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."
VOL. II. NO. 2.	WASHINGTON, (PA.) MONDAY, JUNE 5th, 1820.	WHOLE NO. 54.

      SIR--I saw in your paper of the 22d ult.¹ a statement signed "the committee," which, in consequence of the vulgarity and blackguardism of its style; the hardihood, shamelessness, and falsity of its assertions, the well known acrimony and superciliousness of its author, and its total want of reason, argument, and proof; I cannot condescend to notice. It affects me, as the barking of a cur affects a gallant horse, it will cause me to quicken my pace, and wish more spirit to prosecute my undertaking. At the same time I would have you know that when a gentleman appears to dispute the subject, I shall pay due respect to every thing he has to say. I remember the proverb of a king which I once learned, "answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be like unto him." This sir, I wish ever to regard.

      In my last, I proposed the method I wish to pursue in handling this subject. I commenced the first part of my argument, by observing, that the moral societies were antichristian--I shall now for the sake of argument suppose, that the members of them were all christians; and that they were associated for the express purpose of suppressing vice and immorality, by civil pains.--I shall further suppose that they are about to inflict civil pains, on some men of the world, who are convicted of the crimes of drunkenness, sabbath breaking, and profane swearing--in this case then I say they are positively prohibited both by the letter and spirit of christianity, from exercising judgment, and inflicting punishment upon them. The apostle in the 5 chapter of his 1st epistle to the Cor. when he forbids christians to associate with, or to retain, immoral professors in the church; (some of which, he specifies, as fornicators, drunkards, railers, &c.) in regard of such characters out of the church he peremptorily, & by the strongest figure of speech prohibits any interference--in these words, V 12: What have I (as a christian or an apostle) to do, to judge them also that are without. Do not ye judge them that are within?--But them that are without God judgeth--no precept was ever more definite, more authoritative, or more perspicuous than this.

      It is however no more than following the example of the founder of christianity, who, when solicited to divide an inheritance, or to use his authority between two brothers who acknowledged him a master in settling a quarrel about an inheritance replied--"Man, who made me a judge, or a divider over you"? He confessed before a Roman governor, that his kingdom was not of this world," consequently his servants as such, have no right to interfere with men of the world in any thing pertaining to God and conscience. Let the men of the world alone, let them stand to their own master and judge--Follow peace with all men," and take heed to yourselves and those who profess to be under your guardian care; and then your mild peaceable upright example will do more to reform the world than fines and imprisonment--walk wisely towards them that are without, such is the spirit and tendency of christianity--what a contrast! Constables fines, imprisonment, to make men wiser and better. But I shall place the above supposition in another point of view. I shall suppose a society of christians assembled for the above purposes, and that they have before them a number of professed christians convicted of the forementioned crimes--what then is the course to be pursued in relation to them?--Does christianity allow, or authorize them to call in the civil law or civil power to punish them?--Yes, says the Romanist; but the protestant says no. The protestant asks what are the means commanded to be used towards offenders in the christian church--the catholic replies excommunications, bulls, racks, jibbets fire and every species of cruelty, so they said in former times: perhaps they are got wiser, since the establishment of the cortes and constitution. But the protestant replies,--admonition and exclusion, or excommunication. The heretic and immoral professors are treated alike--hear Paul--"A man that is a heretic after the first and second admoniton reject." With respect to the immoral, his words are equally plain and conclusive--"Put away from among yourselves that wicked person."--After the heretic and the immoral are excluded from the church, they are, to christians, ecclesiastically dead. They have no power or jurisdiction over them. The words of their master are, "If he will not hear the church--let him be to thee a heathen man and a publican." But say the moralists! Let us fleece him after he is, ecclesiastically dead--let us send after him, and devour his substance!! Let us raise him from the ecclesiastical grave, and plunder his sepulchre. And who knows but he may be brought to life again!--If their proceedings have any meaning, if they are not deliberate robbery, such is the meaning of them.

      I hope sir there are many members of these associations who are led in unawares, but their leaders are crafty and designing men.

      No people more richly deserve the ordeal of criticism, the keeness of reproof and the fullness of exposure than these, would be heads, of the inquisition.

      Of these things which I have spoken this is the substance--if the moral societies are heterogeneous, if they claim jurisdiction over things civil, moral, and religious, they are antichristian--if they are all christians, they are prohibited from the exercise of any power over them that are not members of churches by the express law of Christ. And if they were even a christian church, and the offenders professed christians; it is antiscriptural for them to punish them by any civil pains--in a word, I affirm that the Bible will justify them equally in burning a man, or stoning him to death, as it will in exacting money off him for his sins. Yea I will go farther, and say, that it is more scriptural to stone a man to death, for sinning against God, than it is to take four dollars, or four cents from him, on the same account--the former has been done in old testament times, but the latter was never done in the days of the Bible. But in new testament times, we read of but one instance, of stoning a man to death, for the good of his soul, this was the martyr Stephen. And in it we read of but one society of covenanters--this society bound its members by a solemn league, and oath, that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. I will finish the first part of my subject in my next.

[The Reporter, 5 June 1820, p. 1.]