The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1844-04-26
THE SPIRIT OF DEMOCRACY.
wooDsriELD, MONROE COUNTY, OHIO.
F,iday, Ap,i2 26fh, 1914.
For the Spirit of Democracy.

AhSiS hS PcihhPS Oub iNiJiSs vi HiOi di
character. which demand more calm and dispas-
sionate consideration, than that which relates to
the degree of punishment which justice requires
of the wilfu yolator of the law which says,
"Thou shalt not kill" Ifman be free and moral
agent, an absolute necessity exists that he should
be acquainted with the social and civil relations in
which he is placed, before he can properly dis
charge the duties of his sphere. Upon the suppo-
ston that members of community sustain moral
relation 10 each other, the admisscn must necessa-
rily follow, that the rules or laws which regulate
or define the relation are founded upon the princi-
pies of morality. just regard, for the rights of
men, whether respects their life liberty, is said
to be one of the, highest principles of morals. If,
them the existing law which demands in satisfac
ton the life of the deliberate murderer, be repug-
nant to justice, one Of the highest principles of
morals is violated in its execution. On the contra
ry, if il has moral sanction and justice demands
such satisfaction, no human enactment can can
eel our obligation to have the demands of justice
satisfied And inasmuch as human reason, unas-
sisted, is incompetent TO comprehend and define
with absolute certainty our moral relations, refer
ence must be had to the unerring oracles of truth
In answer to the learned dsquisitions of neigh
Dor "M." it is proposed to inquire whether such
regulation be contrary to the law OF heaven as
revealed in the Scriptures; assuming it as admitted
that the law of God there revealed and morality
are characterized by the same principles; and
consequently that rule OF regulation contrary TO
the one must be repugnart TO the other The first
account we have of capital crime is in the case
of Cain. He first stained his hands in human
blood and that anterior to the giving of any par
ticular law to mankind for the regulation Of conduct
other than perhaps some oral precepts. The
manner in which Deity treated him for this impious
violation of the laws of humanity, is used by the
anti-capital punishment advocates as being an
instance in which divine authority initiates against
the fact that have right to pu nish capially.
They aege that if justice demanded the blood of
the murderer that God himself was under obliga-
tions to have the demands satisfied According,
then, TO this construction, an absolute necessity
existed compelling Omnipoence to treat Cain as
he did, since had he dealt with him otherwise he
would have violated the principles of justice, and
Here, then, we have Deity, himself, agreeably to
their theory, bound to inhict immediate temporal
punishment upon every individual committing
punishable offence, in maintenance of his justice.
Garry out this principle and all punishment
inflicted by man must be unwarranted and unjust;
since God himself is bound to have the demands
of justice satisfied, independent Of human agency;
therefore abandon all punishment ard let divine
vengeance take in satisfaction her lawful demands.
Such is the ultimatum of their theory, who con-
strue this instance 10 condemn the generally re-
ceived opinion, that man is the subject and exec
utor of the law so far the government of society
is concerned. Infinite wisdom did not adopt the
exemplary, to the exclusion of the preceptive
method of communicating his will to mankind,
nor have we any warrant to take precedence from
his actions in the regulation of civil society 1t
is then to the words and not TO the works of
Omniscience we are to look for instruction,
The fact that Gains life was not demanded in
satisfaction is no evidence that 1t was not forfeited,
since his will who sat in judgment cannot be in
any manner subordinate The language of Cain
himself this occasion is proof inconestibe, that
be fully recognized the right which his fellow
beings had to deprive him of life; he appeared to
be aware of the forfeiture, ,-"lt shall come to pass
that every one that findeth me shall slay me-" The
only information which can reasonably be drawn
from this circumstance in relation to the penalty
incurred or forfeiture made in the commitment of
the crime is from Gains own language, which
thntoY
him had right to slay him. But we are not left
to conjecture definite rule of action from this
circumstance in relation to the punishment Of an
individual guilty Of capital crime. A more
explicit order has been issued from the court OF
heaven
When the time arrived that 1t became necessary
to give special order to mankind upon this topic,
the matter forcibly set forth in these words:
.'Whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his
blood be she'd" This decaratio conflicts so
strongly with our modern theorists that an attempt
has been made by him, (and indeed very pitiabe
ore) 10 show that this portion of holy writ is not
obligatory upon us.who live under different dispen-
saion. With astonishment he makes the interrosa-
ton: can any one for moment suppose that we,
who live under the blaze of the gospel, are bound
to recognize this inhumane, unjust and barbarous
law? By what criterion does the gentleman
estimate justice; II cannot be by any other stand
ard than his own judgment, the perfection of which
lie appears to assume as first principle In Illus
traton of his position he uses ceremonial regula-
lion thereby confounding the ceremonial and NOR
al law, and concludes, that because the law of Cir
cumcision is no longer obligatory, that the moral
law has also lost its efficacy, in consequence OF
which the crime of murder is not so heinous as
when circumcision was practiced, therefore the
same punishment should not be inflicted upon
the murderer. Were we not aware that premises
and conclusions should have some kind OF connec'
ton, or that conclusion was the consequent o.
premises, the gentleman's deduction might bt