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 18th, 1821.	[NO. 4.

MR. EDITOR.

      IN our two last numbers some arguments were advanced in support of the positions we have assumed. We shall now bestow some notice upon mr. C's 13th No. published in your paper of the 30th of April,¹ in which he reviews our answer to his 5th objection to the law of '94.² His objection was briefly this, that while the law punished some violations of the Sabbath, it took no notice of others. We answered that "it would be impossible to make laws which would reach all crimes in all their degrees." In this answer, mr. C. says "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." Now, we were of opinion, that in answering the above objection we had nothing to do with the main question. For if that question had been proven ever so plainly, the objection would have remained in all its force; for the objection supposes that even granting that men have a right "to make laws concerning the institutes of religion;" yet still the law of '94 is a bad law since it does not punish alike all violations of the Sabbath, or in the language of mr. C. since, "while it prohibits many from industry allowable on other days, it allows them to spend the day reading newspapers, writing letters, talking politics, or speculating upon any carnal or temporal topic." In disposing of this objection, it would have been contrary to all laws of argumentation to have said any thing on what mr. C. calls the "main question." While the objection was under consideration, all observations on this or any other such question would have been altogether impertinent. But because we left the question out of view, while answering the objection, mr. C. says "the main question is begged!" And in making this declaration, it really does seem that he is sincere! If any miserable wight has indeed been put in fear by the "formidable talents" of mr. C. we think a few specimens like this will serve to remove any apprehensions for the future.

      "A 2d" mistake, he tells us, which is contained in our answer to his 5th objection, "is that he (Timothy) places the laws respecting murder, which are moral laws, and the laws respecting religion and divine worship, under the same head." In illustrating the principle assumed in our answer to mr. C's objection, we had recourse to the law respecting murder, and shewed that there are degrees of the crime of murder, that cannot be punished by human laws: and we might, had it been necessary, have gone on to shew that the principle would hold good in regard to all human penal laws. But this we thought unnecessary, since it has been admitted by all civilians, and must indeed appear self-evident in the view of every person possessing the slightest acquaintance with even the elementary principles of legal science. We supposed, then, that by shewing, that mr. C's objection would equally apply to all other laws, as well as the law of '94, we would effectually set it aside. For, surely, that can be no valid objection to any particular law, which goes to put an end to all legislation. But, it seems, that mr. C. is not convinced. His objection is still sound and good: and because we shewed that it would equally apply to all laws, therefore, he thinks, that we have reduced all laws, as well those which are "moral" as those respecting religion and divine worship under the same head!" Well, we can do no more for mr. C. unless we had the exercise of a power quite diverse from that of giving reasons,--namely that of bestowing faculties to perceive them.

      He goes on to say, "but a third and more glaring aberration from propriety in the above (our answer to his objection) is the principle he has assumed, viz: that there are certain degrees of the crime of Sabbath breaking to be punished by civil law, and some degrees of which are not." This "3d observation," he thinks, contains something very strange and monstrous, for he adds, "think not, sir, that I am forcing a meaning upon his words which is not in them." What seems to have created this unusual astonishment in mr. C. is the conclusion we drew from the principle so often referred to, in the following words, "it, then, belongs to the legislator to enact such laws only as 1st are capable of being executed; that is such as refer to overt acts 2d such as respect crimes that are, in ordinary cases, susceptible of proof 3d such as respect crimes that militate more directly against the peace and good order of society 4th such as respect crimes that operate by way of example and 5thly such as are necessary to secure to the more orderly and moral part of the community the undisturbed exercise of their religious privileges. All these criteria are mentioned in our 3d No. and in that very paragraph from which mr. Candidus takes his mutilated quotations, yet he says not a syllable of any of them except the first, though they all apply equally to the law of '94 and were put down by us in the same connexion! As they have been illustrated and applied more at large in our two last Nos. we shall say nothing further of them now. After the ample specimens, we have had of the sagacity and "formidable talents" of mr. C. we must, justly observe, that we do not wonder that he passed them by unnoticed, and then very candidly jumped to the conclusion, "that mr. T's effort to elude the force of my (C's) 5th objection neither does honor to him as a moralist, a teacher, or a divine!!!"

      Our second answer to his 5th objection he has omitted entirely. We need not here repeat it, as the reader may find it by referring to our 3d No.

      Mr. C. says, that it will not follow from our 1st answer to his objection that "talking politics," &c. are not overt acts of Sabbath breaking. His objection, if it has any meaning, implies that the law of '94 in order to be consistant should punish all violations of the Sabbath. We replied, in effect, no, else it must punish worldly tho'ts, for by these the Sabbath is violated as well as by worldly actions. Then, says C. you maintain that "sins committed by the tongue are less overt acts than those committed by the hands and feet." Can the reader discern any connexion between the principle assumed in our argument and this forced conclusion that mr. C. draws from it? We affirmed that human laws cannot punish any crime unless it be overt; we affirmed, moreover, that they cannot punish all overt acts of crime, but only those characterized by some one, or more of the creteria mentioned above and especially the 5th which, to shew its more particular bearing on the subject, the reader will find, in our 3d No printed in italics. The instances pointed out by mr. C. possess none of these creteria. No man writes letters or reads newspapers in public, and if any talk politics in public on the Sabbath, there are many and obvious reasons, why, it would not be practicable, if it were proper, to subject them to trial on that account. It is plain, in short, from the whole tenor of our remarks, that we were pleading for the propriety of punishing those acts of Sabbath-breaking only, by which the Sabbath is openly and grossly profaned, & it is equally plain, that it is acts of this sort only which are pointed at by the law. But according to mr. C. because the law will not punish a man for writing letters on the Sabbath, therefore it should not punish him for driving a drove of hogs through the midst of a worshiping assembly, on that day; as was done not many years ago at a place of worship not far from West-Middletown!

      After mr. C. has exhausted his store of quibbles, he proceeds to propose questions in a style, which is peculiarly his own "Is this the learned Timothy? Is this the pious Timothy? Is this the greatest writer & the greatest reasoner in Washington county? Yes, indeed the best of us all!" And then the paragraph pertinently and sublimely closes with

      We have seldom seen anything so exquisite as this, except it be a stanza from some erse ballad quoted by Johnson,

      We would recommend the last line of this stanza particularly to the attention of mr. C. The author's poetry and mr. C's wit would accord most admirably.

      The remainder of the No. now under review is taken up in answering our remarks on the following sentence: "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." Here we had understood mr. Candidus, as attempting to advance the principle that all constrained obedience yielded either to divine or human laws, is really worse than no obedience at all: and really we still think that the above sentence in the connexion in which it stands contains this sentiment.³ But, we must permit him to be his own interpreter. As he has explained himself his argument is, that the man who complies with the external forms of religion merely from the fear of man acts worse as a citizen, and no better as a subject of God's moral government than if he openly condemned them. This, too, is a falacious sentiment. He does not act worse, in the latter sense, for the laws of God's moral government recognizes the authority of the civil magistrate, and command us to be afraid of his power, tell us that he beareth not the sword in vain; that he is constituted to be a terror to evil doers. Nor does he in the former, for all the laws with which the civil magistrate has any concern, have nothing to do with the principle of an action. The action itself is all that they require. The hypocrite is a better citizen than the openly profane. The fear of punishment from man, can, indeed, be in no case, a proper motive to the performance of a religious duty. But the civil law does not call for the performance of a religious duty, but it commands to abstain from acts of profanity. These things are entirely different. When we use the name of God devoutly in prayer, we perform a religious duty: this the law of '94 does not require; for it would be folly for it to require what it cannot enforce. But, when we use the name of God on trivial occasions, and when not solemnly called, we are guilty of an act of profanity; this the law of '94 does forbid him with propriety; for it can exert its power in this case; it can enforce obedience. In like manner, this same law does not require the religious sanctification of the Sabbath, a thing beyond its reach: but it does require that the Sabbath be not openly and grossly profaned: and this is a matter completely within its power; it can, and if faithfully executed, it would prevent the gross and public profanation of that day. Mr. C. blames us for drawing "distinctions at the utmost variance with the Bible and with right reason." But these distinctions, in our view, are strictly in accordance with both: we can't blame him for making distinctions of any sort.

      He concludes his review of our answer to his objections by asking; "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?" With these sentences of Mr. C. let the reader compare the following from his 10th No.⁴ "Why all this hue and cry of immorality? Because my character is unspotted and my talents are supposed to be formidable. It is, then, sir, a secret enmity on other accounts which has supplied all that gall and bitterness, and my numbers has merely furnished a pretext or a garb under which this malevolence vents itself. I consider myself suffering that opposition which the best of men and the best of causes have had to encounter." For the insinuations contained in the former of these passages, though they imply charges of a very black and heavy character, Timothy can and does most cordially forgive you, mr. C. Once, indeed, they would have excited irritation and might have produced a retort. But now such things rather excite our pity, than our resentment; for we have lived long enough to learn how to account for them and to find that the wiser and better sort of people, whose opinions ultimately sway the public mind, generally ascribe them to the true causes. The insinuations, now referred to deserve no reply, and they shall have none from us, except just to observe, that the opinion of mr. C. can have but little wright, as to the grammar, to which he refers, for his 13 Nos. contain ample proof that the "grammar of our vernacular tongue" is a subject not very well understood by mr. C. and as to the insinuation about supplanting, &c. "it neither does honor to him as a moralists, a teacher or a divine. Mr. C. observes, in his concluding paragraph, that, "this subject will appear the more conspicuous, the more it is examined." No doubt the subject will become conspicuous, if publickly examined; and from the specimens already given, we have little doubt, that the disposition of mr. C. will become conspicuous also. But the more conspicuous the subject becomes, the worse, we fear, will it be for the cause of mr. C. and the more conspicuous his disposition becomes, the worse for his reputation.

      In our last No. we observed, that whenever mr C. should descend to the office of the slanderer, we would close our accounts with him. Hence, it might be expected that our numbers should now cease. For the sake of the subject, however, and its intimate connexion with publick morals, we design to continue our remarks so long as any thing shall be advanced by mr. C. deserving a serious reply.

[The Reporter, 18 June 1821, p. 1.]