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."
[NEW SERIES----VOL. I.]	WASHINGTON, (PA.) MONDAY, JUNE 11th, 1821.	[NO. 3.

MR. EDITOR,

      In our last number, on the 4th topic of argument we observed, that he who treats religion with contempt is guilty of an offence against the state. Swearing is an act of religious worship. Swearing, on common and trivial occasions, the law prohibits, because it is casting contempt upon religion, by treating with disrespect that Almighty Being, to whom all religious worship is due. The same reasoning will apply to a violation of the Sabbath. That is a day appropriated to the contemplations of the Deity and of his works; and its observance is necessary to interrupt in our minds that train of worldly thoughts and impressions, which occupy them through the week. Thus an opportunity is given for moral and religious principles to renew their hold of our minds. Banish, on the contrary, the observance of the Sabbath and of religious institutions; and the fear of God and indeed all practical belief of his existence will soon go with them. And, where these are not, morality is but a name. Now, this is a state of things which the law of '94 as it condemns the profanation of the Sabbath, is calculated to prevent. But, says C. the service which the law enforces is constrained, and therefore not acceptable to God. Be it so: the question is not, what is acceptable to God, but what is necessary or profitable for the community. And, we think, that all sober minded persons must allow, that it is profitable for the community to protect the heart of morality from the thrusts of the impious and profane. The voice of the law is the voice of the nation. Shall it speak, in a tone of terrible condemnation, when one citizen pilfers the property of another, and shall, it be silent, when that is assailed on which the peace and prosperity of all the citizens depend?

      Mr. C. says, that the 4th commandment belongs to that class of precepts which have been called by some "moral positive" & therefore he classes it with the command respecting baptism and the Lord's supper.¹ Some moralists, we know, have been of this opinion; but we think it incorrect. That is a moral positive precept, the reason or ground of which in the nature of things, cannot be discerned, but must be wholly referred to the sovereign will of the legislator. Such was the prohibition of the tree of knowledge. Now, we ask, is the 4th precept of the Decalogue of this nature? The reason of the precept is as plain, and may be as easily deduced from the nature of man and from the relation in which he stands to his Maker, as can the existence of God, or any one truth of natural religion. "If there is a God he ought to be worshipped" is a short and obvious dictate of reason. And if worship is due to God, there must be some time in which to perform it. So far, we think, reason goes on the subject; and, therefore, the command in question is moral natural, so far as it goes to set apart some time for the worship of God. As to fixing the proportion of time or the particular day, it is, we grant, positive. The precept, then, is of a mixed nature; partly moral and partly positive. It constitutes no part of the Jewish positive code. It was enjoined long before the Jews, as a people, had an existence; as is evident from the reason of the precept and indeed from the very first word employed in announcing it. We know that the division of time which it marks has been prevalent among the nations in the remotest antiquity, and far from the confines of Judea. But however we may choose to classify the precept in question, the dissimilarity between it and the institutions of baptism and the Lord's supper is striking and obvious; and mr. C. we believe, is the first who has ranked them together. Consequently, it by no mean follows, from the admission of the impropriety of the magistrates interference in the one case, that he should not interfere in the other.

      5. There are political reasons for the observance of the Sabbath. The laws of every well regulated state should be so framed as to have a special reference to the condition of the laboring classes of the community, since they are peculiarly exposed to the oppressive exactions of the rich. The price of labor will always be low in proportion to the number of hands, who are seeking employment. The introduction of a small number of superfluous laborers into any department of industry, must immediately have the effect of lowering the wages. The increase of working days would, obviously, have the same effect. Let it be made lawful to labour for the seven days of the week, and the consequence would soon be, that the laborer would obtain no more for the labor of 7, than he now does for the labor of 6 days. So that, while, on the one hand, his toil would be increased beyond the powers of nature to sustain; on the other, his compensation would be less. If then, it is proper for the law to protect the poor, against the oppressive power of the great and the wealthy, it is proper for it to sanction the observance of the Sabbath. The benevolent Author of the Sabbath, we have reason to believe, even had respect, in that institution, to the condition of laboring animals, that they might enjoy a periodical relaxation from the toil imposed upon them by the tyranny of man.

      6. On the supposition that it is improper, by law, to prohibit the profanation of the Sabbath, there are many passages of scripture, which we cannot understand. I shall present but one, though many might be adduced. In the days of Nehemiah, "men of Tyre" brought their wares to Jerusalem and sold them on the Sabbath. And when that officer took measures to prevent this, they lodged without the city wall, on that day. But this practice also he thought proper to terminate, by threatening them with something worse than a fine of four dollars, should they persist in it. But, perhaps, poor good man, he had learned his morality from some catechism." What pity, that he had not some Candidus, to teach him better.

      These mr. editor are some of our reasons for thinking that it falls within the province of the civil magistrate to prohibit the public profanation of the Lord's day, and that, it is the duty of every good citizen, to aid him in so doing, when need requires. And, we hope, that if mr. C. should review these arguments, he will not attempt to pervert their meaning, by talking away, in a loose manner, about "acts of devotion prescribed and enforced by penal statutes," as if we were arguing in support of the ridiculous position, that human laws can, or ought to enforce the performance of religious duties. To enforce religious duties, is a contradiction in terms, for, to be genuine, they must be free and voluntary. But to enforce religious duties, is one thing, and to punish acts of profanity and immorality, is another thing. As to the case of the Deists, for whom mr. C. has so much concern, we would only observe, that, no reasonable deist, if there can be such an one, would object against the law of '94 as oppressive. If he thinks it a privilege to swear profanely, to gamble, get drunk, and profane the Sabbath; or if he makes it a matter of conscience to do these things, he has his remedy: "Naviget ad Anticyram"--let him sail to France. Or let him collect all he can of similar sentiments with himself into one association where they may enjoy their ir-religious privileges, far from the impertinence of the christian community.

      7. We argue from analogy in favor of punishing the open and gross profanation of the Sabbath. Respect to things deemed sacred has always been enforced by penal laws; or to speak more correctly, disrespect, or contempt of them has always been thought deserving of punishment. Swearing is a solemn act of religious worship. To swear on trifling occasions, is to profane the worship of God. Now let Candidus, candidly say whether profane swearing is or is not punishable by the civil magistrate. If it is, why not the profanation of the Sabbath. Swearing is a religious or holy act: the Sabbath is holy time. Why punish a profanation of the one and not of the other? The laws of most nations even go so far as to ascribe a kind of sacredness to the depositories of the dead & make the wanton invasion of them a criminal offence. How much more should they guard the Sabbath and the sanctuary of the Lord from profanation. Mr. C. talks much about the gentleness and meekness with which the principles of christianity ought to be inculcated; but let him take heed how he pretends to greater meekness than the divine Author of christianity himself. For he inflicted the punishment of scourging, with his own hand, upon those who profaned the temple by making it a house of traffic instead of a house of prayer.

[The Reporter, 11 June 1821, p. 1.]