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, JANUARY 21st, 1821.	[NO. 35.

      "There is no precept in the New Testament to compel, by civil law, any man [who is not a christian] to pay any regard to the Lord's day." This is his first argument: and we add, there is no precept in the New Testament to compel by civil law any man, christian or not, to do any thing, or to abstain from doing any thing; and the reason is, the New Testament is not a law book. His argument 2nd of No. 1st of new series, is of the same stamp. We shall transcribe it, adding only a word or two, to make it intelligible.

      "The gospel commands no duty, that can be performed without faith in the Son of God:

      "But [for the magistrate] to command men destitute of faith to observe (not to profane, it should be) any christian institute, such as the Lords day, is commanding a duty [that may] be performed without faith in the Son of God.

      "Therefore" the authority of the magistrate is different from the authority of the gospel. This is the only legitimate conclusion that can be drawn from the premises. Mr. C's inference is, that "to command unbelievers to observe [not to profane] the Lords day, is contrary to the gospel." Now there is not a civil law in existence, but what requires duties that may be performed without faith: and the bye-laws of boroughs, banking institutions, as well as the laws of Grammar, all require things that may be performed without faith. Are they, therefore, contrary to the gospel! What! does every difference constitute contrariety! Again, he says, "faith is the immediate duty of all unbelievers. Then, the observance [not to profane] the Lord's day, is not the immediate duty of any unbelievers for there cannot be two immediate duties." By an immediate duty he means one to be performed "just now." Duties may all be divided into two classes, external and internal. Reverence, love, faith, and, in short, all the principles of holy obedience, are the internal duties which we owe to God. The external, comprehend all the outwards acts, by which these internal principles express themselves. Charity, or love, in its various modifications, contains all the internal duties that we owe to man: the external comprehend all the proper manifestations of it in the outward conduct, according to the diversified relations of social life. Now, it is the height of absurdity to say, that any one internal duty is required "just now" and its corresponding external duty, afterwards, in the order of time. They both go together. We are not required to believe the gospel, and to love God, "just now" and then perform external acts of obedience, afterwards: but we are to love and believe, in obeying, and to obey, in loving and believing. So, in regard to our neighbor, we are not to love him now, and do him good afterwards, but to love him constantly, and constantly, to seek his good. Again: civil law, as has been remarked over and over again, makes no account of internal duties. It forbids theft, murder, &c. but cares not from what principle you obey, whether from love or interest; or rather it supposes, that you will obey only through interest or fear of punishment, since it is for the bad, not the good, that it has been provided. If men were virtuous, penal laws would be needless. So, also, it forbids gross and publick acts of profanity, but cares not from what principle you abstain from that evil. The consideration of principles of action, or internal duties, belongs, wholly, and solely, to the divine law. According to mr. C. the unbeliever will never have but one sin, viz: unbelief to answer for; since faith is the only duty binding "just now:" and every moment of his life will be "just now," when it arrives. A is an unbeliever. He kills a man: and does it "just now," mr. C. defends him, and tells the court, "this man was bound to believe the gospel, when he committed the murder. This was his immediate duty, and consequently it was not his immediate duty to obey the precept "thou shalt not kill." "A strait jacket! a straight jacket! resounds on all sides."

      This we shall pass by "pressis naribus"--it contains not the semblance of argument.

      This also we pass by; because it has nothing to do with the present dispute. Mr. C. professes to hold the christian Sabbath binding. What difference, then, does it make in the present controversy, whether it has come in the room of the Jewish Sabbath or not?

      We had asserted, that acts of profanity and impiety contribute to bring down the judgments of God upon a people: and referred to the history of France by way of illustration, not as proof by way of induction. Other instances might easily have been adduced, but for our purpose, one was sufficient. The principle we did not suppose mr. C. would have denied. But he does not stop at trifles; and boldly asserts, that it is paying wicked men too high a compliment to suppose that their profanity and impiety contribute to bring the judgments of God upon a nation. The Scriptures, however, compliment them still more highly, by teaching that, for such things, the justice of God will inflict upon them eternal punishments. "The national calamities of France, he says, may be made to speak an hundred different things," and from the tenor of his remarks, we discover, plainly enough, what are his opinions of the moral government of God over nations--that it is an absurdity to be laughed at! He asks "where is the portion of Scripture to prove our doctrine." Consult Isa. 60, 12. "The nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea those nations shall be utterly wasted." On this passage we would just observe, that it undeniably refers to gospel times. Then, we ask, do those who practice open and gross acts of profanity "serve" the Messiah? Or do they not pour contempt on his institutions? And if nations who act thus perish, when? we ask. Not in the next world. For there nations will have no existence, as such. The conclusion follows, that they shall perish under the judgments of God, in this world. The history of Christendom, for the last thousand years, affords a continual comment on these principles to those who humbly and devoutly consult the oracles of truth. But atheistical sneers at the moral government of heaven, prove nothing.

      By the phrase "forms of religion," we meant only those which are, by the consent of all professing christians, of divine institution, such as the sacraments, and worship of God. By "treating them with contempt," we meant profaning them. But, by taking those phrases in an unwarrantable latitude, he has contrived to make himself merry through these No's, with quotations from newspapers about "compelling people to go to church" (a thing to which we are as much opposed as he can be) "bowing at the elevation of the host--the discipline of the Methodist church--the 19 good old tunes of David--sprinkling of infants--leading an intended bride three times through the meeting house," &c &c. The imaginary law "compelling every male from 12 to 65 years of age duly, regularly and devoutly to attend all the publick ministrations of the ambassadors of Heaven," which C. has invented, amounts only to an awkward, coarse and indecent attempt to disguise the point in dispute, and to turn a serious subject into ridicule. Mr. C. must be conscious of the weakness of his cause or of his inability to support it; else, why this shuffling and ledgerdemain, by which he is continually trying to take away the real subject in dispute from the view of his readers, and present another in its stead? Why talk of compelling people to sanctify the Sabbath by civil penalties? We are agreed on that point. A law to compel people to take the sacrament, and a law that would punish them for administering it to dogs, by way of contempt would be things vastly different. This broad line of distinction, so often drawn by us between enforcing the observance of a religious institute and punishing for gross and publick acts of profanity, strange to tell! has never once been noticed by mr. C. a clear proof that he is either insane or un-candid in the extreme. And, what necessity for a pope to decide what shall constitute an act of profanity punishable by law, more than to decide what shall constitute murder, theft or slander! Does not every person know what we mean by the crime of profane swearing? And, surely, it would require no pope, no "infallible tribunal," to determine, for instance, that the mock administration of the Lords supper by a club of impious young men at Paisly, which Dr. Witherspoon so severely reproved, constituted an act of profanity--We have another remark to make on a passage in his 7th No. Mr. C. calls himself a minister of the gospel. What then can he mean by speaking of those in the ministry of reconciliation as to their official characters jeeringly, as "ambassadors of Heaven!" A privileged order!" What does he think of that office? Its solemnity? Its responsibility? Superficial, light, flippant as he is, yet, really, this is too much! He slanders all denominations of professing christians around him, not even sparing that to which he himself belongs. For, we cannot believe, that our Baptist brethren, as a body, think that "to sprinkle an infant" [or, in decent language] to baptize it in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is "to treat one of the forms of religion with contempt!" Such sneers as these are too thickly scattered, or, we should rather say too closely crowded together, in the No's of mr. C. and they almost justify a suspicion that he is not quite disinterested in pleading the cause of profanity.

      All that he says in this No. amounts only to this, that if the magistrate has a right to prevent people from labour on the 1st day, he has on the 7th day, &c. Wonderful logician! Only grant him, that there is no difference between the Sabbath and another day, and then he shall prove to your satisfaction, that, indeed, there is no difference between the Sabbath and another day. The ridicule which, in this No. he attempts to cast upon the Sabbath itself, as well as upon the clergy, must, in the view of every sober mind, revert upon himself. However, in this he is consistant. To justify profanity and to ridicule things sacred, are indications of the same spirit.

      Here, at last, we find something to praise. Yes, strange as it may seem, mr. C. speaks, in this No. like a man of sense and pretty much to the point. He gives a tolerably good explanation of the conduct of Nehemiah, in regard to the men of Tyre, and then asks "did he compel them to observe the Sabbath? Most certainly he did not" [nor do we argue for any such thing] "And what then? He prevented them from exposing their wares to tempt the Jews to profane the Sabbath." Nobly said mr. C. "si sic omnia,"--for this is precisely what we wish every magistrate to do: and we desire it to be noticed, that no man can publickly and grossly profane the Sabbath, without tempting others to do the same. There is, however, one distinction which, since he is not fond of distinctions, we can readily excuse him for not making. It is this, that the reason why the Tyrians could not be charged by Nehemiah with profaning the Sabbath was, that they were heathens and probably had not sufficient opportunity to become acquainted with the Jewish institutions; but, under the gospel, the distinction between the Jews and Gentiles is done away, all to whom the gospel comes being placed on a level, in point of obligation to obey its institutions.--He goes on to illustrate the case, thus: A has children at their books. Their attention is interrupted by the impertinence of the children of his neighbour. This, A at length prevents, by resorting to threats. This is a tolerably good illustration, and, even as stated by mr. C. it cuts up his system (if system it may be called) by the roots.

      For a man who professes to teach French and Hebrew, mr. C. seems rather defective in his knowledge of English; and in the present No. he mistakes the meaning of the word "analogy" as he did that of "solemn" in a former No. He ought to know, that analogy does not mean actual similitude, much less, indentity. The vice of profane swearing, and that of Sabbath-profanation, are not perfectly similar: but they spring from the same source and have the same pernicious tendency, and this general correspondence is sufficient to justify an argument from analogy. When we employed this argument we did suppose, that mr. C. had given up the point as it respects profane swearing, especially as his remarks, all along since his 8th No. old series, were confined to the crime of profaning the sabbath. And, upon consulting that No. we find we were not mistaken. For he would punish the profane swearer, by avoiding his company, not sending him to congress, and not permitting him to bear testimony in a court of justice. All this might do for swearers of a certain class, but for that class of people who are most addicted to that abominable vice, it would be no punishment at all. We repeat the question, then, if profaning the name of God is punishable, why not profaning his Sabbath and his ordinances? Mr. C. asks, "why is the sin of profaning the Sabbath rated at 4 dollars, and the sin of profane swearing rated at 64 cents?" Mr C. is determined to let us know, how profoundly ignorant he is on the subject of jurisprudence. His question implies, a belief, that human laws should always proportion the punishment to the atrocity of the crime--a belief, which no well informed person could, for one moment, entertain. Thus, have we finished our review of C's new series,--have noticed every thing having the least appearance of argument, and a great deal of stuff--the mere driveling of premature dotage--and we have no hesitation in saying, upon casting our eye over the whole course of this too long protracted controversy, that it is quite superfluous for mr. C. to tell those who have read his old series and his new series, as he does in the conclusion of his 10th No. that he could assert more in one minute than he could prove in a life time. That, sir, was too obvious to need mentioning. As he has quoted the authority of Dr. Doddridge, [not him of England] we shall now give some authorities on the opposite side. The first we shall give is a Jesuit, the second a Heathen: we quote them for the purpose of shaming mr C. if possible, out of his notions respecting the moral government of God over the nations. "Quand les magistrates inferieurs viellent a l'observation des loix, qu 'ils 'ont soin du bonheur des peoples, c'est que Dieu veut par leur moyen la prosperite des pays and des villes. Mais, quand, au contraire, ces magistrates negligent le bon ordre, laissent le crime impuni; pensez que c'est Dieu, qui le permet pour punir c'etat."

Alphonse de Sarasa.9

      ------"pietate ac religeone, atque hac una sapientia quod Deorum immortalium numine omnia regi gubernarique perspeximus, omnus gentes, nationesque superavimus."

Cicero.10

      "Among the principal symptons and causes of that depravity, which precedes the ruin of states and empires, has justly been reckoned, by the wisest observers of human nature, a contempt of religion."

Smith.

      "The magistrate may enact laws for the punishment of acts of profanity and impiety."

Witherspoon.

      "The thief that picks our pocket does not so much harm in society, nor occasions so much pain, as they who shock the ear of piety with profaneness."

Beattie.

      "Of all the dispositions & habits, which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensible supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great pillars of human happiness: these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it be simply asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice. And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.--Reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

George Washington.

      "It is easy to shew, that the observation of Sunday is clear gain for the labouring poor; for, though allowed one day's rest in seven, which is assuredly not too much, the wages of the other six must necessarily be such as to afford them bread for the seventh. But, they get no more when they work every day; their wages being always ground down to the smallest possible sum which can enable them to subsist; the gain is then exclusively their employers, while the loss of rest is theirs:--yet it is evident, that the allowance of one day's rest must be general: no labourer can take it, if his neighbors do not, for he would starve;--a cogent reason for government to interfere."

Ed. Review.

      We had intended to say something respecting mr. C's new kind of poetry--such poetry!--without measure, rhyme or sense!--No doubt, he thinks it fine. Bur it is not worth while--we hasten to a conclusion of this our last essay on the controversy with C. assuring him, that we know nothing of Ploto or Lector, having written nothing on this subject over any other signature than that of

      N. B. Like an impertinant visitor, who persists in abusing one till the door is shut in his face, so mr. C. seems resolved to write till the very last hour of the publick's indulgence. Were he possessed of a little of that very useful thing called self knowledge he would be this time, suspect at least that the publick do not need to be enlightened by such an instructor. We shall not descend to the mean task of criticising mr. C. we shall only call his attention to a single sentence in his last No. selected almost at random for the purpose of illustrating the remark just made. "The many effects produced by the operation of one of the august laws of nature will forever surpass the utmost stretch of the most comprehensive mind to enumerate, much less to comprehend. So then, according to mr. C's way of thinking, it is much less difficult to comprehend things than to enumerate them! Surely a man who can write in this manner, and who betrays such unaccountable confusion of thought as runs through his pieces ought to be less arrogant. But so it is: by a benevolent constitution of nature, the witling is sure to expose his own weakness by a brazen assurance that bids defiance alike to reason and shame. So, notwithstanding the muddiness of its waters, we discover the shallowness of a stream by its foaming and roaring.

[The Reporter, 21 January 1821, p. 4.]