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 27th, 1821.	[NO. 14.

      MR. EDITOR,

      We proceed to the examination of mr. C's 15th No. which professes to be a review of our 5th and 6th essays.¹ In our replies to mr. C. over and above the difficulty of finding out what are his real sentiments and arguments, which is no small task, we have to prove, that they are really his. For, no sooner are they refuted, than he turns about and ridicules them as ours. This is remarkably the case in the No. before us. Our 5th number² consisted, almost entirely, of that species of irony which Job employed when he said to his talkative friends, "Verily ye are the people and wisdom shall die with you," and which mr. C. himself employed when he styled rich people living in great cities "genteel folks." Now, this sort of irony consists in speaking of people, according to their own views of themselves and others. When, therefore, we represented mr. C. as a "knight in panoply" and his opponents as "pigmies armed with rushes," we spoke the real sentiments of mr. C. not our own. But mr. C. good man, fairly gulped it down, as a delicious morsel of honest praise bestowed on himself, and contempt cast upon his opponents! And so, by not discerning our satire, he has proved, most effectually, how richly it was merited. A knight in panoply! Why, this was an expression of admiration, too precious to be lost! It was even as good as those bestowed by the "formidable" mr. C. upon his peerless self! Nay better! for, in some of his first numbers, the 3d, perhaps,³ he only compares his antagonists to "a cur," and himself to a "gallant horse." (We would suggest an improvement--when the Kentucky boatmen wish to compliment themselves, they say "half-horse, half-alligator," which, we think still more "formidable.") But we did more: instead of making him the horse, we fairly mounted him in the saddle, armed with helmet, cutlass, shield and spear! "A knight in panoply." Oh! was it not cruel, after so fine a compliment, to treat us, the admirers of his knightship, with so much bitterness! But to be serious, our real opinion with regard to mr. C's former opponents, is very different from what, in our 5th No. we insinuated to be the opinion of mr. C. Those of them that he treated with the most contempt, were the most respectable; and, vice versa. With some exceptions, this, as a general rule, will hold good, in reference to the whole of his Nos. It is particularly so, in regard to "Civis,"⁴ the ablest and most acute of mr. C's opponents, but treated by him with great scorn and contempt. So much for his review of our 5th No.

      "The one half of our No. 6,"⁵ he says, "is employed to justify mr. T. from the charge of unbecoming insinuations," and then adds "we are happy to see him own that he had no design, and of course, no reason to impeach my veracity, my motives, or indeed my moral character in any point of view." That we had no design to do so, and further, that we had not done so, we had, indeed, not only asserted, but proved. But does it follow, from this, mr. C. that we had no reason to do so, or, in other words, that our heart was so malignant, that we would have impeached your moral character if we could! What! Mr. C. might we not, had we been so disposed, have retailed all the evil things we had ever heard of you, whether true or false, (and they are not a few) and that, without giving ourselves the trouble to enquire into their origin and foundation! And, after doing so, might we not have invented some of our own, and added them to the list! This, sir, is precisely what you have done. And to prepare the way for doing so, we believe, you deliberately brought against us the charge, which, we refuted in our 5th and 6th Nos. and which, since you have brought it again and again, we shall refute once more. Think not we are angry. Since you cannot understand irony, we are only going to use great plainness of speech, and, if you should sink under the odium which must fall upon you, for so often repeating charges of a serious nature, not only without foundation, but even without the least plausibility, remember the blame is your own. What, then, is the charge? The reader will find it in mr. C's 10th No.⁶ The paragraph is long & we need not transcribe it all. The following are some of the terms employed by mr. C. "misguided zeal, secret enmity, gall and bitterness, malevolence," and it is plainly insinuated, that all these evil passions were set to work by envy and fear, envy of his "unspotted character" and fear of his "formidable talents." Hypocrisy also of the most odious character, is, by broad intimations, involved in the charge. Thus prepared it is directed against Timothy. Timothy "is not altogether innocent in these respects." Such is the charge. Now let us see how it is supported.

      1st. He points out two instances in which we found fault with his style! Mr. C. is the first man we ever knew who would seem to identify style with moral character. He might be a very good man, and yet a very bad writer.

      2nd. He quotes a sentence in which we said, that the sentiments of mr. C. if "countenanced by the publick" would tend to produce a state of society "where wholesome laws have no force." But is this any insinuation against his character? Do not our Methodist brethren think, that our views of certain points tend to licentiousness, and yet, they do not mean, when they express this opinion, to impeach our moral character?

      3d. We had said, that the law in question (that of '94) must not be considered a bad law, merely because it "provoked the evil passions of bad men." Here it will be recollected that mr. C. had used this as one of his argument, namely, that the execution of the law, or, in other words, fining people for profanity provoked their evil passions and so was the occasion of increasing their guilt. We replied, in effect, that the same objection might be made to all laws, and we might have said, to the gospel itself; for even that, becomes the occasion of increasing the guilt of many. But let the reader notice that mr C. has misquoted our words, our expression was "the execution of the law, &c. See our 1st No.⁷ Mr. C. quotes us as saying simply that "the law provokes the evil passions of bad men, &c." as though we intended to insinuate that the law provoked him to write against it, and that, therefore he must be a bad man!

      4th. We had said, that mr. C. "misrepresented the law, &c." This is true. We said so; but we did more we proved it. We are astonished, that even mr. C. should so pertinaciously insist on such things as this. What! if he mistakes the meaning of the law; if he has never read it, or if he designedly mis-represents it, in the course of a debate, must his opponent be charged with "malevolence, &c. &c." if he quotes the law, in express terms, and shews, that it has been misrepresented! Must we, forsooth, give up the cause, at once, rather than contradict mr. C. and that too when we had truth on our side!

      5th. We had said that a certain "objection" of mr. C. was "contrary to truth" advising him to be more careful for the future, in other words, intimating that he should have read the law, before he presumed to decide what was its character. This, he says, is equivalent to an impeachment of his character, in point of veracity. But, we have already disposed of this matter in our 6th No. to which we refer the reader requesting him to read our explanation as there given, and then to ask himself, what opinion he ought to form of mr. C. who after he read that explanation and our asseveration that we did not intend impeaching his veracity, not only persists in his charge, but aggravates it by telling us, ironically, "we shall credit this testimony and remember it!!"

      6th. We insinuated that mr. C. was a lunatic, "the moon was at the full" when his twelfth No. was written.⁸ To this item we plead "guilty." But is this any insinuation against the moral character of mr. C? Lunatics and maniacs, tho' generally not very "genteel" are always very innocent; because, they are, really, what mr. C. would persuade us, that unbelievers are, not the proper subjects of any command. And this is the only apology that can be made by any reasonable man for the 12th No. of mr. C.⁹

      To say nothing of the malignity, coarseness & falsity of the declarations contained in that No. who, we ask, but a lunatic would come forward before the publick and deny in one number or essay the meaning of what he had written in another, and that, too, in cases so plain and palpable, that all his readers must discover, not merely the effort which he makes in order to escape from the truth, but even the agony, nay the fury, into which he is wrought under the consciousness of being detected. This is plain talk, we must own. But we must use weapons according to the character of the enemies who assail us. When the "sword of etherial temper" glances from the "scaly hide of the leviathan," you must try the club of Herculus. If mr. C. will throw off all show of common decency, he must even be contented to hear truth in its plainest dress.

      All that remains of the number now under review, is the dilemma, about which he talks so vauntingly. And, verily, a sillier thing our eyes never beheld. We shall give it in his own words: "If the moral obligation of the 4th commandment remain, the law of Pennsylvania on 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." We need not widen the field of debate, by shewing what we believe to be the origin of the obligation of the Sabbath. We shall take a shorter way. We retorted the dilemma upon mr C. and he escaped from it by saying, that his "observance of the first day is regulated not according to the Jewish, but the Christian law," and we escape from it by saying the same thing. This indeed is not the whole amount of the matter which we should give, were we disposed to enter upon a new controversy with mr. C. which must last longer than the one in which we are now engaged, the subject being more intricate and perplexed. But the answer we have given, will suffice as an argumentum ad hominem. For, we care not on what law mr. C. founds the obligation of the Sabbath, so that it is a divine law. A difference of opinion on this point does not, in the least, affect the strength of the arguments on which we depend.--We proceed to his 16th No.¹⁰ The first paragraph is truly in mr. C's own peculiar style, containing some things unintelligible, some contradictory, and all, from the point. He talks of making a voyage to Aucktermanshoke and importing ship loads of assertion, &c. &c. Whatever delight he might receive from a renewed view of the figure there, verily, he need not bring a cargo, on his return. He has a manufactory at home, capable of supplying every demand, besides furnishing a large surplus for exportation. He has poured such quantities into our market of late, that it has become quite glutted, and he has, besides pushed so brisk a trade in this way, carrying out "assertion" and bringing home contempt, that he is likely to die a bankrupt. And reader! that you may see how anxious he is to put off his depreciated ware, take the very next sentence. "His 9th No. is almost wholly engrossed with those ill natured reflections which usually indicate an entire want of argument." This sentence contains an assertion! yes, an assertion; and of what kind, the reader may judge, if he will just take the trouble to peruse our 9th No. which he will find to contain one continued chain of argumentation, uninterrupted with a single ill natured reflection!

      But were we to examine all his assertions of this kind, we should never have done with him In paragraph 2d, he speaks of "one primary argument" which he says, we have never attempted to refute. This, too, is assertion. His argument we did attempt to refute in our 7, & 8 No's by seven distinct arguments,¹¹ in close connexion, and without the least mixture of any thing foreign from the point in dispute; yet mr. C. has not in any of his numbers published since, taken any notice of these seven arguments, further than to say that he could refute seventy-seven more! Yet he talks incessantly of our evading his arguments!! But we shall even condescend so far as to prove that we have confuted his "one primary argument." The weak part of that argument is contained in the following sentence, "Nor can the state take him to an account (the man guilty of profaning the Sabbath) for his not observing a religious institute, according to proposition 3d. His 3d proposition is this "the state has jurisdiction over all its own members, in things civil and moral; but not in things religious." "By the state not having jurisdiction in things religious" mr. C. means, that the civil magistrate has no right to coerce to the performance of any religious duty. Lo, then, his argument is nothing to the point! He starts out to prove one thing, which we deny, and he proves another, which neither we nor any body else ever denied. To shew that his "gallant knighthood" has been fighting with a phantom we quote a passage from our 9th No.¹² "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, and 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." We can't blame him for making distinctions of any sort. Can it be supposed, that mr. C. did not read this passage? No: for it is contained in that same 9th No. which he says contains nothing but "ill natured reflections." Or, did it pass transiently from his notice? That is not likely, when we consider the well merited "smack" of the "satiric throng" with which the passage concludes. We had observed, that mr. C. never answered any thing unless it touched his feelings, and therefore we took care to season the above passage with a little "Attic salt" that it might affect his nerves the more sensibly. But prudence prevailed over passion, for once, and mr. C. chose to pass by the above passage entirely unnoticed, together with the 7 arguments in our 7th and 8th Nos. and a variety of other remarks of ours, all tending to present the distinction, in the above quoted passage, prominently to view. As mr. C. is fond of dilemmas we shall here present him with one. Either mr. C. discerned the nature of the above mentioned distinction and its bearing upon his "one primary argument," or he did not If he did, he is guilty of an intentional departure from the truth in so often declaring that we had evaded the refutation of his argument. If he did not, it shews an understanding but little removed from idiocy. There is no escape. That this latter horn of the dilemma is the one, which must gore him we charitably hope, and that, the rather, as in the 4th paragraph of the No. now under our notice, we find the following passage "The precept, then, is of a mixed nature, partly moral and partly positive. And what is this he asks, but to say that it is moral positive. What some writers, who like C. are fond of many words, call moral positive, others, call simply positive; and what the former term moral natural, the latter term moral. If mr. C. has not learned this, during the last 11 years, in which he intimates he has studied so hard, then, verily, we think, that to him study is useless: and if he has learned it, he has made use of his learning in this instance, in a way but little creditable to his understanding.

      In the two remaining paragraphs, he has said some very wise things, in his own way, which we do not notice, because we are resolved to narrow the ground of this controversy as much as possible. We return, therefore, to the question: and lest mr. C. should yet be unable to perceive the nature of the distinction noticed above, we shall illustrate it, still more minutely, and bring it down, if possible, to the level of his capacity. Were I, in a publick manner to administer the Lord's supper to dogs, using all the ceremonies belonging to it I should be guilty of profanity in regard to that ordinance. Again, were I to go about the streets pouring forth vollies of horrid oaths and imprecations, I should be guilty of profanity, in regard to that precept, which makes swearing by the name of God, an act of religious worship. Again, should I act, on the Sabbath, in such a manner as the law of '94 contemplates, I should be guilty of profanity in regard to that precept which commands us to sanctify the Sabbath. Now; in all these cases, we say, the magistrate has a right to punish, and when he does so, he is far from attempting to coerce people to the performance of religious duties. This, mr. C. is our ground. We have supported it by seven topicks of argument, and yet, you have not written one single sentence that has any bearing on the point. Were we to maintain that the magistrate has a right to force people to be baptized, take the sacrament, and to drive them to church, at the point of the bayonet, then, your arguments against coercion in matters of religion, would be in point. As it is they are not. We shall finish our reviews in our next.

[The Reporter, 27 August 1821, p. 4.]