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."
[NEW SERIES----VOL. I.]	WASHINGTON, (PA.) MONDAY, JUNE 4th, 1821.	[NO. 2.

MR. EDITOR,

      SIR--I have now lying before me mr. T's Nos. 5 and 6,¹ and after an attentive perusal, they forcibly remind me of the fable of the mountain in labour, when lo! a mouse was brought forth. Indeed, I don't know, that he has even brought forth any thing so formidable as a mouse. His 5th no. is wholly engrossed with matter, as foreign to the main subject of discussion, as the adventures of Rimon Roe or Peregrine Pickle. 'Tis true he exhibits his great learning and mighty talents, by his tour to Germany, and his wonderful description of "Auchtermanshohe," and then he renders six powerful reasons why the motives of those who have undertaken to oppose me, are not such as I suppose. These six cogent reasons call to our recollection the answer of "Paddy from Cork," to the question, whose there? Paddy replies, us six"--"who are you?" he adds "John, Jack, me, and myself, and my brother and I." After rendering his six reasons, (I think he should have made the round number 7) he seems to be a little sceptical himself as to their weight, and tells us "though these reasons taken singly, may not be thought perfectly conclusive on the question, yet if mr. C. will take them altogether (that is make one good one of the six) we think, he will see, that they go very far (not an inch) to shew that he must labour under a great mistake." No, sir, counting them one by one, they are but mere decimals which when added up fall short of a unit. But the supposed egotism which mr. Timothy, arraigns, tries, and condemns, without any other evidence, judge, or jury than himself, I say was forced upon me by the slander and detraction of my abusive opponents. And I insist upon it that it is compatible with the highest degree of diffidence and modesty for any man, when falsely accused, to vindicate his character. A certain man who said, he was "less than the least of" saints, and that he had been the chief of "sinners," when his character was impeached, said that he was "not a whit behind the chiefest apostle." And this same, man, was an humble and a modest man.

      But after all mr. T. is, in this very respect, the most guilty. His aim as the result shews was to exhibit himself to advantage. He represents all my former opponents as "either boys, or superannuated old men." "Their productions in general, exhibited a perfect picture of intellectual imbecility, without the faintest glimmering of sense. The consequence was, mr. C. claimed the victory. And with apparent reason--not from his own strength, however, (well observed) but from the weakness of his opponents." So then according to mr. T's opinion, I vanquished all my former opponents, and that not by my strength. But I shall have to put forth my strength with my present opponent. Or rather, perhaps my weakness; but owing to the defeat of all my former opponents, mr. T. comes forward. "This circumstance," says he, "induced us to offer a few thoughts on the subject." According to mr. T's opinion of himself, then, he is no boy, no superannuated old man, "no pigmy fighting with a rush," no, "he is a knight in panoply." Yet some of those boys were Doctors and Divines, who exhibited "this perfect picture of intellectual imbecility"--"without the faintest glimmering of sense." Ye boys, and superannuated old men, take notice to this Goliath, and mark his exit! This is the great mr. Timothy!

      Know ye that mr. T. has not to go to Auchtermanshohe to take a view of himself - No, he is an obtician; he has a concave and a convex mirror just at home. Before the convex mirror, he holds up his own endowments, and they are magnified a hundred fold; and before his concave mirror he holds up myself, and my former opponents and, lo! I am weak, and they become boys, and superannuated old men. I will pursue his egotism no further. I have merely shewn the drift of his 5th No.

      Mr. T. in the conclusion of this No. expresses his suspicion that, "I have been involved in some unpleasant collisions with some person, or persons, in which I had conceived myself injured" and was therefore heated with resentment and led to oppose the M. Society of West-Middletown. The gentleman is quite mistaken; I wrote from principle, I had no object in view but one, viz: The suppression of an anti-rational, anti- scriptural & anti-constitutional confederation, that I conscientiously believe to be dangerous to the community, and inimical to civil and religious liberty. And while I am able to wield a pen I will oppose every thing of the kind, from the same principle, that comes within the immediate sphere of my observation--I have done it before, in other instances, and have, I believe, been instrumental in diffusing some light upon the subject - I conceive it quite compatible to esteem the constitution, and the leading laws of any state (which I certainly do of the state of Pennsylvania,) and yet object to some act of its legislators. The bank law, for instance, gov. Snyder, the boast of Pa. wisely opposed--he was overruled, and now Pennsylvania realizes the curses of the policy of that law, which the good governor anticipated & bewailed. The man who opposes the "bank law" in Pa. with as much propriety, may be called an enemy to "the good and wholesome laws of Pennsylvania," as your humble servant, in opposing the law of '94. Mr. T. suggests very kindly, in this inst'n'e the possibility that my imagination may have mislead my judgment, in the present controversy. I thank him for his benevolence. But I am not apt to take up any thing, that either affects religion or morality, and bring before the publick, from an heated imagination. No, sir, I feel my responsibility in what I advance upon the present topic, and have maturely weighed every proposition I advance. I own my fallibility, yet there is not a proposition in Euclid, not a leading maxim in religion, or politics more plain or evident to my mind, than that, the law of '94 and 'M. societies' are anti-rational, anti-scriptural, and anti-constitutional. Perhaps mr. T. may tell me again of my egotism, but let him remember he has called for it, by his friendly suggestions.

      As mr. T. concluded his 5th No. with an intimation that he was going to take up my arguments and discuss them in his next. Having devoted his 5th No. to personalities, "from the straight forward path of candid discussion;" I expected to have found a No. full and overflowing with argumentation. But to my surprize his 6th is but the continuation and full developement of the topic discussed in his 5th, with perhaps one or two small exceptions. The one half of No. 6 is employed to justify mr. T. from the charge of unbecoming insinuations. We are happy to see him own that, he had no design, and of course no reason, to impeach either my veracity, my motives, or indeed my moral character, in any point of view. His words are "we must again tell mr. C. that a thought of impeaching his veracity never entered our mind, nor, indeed of impeaching his moral character in any way." We shall credit this testimony and remember it. But that I had sufficient documents from mr. T's Nos. to warrant what I have said, on his insinuations, I yet maintain. And that his style abounds with the language of insinuation, I will now exhibit. In No. 1, we have the following sentences--"with the inaccuracy of the gentleman's style, however, I shall not trouble the reader." In the same No. "I have said already, that I will not trouble the reader with remarks on mr. C's language." Here we were so "stupid" as to suppose, that the gentleman insinuates, what mighty things he could do with my style, if he were only disposed. Thank you, sir, for your generosity. In No. 1 again. "A state of society may exist where wholesome laws have no force--the prevailing practice and sentiments being against the laws. If the sentiments of mr. C. were countenanced by the publick it would soon be the case all over the country." "It then becomes the imperious duty of every friend of law and order (such as T.) to do his utmost &c." In No. 1--"And if in the present case the law in question provokes the evil passions of bad men, we should think it an argument in its favor." "I intend not controversy, my object is the preservation of publick morals." No. 2--"It speaks much in favor of this law that mr. C. is under the necessity of misrepresenting it." "It must be calumniated before it can be persecuted." "What mr. C. has stated respecting the law in his 4th objection is exactly contrary to truth." This latter phraze "contrary to truth" mr. T. avails himself of its ambiguity, in order to get off from the charge. He takes it in one signification, whereas it is just as liable to be taken, and is as frequently taken in the sense I have received it. From the above citations it is obvious, what reason I had to accuse mr. T. of innuendos. Had they been any plainer they would not, they could not be called insinuations, or innuendos--they would have been gross accusations. But mr. T. now says, he meant no evil in those things--as they respect my character or motives. Yet I was either a lunatic, or "the moon was near the full" when my 12th No. was written, and of course incapable of reasoning. There is a way, mr. editor of answering any thing. "Then Felix answered Paul saying," "Paul thou art beside thyself, much learning doth make thee mad." At one time in Mr. T's 6th No. I am a fit subject for the hospital; at another, for Bedlam. We can easily account for these wise things of mr. T. when we reflect how hard pressed he appears to have been, to exhibit, even the appearance of a reply to my review of his 1st and 2d Nos. The comment on the phraze, "contrary to truth," "genteel folks" and "saving the harvest," with an attempt to elude the force of a dilema is all that respects the argumentation part of the Nos. he would seem to have in view; and clearly points out that he has not any relevant ground to object to my review. There is not, perhaps a farmer's boy of 10 years old in the state, that does not fix one and the same meaning to the phraze "saving the harvest," with that which I have affixed to it. And this is because the phraze, amongst farmers, has no other meaning.

      I wish for the sake of keeping good accounts with mr. T. to observe, that he has conceded certain points of considerable importance, by his omitting to reply to them in those two numbers he has attempted to review, I allude to my 2d objection to the judge's address, and to sundry other items in my Nos. 11 and 12 which the reader will please carefully to compare with his No. 6, to which, he will observe, that T. has six declined any reply, from a conviction, no doubt, that they were unanswerable.

      Mr. T. murmers at my suggesting to you the propriety of requiring the parties to publish their real names. My chief reason for suggesting this was, to put an end to personalities, to prevent the necessity of having to reply to such little things, as I observe to be the almost inevitable lot of all anonymous writers. We have had too much of this already, and being desirous to publish nothing but sound argument, there is nothing more irksome to me, than to have to notice such trifles, which are often designed to obscure the main topics of debate. As mr. T. objects to giving his real name, I must inform him that, nothing but argument and pertenent reasoning will hereafter be noticed by me. That every thing personal, or aside from the subject, will not on any occasion be replied to. Had not his 5th No. been wholly personal, and his 6th in a great measure so, I would not now have performed a task so unpleasant to my feelings as the present. As the matter stands betwixt T. & myself. The personalities began on his part, as his 4 Nos. published in succession shew. I have never said any thing personal with regard to him only in direct reply to something from him. But now I refuse ever to retort upon him again, believing it to be no way connected with the support of the truth; for what is it to the public, who Candidus is, or who Timothy is--the evidence of reason, of argument, of good sense, is all that concerns them.

      The dilemma betwixt the horns of which I once left mr. T. and the law of '94, remains in full force against mr. T. for the following reasons:

      1st. Mr. T. asserts that all christians do hold to the binding force of the 4th commandment--and yet they consider its obligation as not extending to the particular and minute and burdensome observance of it, as required by the Jews." This is mere assertion without one solitary proof. It is not a fact that all christians hold to the binding force of the 4th commandment. All christians believe that it was binding on the Jews-- but there are thousands and tens of thousands that believe that the 4th commandment is not binding upon christians. Yet those christians consider themselves bound to observe the 1st day of every week to the Lord. In the second place, if the 4th commandment be binding upon all christians, I ask, how comes it to pass that "they consider its obligation as not extending to the same minute and particular and burdensome observance of it, as the law requires." Can mr. T. produce one text of scripture which shews, that either the ordinance of the Sabbath, or any other Jewish institute is appointed unto christians, to be observed by "an obligation not extending in the minute and particular and burdensome observance of it, as required of the Jews?" Such a text cannot be found in the scriptures of truth--At least I have never found it; we shall be under an obligation to mr. T. if he prove the assertion he has made, from the scriptures; until then, unless assertion be taken for proof, my dilemma remains unimpaired. Indeed I am at a loss to comprehend, how the 4th commandment can be obligatory in any other way than it was upon the Jews. To say, that it is obligatory "not in so minute so particular so burdensome a way," is to give a latitude to every ones inclinations, unless there be some certain way of defining wherein it is not so minute so particular so burdensome. I think that this assertion of mr. T. gives the "modern Sabbath breaker" a very good way of pleading off from the lash of the law. When accused of the crime, he may plead, that the observance of the Sabbath now obligatory, is not so minute so particular as to take cognizance of his crime.

      2d. Again mr. T. asserts, that the principle of the first horn of the dilemma is "that the legislature of Pennsylvania should not enact any law upon morality, unless as long and as broad as the divine law." I assert this is not the principle. The principle is, that they should not enact any laws upon the subject of religion. I am surprized that mr. T. will persist in blending, or in identifying religion and morality; as if, to make laws against murder, was the same as to make laws regulating the worship of God.

      3. Timothy retorting the dilemma upon me in respect of kindling fire in my house on the first day, is nothing to the strength or weakness of the dilemma; for if I do wrong, it will not justify others in doing wrong. But again it is impertinent for my observance of the first day is regulated not according to the Jewish but the christian law.

      I cannot sir, at present transgress upon your patience any farther. As to the strength of this dilemma, I would observe that I wish it well proven, I am willing to rest the weight of the controversy upon it, I will illustrate it, at greater length, if what is already said does not satisfy mr. T. I urge it forward, to have it tried: Do mr. T. examine it accurately--It is this: If the moral obligation of the 4th commandment remain--The law of Pennsylvania upon this subject is worse than solemn mockery--it institutes a system of Sabbath breaking--And if this is not yet obligatory, the state has no business with it. Between the horns of this dilemma, I leave mr. T. to try his strength once more.

[The Reporter, 4 June 1821, p. 4.]