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. 31.	WASHINGTON, (PA.) MONDAY, DECEMBER 25th, 1820.	WHOLE NO. 83.

      MR. EDITOR,

      SIR--I proceed to offer a few remarks on the office of the civil magistrate. This is an office of great antiquity and of great importance to the prosperity of society. All those persons in every state who are appointed to execute the laws of the state, are, in our language called civil magistrates. Emperors, kings, presidents, and governors have been called the chief magistrates of the states over which they severally presided, justices of the peace and judges of courts have also received the name of magistrates--In all countries they are or should be men of excellent character, and fathers of the people. In a word, they are, or should be; men selected and authorized by the people, to execute the laws under which they wish to be governed. The preservation of public tranquility, of life, liberty, reputation, and property, are the great purposes which originated this office. The civil magistrate is a state officer, and as such obliged to take into consideration the interests of the state, as far as this can be promoted by the most faithful execution of the laws committed to him.

      In every state the powers of the magistrate should be, and commonly are prescribed and limited in the commission which they receive, or in the laws which institute the office. The corruptions of men render the existence of this office necessary, and consequently should define the duties of it.

      The appointment of civil government, and of the church are divine ordinances, and intended for the good of mankind; the one, to promote his temporal; the other his eternal good; the one, to minister to his fleshly comfort; the other, to advance his spiritual interests. They both emanate from the same fountain of authority, and were dictated from the same principles of philantrophy--They are, however, as distinct as soul and body, and should be considered as distinct in their nature, properties, and operation. The office of the civil magistrate has existed in all countries, with, and without, an established religion. Savage nations, mahommetans, pagans and christians have their civil magistrates, and amongst all such, the office is a divine ordinance--Where there is, and where there is not a church, the ordinance is the same.--In Rome, the constituted government and magistracy though heathen, and persecuting christianity, was called in Pauls time, even when a Nero and a Domitian sat on the throne, "an ordinance of God," by that Spirit that can denominate nothing wrong. Yea, in the New Testament the heathen magistrates are called, "God's ministers," and he that resisteth them, is said "not to resist man but God." Yes the civil magistracy in all nations upon earth is appointed of God, "to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil," to his neighbour, and to be a terror to evil doers, and a praise to them that do well. For this purpose, he bears the sword of power, and is invested with authority--He is in the same record, which denominates him "a minister of God," to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil, prohibited from using his authority, which is always compulsory, in any thing pertaining to spiritual concerns--For this purpose the sword of power is never to be unsheathed. It was once wielded for this purpose, even in the presence of the founder of christianity; but it was returned to its scabbard with these memorable and instructive words--"all that take the sword shall perish with the sword"--that is--not to defend the state, but to support the church. He also said, who is the author of the christian faith, that if his kingdom were of a worldly nature, his servants would use violence in support of his cause--But such was not its nature.

      My creed, on this subject, is the following, viz--That as the civil magistracy is in all nations alike the appointment or ordinance of God, whether they are pagans, mahommetans, or christians, it is never to be employed in support of any religion whatsoever; nor are civil rulers on any account whatsoever, to use any of that authority, which they have received for and from the state, in support of christianity nor ever directly or indirectly to use compulsion in any thing pertaining to religion. But they are to use all their authority in keeping good order in society or in preserving the public peace, the life, liberty, reputation and property of the citizens of the state.

      Those who differ from me on this topic, I request to consider three things.

      1st. That if the magistrates in the United States, for instance, proceed officially to support or defend the religion of this country; the Turkish Japanese, Spanish, Chinese, or any magistracy has the same power and right (being equally a divine institution there, as here, to accomplish the moral government of the world) to defend and support the religion of their respective countries.

      2d. That swords, cannons, guns, powder, lead, prisons, gold, silver, or bank notes, cannot make the conscience bend, renew the soul, spiritually illumine the human mind, or give a new moral sense--That rackes, gibbets, wheels, whips, nor even the mild punishments of four dollar fines cannot promote piety nor benevolence.

      3d. That all such efforts on the part of the magistrate are prohibited in the institutes of christianity.

      I am aware that not a few model both the church and the state after the "commonwealth of Israel"--and would have something like the Jews in civil and ecclesiastical concerns--I have yet said nothing respecting the civil magistracy of the Jews which seems to be a copy after which the "moral associations" would, if they dare, model their little Sanhedrims, and their young St. Giles.

      With regard to the Jews I would say there was no office purely civil--Their government was a pure Theocracy, and all their offices were under the immediate appointment of their king, who was none else than their God. Hence when they sought a king like other nations the Lord charged them with having rejected himself as their king, civil and religious offices were reposed in the same hands; hence Moses performed offices civil & religious. The seventy elders selected to assist him in judging and awarding took under their cognizance, things civil and religious. The Jews cannot become a model to any nation in the world, either in their civil government, or in their ecclesiastical; for this plain reason--that no nation ever stood in the same relation to God, or received their political institutes in the same manner. I would remind those who are so eager to imitate them, that the only punishment the Jewish Rulers inflicted on those who transgressed the letter of the first table of the law, was only death. The Sabbath breaker and the blasphemer were only stoned to death. There was no commutation of the crime, for if sins against God are to be punished as such, there is no temporal privation, that can be considered as such. Let those who are so zealous of punishing Sabbath breakers and of executing what they call the law of God, be consistent with themselves and their precedents, and stone to death the Sabbath breaker and the blasphemer.

      Since the Jewish religion became obsolete, there never was a tribunal on earth appointed of God to take cognizance of, or to punish sins against God. This power God has committed to none on earth, he has no representative on earth. All sins are committed against God either mediately or immediately. Even those sins that are committed against [God mediately] reach unto the heavens. But there are some sins committed immediately against God, and affect not any mortal; these no man can take cognizance of. There are some that appear at first view equivocal, that is they may be considered either as sins against God mediately or immediately, as they are viewed. Sins mediately affecting God, immediately affect mankind; and those immediately affecting God, affect mankind mediately, or else not at all. To illustrate this, suppose a man violates a vow which he has made to God, and of which, perhaps, no man was conscious but himself; or suppose he deprives God of a portion of that time, which should have been devoted to him; in these sins; God is immediately affected by them, and they not affect mankind generally nor perhaps a second person in the Universe. But suppose a man rob his neighbour of his property, he sins immediately against his neighbour, and God is affected mediately, in the injury done to one of his creatures. Now while I contend that no ruler on earth has a just right to punish any crime as a sin immediately against God; or on account of its being a sin against him; yet I maintain that the civil ruler has a right to punish, or to suppress as far as in him lies, many crimes that may at first view appear to be sins immediately against God, but which are sins immediately against man also, I must here observe, that I hold it to be a fundamental principle in things of this nature, that whatever misdemeanors are submitted to the civil ruler, they are to be viewed only as offences against the state; and whatsoever cannot be fairly viewed as an offence against the state, no power on earth has a right to punish. To instance this I would observe that drunkenness, gambling, fornication, polygamy, perjury, adultery, and even profane swearing may be considered as crimes immediately against the state--Though some of them may be supposed to be sins immediately against God. Though each of the above is an eminent sin against God, yet when subjected to the investigation of the magistrate, it is to be viewed only as a crime against the state. Drunkards are dangerous to the community as ravenous beasts or rabid animals, and they are ruinous to their families, and in many instances throw their families as paupers on the state. The drunkard, then, becomes a fit subject of civil chastisement, he should be committed to prison in every fit of intemperance for his own safety, and that of the state. He should be legally incapacitated to dispose of his property; it should be preserved for the good of his family, in whatsoever way this can best be effected. The gambler about to ruin his family or his legal heirs should share a similar punishment; his property should be secured either to his heirs or the state. The fornicator, polygamist, and adulterer, being obviously in the purview of the law of the land, I commit them cheerfully into the hands of the proper officer. The blasphemer and the perjured person should be considered as disqualified to give testimony between man and man and be legally disqualified for any office in the state; when it has been proved upon sufficient evidence, that any man is an habitual swearer or blasphemer he should be disqualified for any office; he should never be called as evidence, nor summoned on any jury, for having lost a regard for the Divine name, he cannot be supposed truly to regard the solemnity of an oath, or of an appeal to heaven. As a still more pungent chastisement, I would say, that all good citizens should avoid all intercourse with them as far as possible, even in the common business of life. Such is the course I would recommend as better qualified to ameliorate society than those little clubs that I have already proved to be unscriptural, unconstitutional and immoral in their tendency. In regard of the Sabbath day and the institutes of religion, I except them entirely from the jurisdiction or cognizance of the civil magistrate, in any sense whatever, but of this more hereafter when I review Judge Rush's charge.¹ In the mean time I remain your humble servant,

[The Reporter, 25 December 1820, p. 1.]