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, SEPTEMBER 3d, 1821.	[NO. 15.

      MR. EDITOR,

            The 17th No. of mr. C.¹ is the subject of our present review, the preceding ones having been already noticed. This No. he says, shall close his "essays on the subject of compulsory observance of the institutes of Christianity as vindicated by mr. T. the champion in behalf of a forced regard to christian precepts." We only ask the reader to remember, how often, we have laid down, in the clearest manner, the state of the question, how often we have told mr. C. that we were not arguing for the "compulsory observance of the institutes of christianity" nor for a "forced regard to christian precepts" which, indeed, is only the same idea, in different language; but in favor of a power in the civil magistrate to punish gross and public acts of profanity. This distinction has been stated again and again; but, mr. C. has never taken the least notice of it, which shews, that he is either destitute of all discernment, or afraid of approaching the question.

      He again states in the 2nd paragraph his "one primary argument" and says that "if it is refuted he will give up the cause." Lo, then, himself being judge, the cause is given up: for, it has been proved, over and over again, that this argument is, aside from the question. It only proves, that the magistrate cannot force men to be religious; whereas it ought to be proved, that he has no right to punish them for being openly and grossly profane. In other words, as mr. C. would be thought learned, it contains that kind of sophism, called by logicians, "ignorantia elenchi," or "an ignorance of the matter in dispute! Mr. C. has been, all this while, disputing about, he knows not what.

      The same ignorance is evinced in the 3d paragraph where he challenges "mr. T. to prove, that the state of Pennsylvania has a divine and civil right to enact and enforce a law requiring of all members of the state the sanctification of one day in seven." The sanctifications of the Sabbath, requires holy thoughts, which human laws cannot enforce; though they may forbid the gross and publick profanation of that day. The things are totally different. His dilemma we disposed of in our last No. His argument about the supposed unconstitutionality of the law, has also been refuted. His observations under the 5th particular, in which he attempts to vilify such "moral associations" as that at "West-Middletown" are of a piece with the rest of his arguments. In order to prove, from the authority of the apostle, that "members of the church" should not associate with those who are not, in forming moral societies, he quotes, or I should rather say, mis-quotes 1. Cor. 5, 11; "But now I have written to you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one, no not to eat." Mr. C. quotes the apostle as prohibiting society with "unbelievers, persons out of the church." But the apostle says just the contrary, "called a brother." Again, the purpose of the prohibited association is misrepresented, "In any thing pertaining to christianity" says C. "no: not to eat," says Paul. The society which Paul condemns is the society of christians with professors of notoriously bad characters, railers, for example, and in the ordinary affairs of life. Mr. C. makes him prohibit the association of christians with persons out of the church in the concerns of religion! which is just the reverse of Paul's meaning. Comment is superfluous.

      In his next paragraph, he says, or rather intimates, that his objections to the law of '94, on the ground of its persecuting tendency have not been answered. This is his usual effrontery. It was before shewn, that while the spirit and intention of the law were regarded, there could be no persecution under it.² He told us, indeed, of some body somewhere about Lancaster, who was prosecuted under the law, on account of his being a 7th day Baptist! But mr. C. will excuse us, if, after what we have already seen of him, we should object to receiving his say-so for truth, in this matter. As for there being "no scripture warrant for saying the Sabbath was changed from the 7th to the 1st day of the week," I wonder what that has to do with our dispute, since mr. C. professes to admit the obligation of keeping the 1st day to be binding. Thus have we gone through our review of mr. C's No's and we leave it for the reader to judge which side of the cause has truth for its support. Mr. C. may claim the victory if he pleases. It will be in character for him to do so: like Napoleon in his disastrous campaigns, who, the more signal was his defeat, was always the more pompous, in his bulletins, in proclaiming a triumph. We desire that this however, should be remembered, that he has not attempted to answer one of the 7 arguments proposed for his consideration.

      Before concluding, we shall make an observation or two in reply to C's personal remarks. He seems to suppose, that we were irritated at his questions because they seemed to be "too pinching." He is quite mistaken. Had we been desirous of seeing the ruin of mr. C's reputation, we should have rejoiced at such questions. And we now tell him, frankly, that he could have taken no way more effectual to secure such an object. He derives credit to himself for not being provoked at our two questions & assigns as the reason that they did not convict his conscience! Most sagacious observation! The questions had nothing to do with moral character, and therefore, not with conscience. "Who is this mr. C.?" Not much here to move conscience! "Is he the author of a book having for its motto," "Ye have taken away they key of knowledge?"³ Nothing, here either. He deserves credit, truly, for his composure of conscience under such interrogatories? But, let him be so good as to tell us why his wrath was so much inflamed in his 10th No! Why; because we had intimated, that they were bad men, who would violate the Sabbath, and thereby draw upon themselves the execution of the law, and because we happened to say, respecting his objection to the law, that it was "contrary to truth." Ah! here was a tender point, and though, at that time, we really had no intention to impeach his veracity, the fury of mr. C. soon verified the proverb a "guilty conscience needs no accuser." It is really irksome to us to be compelled to say these things. But, let mr. C. know, that though we will not go a hairs breadth beyond the limits of what he has written in his No's nor render railing for railing; yet since he has been so imprudent as to introduce certain things into his No's, with a view if possible, to bring us down to his own level, we think it an act of kindness to him to let him know a little of our mind on that subject. And, in the 1st place, though he may go on, to sacrifice truth at the shrine of envy, he need not expect to accomplish his object in this way. Falsehood injures none but its author. And, allow us to remind mr. C. that, in his haste to injure us, he has already lost his character for veracity: for, to omit other instances, he has, in his last No. insinuated a foul charge against us, which being false, can never be proved. Yet, this is what he has, by his indiscretion, bound himself to do, or else quietly rest under the odium which justly attaches to that character, which mankind universally detest. And, if he seeks the worthy gratification of making us, "angry," as he says, it is but right that he should know, that even in this he is disappointed. We know the truth of the sentiment, expressed by Milton in the following lines, too well to be disturbed by the efforts of mr. C. and such like slanderers:

      Mr. C. has no objection to give to deceased merit its due praise. "The dead" do not stand in his way. Hence the charge of "plagiarism" which he casts upon the Grammar of which he conjectures T. to be the author; and the insinuation, that it owes whatever worth it possesses to the "discoveries of the dead ungenerously appropriated." We understand his meaning; having picked up the same calumny in a more definite form, in the track of mr. C. on one of our late excursions. And unless mr. C. gives us the author's name, we shall continue to believe that himself is the author. And we have condescended to notice the calumny here, not for the purpose of refuting it; for we should not reckon our reputation worth possessing, if it needed a defence against such slanders and from such a quarter, but for the purpose of explaining it, that the publick may understand its import and who is its fabricator. Of the merits of the work, as we are supposed by C. to be its author, we shall say nothing; & yet we can hardly help telling mr. Candidus; (for we know what unfeigned pleasure it will give him;) that it has been pronounced by the first scholars in America, in Philadelphia and elsewhere, to be "decidedly the best Grammar of the English language extant."

      Mr. C's confessing his "imprudence" in risking his popularity, for sake of conscience and his complaints of the wickedness of the times strongly reminded us of "the fable of the beasts confessing their sins." Says the Ass:

      The application is easy. A word as to the style of mr. C. We faulted it on account of the unhappy effect of its many inaccuracies, in covering the sophistry of the argument.⁵ Had we a design of displaying critical acumen, it would indeed have been mean to take him as the subject. But, really, we could not help smiling at the vanity of mr. C. in regard to his style.

      He intimates in one place that he could really be eloquent, did the subject admit it; in another, he says, that he transcribed but one of his No's; and in the No. before us, that he composed rapidly, "a hasty draught!!!" Now, though we have not transcribed a word we have written on this debate, we never should have thought of letting the public know any thing about it. But, notwithstanding all the disadvantages under which mr. C. labours, he "pledges his veracity" to point out as many inaccuracies in our 9 Nos. as we shall find in 12 of his! His veracity, we can assure him, goes for very little with the public, but worthless as it is, it has been pledged on this subject already, and the pledge could not be redeemed! See our 7th No. at the close of the 1st paragraph, where C. is challenged to point out the alledged inaccuracies of a single sentence of his own selecting:⁶ he prudently has declined the attempt. This, by the way, affords a fine comment on the term "valorous" as applied to "tongue" in the paragraph under our eye. Valour, with others, consists in doing great things; with mr. C. in saying great things. He can, we suppose, point out innumerable inaccuracies in what we have written: but he has not even attempted to point out one in that single sentence in which his honor and veracity were pledged to do it!! He thinks that "all his acquaintances" enemies as well as friends will do him so much (mark this! so much! justice as to say, that he might have sailed smoothly down the popular stream in the first rank, had he consulted interest rather than conscience." Self-adulating, vain glorious boaster! Covenanters! Seceders! Presbyterians! Know ye, that this is mr. C.! Those, too, whom his No's will not convince, would not be convinced though one arose from the dead! And, farther on, he says "I am pretty certain had he (Timothy) been better acquainted with me than he was or yet is, he would not have meddled with the controversy." "Think's I to myself" this is the reason why he wished you, mr. editor, to publish his name: what he despaired of effecting, by force of argument, he hoped the very terror of his name, would effect! Accept his challenge!--To meet him face to face!--and dispute with him, viva voce!--After all this! No, not I! My nerves can't stand it! Ye wretches of the "Middletown club," the terrors of the mighty C. (for I can think of nothing more terrible) pursue you for ever and ever! that I should have been brought to this for your sakes!

      P.S. Having recovered, a little, from my consternation, I return to beg you would remind mr. C. of the sage remark of "Jedediah Cleishbotham, Parish Clerk of Gandercleugh"⁷ that his "scales of candour want to be cleansed from the rust of prejudice, by the hand of modesty."

[The Reporter, 3 September 1821, p. 4.]