Let it suffice for the present, that I have fully prov’d what I at first propos’d in this Treatise: That Public Whoring is neither so criminal in itself, nor so detrimental to the Society, as Private Whoring; and that the encouraging of Publick Whoring, by erecting Stews for that Purpose, will not only prevent most of the mischievous Consequences of this Vice, but even lessen the Quantity of Whoring in general, and reduce it to the narrowest Bounds which it can possibly be contain’d in.
After what has been said, it may, perhaps, appear somewhat odd to talk of Religious Objections, as if either Christianity or Morality could possibly object against a Scheme, which is entirely calculated for the Welfare and Happiness of Mankind. But since a great many Men amongst us have entertained such whimsical Notions of Religion, as to imagine, that in some Cases, a Law may be unjust and wicked, tho’ it evidently promotes the Publick Good: as if the right Enjoyment of this Life was inconsistent with our Happiness in the next: I say, since many Men of Understanding have suffer’d themselves to be possess’d with this mistaken Principle, I shall, as briefly as may be, answer such Objections as can, with any Colour of Reason, be offer’d.
First then, I expect to be attack’d with that old moral Precept, of Not doing Evil that Good may come of it. This may be answer’d with another old Saying, equally authentic, and more applicable to the present Purpose, that of two Evils we ought to chuse the least. The Case is this: A private Member of a Society, may, doubtless, commit a Crime with a Design to promote the Good of that Society, which was partly the Case of Felton against the Duke of Buckingham; and this evil Action may possibly answer the Goodness of the Intention, but is universally condemn’d as an unwarrantable Presumption; and falls justly under the Censure of doing a certain Evil, for the Prospect of an uncertain Good. But as to the Legislature, there is a wide Difference; for they, and they only, are intrusted with the Welfare of the Society: This Publick Welfare is, or ought to be, the whole End and Scope of their Actions; and they are fully impower’d to do whatever they judge conducive to that End. If their Intentions come up to this, they are certainly in their Consciences acquitted: But as to the World, their Actions, that is, their Laws, are judg’d good or bad, just or unjust, according as they actually prove beneficial or detrimental to the Society in general: And therefore it is the grossest Absurdity, and a perfect Contradiction in Terms, to assert, That a Government may not commit Evil that Good may come of it; for, if a Publick Act, taking in all its Consequences, really produces a greater Quantity of Good, it must, and ought to be term’d a good Act; altho’ the bare Act, consider’d in itself, without the consequent Good, should be in the highest Degree wicked and unjust.
As for Instance: A Ship performing Quarantine, and known to be infected, is sunk by a Storm; some of the Crew, half drown’d, recover the Shore; but the Moment they land, the Government orders them to be shot to Death. This Action, in itself, is no less than a downright unchristian and inhuman Murther; but since the Health and Safety of the Nation is secured by this severe Precaution, it is no Wonder, if we allow the Action to be not only justifiable, but in the strictest Sense of Morality Just.
Another Objection, or rather the same set in a stronger Light, is, That altho’ the Welfare and Happiness of the Community is, or ought to be, the only End of all Law and Government, yet since our spiritual Welfare is the Summum Bonum which all Christians should aim at, no Christian Government ought to authorize the Commission of the least known Sin, tho’ for the greatest temporal Advantage.
To this Objection, I answer, That it is universally allow’d as one of the greatest Perfections of the Christian Religion, that its Precepts are calculated to promote the Happiness of Mankind in this World as well as the next; if so, then it is a direct Arraignment of the Lawgiver’s infinite Wisdom, i. e. a Contradiction to assert, that, in Matters of Law and Government, the Publick Breach of any Gospel Precept can possibly be for the temporal Good of any Society whatever: And therefore we may with Confidence affirm, that no sinful Laws can be beneficial, and vice versa, that no beneficial Laws can be sinful. Now we have already given sufficient Proof of the Benefit the Public would receive by licensing the Stews, and therefore ought to conclude such Licence lawful; but lest the apparent Wickedness of the Stews, should be objected against this general Reasoning, it is fit that we examine this Matter a little nearer.
Fornication is, no doubt, a direct Breach of a Gospel-Precept, and is therefore a Sin; but this Sin, barely as such, concerns the Government no more than the Eating of Black-puddings, equally prohibited in the same [8] Text. The Reason is this: The Sin consists in a full Intention to gratify a Lustful Desire; which Intention the Legislature cannot possibly prevent: Penalties indeed may deter Men from gratifying their Desires, at the Expence of the Public, but will rather increase than lessen the Desires themselves. If it is argu’d, that the Sin of the Intention is aggravated by being put in Execution, so much the better for our Purpose; for then the Argument stands thus:
Since the Sin of the Intention is entirely out of the Legislature’s Power, the utmost they can do, with regard to this Sin, is, to prevent its being aggravated by actual Commission.
But the Public Stews, as we have already prov’d, will prevent as much as possible this actual Commission.
Therefore the Publick Stews will prevent as much as possible this Sin.