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, AUGUST 20th, 1821.	[NO. 13.

      MR. EDITOR,

            Mr. C. in his last number¹ tells us, that "two weeks have now transpired, since mr. T. published his last number, which from its tone, and from this circumstance, I apprehend, he determined to be his last, &c." and yet our very last words on the subject were these, "we design to continue our remarks, so long as any thing shall be advanced by mr C. deserving a serious reply." See the conclusion of our 9th number.² We are sorry, that we cannot, now, say to mr. C. as on a former occasion, that "his declaration" is merely "contrary to truth," and that the advice then given, ("to be more careful in future") would be unseasonable now. For alas! it is but too evident that the care of mr. C. is exercised for other purposes, than that of stating things as they are. The truth is, that we forbore for "two weeks," making any reply to C's last numbers, that we might give him an opportunity without interruption of finishing his review of our arguments. But it suited the views of mr C to "apprehend" our 9th No. to be our last; that he might with a better grace talk away in his own peculiar manner, of our "retreating from the field," acknowledging a defeat, fleeing from his dilemmas, &c. &c. and therefore he did apprehend it!! In his 16th mr. C. blames us, also,³ for "introducing his No of the 30th of April on the 18th of June, when we supposed his dilemma would be pretty much forgotten." Now, it so happens that this declaration, too, is "contrary to truth," though, perhaps, not designedly so: for our 9th No. though not printed till the 18th of June, was written, together with the two preceeding numbers, about the 1st of May, on an evening previous to our taking a journey, on which we were absent several weeks, and the three numbers were at the same time handed to the printer. This mistake of mr. C's, is, to be sure a matter of no consequence to us. Mr. C. is at perfect liberty to think, and say, and write what he pleases respecting our conduct and our motives, and we should not now be at the pains of exposing his assertions to the contempt they deserve, but by way of apology to mr. Grayson and those of the public, who may, with him, think, that this "dispute between the noted combatants Candidus and Timothy" is "wearisome and disgusting." For, if mr. C. will persist in vulgar invective and low abuse, notwithstanding the gentle castigation he has received, and we occasionally descend, by shewing the falshood of his calumny, to make the evil revert upon himself, it cannot be helped. He must bear the consequence of his own folly. And, we hope, that a discerning public will bear with us in our humble attempts to vindicate the cause of truth and public morals, even though the conduct of our "formidable" antagonist should render it necessary to prolong the contest, by repelling his unprovoked and personal attacks.

      We proceed to review his last Nos. beginning where we left off, at the 14th.⁴ But before we proceed, we shall stop here a moment, merely to disclaim any pretensions to that ingenuity for which mr. C. so frequently commends us, displayed, as he says, in evading his arguments. We have advanced no claims to this talent, during the course of this debate. It has been managed by our opponent so as to call for the exercise of patience, rather than ingenuity. And if this latter quality has been exercised at all, it has been in finding out his arguments, not in "retreating" from them. For, if the remark was ever correctly applied in any case, most certainly it may to these productions of C. "his reasons are like two grains of wheat in two bushels of chaff; you shall seek all day before you find them, and when they are found they are not worth the search."

      The No. before us is taken up wholly in refuting our reply to an argument before adduced by mr. C. And what was the argument? We had stated it briefly and in syllogistic form, not wishing to burden the reader by repeating that world of words, which he employed to convey his meaning; that is to say, we gave the grain without the chaff, and here it is:

      Major--it was no sin in the ancient heathen nations to violate the Sabbath.

      Minor--But Pennsylvania is a heathen nation.

      Conclusion--Therefore it is no sin in the Pennsylvanians to violate the Sabbath, curse, swear and get drunk!!! But, reader, how does mr. C. manage this reply! Why, he turns about and assails his own argument, declares it to be our's and exclaims, "what a logician! One sin in the Major, and four sins in the conclusion!!! But, mr. C. shews in the sequel that this is, indeed, his own argument, his declarations to the contrary notwithstanding. Let us see. Major--"It was no sin in the ancient heathen nations to violate the Sabbath." If this is not his meaning, we have misunderstood him; nay, more, if this is not his meaning he misunderstands himself. For, in the No. before us, he says "are they (the heathen) not accused of murder, theft, &c. &c. and yet Sabbath breaking is never, never found in the catalogue of crimes mentioned in the Bible." And because not mentioned in the Bible as a crime, he certainly means to insinuate that it is no crime; or if he does not mean this, he means nothing--talks at random. Minor--"But Pennsylvania is a heathen nation." That this proposition is truly the Minor in his argument, is beyond dispute. The 5th paragraph of the number under review, is altogether employed in proving, that "unbelievers" in Pennsylvania are under no more obligations to keep the Sabbath, than were the ancient heathen nations, that in fact, they are "no more in a christian state, than the people of Japan, China, Greece, or Rome," and more plainly still, that "all unbelievers" (these are his words) "are in heart heathen." Nay, in the next paragraph he says "that his (T's) remarks are contrary to the whole scope of primitive christianity in the New-Testament. (Now, reader mark what follows, he has intended you should; for he has printed it in Italicks) "for," he adds for unconverted men were never commanded to perform any duty until they had believed or repented, and to fix upon him the meaning we have assigned to his argument, in the 3d paragraph, he says, "the sanctification of the first day belongs to christians and to none else!" Reader! we leave you, now, to judge, whether the Minor of the syllogism, into which we have thrown the argument of mr. C. does not correctly express the meaning of mr. C. "Pennsylvanians (that is the unconverted part of them, for it is about these we are talking) are a heathen people." Now the conclusion--Therefore it is no sin, in Pennsylvanians, to violate the Sabbath, curse, swear and get drunk. But why, says C. do you add the three last sins in the conclusion, since there is but the first in the Major. Because, if your argument is good, in one case, it is in the rest also. For if all unconverted persons are heathens and no heathen is required to keep the Sabbath, neither is he, we add, required to swear, which is an act of religious worship; and if, as you say, he may therefore profane the Sabbath and be guiltless, he may, for the same reason, profane the name of God and be guiltless. And as to drunkenness, if "primitive christianity," the christianity of the New-Testament "never commands unconverted men to perform any duty," while such, or, as you express it, "until they have believed or repented," then it follows, that they do not sin, do what they will. For where there is no law, no command, there is no transgression. If mr. C. be correct, how happy is the condition of the unbeliever! How much better off, than those in our day, who hold that they can live without sin, for they may, after all their attainments, fall away; but the unbeliever, while he continues such, is perfectly safe! He is not commanded; and therefore cannot transgress. And the worst thing in the world, is for him to believe; for no sooner does he perform this duty, than he becomes liable to sin! Now, it will be in vain for mr. C. to endeavour to escape from these conclusions, so palpably absurd and ridiculous, by alledging, that, though an unconvered man is not commanded to perform any other duty previous to faith and repentance; yet, he is commanded to perform these duties, and is therefore blame worthy if he neglect them. For, we have an authority at hand, which, whatever weight it may have with others, with Mr. C. we are sure, will be decisive. It is the authority of an author, that indeed stands higher in the opinion of mr. C. than, we suspect, he does in the opinion of any other person living. Now this author says, page 197, he "conceives it as reasonable to blame a man for being black, or for not being seven feet high, as to blame him for not being a christian." The title of the work to which we allude is, "substance of a debate"--we stop short, for fear of incuring the charge of being personal.⁵ Now, if a person is not to blame for being black, he is not, for not being a christian, & therefore, he is not, for not exercising faith and repentance, for to exercise these, is to be a christian. Therefore, he cannot sin till he has faith, being under no command; nor is he to be blamed for not having faith. Therefore he is quite guiltless!

      Every part of the argument, which we have just noticed, and which, for the credit of mr. C. we hope he will not again deny to be his, is false. Some of its errors we shall briefly notice. 1. It is not true, that the scriptures do not condemn the heathen for profaning the Sabbath. An instance was pointed out in our 8th number⁶ in which Nehemiah interposed, with his authority, to prevent "men of Tyre" from trading on the Sabbath: and these men were heathen. 2. It is not true, that unbelievers in Pennsylvania are heathen. Mr. C. says it is a mean thing in us to notice the inaccuracy of his style. But here is an inaccuracy of style, which vitiates his reasoning. The term, heathen, is never correctly applied in reference to the inward character, but always in reference to the outward condition. A heathen is an unbeliever; an infidel is an unbeliever. So is a false professor. But these terms are not convertible. No unbeliever, who lives under the light of the gospel, is a heathen. 3. It is not true, that the moral state of a man's mind is the measure of his obligations. His obligations, supposing him to be rational, are in proportion to his opportunities, privileges, light, &c. Therefore, though it may be true, that an unbeliever in Pennsylvania may be, in heart, no better, or even worse, than a heathen, yet this does not diminish his obligations. An unbeliever, is under all the obligations, that a believer is under, in the same circumstances. To maintain the contrary, as C. does, is to maintain, that the devil is free from all obligations, and therefore innocent, for the state of his mind is such, as to render him morally incapable of performing any duty. 4. It is not true that "unconverted men are never commanded to perform any duty, till they believe and repent" though C. gives this as agreeable to "the whole scope of christianity in the New-Testament." No one will deny, that the unconverted are commanded in the gospel, to believe. If so, they are commanded to do those things that are in order to believing. Now hearing the word is one of these. For "faith cometh by hearing." In the case of Cornelius, "sending to Jappa" was in order to his hearing words "whereby he might be saved.'; John the Baptist was, certainly, not of mr. C's mind; for when the soldiers came to him to be baptised, "saying what shall we do" He gave them three commands, the second of which, we think, demands the special notice of mr. C. and if he should even exercise a little repentance for his neglect of it in time past, it might be nothing amiss. "And he said unto them! 1st. Do violence to no man; 2d. Neither accuse any falsely; 3. Be content with your wages." Here we think, were some things enjoined in order to faith. In a word, "the unconverted" man who lives under the gospel, is under all the obligations which the gospel enjoins, whether he feels those obligations or not, and this position instead of being contrary to "the whole scope of christianity" is most strictly in accordance with it. We have now finished our review of every thing in mr. C's 14th No. that has any bearing on the subject, and have shown, we think, that his reasoning is, in every part, altogether fallacious.

[The Reporter, 20 August 1821, p. 1.]