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. 47.	WASHINGTON, (PA.) MONDAY, APRIL 16th, 1821.	WHOLE NO. 99.

      MR. EDITOR,

            SIR--It becomes necessary for me to apologize, through you, to the public, for having so long neglected to pay that polite attention to Mr. Timothy which his numbers demanded. I have merely to explain one circumstance and the cause of this neglect will be apparent to all. It was agreed between myself and Mr. Flint, at a former period, that he should defend my numbers as they might severally be attacked; This office he had so well performed, on every occasion, that I could not think of divesting him of it, when Mr. T. appeared. As soon as T's 2d number appeared he informed me that he had commenced his reply; but that his first number was detained by some inexplicable casualty, and that three other numbers which he had sent on, had been cut out by your late arrangement of confining controversy between one on each side--These, then, are the sole reasons, why I have not paid that attention to Mr. T. which his productions demand. I come forward to discharge this duty, at this time, with peculiar satisfaction, hoping that Mr. T. will exercise as much patience, as to allow me to reply to his 4 numbers already printed before he resumes his pen.¹ For I cannot reply to any additional objections, with propriety, until I have cleared off the old account. The regulation, Mr. Editor, which you have adopted is an excellent one, though as it respected me, it had two imperfections, the one that it was not adopted sooner; and the other, that it came just at the moment to cut off Mr. Flint's three numbers, and thus to cause so great a chasm on my side--These things premised, I proceed.

      In the first paragraph of Timothy No. 1. You will find these words, "It then becomes the imperious duty of every friend of order and laws to do his utmost to carry the provisions of the law into effect." Such sir, is the specious and imposing garb under which T. presents his strictures upon my numbers. From these words it is to be inferred that T. is a friend of order and law, and that I am not. Either inference is, however, destitute of proof--But, perhaps, this phraze, so petty, is only now and then used by T, to decorate a sentence otherwise languid, or to round off a period, otherwise dissonant. Good order and good laws are excellent things, and let his right hand lose its cunning who opposeth either. But this is not the first time that good words have been misapplied; or, that "good words and fair speeches have deceived the hearts of the simple." In good old Scotland, it is "good order and law" for the majority to appoint certain fast days in the year, and in all large cities, any man whether Turk, Jew, or Atheist, who should open his store or transact any wordly business on such fast days, is liable, to pay 10d. and 6d. sterling for every such offence. In the native land of Columbus, a few months since, it was "good order and law" for one great "moral association" to commit to the dungeon of torture, every man that whispered any thing, against the divine right of Ferdinand the pious, or against the infallibility of his holiness the Pope. And in the state, once the land of good old William Penn, "it is good order and law" to stop a man upon the state road, and either send him to prison, or fine him for travelling on the first day of the week.--Now he that opposeth, by word or deed, any of the above "good order and law," in any of the aforesaid countries, is an enemy to good order and law, just like me, and he that defends the Inquisition in Spain, the establishment in Scotland, and the "moral associations" in Pennsylvania, is a friend of good order and law, just like Mr. Timothy.

      But to resume the subject, just where Mr. Flint broke off his review. After Mr. T. has ruminated very copiously on these words--That hundreds of men commit more sin by being compelled to refrain from the daily avocations of life, on the Sabbath than on any other day of the week, I am constrained to admit the fact. But to palliate this evil arising from compulsory religious obedience (pardon the expression) he reasons (if I should so apply the term) in a strain somewhat new. His words are; "This is brought about by the effect which the execution of the law has upon the offender in stirring up, and exasperating his evil passions. Hence Mr. C. says that the law is evil, Paul who we think was a much better reasoner than Mr. C. draws a very different conclusion in a parallel case." "For sin taking occasion by the commandment &c." As the reasoning and not the style is the subject of investigation I pass over its inaccuracies, and remark that the cases are not parallel. The law Paul alluded to was a law regulating the mind--"Thou shalt not covet." But the law T. espouses is, Thou shalt take 4 dollars from thy neighbor who does not pay the same regard to one day that you pay--I would suppose that few men of Mr. T's opportunities, would call the law of '94 and "Thou shalt not covet, parallel laws--For the laws must be parallel before the cases can be parallel.--Paul I think was a better reasoner than even Mr. T.--"If" continues he, "the law in question, provokes the evil passions of bad men, we should think it an argument in its favor."--Let us adopt Mr. T.'s plan of testing arguments, and apply it to the last observation.--If such bad men as Volney and Voltair disliked the Inquisition it was according to Mr. T. an argument in its favor!!--But what if the law alluded to provokes the benevolence of good men?--What then Mr. T? Some of the most enlightened states have rejected bills to enact such laws, from a conviction that they would be anti-rational, anti-constitutional, and tyrannical--But they are all bad men who oppose this law; and inasmuch as this law is parallel to the 10th command of the Decalogue, it tests the passions of men, consequently, Timothy who delights in it after the inward man is a good, very good man, a saint--and Candidus who dislikes it is a vile sinner!

      In the hard job of palliating this evil tendency of the law Mr. T. asks the question--"Does the law command the wagonner to get drunk and swear, while it forbids him to drive his wagon? Handsome come off--I ask does the law command him to do any thing?--Is not its import do nothing? And according to the old logic "he that is commanded to do nothing is commanded to sin"--But what finishes the climax of Mr. T's criticism in this place is, that he compares the law of '94 to laws imposing duties upon certain kinds of goods, which give occasion to false enteries, smuggling, perjury &c. And, says he, if this objection of C. was acted upon it would put an end to legislation"--In no part of Mr. T's numbers does he swagger more, than in this place; perhaps; this was designed to conceal the sophistry--Let us analyze it.

      In the first place, false enteries, smuggling, and perjury are not necessary, but accidental consequences attendant on the execution of revenue laws. Revenue laws may be executed a thousand times, and not any of these consequences ensue. But the law imposing a mock regard for, or compelling men to cease from servile labor on, the Sabbath, necessarily is productive of evil. For it cannot be executed in any one instance, but it must provoke the evil passions of bad men, it must encrease the quantum of their guilt, while it can only change the quality of it. In a word it cannot be executed in any one instance, but more sin must be committed than if there was no such law.

      In the second place, there is no analogy betwixt the law of '94 and revenue laws. The latter are constitutional, the former as I have before proved is unconstitutional--Mr. T. in arguing from things, as analogical, which are not analogical either intentionally, or unintentionally acts the sophist.

      In the third place, by reasoning from laws regulating civil society in their temporal concerns, to the laws of God respecting his peculiar worship; T. places the obedience rendered to the law of '94, on the same footing, with the obedience rendered to revenue laws; and therefore considers it purely civil. Thus the violation of the law of '94 is the same, as the violation of any other civil statute, and to be treated as such--And the law of God respecting his own worship is converted into a law of the state, and the religious obedience which it requires, is converted into civil obedience, and like to the obedience yielded to revenue laws!!!

      To illustrate and enforce the three proceeding items, suppose that the law of Pennsylvania enjoined every unbaptized person 18 years old, to be baptized (and it has as good a right to do so, as to pass a law concerning a Sabbath) on the penalty of 4 dollars--Now every person, who in obedience to this law is baptized, sins against God--For his obedience to a Divine institute is moved by the fear of losing 4 dollars--the obedience flowing from this principle, is solemn mockery an act of profanation.--Again, the administration sins against God, in having violated a commission from heaven, under the appearance of obeying a civil statute.--And in the last place, the ordinance of sacred worship is converted into a civil institute, and the obedience it receives is regulated by civil law, as revenue of the state!

      The last sentence of Timothy No. 1. is a "rara avis in terris." He says "It is better for the community that the sacred aspect of the Sabbath be preserved--and that there should be some public and national proof that we are not an heathen people." What a glorious proof that we are not an heathen people! That the day which commemorates the author and finisher of the christian faith, and the achievements of the captain of salvation, will not be observed, but in consequence of penal laws!--Extraordinary proof that we are not a heathen people, that acts of devotion are to be prescribed, and enforced by penal statutes!! Tell it not in Birmah, publish it not in the vales of Hindoston, that the only public and national proof of our christianity is the mocked and forced observance of one day in seven, least the sons and daughters of the heathen triumph! Lest they that offer themselves willing sacrifices to Pagan idols rejoice!

      Those who cheerfully observe the first day to the Lord, are, in so far, as the law of '94 prevails, confounded with those whose obedience is constrained and subjected to the suspicion that perhaps their obedience is involuntary which is to me another misfortune attendant on the prevalence of the system of compulsion.

      The preceding remarks together with Mr. Flint's review expose the sophistry of Timothy's No. 1. I now proceed to his 2d No. which is bottomed on two objections in my review of Judge Rush's charge the first of those is--"This law tends to oppress the consciences of some who conscientiously observe the seventh and cannot conscientiously observe the first day such as Jews and Seventh day Baptists." After T. has worked up his passions to a proper pitch, by descanting upon the spirit of the law, which, if he proves any thing he shows to be at variance with the letter of it, he confidently asks--"But can Mr. C. or any other person give us a single instance in which a Jew or Seventh day Baptist has been made to suffer from the law just referred to? Can he furnish an instance in which any person has ever attempted such a thing?" If we were to judge from Mr. T's confidence in proposing these questions, we would conclude impossible. But unfortunately great confidence is quite compatible with great ignorance. But this was only a modest way of retreating from the objection--for so long as there is no clause in the law in favor of conscientious dissenters; no thanks to the law for their security--With a confidence better founded, than that of T. I might ask, do the executors of the law, when about to carry it into effect, usually, or ever, ask a wagonner or any supposed delinquent, whether he is a Jew or Sabbatarian? Do they ask him whether he is a Deist? For I have yet to learn the propriety of compelling a Deist, to acknowledge any institute of Christianity; whereas he may be as worthy of the protection of the law, and the rights of citizenship as many a professed christian--When Mr. Jones was, sometime since, stopped on the state road by a moral society squire, although riding quietly along, I say, when the squire wrote his mittimus, and sent him, by the hand of the constable, to the county jail, for going home on the first day; was he interrogated as to his religious belief? Was he asked whether he were a Jew, a Sabbatarian, a Quaker, a free thinker? No No. One question, however, was asked viz: would he pay the cash for his sin? And for the refusing, the squire in his zeal condemned him to imprisonment.

      But in answer to the puissant challenge of our Goliath, I assert that conscientious dissenters have suffered under the law of '94. In the neighborhood of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, persecution was carried so far against some sabbatarians, that suit was entered under the law of '94, and after long procrastination, an appeal was made to the supreme court, how it ended I have not heard. Other instances besides the above, I have heard; but as the above is susceptible of proof by staunch citizens of this county, I decline being more particular. A "single instance" has been given, and therefore Mr. T's boast is but a puff of noisy breath. It is however a matter of complaisance, rather than of necessity, that induces me to notice the above query, seeing there is no restriction in the law in favor of conscientious dissenters. And all the logic of Mr. T. would not convince me that, sabbatarians or any conscientious dissenters, lived in some parts of this county, especially near Middletown, they would escape persecution. They would either have to observe two sabbaths in the week, or pay their quota in silver.

      When Mr. T. has proposed the above questions, and after a little vaporing, he appears to think he had done the business and modestly concludes--"Thus we think that the law of '94, when properly understood, that is as he understands it, is not liable to Mr. C's 2d objection." With the alteration of a word I transcribe Mr. T's words and apply them to myself, viz., Thus we think, that the law of '94, when properly understood, (that is according to its letter, spirit and facts happening under it) is liable to my 2d objection. And as Mr. T. adds, "it speaks much in favor of this law, that Mr. C. is under the necessity of misrepresenting it, before he can condemn it." So say I, it speaks much against this law that Mr. T. is under the necessity of misrepresenting it, and explaining it away, before he can support it."

      The third objection to the judges charge was, that the obedience which the law requires is neither pleasing to God nor profitable to man. What Mr. T. advances in reply to this, is undoubtedly, as melancholy a piece of whining as we can conceive of--he affixes, a few notes of admiration to it, and tells us it was exceeding irksome to him to reply. No doubt, not being able to remove the objection, it would be irksome to him to notice it! He however, proposes a question as usual at this hard place, viz: Pray Mr. C. will you condescend to tell us what is the object of human laws?" Pray Mr. T. will you tell us the object of the law of '94? Is it to make men wise, or moral, or good! Is it to diminish the quantum of guilt, or merely to transform the quality of it! Is it to compel men to cease sining one way, or to destroy one bad example while it institutes another? Mr. T. retreats from this 3d objection with great majesty, by telling us the story of an Indian chief at Washington; just as they say, Monseur Raynard once retreated from some fine grapes which he could not reach, saying, "hang them but they are sour!" So my worthy friend in the same spirit says, "'tis irksome to reply"--"let that suffice."--I have, sir, been too prolix at this time, but an honest desire to pay my just debts has compelled me to be so long--my next instalment will not be quite so heavy--when I get up with Mr. T. we shall take it week about, and I would say, that it would not be amiss for you to pass another law, viz: That after this reply to T. is finished, you would require each party to publish their names in full, let them throw off the mask, and then we shall see better. For my part I am willing to do so. And being convinced of the goodness of my cause, I shrink from no man, and from no investigation.

[The Reporter, 16 April 1821, p. 1.]