The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1844-04-26

resort to experiments in order TO ascertain the JUS
tice and expedency of his primordial regulations;
and after making trial ofthem, found them made
quate to the purposes for which they were formed;
in consequence of which they were changed. This
would not well comport with the attributes of In
finite wisdom, or with the generally received opin-
ion that the principles of Justice, like the laws of
nature are fixed and eternal.
Were it possible that change of dspensations
could effect the turpitude of crime then as neces
sary consequence, the degree punishment should
be changed. But unhappy for Ms conclusions,
the peculiartics of the different dspensations con-
sst not in the same crimes being more or less hei-
tic ofany dispensation Is the peculiar method ofre-
vealing the truths of theGospel in which no change
in the moral law can possibly be effected. But the
gentleman fearing lest his first cogent arguments
might not be properly appreciated or understoodb by
the illierate, reduces the second edition to their
comprehension, and asserts, that even admitting
that the Almighty meant what he said TO Noah at
his egress from the ark he had afterwards contra.
dcted it when he said "amid fire and stOrms,"
"Thou shalt not kill, ,""which" says he, "will at
least stand good against the one in Genesis" He
then gives very learned expcation of what tkilling
means, and concludes with an apparent air of tn
umph, that because it is admitted by al that the
latter command was intended to be universal but
that great majority of mankind rejected the form
er, therefore it is wrong to punish the murderer.
| ho, picol,,
upon the same grounds, manifestly abrogating eve
ry kind of punishment. His legal abilities should
have guarded him against falling into an error so
gross and papable. A school boy in his ninth year,
should have sufficient discernment, to know that
the violation OF any law must necessarily be follow
ed by penalty, which penalty could not have
been afflicted only for the transgression. Of this
however the gentleman appears entirely to loose
sight
The law which says, "thou shalt not steal,''
does not define the punishment which the thief
shall or shall not suffer But in the other instance,
our friend makes the command itself define the
punishment which its violator shall not suffer; an
absurdi.y glaring that it scarcely deserves refu
tation The nation to whom this law was given
appear to have understood 1t in manner quite
different to our modern morast; since they inhct-
ed the punishment Of death Immediately after its
reception Instances or argument, however, need
not be adduced in contradiction of that which eve
ry rational mind will condemn instantly reading.
That individual must have very perverted
conception Of the Scriptures, who treats them as
being contradictory, and receives the more general
ly acknowledged part as being correct. To what
infatuation will not mans ambition drive him!
Some other scattered remarks were made by Mr.
ON" which he no doubt intended for argument,
but it would be gross perverson of language to
give them that epithe: for instance his "man-
slaughter illustration, and "eye for eye and tooth
for tooth" abrogation; each of which need no fur
ther exposition than to be mentioned If the gen.
tleman thinks that his effort to sustain his position
has not been properly appreciated, he must attri-
butte it to want Of capacity to comprehend his
profoundly of reasoning. PHILOS.