Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-03-11

Cudworth Kant, and Colerldge.)
II would be an interesting well profitable dis-
cussion examine and collate these various ultimate
rules in order to see wherein they fall short and if posi-
BILE discover in what way many of them be recon
ced together partial and incomplete generalizatons
But this would lead into length of dsquisiOn for
which the columns Of newspaper would be found quite
inadequate And yet theories in morals, in other de-
parments of SCIENCE though apparently contradictory
and paraogstc may often be harmonzed by some more
comprehensive analysis which shall reveal partial and
kindred truth in each and all 1t was in such spirit
that Colerdge attempted reconciement Of the Patonic
and Baconan processes Of Investigations successful
effort which has Justly been deemed Of the most
signal benefits conferred in this the cause Of morals
and sound philosophy.
Dr. Hickok finds the ultimate rule Of moral right in
that imperative of the rational spirit which eDjons on
every to do that all that, and that only which is
due to his spiritual excellency. This theory 1t will be
seen, is wholly and decidedly subjective Worthinsss
Of spiritual appreciation according to Dr. H., is the
5onum of spiritual intelligence whether finite or
infinite whether man. angel God This rule it will be
further observed is generalization from experience
for it is to determine not what experience IS but what It
shoud BE- That it is ultimate rule IS apparent from
the that debasement and secontempt must ensue If
our spiritual worhiness be exchanged for any thing else
whatever. To worthy of spiritual excellency" is,
moreover, simple rule; that is incapable of any
analysis Interior generalization. 1t is, besides hmu
table its nature and unversal in its prevalence over oil
spiritual beings Having settled this his ultimate
rule" DR.. Hckok proceeds to the construction Of his
moral science that is, to " the systematic application Of
the ultimate rule Of right to all conceptions Of moral
| conduct
Without entering into any examination Of the merits
possessed by this ultimate rule and of without
pretending to follow Mr. in review Of its systematic
application to the discovery of all Of moral duty
may limit ourselves to cordial appreciation Of the
general tenor Of his entire work 1t is evidently the pro-
ducton of master mind and disposed to accept
the principle which is based adequate to deter
mine every virtue and to detect every vice. Upon two
questions however, venture criticse the work be-
fore u.s. Dr. Hickok has not we think settled with suf
cien cearness precision the relations between
science and human law and from his views respecting the
relations between the State and church constran
| ed very emphatically to dissent
Our first count, it win appear amounts rather to
charge Of omission than of commission. Dr. Hickok first
establishes the position that the State may not legisate
in violation of pure morality Sovereignty he argues,
may often rghteously lsgsate in matters Indifferent to
morality where public practice must have ssme author
lied and fixed standards and thus make that matter Of
duty which before had obligation but when civil
hory attempts break the barriers of moral right
| and command any thing which would be unworthy Of
man perform, it nues its authority by running
against the ultimate test of all authority, and only
provoke contempt and universal Reproduction from all
vrtuous beings little further we find it stated
that the commands of righteous sovereignty bind
ing upon every subject for the sake of public freedom
and with righteous sovereignty it may often be necessary
stand upon its sovereignty alone and in the eye
of the subject present nothing else than the unequyoca
declaration of its own will Public freedom demands
obedience sovereign mandates in which other
right is than the rghtness Of the authority
andng and the conscience of every subject is bound by
it, But what ask is to be done by the subject when
the sovereignty unequiyocay commands, we will not say
"what it would be unworthy of man to perform, but
what he the subject individually thinks unworthy Of
perform 2? Has he the right to assert that the
sovereignty has thereby nuled its authority by coming
in conflict with what he regards higher law? Or is
he bound respect the public freedom by disregarding
his higher law and yielding obedience mandate in
which he can see other right than the rghtness Of
the authority commanding it Thisappears to some
thing than of quibblng casustry 1t demands
for its proper exploitation the enunciation of distinct
principle and that principle 1t to us is this 1t is
the duty the to respect the public freedom either
by cheerfuly obeyng the mandate Of the sovereign
thory by cheerfuly submitting to the penalty which
it to any nfracon Of its acquisitions. No
has right to choose what laws of his country he will
obey and what disobey and if he seek to shield himself
behind the shigher law of conscience Of the divine
authority he is at least under obligation respect the
civil power and the public freedom by submitting to the
penal sanctions Of the human law which he feels
strained to disobey violate To evade such penalty in
Of such violation is to add moral vice to what the
State regards political crime. 1t required Of every
prove the genuneness Of his conscientious scrupes
by voluntary compliance with the vindcatory demands
of the sovereign authority which he contemns He must
obey his conscience, and the State must maintain its
thorty The only other resort is to the respon
sibity Of revolutionary opposition to law which it is
resolved not to obey. sa rs
remaining objection which have to allege against
some of DR.. Hickos teachings is suggested by the fol-
lowing line Of arguments The State, according to Dr. H.
is authorized establish and regulate general system
of education and in the exercise of this right may
point the teachers determine the textbooks and control
the internal regulations of each institution The State
has, and must have, he further argues its distinctive
religious creed, "A Thestic nation may
thus incorporate into its national education the religious
acknowledgment of personal God; Christian nation
may use the gospels as textbook; Protestant nasn
may the Protestant Bible in the public schools, and
thus carry out the pablc choice according the public
its system Of popular education for freedoms
sake We dissent from Dr. HIS conclusion touching
the right Of the State teach any distinctive religious
creed; and have respect for public conscience
merely because it is the conscience of the majority 1t is
very that thorough system of education must in
some way be secured or the ignorance of the people will