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. 43.	WASHINGTON, (PA.) MONDAY, MARCH 19th, 1821.	WHOLE NO. 95.

MR. EDITOR,

            Sir--I have observed in your paper a certain writer who calls himself Timothy,¹ whose ostensible object appears to be to review the arguments I have presented in your paper to the public, against coercion in support of christianity. I must, indeed, confess that I doubt very much whether this be his actual object, especially as he has neglected to advert to the more weighty and primary arguments which I have suggested on this topic. He has begun at the second class of those arguments which I have published in my review of Judge Rush's address, which were, chiefly, predicated upon the general principles assumed by the judge, in his address, and which were, with, perhaps, the exception of one, of that species of ratiocination called by logicians "argumentum ad hominem," or arguments addressed to a man upon his own principles. I do not, however, thus remark as if I thought these arguments are weak, or as I thought he had in the least invalidated them. I have not the remotest idea of either. But I would naturally expect that a writer who intends either to acquit himself as a man of honor, or as a champion in a cause which he professes to esteem important, would do himself, his opponent, and his cause, so much justice, as to begin at the proper place, and to investigate the primary, before he attempted the secondary arguments--This he has not done. It is by no means difficult for any man of ordinary talents who has been a little conversant in books, to join words together upon the wrong as well as upon the right side of any question, in such a way as to appear somewhat plausible. Indeed, this is a considerable part of that education which is thought necessary to qualify a man, for what is not sometimes improperly called the business of a pettifogger.

      As I presume my friend, Mr. Flint has commenced a review of Mr. Timothy's Nos.² I consider it unnecessary to say anything upon the contents of those numbers, as I am not under the least apprehension of his failing to expose the sophistry of Mr. T's remarks. But in order to condense in a few sentences the leading principles assumed and vindicated in the course of my preceding numbers, on the impropriety of presuming to punish those called "Sabbath-breakers," for not sanctifying the first day of the week especially as Timothy says he has not got those numbers by him, (a poor excuse, seeing he is so contiguous to your office.) I intend to present to him in this place, those thesis he is called upon, from the stand he has taken, to oppugn.

      The following propositions are selected, some of them litterally, others substantially, from my past numbers. I distinguish them numerically for the sake of reference.

      1st. The church and the state are different bodies politic, or the church differs from the state in the character of its subjects, of its laws, and of its discipline. It also differs in other respects but these suffice for my present purpose.

      2d. The church has jurisdiction over all its own members, in regard to their whole moral, and religious character.

      3d. The state has jurisdiction over all its own members in things civil and moral; but not in things religious.

      4th. The church, as such, has no jurisdiction over any individual out of the pale of her communion, or apart with visible connexion with her.

      5th. Religion and morality, though they are inseparably connected, as cause and effect, are so distinct as cause and effect. Religion comprehends our duty to God, and morality our duty to man.

      6th. The observance of a Sabbath or the sanctification of any day, is a duty of religion inasmuch as the constitution of a day for divine worship is placed amongst moral positive, and not amongst moral natural precepts.

      7th. The civil magistrate has "ex officio," a right to take under cognizance, all immoralities, that affect the life, liberty, property and reputation of the citizens of the community. But, no right, "ex officio" to take under cognizance, any thing belonging to the institutes of religion, such as the observance of baptism, the first day or the supper.

      8th. Every thing that interferes with perfect liberty of conscience is in Pennsylvania unconstitutional.

      These are a few of the leading principles acted upon in my preceding numbers, and they are the principles of hundreds of thousands of christians of the present day. Indeed I know of none but Romanists and the children of the solemn league, that object to them. Why then all this hue and cry of heresay immorality, &c? Because I have drawn certain conclusions from those principles that seemed to strike down the misguided zeal of a certain coalition in this western country. And because my character is unspotted, and my talents, be they what they may, are supposed to be formidable to certain interests which have come in contact with them. It is then, Sir, a secret enmity on other accounts, that has supplied all that gall and bitterness which has been most conspicuous in the ranks of my opponents and my numbers has merely furnished a pretext or a garb under which this malevolence vents itself. I do assure you, sir, that the opposition made to those sentiments I have advanced has very much confirmed me in the belief of them. I consider myself suffering that opposition which the best of men and the best of causes, have had to encounter.--I rejoice however, that all the insinuations and malevolence exhibited against me by all my opponents, have not been able to fix upon one solitary fact, or appearance of fact to substantiate their false insinuations--I do not apply the preceding observations, to Timothy for he has been, for so far the least culpable though not altogether innocent in these respects. I flatter myself that by a proper attention to method and good order, the subject under discussion, may be fairly exhibited and brought to that conclusion, which will leave opposition without an argument or the appearance of one. For this purpose I have chosen this method; I have collected the 8 propositions on which my arguments chiefly rest, and exhibited them in one place. If Mr. Timothy objects to any of them, let him state his objections briefly and methodically to such of them as he disavows. I will as briefly reply to them. In the present number I will present but one of the conclusions or arguments deducable from them. Let him either admit it or formally point out its defects. If the following arguments is refuted, I give up the cause, if not, it is established, and will be triumphant.

      1st. Every man that does not sanctify the first day of the week is either a professed member of the church or he is not. If he be, the church according to proposition 2d has jurisdiction over him, and can call him to account, if he repent all is well, if not the church must exclude him, it cannot fine him or commit him to prison, for such is not church discipline. But in the second place, if he be not in the church but merely a citizen of the state, then according to the 4th proposition the church has no control over him. Nor can the state take him to an account for his not observing a religious institute according to proposition 3d--So that in this case the state cannot fine or imprison him. Whether, then, the man who profanes the first day, belongs to the church, or only to the state, he cannot be punished by man for this offence. To suppose the contrary, will lead to a renunciation of the protestant religion.

      Hoping that Mr. Timothy will not act the cowardly part of his predecessors and decline the discussion of the question at issue, seeing he has entered the lists.

[The Reporter, 19 March 1821, p. 1.]