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. 49.	WASHINGTON, (PA.) MONDAY, APRIL 30th, 1821.	WHOLE NO. 101.

      MR. EDITOR,

            Without introduction or apology I proceed to examine Mr. Timothy's remarks upon my 5th objection to judge Rush's address.¹ The objection, viz: "While the law prohibits many from industry allowable on other days, it allows them to spend the day reading newspapers writing letters of business or amusement; talking politics, or speculating upon any carnal or temporal topic." Mr. T. commences his observation in the above objection, in the following words, which he amplifies by illustrations, viz: "It was before intimated that there are many degrees of the same crime, and that it would be absolutely impossible to make laws which would reach all crimes in all their degrees." He adds, "that the crime of Sabbath breaking in all its branches and degrees cannot be furnished by human laws."² This he illustrates by the laws concerning murder. In the above, as indeed, in all his previous remarks, the main question is begged which ought to have been proven, viz: That men have a right to make laws concerning the institutes of religion. A second mistake in the above is, that he places the laws respecting murder, which are moral laws, and the laws respecting religion and divine worship under the same head. But a third and more glaring aberration from propriety in the above, is the principle he has assumed to oppose my 5th objection, viz: That there are certain degrees of the crime of Sabbath breaking to be punished by civil law, and some degrees which are not, because he presumes they cannot. Think not sir, that I am forcing a meaning on his words which is not in them--for he endeavors to make me appear ridiculous for my admitting the above principle, in the following retort, "Because the law cannot prohibit Sabbath breaking in every degree, therefore it should not prohibit it in any!

      The civil law has made three degrees of murder, how many then has it made of Sabbath-breaking? Mr. T. has left us in the dark as to this, which he ought not to have done, seeing he is the author of this new theory. But he has been forced into this new theory; in order to oppose my 5th objection. He was obliged to place, talking politics, writing letters of business, carnal conversation under the 2d, or for anything I know under the 6th degree of the crime of Sabbath breaking. One thing, we learn, however, that driving a wagon, is to be placed under the first degrees of this crime, for it comes under those degrees which the civil "law can reach." 'Tis true he has said something below, which, perhaps, he designed should help us out, viz: That "overt acts," "acts susceptible of proof," in ordinary cases "are to be punished by law." But unfortunately this makes the theory worse, for then either talking politics, carnal conversation, &c. are not overt acts of Sabbath breaking--they are not susceptible of proof in ordinary cases, or they should on his own new principle be punished by civil law. O error, into what perplexing mazes, into what winding labyrinths, into what self-contradictions, does thou lead thy silly captives, thy forlorn votaries!! But, perhaps, I have gone too far, let us take another look at it. Overt acts include every act that is not purely mental. To speak a mischievous word, to do a mischievous action, are equally overt acts, and equally cognizable by civil laws in certain circumstances. Defamation, slander, lying are overt acts, and susceptible of proof, in many instances, in "ordinary occasions, but not more so, than talking politics, or casual conversation of any kind, in "ordinary cases." So then, view this new theory as we may, it helps its inventor nothing for in spite of all efforts it defeats his plan, and subjects the law to my 5th objection. Again, it is a most pernicious theory, to morals, on Mr. T's own principles--for, in placing all other acts of Sabbath profanation in "some degree" inferior to those found by the law of '94, it tacitly, yea, it manifestly, holds forth the idea, it teaches that talking politics, reading newspapers, writing letters of business, &c. are subordinate degrees of this crime or are not "overt acts" of Sabbath profanation. Is this the result of the principle T. assumes to "refute" me--Yes, inevitably it is. It obliges him to draw distinctions at the utmost variance with the bible, and with right reason--to make those sins committed by the tongue less overt acts of crime than those committed by the hands or feet.

      Now I cheerfully admit that civil laws cannot reach the thoughts, and who says that they can? But, I say that if civil law is to take cognizance of the transgressions of the 4th commandment, it must, it should take cognizance of all violations of it in word or deed; and that talking on any thing carnal, or by speaking our own words, the commandment is transgressed equally as overtly, as actually, as in doing our own deeds. Upon the whole then I conclude that Mr. T's effort to elude the force of my 5th objection neither does honor to him as a moralist, a teacher, or a divine.

      I proceed to notice one of those ebullitions of genious and wit which Timothy next exhibits, which would do honor to a punster or to an epilogue or prologue writer of Druiy-lane, or to some of the Don Quixotes of the last century. When he had failed in his own conscience, in refuting any thing that I had said, he bethought himself of making a Candidus of his own, which he constructs upon such a scale, as he thought he could not fail to knock down; and when he has done, when he has got his foot upon his neck, he cries out, O do you see what a hero I am! Only look what I have done!--I allude to the passage in which he exclaims "Ye Rushes, ye Lockes, ye Grotiuses, hide, hide your diminished heads." Demolish your prisons, your penitentiaries as worse than so many Bastiles. Away with statute books courts of justice, judges, and legislators! This is elequence--this is rhetoric. O ye Demostheneses, ye Ciceroes, ye antient, ye modern Orators, hide, hide your diminished heads! Because the real Candidus advocated the office of civil magistrate, because he maintained that in all things moral, and civil affecting the life, liberty, reputation, and property of the members of the community, laws should exist, and be justly administered--it would not suit to impeach him, as an advocate for anarchy--therefore the genius of T. raises a new Candidus, one that just suits his purpose, one that is an enemy to all coercion, in enforcing the [civil and relative strain of] citizen to citizen; one that would coerce men to all the acts of devotion!! To offer any other remarks on this truly astonishing paragraph, would be an insult on every reader that can understand the import of one proposition, that knows, that all true religion commences in, and proceeds from the heart.

      O ye Pauls, and ye Peters, and ye Johns, who taught your followers to instruct opposers of your holy religion in meekness. To walk wisely towards them that are without. To let your light shine before men, for their conviction and reformation; how sadly were you mistaken. Had you been under the tuition of this eminent moralist, had you studied in his college, you would have known better, you would have seen that fines, imprisonment, and penal statutes, were the true means of conviction and reformation in things religious!

      I come now to examine the last paragraph of T's No. 3 which is an essay upon the utility of fear in religion. The following words in No. 9 gave rise to this short but comprehensive sermon. Indeed it would seem to be the guts of some old rusty discourse penned in the days of Oliver Cromwell, or in some of those eras fitly called, "the reign of terror." The following is the text--"All those whose regard to the Sabbath is in any shape compulsory would be better employed in ploughing or reaping, in planting or building, than in yielding a forced respect to it." Thus far Candidus. The plain and obvious meaning of the above words is simply this--that a man who from a principle of fear of man, feignedly observes a religious institute, such as the Sabbath, cannot please God; cannot profit himself in any sense whatever; whereas, if he were employed in the common business of human life, which would be no more sinful in this respect, than a mocked regard of a religious institute, or perhaps less sinful than the profaning the day by idleness, would do more good to himself and society in some profitable business, than in such kind of mockery. This is a fair interpretation of the above words from all the light that I have thrown upon them. Now how has T. represented the scope of them? He begins his comment by telling us that he is going to take them in "their utmost latitude," and indeed he takes them far beyond their utmost latitude. His "utmost latitude" is like the Indians tree, that was so straight that it leaned a little the other way.

      He proceeds to shew us their "utmost latitude," by saying, "that he must mean either, that the person would be acting better in the capacity of a citizen, in relation to human laws; or that he would be acting better as a subject of the Divine government, and in that relation in which he stands to God as the supreme lawgiver." On each of the above hypotheses he talks in such a way, as to foist upon me an absurdity which grew to maturity in his own brain. This he calls testing the principle. And this he does just as honestly as the man who under pretence of testing a genuine bank bill belonging to his neighbour, secrets it quietly in his own strong box, and palms a genuine counterfeit upon his unsuspicious neighbour instead of returning him his own. To test the principle of the argument, he supposes a man attacked by a robber who threatens to shoot him if he will not deliver him his money--but eventually he is prevented by the fear of the law. Now upon my alledged argument, "he would," says he, "be better employed in shooting and robbing him." Is this the learned Timothy? Is this the pious Timothy? Is this the greatest writer, and the greatest reasoner in Washington county? Yes, indeed the best of us all!!

Mr. Editor--have you ever seen a comparison so just, so fair, so rational. A person abstaining from robbery and murder, from the fear of man, and a person offering a pretended regard to the Sabbath from a fear of man. One abstaining from that which is ruinous to his neighbour, from a fear of human punishment, and, one abstaining from that, in which, divine worship is neglected, from a fear of human punishment. But why admire only the one side of the painting, let us turn it round, and contemplate the other side; here we see the worship of the Deity--or a regard for the ordinances of religious worship--and abstenance from manslaughter, proceeding from the same pure and heavenly principle, viz: the fear of human punishment. Here we behold Mr. T. engrafting the worship of God, or a regard to it, and common honesty and common civility on the same stock, viz: the fear of human punishment! But can Mr. T. be in earnest--does he in fact suppose, that a man's refraining from manslaughter from the fear of man; and a man's abstaining from servile labor on the Sabbath; from the same principle, equally affect the character of God, and the safety of man--and that men are under the same obligation to observe the Sabbath, from a fear of human punishment; as they are to abstain from murder from the same principle. Is there not a text which says "He that sheddeth man's blood, by man, shall his blood be shed"--and can he shew one that saith, "he that profaneth the Sabbath," by man, shall his blood be shed, or his money taken?"

      But I must not omit the second part of "the utmost latitude" which he gives us. In this section Mr. T. reasons on, until he has got, the man acting from the fear of hell, and he that acts from the fear of losing four dollars, as acting from one and the same principle--perhaps he is right. The worst hell that many fear is the loss of money. But he does not stop until he has gone so far, as to quote 4 or 5 verses of scripture addressed to christians, by the Apostles, to shew us, what? If any thing; this--that as they presented the fear of God to christian minds, to exhort them to holiness, so we should present the fear of man, the fear of fines and imprisonment to unrenewed men for the same purpose. I say if there be one item of reference to the subject under discussion in any thing T. says on this part of the subject, the above is the precise and definite import of it. The man who can, in an argument, substitute the fear of man, for the fear of God, or vice versa, as the case may require; and argue from them as if they were in all respects the same, is either incapable of reasoning correctly or he is determined to substitute artifice, cunning and deception; for reason, candor and truth.

      It is on this occasion that Timothy gets into one of his high keys--here he exclaims, where are we? Indeed I think no wonder--having lost the compass of reason, and the helm of prudence, in an ocean of wild imaginations and extravagant theories--driven by the winds of passion and gusts of C----t--beginning to sink under the storm which he himself had raised; he exclaims, "where are we." But he adds, "Is this Candidus an inhabitant of our country? Is it he that published a complaint against the Clergy," &c. Now sir, were these questions answered in the affirmative, what would it avail the controversy? As much, perhaps, as if I should say--who is this Timothy? Is this the scholar, who lately published a new grammar of our vernacular tongue, upon principles not his own? Is this the moralist, who not long since, was the most conspicuous personage, in the scheme which supplanted a brother preacher, in the calling which he now pursues?³ But I forbear. When he answers these questions, I will answer those which he proposes.

      I have now sir, got to the end of his 3d No. I have examined all his reasonings against my views and have found them wanting. Gold, the more it is rubbed, will shine the brighter, and I am convinced, this subject will become the more interesting, and appear the more conspicuous the more it is examined. It is the cause of religion, of morality, and of civil liberty which I espouse, and in subservience to which, all my reasonings are directed. I will finish my review in my next.

[The Reporter, 30 April 1821, p. 1.]