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 8th, 1821.	[NO. 20.

      The popular doctrine taught from many pulpits which has given rise to the many errors of the religious publick, on the nature and observance of the Lords day, is that it came in room of the Jewish Sabbath, or that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week. A notion which originated in the dark night of popery, or which obtained credit in the same ratio as the following article of the catholic church obtained credit, viz: "The unwritten word of God on the apostolic traditions (i.e. the traditions of men) are equally the rule of christian faith, and christian holiness as the written word." A zealous and intelligent defender of the faith and practice of the holy mother church told me in a late conversation, that if I would not admit the above article, in the catholic sense, I must renounce the protestant faith in the christian Sabbath and infant baptism, for they had no other foundation than "the unwritten word of God, or the tradition of the holy catholic church." I told him that I agreed with him in this, but that I renounced the above article, and also the protestant faith, in the christian Sabbath and infant baptism as being contrary to the written word of God, by which alone I was regulated. Then said he, you must be considered a heretic, not only by the catholic church, but also, by many protestant churches. - Yes, said I, an heretic of the first magnitude; "For this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law, in the prophets, and in the apostles." I do not believe that the Lords day came in room of the Jewish Sabbath, or that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day; for this plain reason; that where there is no testimony there can be no faith. Now there is no testimony in all the oracles of heaven that the Sabbath was changed, or that the Lords day came in the room of it; therefore, no man can properly believe that the Sabbath was changed or that the Lords day came in the room of it. As a great deal depends upon the truth of the preceding argument, we shall take some pains to illustrate it.

      Dr. Owen, Lock, and all writers with which I am acquainted on the subject of moral evidence or moral certainty; agree that faith and testimony are correlate terms, or that faith is of the same nature as the testimony on which it is founded, or into which it is resolved; and that faith and testimony are consequently equally extensive. A human faith is a faith that is founded on the testimony of men; and a divine faith is a faith that is founded upon the testimony of God. For instance I believe that Napoleon "Bounaparte is dead." In this instance my faith is a human faith; a faith founded upon the testimony of men. No man can believe with divine faith that Napoleon is dead, for there is no divine testimony to that effect. Again, I believe "that the dead shall be raised." My faith in this instance is a divine faith or a faith founded upon divine testimony, viz: "There shall be a resurrection of the just and of the unjust." I presume no man of sense not even Timothy himself will deny the above. The argument deducible from the above is fairly this. Where there is no divine testimony there is no divine faith. But, there is no divine testimony that the Sabbath was changed or that the Lords day came in the room of it; therefore there can be no divine faith that the Sabbath was changed or that the Lords day came in the room of it. The above can be overthrown only by producing a divine testimony that the Sabbath was changed or that the Lords day came in the room of it. But this cannot be done by any man. Therefore the above argument is irrefutable. The truth proved in the above syllogism may be exhibited in another form, thus - every thing that is believed upon human testimony alone, is received and acted upon by a mere human faith, but that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, or that the Lords day came in the room of it, is believed upon human testimony alone; therefore he that believes that the Sabbath was thus changed, &c. receives it upon a mere human faith. Amongst the conclusions resulting from the above are the following. 1st, The nature and obligation of the Lords day must be learned exclusively from the New- Testament. 2nd, That to observe the Lords day, as the Jews observed the Sabbath is not to observe the Lords day; or in other words if any man should exactly pay the same respect to the Lords day, as the most strict Jew, shewed to the Sabbath; he would not be acting as a christian, and the Lords day would be abused. 3d, That all measures which may be adopted to cause, or to compel, or to teach mankind to respect the Lords day as the Jews respected the Sabbath are anti-christian, and aim at the supplanting of christianity, and the substituting of Judaism in its stead. 4th, That all the arguments which have been used by my opponents, to transfer a portion of that respect, shewn to the Sabbath, to the Lords day, are inapplicable, inconclusive and grossly sophistical.

CANDIDUS.      

      N. B. Let it be remembered that the truth of these conclusions rest upon the syllogisms above stated, and that the truth of the syllogism rests upon the fact that one single text cannot be adduced to shew that the Sabbath was ever changed, or that the Lords day came in the room of it. Until such a testimony is produced the above reasoning is as certain as that a whole is greater than its part.

C-------------      

[The Reporter, 8 October 1821, p. 4.]