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, OCTOBER 29th, 1821.	[NO. 23.

      Mr. Editor,

            Mr. C. like every other person who undertakes a bad cause, finds himself the more involved, the further he proceeds. His last number¹ surpasses, in boldness of assertion and in other qualities which we do not choose to name, every thing that in the like circumstances, we have ever seen. We have however received from it, in connexion with his foregoing Nos. no small gratification, in one respect. Human nature is an interesting study: and for our parts, we must own that we are pleased with the opportunity of contemplating it, (even in those displays of it which are not in themselves amiable,) considered merely as a subject of amusing speculation. For this reason, we have scarcely ever read any work published in our country, with more pleasure than "Ely's Journal," in which the author gives an account, in his interesting manner, of the several cases which came under his notice in the Hospital and Almshouse in the city of New-York. In some instances persons were found, who had, by a course of the most unexampled profligacy and debauchery, brought themselves to the very gates of death; who would, nevertheless, speak of themselves with the greatest complacency, as if they had been the most perfect models of virtue, and who seemed, too, to expect others to receive their statements for undoubted truth. Such instances are curious, as they serve to shew how far self-deception may be practised.

      In his last No. mr. C. tells the publick, that "instead of argumentative and rational discussion, their patience has been exhausted with a continual strife about character, with a series of lampoons, sarcasms, ironies, jests: and in some instances, with the lowest billingsgate rhetoric, and even the obscenities of hell:" and, no doubt, mr. C. expects the blame of all this, must, in the eyes of the publick devolve entirely upon his antagonist!! And yet, it must be evident to all who have attended to this controversy, that in every one of the attacks upon character, mr. C. himself has been the assailant, and that we have uniformly contented ourselves with acting on the defensive, without even retorting his calumnies. And this very sentence, what is it, itself, but a piece of composition, of that very character which it describes! Alas! Poor human nature! Notwithstanding also, the fact, that we have, again and again, corrected mr. C. for his want of candor or want of discernment, in not presenting the real state of the question, and notwithstanding the very great pains employed, particularly in our last three essays, in pointing out the plain and palpable distinction between enjoining the observance of a religious institute, and forbidding the publick and gross profanation of a religious institute; and notwithstanding our repeated declarations, that we were not arguing in favor of a right in the civil magistrate to do the former, but the latter; yet he begins his 18th No. by saying that the controversy between us, respects "the propriety of coercing a certain portion of the community to pay a feigned regard to certain precepts of christianity." We did not expect much candor in the arguments of Candidus; but we did expect that he would not for his own sake continue any longer to insult the understandings of his readers at this rate. Indeed, it does appear that mr. C. needs yet to be informed that the understandings of the rest of the community are not exactly of the same grade, with those of the two or three friends whom he has about him, and who, as we hear, are always ready to flatter him in his folly. He ought to know, that the great mass of the people in this country, have a certain odd faculty of seeing and judging for themselves, and are not just ready to swallow down every thing they may find in the publick prints, although recommended by an authority even as great as mr. C. thinks himself to be.

      Mr. C. affects to think there is something vastly shocking in the letter from satan!² If so, it must consist either in the letter itself, or in the mere fact of introducing him upon the stage. On the latter supposition; it seems strange, that mr. C. should condemn us for profaning the name of satan (pardon, reader, the misapplication of the term) while he has been employed so long in arguing for the civil right of profaning the name of God! We know not what may be the ground of mr. C's sensibility on this point, but for our part, we are free to confess that we have no great veneration either for the name or attributes of that malignant spirit; and feel no kind of delicacy in speaking or writing against him whenever the interests of morality require it. On the former supposition, our apology is this. The letter was his. In it he speaks like himself, "the father of lies." The sentiments and language were such as we might have expected from him, and certainly not more horribly blasphemous than those which he employs, in Milton, in his address to the sun, or than those ascribed to him in the Bible itself. Upon the whole, we are happy to find that our satire, ("billingsgate" we have used none) has had a good effect upon mr. C. as we intended it should, in deterring him from coming forward with any more false accusations against us. Satire has its use. Against calumny and sheer absurdity it is a legitimate, and often the only effectual weapon. But, it seems, mr. C. has, some how or other, gotten, of late, a mortal dislike to it. We should be glad, if possible to please him: but really, we know not how we are to go about it. When we first took up the controversy, we advanced some things in a serious style: and mr. C. who talks of billingsgate, was pleased to call it "the guts of some old sermon"³--contemptible whining,⁴ cant, &c. &c. and moreover, proceeded, courtly gentleman as he is, to charge us with making "violent efforts to get rich⁵--publishing a grammar on principles not our own"⁶ and a number of other things equally true and equally "compatible with his feelings as a christian" and as a gentleman. Thinking that we had been too serious for his taste, and had given him offence by manifesting a spirit of forbearance which he probably mistook for stupidity, we changed our style a little; but he is still dissatisfied and we fear is likely to remain so, till we tamely allow him the privilege of publishing all the falsehoods he can invent to our injury, and not only so, but join in with him also in our efforts to give them currency, by applauding his veracity. But this would be to sacrifice truth, which neither courtesy nor christianity requires us to do.

      In one of the laws of war which he purposes to follow in this new campaign, which he has just opened, he declares he "will seek redress some other way." Redress! For what, good mr. C? and how? By the law I suppose. But, according to the principle of your two arguments of the "New Series,"⁷ (which by the bye, are one and the same, and have been refuted again and again) you can obtain no redress. For suppose Timothy had slandered you, and you should come to our court for redress, the judge would sent you back to Buffaloe again with your own syllogism.

"The gospel commands no duty that can be performed without faith:" But abstaining from slander and falsehood is a duty that can be performed without faith:

      Therefore, to command Timothy or any other person to abstain from slander "is anti- evangelical or contrary to the gospel." "In the same spirit and style" might the judge "refute all objections" that you might offer to his turning you out of court. If this is a specimen of the spirit in which mr. C. intends to manage the controversy for the ensuing year, we think it a kin to the spirit of "mighty dullness" and moreover, that he will have to pay his readers for reading as well as you for printing the Nos. of his "New Series."

      N. B. Mr. C. need not expect us to answer him so promptly nor minutely as heretofore. He has not even attempted to answer one of our arguments, and indeed, seems resolved not to meet the question fairly, though it has been so often stated: but brings forward his old matter under a "new series." We shall leave him, the, to jog round in his circle, for three months, promising him a review of what he may have written at the expiration of that time. A quarterly review will be amply sufficient; unless the spirit of calumny should take the place of the spirit of slumber in his pages, and in that case, he may possibly undergo still further disgrace before the end of the quarter.

[The Reporter, 29 October 1821, p. 4.]