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, JULY 30th, 1821.	[NO. 10.

      MR. EDITOR,

            SIR--The method Mr. T. has pursued in opposing my numbers is as excentric, and his dexterity in evading the points which I have particularly called upon him to discuss is as masterly, as his strictures are eminent for the hauteur of a consequential judge from whose decision there is no appeal. I have distinctly challenged him on three sundry occasions to take up one single topic of argument, on the merits of which, I assured him I was willing to rest the whole weight of the controversy. This, he has cautiously avoided hitherto. He avoids every thing like close argument, and contends, as he supposes to best advantage, when at the greatest distance from the ground on which his opponent stands. He manouvres with the prowess of a chivalier in tournament and figures as majestically in the act of retreating from the field, as the hero in the act of victory. We might continue in debate, as long as the council of Trent sat, in the present mode, occasionally, when out of argument, make a trip to Auchtermanshohe, and now and then import ship loads of assertion when demonstration failed. His 9th No.¹ is almost wholly engrossed with those illnatured reflections which usually indicate an entire want of argument, and exhibits a lively sense of the corrective influence of the just reproof I gave him in my 13th No. for his unmeaning personalities. He seems to avail himself of my having declined to attend to any of those personalities which appear to be essential to his side of the question, and instead of reforming, he has grown worse in this respect. But as I said before he may have all this field to himself, I am resolved not to notice any thing of the kind and would only request the reader to read my 13th No. and compare it with his 9th and form his own opinion of them both.

      In his 7th No.² he professes to begin at my 10th No. and says that he admits of my 8 propositions "5 items the 8th and 7th with some additions and explanations"--These he often says I call my primary arguments. I have never called them my primary arguments, I have called them, the leading principles on which my primary arguments depend, and in the conclusion of my 10th No. in which those 8 items are stated, I submitted but one argument which is a primary one deducible from those 8 items. Has he ever attempted a refutation of it? No--Has he admitted the principles on which it is predicated? Yes--And why then pass it by? It remains for Mr. T. to say--I again call upon him to attempt for once the refutation of one of my primary arguments which he has not yet done. Let him quote the whole of it as it is stated in my 10th No.--If he does not do this I certainly think he ought candidly to acknowledge his defeat.

      Mr. T. has admitted or perhaps I should say conceded that "no human law can or ought to enforce the observance of any religious duty as such." No. 7--And why does he contend with me seeing this is the ground on which I have stood from my first commencement in the discussion of these topics? He contends that the civil law ought to enforce the observance of the Sabbath day, but not as a religious duty--as a political duty? This political duty of observing a political Sabbath day I refer to the superlative genius of Mr. T.!!!

      But one of my 8 items he excepts from his approbation, viz: the 6th, the 7th he admits, to viz: "That 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." To this mr. T. would add, he says, the "religious privileges of the citizens." This is either some unintelligible phraze, or his addition is as unnecessary as a 5th wheel to a wagon--liberty to worship God without any interference from man, is what is the most prominent idea I attach to the term "liberty" in my 7th item.

      The 6th proposition is the only one he objects to and in fact he at last admits it. It runs in these words, "The observance of a Sabbath, or the sanctification of any day is a duty of religion, inasmuch as the institution of a day for Divine Worship, is placed amongst moral positive & not amongst moral natural precepts." This is a distinction says mr. T. that is admitted "by some moralists," and yet he mentions none who deny it, but himself. When he labors hard to deny it he is constrained by his own reasoning to conclude in the following words. "The precept, then is of a mixed nature partly moral and partly positive." And what is this, but to say that it is moral positive!! Mr. T. then has in fact admitted it, and he has not made one real objection to my 8 fundamental principles. I insist then that my 10th number is unanswerable by mr. T. he evaded noticing its argument until he thought it would be pretty much forgotten, by many readers, and so it has lain by from the 19th of March, until the 11th of June,³ without the appearance of reply, and even yet he has not noticed the first primary argument deduced from those 8 propositions. If this be not to retreat with a witness, I know not what can be called a retreat. He has acted, in this case, as he acted in his last number, fled from the dilemma in which I left him, and introduced a No. of the 30th of April, on the 18th of June until he supposes the dilemma will be pretty much forgotten and perhaps in July or August next he will [enter] something concerning the dilemma. This method is peculiarly mr. T's own and affords a good precedent to all those who labor under the impediments which afflict mr. T.

      Baptism, the Lord's supper and the Lord's day are moral positive institutions--that is in mr. T's own words, "the reason or ground of which, in the nature of things, cannot be discerned but must be wholly referred to the sovereign will of the legislator." The reason of these precepts or ordinances as soon as they are appointed may be deduced from the nature of man, and the obligations of a christian as can the existence of God, when first suggested to the natural mind--or the maxim, "if there is a God he ought to be worshipped." And if worship is due to God, there must be some time and some way of expressing, or performing it. As to the instituting the time, and manner, in which this worship shall be performed, it is positive--but as to the nature and propriety of the things themselves thus instituted, reason itself can judge. The propriety of baptism the Lord's supper and the Lord's day; the reason and suitableness of these institutes we can admire when enjoined, but had they not been in a sovereign manner instituted; we never would have thought of them. As soon as we acknowledge a God, we must admit that he must be worshipped, in some manner, but we never could have known, but by positive precept, that baptism, the sanctification of the first day, or the eating of bread; and the drinking of wine, in a certain way, would be religious worship--These three institutes upon a fair comparison are alike moral positive institutions, and the legislators of a state have the same right to pass laws concerning the one as concerning the other of them.

      Mr. T. is the first person I ever heard of, or read of, that would seem to say that he ordinances of baptism, of the supper of the Lord's day are not moral positive ordinances. But should Mr. T. persist in this assertion--We shall submit a variety of documents on this head, that will put the matter to rest. If then it be right according to Mr. T's 7 reasons to punish Sabbath breakers--from analogy from political reasons, from the obligation of the civil magistrate, from the fear of Divine judgments--from the considerations of the contempt cast upon Divine appointments, &c. &c. &c. It is right to punish by civil law, for those 7 reasons, and 77 more, every transgression of the letter of the other moral positive institutes of Christianity. But sir, I am constrained for the present to break off in the midst of my observations on this topic.

[The Reporter, 30 July 1831, p. 4.]