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. 29.	WASHINGTON, (PA.) MONDAY, DECEMBER 11th, 1820.	WHOLE NO. 81.

MR. EDITOR,

      The long agony is over. The storm of war has spent its force; and Mr. Heister¹ is about being seated in the thorny chair of state. We again venture to resume our pen and with it our subject, in hopes, that the mighty affairs of state being safely lodged in puissant hands we may be indulged with the attention of our fellow citizens, whilst we still further attempt to expatiate on the morals of the times particularly in our wonted complaisance to the "moral association."

      In prosecuting the subject through all the meandrings into which the crookedness of my opponents forced it, I have accomplished two things, "my enemies themselves being judges," which I proposed, viz: I have submitted such arguments as shew that the "moral associations, are unscriptural and unconstitutional." I have seen the first No. of judge Rush's charge, handed you for publication by the West Middletown association,² and the production of the Claysville "Rough Farmer"³ all of which I thankfully acknowledged and shall in due time present my compliments to them in due form.

      As my neighbour the Farmer is a very well meaning man, I would act a very unbecoming part if I should pass him by in "silent contempt," and must therefore speak kindly to him.

Mr. Farmer,

      I perceive, sir, that you are deeply imbued with the spirit of 1648,⁴ and that you are a true friend and faithful son of the "solemn league. You tell us in the conclusion of your epistle that the Almighty has commanded "blasphemers and idolaters," (you might have added Sabbath breakers) to be put to death, and this too in his word. Now, sir, you will confer a favor on me, and the rest of your readers, if you would inform us precisely who is commanded to put them to death; for we are all living in neglect of duty in this particular. Even the moral societies and the magistrates themselves are deficient in this respect, for none of them, as far as I have yet heard, have put any blasphemers to death, and I am convinced it is not for want of such characters, but for the want of some more light on the subject, which I have no doubt but you can easily furnish. The main point of your objection to me is, (for the rest of your letter does not apply to me as I agree with the main scope of your remarks and have never said any thing against them) that I will not advocate persecution or extermination of such characters, I humbly request you to shew us, who is to put blasphemers to death, and in what manner they are to be killed--very respectfully yours,

CANDIDUS.      

      The Judges' charge, Mr. Editor, is not yet fully exhibited in your paper and as I wish to see the whole of it before I make any remarks about it, I will defer it at present.

      Now sir as preparative to my pointing out "a better way" of improving the morals of the times, than moral societies and fines, &c. give me leave to state my views on several topics, as tending to make way for a correct view of the subject.

      In the first place then I view the church of Christ and the state as two distinct communities, neither of them possessing, as such, any power to interfere with the internal regulations, constitutions, laws or duties of the other; but each as independent of the other, in these respects, as though the other did not exist. This does not militate against the subjects of the one, being the subjects of the other; or against their performing the duties of each, according to the requirements of both, when there is no interference with the dictates of conscience, or when the duties of the one does not clash with those of the other. But it militates against the mere citizen, because he is a member of the state, interfering with the affairs of the church, and against the christian because he is a member of the church, interfering with the affairs of the state. All that I mean to say, on this principle, is capable of being illustrated thus--Suppose the emperor Alexander is the member of a christian church, he has no more authority nor right to rule in that church than the meanest subject in his realm, who may be a member of that church. Or suppose a man as holy and as zealous as the apostle Paul lived in any state, he has no more right to interfere with the management or government of that state, than Thomas Paine if he lived a fellow citizen of that state.

      The civil magistrate, as such, is only to execute the law of the state. He is, ex-officios, to execute the law of the state, and no law, but the law of the state. The Ruling Elder, in the church, has power, ex-officio, to execute the law of the church and only the law of the church. Should the Ruling Elder sustain the office of the magistrate, which sometimes happens; in that case, when he sits on the judgment seat, he lays aside all the peculiar prerogatives of the ruling Elder, and acts merely as a Justice of the Peace. Again, when he officiates, as a Ruling Elder, in the church, he lays aside all the peculiarities of the magistrate, and acts merely as an ecclesiastical officer.

      I presume the above remarks will not be objected to, by many of my readers, I therefore proceed to state some of the particulars deducible from them.

      1st. The officers of the church and all the members of the church, not commissioned by the state, have no right whatever to interfere with the execution of the law of the commonwealth; but only to take heed to themselves and those in the church connexion with them, that they be good, honest, quiet, sober, industrious citizens. In this way they will prevent much of the trouble which the civil magistrate has at present.

      2d. When any others, either in their individual or in an associated capacity than civil officers, attempt at executing the laws on transgressors, they publicly declare that the civil officers are lame, are deficient in performing their duty, and consequently worthy of being removed. But if they say, it is to help them to execute the laws--then, they plainly tell them that they are too weak of themselves, and therefore useless--But in fact the combinations to which we allude are merely spies and informers, for they act no other part than that of spies and informers, in returning the men of the world to civil officers and they can only receive as much of the fine as the law apportions to the informant. How dishonorable, how useless and how pernicious their office is, methinks they ought to have long since seen!

      3d. As the execution of the laws respecting the maintenance of peace and good order is the duty of the magistrates of the commonwealth, it becomes them to be active and vigilant in their office, and thus prevent the pretended necessity of forming those combinations to maintain good order and morals.

      But as my object, in this number, is not, to illustrate any thing fully, but to introduce the subject in order to discussion I break off, in the meantime promising you an essay on the office of the civil magistrate in my next.

      P. S. Please inform Mr. Farmer, that his story about a confession of faith is something that is inapplicable and request him to explain it. It is, perhaps "bad hearing" that makes bad rehearsing--at any rate present my respects to him, soliciting a better acquaintance.

CANDIDUS.      

[The Reporter, 11 December 1820, p. 1.]