better for a man to be ploughing or reaping than to yield obedience to the law, by constraint, or in other words, from a principle of fear. But, that we may do him justice, we shall take his argument in its utmost latitude. He must mean, then, either, that the person would be acting better, in the capacity of a citizen in relation to human laws, or, that he would be acting better, as a subject of the Divine government, and in that relation in which he stands to God, the supreme lawgiver. One or other of these suppositions must be that, on which his argument rests; for the case will admit of none other. According to the first, a person better discharges his duty to his country, by violating the law which forbids unnecessary labour on the Sabbath, than by observing that day, merely from a principle of fear. Extend this principle, and see to what it will lead. For, if the principle be correct, it will bear us out in all cases. An unprincipled villain meets you on the high way; his necessities are pressing and he wants your money and your horse. And he would clap a pistol to your head and compel you to surrender them, did he not fear the gallows. The law forbids him to take either your property or life. But, he is restrained by fear alone from violating the law and taking both. Then, say you, he would be "better employed" in shooting and robbing you, than in quietly passing by and suffering you to proceed unmolested on your journey! The same reasoning will apply in all other cases. So that, according to this new maxim in ethics, we must exhort all those persons, whose inclination leads them to injure their neighbours reputation, by calumny, or his estate by forgery, theft or robbery, or who have a propensity to swear, to commit adultery, &c. &c. to go on, and violate the laws which forbid these crimes; and then, after they have done so, we must tell them, forsooth, that they have acted the part of good citizens, since they have been "better employed" in braving the vengeance of the laws, than in yielding a regard to them which "in any shape, is compulsory."

      But let us test the principle on the other supposition--namely that, a person would "be better employed" in the sight of God and in that relation, in which he stands to God as the supreme lawgiver; or in other words that he would be acting more virtuously, to abstain from no sinful act and to perform no duty from a principle of fear, than to permit himself to be governed by this principle. Take the case of the person restrained from openly violating the sabbath by the fear of a fine--or by the fear of that dreadful punishment which awaits the transgressor in a future world. For it makes no difference as to the argument, whether the punishment feared be small or great, near or remote, inflicted by the hand of God or man. The principle of action is, by the supposition still the same: it is still fear. Then, the man who fears hell, and from this principle abstains from violating the sabbath, prays, reads the word of God, and, in regard to externals at least, breaks off his evil practices, acts less virtuously, that is, is a greater sinner, than if he had laboured or pursued his amusements on the sabbath, never prayed, nor opened the bible, nor abandoned one of his evil ways. But, Mr. C believes, that, in a future state, God will render to every man according to his works. Consequently the greater the sin, the heavier the punishment. Therefore, the man who prays, reads his bible &c. will be more severely punished in a future state, than if he had neglected these duties--and the precise reason why the torments of hell will be more keen upon him, will be because he feared hell! And yet, God has seen fit to threaten sinners with future misery--and yet we are commanded to "fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in hell"--and yet the apostle, directed by the spirit of inspiration, could say "knowing the terrors of the Lord we persuade men"--and again, "fear, lest a promise being left you of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it"--and yet, even christians are exhorted to serve God with reverence and godly fear, for our God is a consuming fire"!! Where are we! Is this Candidus an inhabitant of our country--in this age of religious light! And is it he, who has published the complaint respecting a great portion of the clergy now living; "ye have taken away the key of knowledge"!

[The Reporter, 26 February 1821, p. 1.]