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 15th, 1821.	[NO. 21.

      Mr. T's 3d argument for coercion is No. 7.¹ "The open perpetration of acts of immorality tends to destroy a community in another way, by bringing down the vengeance of Heaven upon it." This no body denies. "The rulers in a community are bound to do all in their power, for this reason, to prevent the open perpetration of crimes"--Yes, to the cutting off of their heads, hanging, and imprisonment, if they are such crimes as come under the jurisdiction of the civil rulers. But, adds he, "that the open profanation of the sabbath is one of those crimes which the Almighty visits with national judgments, is abundantly evident not only from the history of antient Israel but also of that of more modern nations."--This mr. T. cannot prove, yet, this is his 3d argument to enforce the law of '94.--He cannot produce one instance of any nation Jew or Gentile subjected to national judgments for neglecting to observe the first day of the week as the law of '94 directs; and this is the "sabbath profanation" in dispute--The Jews being under a theocracy were punished for all their national sins by temporal calamities--Yet the Jews being under no obligations to observe the first day of the week, as the law of '94 directs, were never nationally, nor individually, punished for doing such things on this day as the aforesaid law prohibits. He mentions modern nations as being nationally punished for sabbath profanation--that is, as the matter in dispute requires, for not observing it as the law directs--But what are those modern nations he alludes to--They are a unit--They are all France!! Who, says he were those savage cannibals that after murdering by the hundreds, their fellow-citizens literally drank their blood, and dragged them about with their teeth? Citizens of infidel France whose legislature by a solemn act (a solemn act of cannibals) declared the sabbath to be abolished and instituted a decade of days instead of the week." This is gratuitous declamation--an ingenious method of proof! - The national calamities that befel France during and subsuquent to the revolution, are made to speak a hundred different things--The French loyalists said they were divine judgments for the murder of Louis 16th. The Romish priests said they were judgments on France for having confiscated or alienated the demesnes of the clergy. The deists say they were calamities caused by the effects of the superstition of the clergy and the infatuations of the dupes of priests. The monarchists say they were judgments for having questioned the divine right of kings. The aristocrats say for having abused their faculties so far as to believe the doctrines of democracy--And mr. Tim. says 'twas for the sin of Sabbath profanation!!! Many men have many minds--Yet behold this is mr. T's clear proof that modern nations have been punished for the sin of sabbath profanation. Such is the strong proof adduced.

      It is paying unbelievers a very handsome compliment indeed--it is placing their observance of the sabbath in a very awfully important light, to say that their neglect of paying that regard to the Lord's day which the law of '94 requires (for this is the bone of the controversy) has been the cause of the destruction of nations and the ruin of France!!--What we observed in a former number comes forcibly to our recollection at this time, viz: That no nation, that no people, apart from the commonwealth of Israel were ever charged with the crime of Sabbath profanation. That all the prophets and apostles passed over in silence that which mr. T. and some other preachers say so much about, the crime of sabbath breaking--No apostle ever charged any people under heaven with this sin. No antient prophet ever charged it upon any but the Jews--I am sometimes led to wonder what can be the zeal or the interests that urge so many to transcend in their sanctity the apostles--those plenipotentiaries of Heaven who were sent from Heaven to teach christianity to the nations. Have they not taught us the whole of christianity?--Have they not declared the judgment of God against those what would add unto their words--Is there not a woe, an awful woe, pronounced against them that preach another gospel; and teach for doctrines the commandments of men. Will mr. T. condescend to answer the following questions.

      1. Where is the portion of scripture that teaches us that the judgments of God are pronounced on such as neglect to observe the first day as the law of '94 directs. 2. Where is the precept of christianity that commands unbelievers, or where is the precedent that authorizes them to consider it their duty, to observe the first day in a religious way and manner! 3. What statute of the king of Zion orders us to fine a man for not some way regarding the Lord's day? 4. What testimony of scripture says that the Lord's day came in the room of the Jewish sabbath. 5. What divine precept teaches that the sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week? 6. What do the scriptures teach us to do to sabbath breakers? 7. What is a sabbath breaker: not what was a sabbath breaker amongst the Jews but what is a sabbath breaker amongst christians? I will not be too extensive in my demands at present, and I will be as accommodating to him--Please mr. T. give us a distinct answer to the above seven queries--dont tell us they are weak foolish or impertinent. If they are weak they will be the more easily answered--If they are foolish they will be the more easily obviated: and if they are impertinent they will not injure your cause. This will bring the matter to a speedy issue--I will answer you seven questions in return--Be obliging for once, let us have a short and plain answer to each--short that it may be easily remembered and plain that it may be easily understood. I am open to conviction--but I cannot receive tradition for revelation--the commands of men for the commands of God--the prejudices of my cotemporaries for the dictates of reason--nor the opinion of the majority, as the test of truth. If you dont answer the above questions it is either because you cannot or will not, the former we dare not suppose, and the latter we would not suppose. I had intended this number for something more than a refutation of mr. T. 3d argument, but I must postpone it at present.

CANDIDUS.      

      ERRATUM. Line 22 In No. 2 read fast days instead of first days.

[The Reporter, 15 October 1821, p. 4.]