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."
VOL. II. NO. 52.	WASHINGTON, (PA.) MONDAY, MAY 21st, 1821.	WHOLE NO. 104.

MR. EDITOR,

      SIR--The observations in the conclusion of my 9th No. constitute the text on which Mr. T. declaims in his 4th No.¹ These observations as quoted by Mr. T. are as follows, viz: "It is a fact worthy to be noted, that no prophet, nor apostle; no inspired man in old or new Testament times, ever dropped a word against Sabbath-breakers amongst any other nation than the Jews. Amongst all the sins that proved the ruin of Sodom and Gomorrah, Babylon and Nineveh, Greece, and Rome, that of Sabbath profanation is never mentioned. Nor was it until Constantine married the church and the state, that a civil law was passed requiring of all ranks and degrees a civil respect to this institution."

      There is not a sentence in the whole of Mr. T's remarks upon the above citation, that is not incorrect, and beneath the dignity both of a scholar and a christian teacher. I do not even thank him for admitting the above to be a fact, as he admits it with so uncouth a grace, that I am sure he would have denied it if he could. But they are facts, and they speak a volume to the misguided zealots of the present day. But behold! How does Mr. T. pass them by? Strange as it may appear, sir, it is nevertheless true--he talks of "Oedipus," "Archimedes," "canals, turnpike roads and building bridges." You will no doubt envy the gentleman's fertility of invention, and lofty imagination that could dive so deep into the above citation, as to raise the shade of Oedipus and Archimedes out of it, and to introduce from it the modern improvements in Architecture & hydraulics.

      But let us hear him. "Had he stated that no inspired man ever dropped a word about building bridges, making turnpike roads, or digging canals, though we should admit the fact, we should not be greatly edified by the information. Nor would it go far (most sagacious observation) to support the point which Mr. C. has undertaken to establish." He adds, "as irrelevant to the point in dispute are the facts he has stated." That is, sir, that no nation on earth, no individual man of any nation under heaven was ever charged in the Bible with the sin of Sabbath-breaking, save the Jews; and that nothing is said of building bridges in the Bible, are facts equally edifying and equally applicable to the subject! Had I not already asked who is this Mr. T. I should have paused and proposed the question here. But wild and fanciful as his notions are, let us do him justice. Let him explain himself. He says, he guesses, as follows, "we guess Mr. C. has intended the above propositions to stand for the major propositions of a Syllogism, leaving it to the reader to supply the minor and the conclusion." You have not guessed right Mr. T. But had it been so, let us hear how you would supply the minor and the conclusion. You deliver them thus. The major--"it was no sin in the antient heathen nations to violate the Sabbath." The minor, "but Pennyslvania is a heathen nation." The conclusion, "therefore it is no sin in Pennsylvania to violate the Sabbath, curse, swear and get drunk." What a logician--one sin in the major--yes one sin in Mr. T's major--and four sins in Mr. T's conclusion. When a man "guesses" he is more likely to hit upon the point, the more latitude he takes in, in his guess. Then comes Archimedes and his lever, his "dos pou sto." And had Mr. T. been half as acute as he would seem, he might have seen that he was burlesquing himself, for he places himself infinitely above Archimedes, inasmuch as Archimedes only wanted a place to fix his lever, but Mr. T. wants both the "dos pou sto" and the lever, and yet pretends to lift that which is heavier than the earth, viz: Error into Truth--But, adds he, "did Mr. C. really hope (no hope in it Mr. T.) that his readers would not be able to apply the maxim, "They that have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the laws." Yes, indeed, and he wishes that his reader will do more justice to the apostle than Mr. T. and quote the other half of the verse, "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law." But perhaps the following clause brings out Mr. T's meaning in full, viz: "There can be no just reasoning from the case of the people destitute of the light of revelation, to the case of a people who possess it." Having now quoted almost every thing Mr. T. has said against the first two sentences of the quotation, (and what remains shall not be overlooked) 'tis time to take a closer view of the gentleman's objections. That which he says all those strange and fanciful things against, is merely the pertinence of the quotation, on its suitableness to the subject. The facts he admits, but they make no more for the side I espouse than an omission to mention "turnpike roads, &c." Let the reader judge from the following remarks. Did not the Apostles and prophets often pourtray the deplorable guilt of all nations of the earth, or of the heathen world, by the most minute and circumstantial enumeration of all their crimes, even those we almost blush to name? No man that has once perused the Bible dare deny it. Their not having the law is no excuse for them, for saith Paul, "when they knew God they glorified him not as God; therefore God gave them up to all manner of uncleanliness." Is not each species of crime they committed preferred against them, as even it was, against them who had the written law? Are they not accused of murder, theft, witchcraft, slander, backbiting, drunkenness, blasphemy, adultery, fornication, lying and all manner of uncleanness. And yet Sabbath-breaking (which is the first thing a modern preacher usually mentions as a crime committed by unbelievers) is never, never found in the catalogue of crimes, mentioned in the Bible. That the Jews were often accused of it, we have often said. But we are not debating about Jews. That christians should sanctify the first day to the Lord we have often repeated: but the class respecting which the controversy is, is neither Jews, nor christians, it is the non-professing world, the class which do not yield voluntary obedience to the laws of Christ. I again repeat, that it is worthy to be noted that this, so popular crime, is never charged upon any but the Jews. It teaches us, one of two lessons, or perhaps both, viz: That the Sabbath belonged to the Jews. That is the sanctification of the seventh day as the law of Moses directed belonged to no nation on earth, but to the Jews; consequently none could be guilty of the crime but the Jews. Even as the sanctification of the first day in honor of the resurrection, or the beginning of the new creation belongs to christians and none else, as much so as baptism or the communion of saints. Or it teaches us that while men walk after the flesh, in infidelity and hardness of heart, it is not their immediate duty to attend on the positive institutes of christianity. Each of which lessons did Mr. T. and many besides learn and understand, in all their bearing and import. The christian religion would appear quite otherwise, in the simplicity consistency and excellency thereof. Upon the whole then the preceding facts have a more immediate bearing upon the subject than the omission of "bridges and canals."

      With regard to the syllogism above mentioned is wholly of Mr. T's manufacturing and let him have the honor of it: but in regard of the state of Pennsylvania being a heathen nation I have somewhat to say; a few hints at present must suffice.

      If Mr. T's remarks have any bearing or sense in them as respects the subject, it is this, that Pennsylvania having the law of heaven, renders it right, to enforce upon her the statutes of Israel; and that she is from that circumstance to be compelled to keep the Sabbath according to the Jewish law. This error, for I must give it its proper name, has been fully refuted in my preceding numbers. There are not a few and perhaps Mr. T. amongst the number who suppose the planting of a church or churches amongst, or the having the gospel preached, to a people, bring them naturally into a christian state. Hence do we often hear of christian nations. But that the unbelieving part of Pennsylvania is in any more christian state than the people of Japan or China, Greece or Rome; or to be compelled to regard the institutes of christianity any more than the inhabitants of the above states, I have yet to learn, and I feel very certain that Mr. T. will never teach me to think so. I readily admit that the condemnation of the unchristian part of any community, whither the gospel has been carried, and where it has been published, will be more aggravated, than that, of those to whom it has never been proclaimed. And I fully admit the aphorism, that, where there is much given there will be the more required." Yet I could not agree with an eminent preacher in Scotland, who taught that, that "land was married to the Lord," and that the 1st. verse of the 87th Psalm, "O Lord thou has been favorable to thy beloved land," belonged exclusively now a days to old Scotland. No more can I believe that 1000 christians amongst 10,000 who are not christians, can change them into a christian state, any more than 10,000 infidels could convert 1000 christians living amongst them into the state of nature. And, finally, that all unbelievers however dressed off, in the borrowed garb of some meagre virtues, from the reflex light of christianity, are in heart heathens, in the sight of God.

      The quotation Mr. T. makes from Jer. respecting the Jew's regard to the Sabbath applies no more to the citizens of Penn. than "Let every male child among you be circumcised." And any man whose eyes are not sealed in prejudice must from once reading it see, that it was as peculiar to them as Jerusalem their city was. Diseased must be the mind, and biassed the judgment, that could apply that verse to Pennsylvania.

      In respect of the establishment of a "Christian Sabbath" by Constantine; Mr. T. admits that it was not established until in his reign. But the reasons assigned though specious are not solid. It is insinuated in them that it was the want of power, and the opposition made to christians that prohibited them from having it enforced on all kinds of men. This is as much as to say, that the primitive christian had the disposition, if they had had the means. This if it be, as I am not certain that it is the import of his remarks is contrary to the whole scope of primitive christianity in the New Testament--for uncontroverted men were never commanded to perform any duty until they had believed or repented, consequently could not have been compelled by any primitive christian to observe any christian ordinance.

      Mr. T. tells us that he is not for marrying church and state, and says, he thinks that laws compelling men to observe a sabbath may be enacted by the state, without such a marriage. We'll grant it, and then it is but the courtship, or it is an illicit commerce which subsists between the church and the state. The forms of marriage are dispensed with by Mr. T. But the intercourse and events are the same. Like those women of whom we read, in that old fashioned book, who said to the man of their choice, "We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel, only let us be called by this name to take away our reproach." Mr. T. would have the church independant of the state, but only one or two small accommodations would be thankfully received, and gratefully remembered.

      Now Mr. Editor, I have came to Mr. T's conclusion to where he tells us, that he had "got sick and tired," I have not heard whether he has yet recovered, but if he is not yet in a convalescent state, I would recommend him "to purge himself well from the old leaven of old wives fables, and legends of old Empires in theology and civil policy." I would advise him to a temperate regimen, on good substantial reason, and common sense. To exercise much in that book that reveals and prescribes the doctrines and forms, and the ways and means of establishing christianity: And I doubt not of his recovery.

      I am happy in informing him that I am in good health and spirits, although I have gone through the whole drudgery of noticing every distinct sentiment he has advanced and of removing his objections. On the merits of the review every man must think for himself. But if Mr. T. is not perfectly satisfied with what I have published, if he thinks he can yet advance any thing new or interesting I am perfectly willing to hear, and heartily disposed to consider it and give him my thoughts of it.

      Although I have been obliged to say a great deal more on this subject, than I at first intended; yet the one half of the facts and arguments, which have been forced upon my notice, since the commencement of the discussion, are not yet laid before the public; which, I will with great pleasure, in reply to any thing Mr. T. may advance, in due form, exhibit in support of my views. I have only to request that Mr. T. (for if he cannot maintain the cause, all its friends, may become rational, and give it up) will favor us with his name, as I am disposed to throw off the mask; and to appear openly on the side I have espoused. And that he will consider the sentiments in Mr. Flint's piece published in the reply to him, as much my sentiments, as those I have myself avowed. Let him bear in mind how easily I will give up when one point shall have been proved. And assuredly he must consider the discussion of importance to the church and to the state; and he cannot shrink from it, but he must either be convinced that his cause is untenable or that it is not his duty to persevere in that which he began. I have only to apologize to the public for the hasty manner in which my numbers have been written, and the consequent imperfections of the style. But one number of the whole was transcribed. If I have been understood, 'twas all I aimed at, in the essays I have written. When we choose to be eloquent we must choose a subject that will allow it.

[The Reporter, 21 May 1821, p. 1.]