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, FEBRUARY 25th, 1822.	[NO. 40.

      In one number mr. T. reviews 10--and gives us nearly a column of new matter. Wonderful man! His late No. is styled "Review of C's New Series."¹ "Review" without a or the before it, is a harmless word. Bonaparte reviewed a 100,000 men in 45 minutes, George 3d reviewed 1000 men in two hours. Great men do great things. I think however mr. T. might, on his own plan, have done much better--for instance, he reviews No. 3, thus, "this we shall pass by with pressis naribus, it contains not the semblance of argument." No. 4, this says he, "we pass by, because it has nothing to do with the present dispute." Now he might, on this plan, have improved a little, and said of the whole new series, "these we pass by pressis naribus." On this plan he might review a hundred volumes in one period. What a blessing to have a comprehensive mind!! His review of the whole series is no better than his review of No's 3 and 4 only, that he spent a little more time in talking of certain Nos.

      Mr. T. is either disposed to misrepresent, or too dull to comprehend the meaning of my plainest arguments. My first argument N. S. was--"the whole of the precepts or commands of the christian religion are contained in the New Testament." This he does not deny--prop. 2d. but there is no precept or command in the New Testament to compel, by civil law, any man, who is not a christian, to pay any regard to the Lord's day more than any other. This he admits also. The conclusion then is--Therefore to compel a man who is not a christian to pay any regard to the Lord's day more than any other day is without authority in the christian religion. This he is constrained to admit, as a legitimate conclusion. And how does he get off! By saying "there is no precept in the New Testament to compel by civil law any man to do any thing or to obstain from doing any thing, and the reason is the New Testament is not a law book." Noble come off! That is, according to the last clause of my conclusion, there is as much authority in the New Testament to compel a man, not to violate the Sabbath, "as there is to compel a man to abstain from murder." But T. imposes upon the publick and perhaps upon himself too by supposing that the word precept, in the evangelical sense, as I used it, is equivalent to the term law in the civil codes. The reason, according to him, that there is no precept for compelling men to observe the Sabbath, is because the New Testament is not a "law book." Or that when the New Testament teacheth that the magistrate should not wear the sword in vain--it means, that he should use it alike often (as the case requires) in cutting off, or in punishing Sabbath breakers and murderers--for according to mr. T. there is as much authority for the one as the other!!

      He equally perverts my second argument, "faith is the immediate duty of all unbelievers"--is a proposition that we thought no man compos mentis, acquainted with the letter of christianity would deny. In order to blindfold the reader (for I can conceive of no other design in it) he introduces a theory of "external and internal duties," which issues in this elegant sentence, "we are to love and believe in obeying, and to obey in loving and believing." So that, according to his theory of duties, there are no immediate duties, or which is the same thing, there are no mediate duties, a man is bound to do all things at once. To go to meeting, marry a wife, love his children, be kind to his servants--whether he have any or not--all duties must be performed "just now"!!! He adds, "according to mr. C. the unbeliever will never have but one sin to answer for, viz: Unbelief." And what mr. T. if even this were the case, (which yet does not follow from our principles) if it should prove his ruin. If he through unbelief should never enter into the Heavenly rest--what will avail all your internal and external duties you have given him to do. On correct principles, the Scriptures say "without faith it is impossible to please God." Though performing all mr. T's external duties! "He that believeth not the wrath of God abideth on him." T's man "A who kills a man just now, &c." is predicated upon a gross mistake of the argument. We maintained that "God commands all unbelievers every where, he sends the gospel, to repent, that until they believe it, they can perform no duty acceptable to God. "Hence the prayer or sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord." Yet every sin committed by an unbeliever, is adding to his guilt, and enhancing his condemnation. But we do not like mr. T. and many others, go about, to teach men to observe the outward forms of religion, and to put on a profession of it, as if it was their duty so to do, in order to becoming christians. We preach not the faith of obedience, but, the obedience of faith. We attempt to make the tree good, and then expect good fruit, but we never dream of making the tree better by attempting to improve the fruit. But I have paid too much notice to mr. T's perversions. I should have imitated him, and said, "we pass by the first column with pressis naribus, and the second column has not the semblance of argument in it, and the third is like unto it."

      I shall briefly notice that my controversy with mr. T. has been, whether ought a man to be fined 4 dollars for the alledged crime of Sabbath breaking--however complicated the arguments have been, this is the bone of controversy, I say they ought not--T. says they ought. He has had the popular, and I the unpopular side of the question. I have had to stem the torrent. He had wind and tide in his favor. He availed himself of popular prejudice. The standard to which he appealed was the systematic Divinity of the day; what the people heard from their infancy. I appealed to antient christianity; to the maxims of the political constitutions of this country. He endeavored to involve the controversy in the speculative dis-quisitions of traditional metaphysical theology; I to place it upon the plain ground of revelation and political economy. How we have succeeded every man must judge for himself. I must, however, state that T. has not been able to do certain things, without which, his side of the controversy could not be maintained--1st. He could not produce any scripture that the first day of the week was to be observed as the Jewish Sabbath; or that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day. 2. He could not adduce one instance of any nation under heaven having been charged with the crime of Sabbath breaking, save the Jews, in any part of the Holy oracles. In my 5th No. I proposed him 7 questions not one of which he has attempted to answer, in his review, two of which he was in duty bound to answer viz:--3d. What precept of christianity commands unbelievers to observe the first day?--4th. What statute of the King of Zion orders us to fine a man for Sabbath breaking?--I promised to answer him questions in return, but all to no purpose; he found it expedient "to pass them by" quietly. In my 10th No I ask him a few other questions, one of which, he attempts to answer, the others "he passes by." Pressis labiis. Quest. "Why is the sin of Sabbath breaking rated at 4 dollars, and that of profane swearing at 68 cents? Is it so much more criminal to profane what you call holy time than to profane the Holy name? Mark his answer "His question implies a belief that human laws should always proportion the punishment to the atrocity of the crime. A belief which no well informed person could for a moment entertain." Well informed people then believe that human laws should not always proportion the punishment to the crime--i. e. a crime that does 4 dollars mischief, should be atoned for, or punished by 68 cents and one that does 68 cents damages should pay 4 dollars!! I am so ignorant as to think it had been better to have let this question share the same fate of the others--pressis labiis and naribus. To shew his great learning mr. T. gives us a criticism on the word analogy, which brings to my mind a former criticism on the term heathen--I used the phrase heathen at heart--This was with T. an unpardonable mistake, he said the term heathens referred to the outward character, not to the inward.--I did not deign to reply to these pitiful things, but as I am about to bid good bye to the gentleman, sad least he should be wise in his own conceit, I would tell him that his criticism is worth as much as his divinity. Paul said he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly but he is a Jew which is one inwardly--Now according to T. a Heathen or a Jew inwardly, is incorrect, let Paul and T. adjust the difference--such also is his learned criticism on analogy!!

      "Little draughts intoxicate the brain." But he has found a prodigious mistake in my 11th No. The word less by a typographical error for more. Eagle eyed Timothy! I shall not retaliate upon him. He claims, the honor of being "an ambassador from Heaven! He censures me in his last for not allowing him, or the clergy this title. I would request him to consult his dictionary for this term, and to be less arrogant. I know of no ambassadors from Heaven since the 12 apostles died.

      Now a parting word to T. You mr. T. and I are not personally acquainted, I have not seen you for six or seven years. The last time I saw you was in my own house. You are very much prejudiced against me now--you have spoken roughly of me, and to me by the press. I owe you no ill will, you do not stand in my way in the least. I know your system of views much better than you know mine. I sincerely pity you and deplore your mistakes, I am ready to forgive you your trespasses against me, when you confess your fault. I confess that I erred in one part of this controversy, [in] retorting upon you your incivilities. Experientia docet. Our controversy at this time, and on this subject closes, but there is a tribunal at which all controversies will be correctly decided, when not only the arguments, but the motives of the parties will be scrutinized, may you obtain forgiveness there!

[The Reporter, 25 February 1822, p. 1.]