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, NOVEMBER 19th, 1821.	[NO. 26.

      Mr. T's 6th argument, is--"On the supposition that it is improper by law, to prohibit the profanation of the Sabbath there are many passages of scripture which we cannot understand. I shall produce but one though many might be adduced;--In the days of Nehemiah, "men of Tyre" brought their wares to Jerusalem and sold them on the Sabbath and when that officer took measures to prevent this they lodged without the city wall on that day. But this practice he also thought proper to terminate by threatening them with something more than a fine of four dollars, should they persist in it."¹ Timothy has more than once referred to this passage, but "those many passages which might be adduced" similar to it, he has not so much as told us where they may be found. But could he produce one hundred such passages, out of the Jews history, of their compelling men to observe the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day, would it affect the state of the question," we discuss! Would it shew or prove that christians should compel men, not professing christianity, to observe the first day!! Three things must first be proved--first, that Jews and christians are one and the same people, under the same law, and bound to observe and do the same things. But no man can do this, and indeed we know of none who say so--second, that the first day of the week is to be observed as the Jews observed the seventh--this mr. T. himself long since denied. And third, that these "men of Tyre" were compelled to observe the Sabbath as if they had been of the Jews. This also, cannot be done. So that these three not being proved--the quotation of Nehemiah is nothing to the point.

      But I have often said that no instance could be produced from the Bible, of any man being compelled to observe the Sabbath, apart from the commonwealth of Israel, and Tim. has brought forth "men of Tyre" as an instance. And as this is the only thing in the Bible that looks that way, and the only one that T. has produced, it deserves to be considered with attentioon. I shall do, what T. has not done, viz: quote the passage. In the first place we cite Neh. 10th, 31st--In the 29th verse we are told that all the Jews, that had separated themselves from the people of the land," (i. e. those who had got possession of their land during the captivity in Babylon,) bound themselves "by a curse and oath" to sundry things--amongst which, was, verse 31st, "That if the people of the land would bring wares or any victuals on the Sabbath day to sell, we should not buy it of them on the Sabbath." Contrary to the provision of the law of 94. This prepares for the introduction of the passage concerning the "men of Tyre," chap. 13th, 15th verse informs us that some of the Jews were treading wine presses and bringing in sheaves--and all manner of burthens into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day. And Nehemiah "testified against them." Such was his conduct to some in Judah, that violated the Sabbath. But verse 16th comes the men of Tyre--"There dwelt men of Tyre in the land also which brought fish and all manner of ware, and sold on the Sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem" verse 17, "Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them what evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the Sabbath day." Now observe--the Tyrians sold and the Jews bought wares on the Sabbath day. Yet Nehemiah charges the sin of Sabbath profanation upon the Jews alone. He says to the men of Judah ye profane the Sabbath day.--But instead of compelling, exhorting, or entreating the Tyrians to observe the Sabbath day, or instead of charging them with the sin of Sabbath profanation--he endeavored to prevent the Jews from purchasing from them by placing guards at the gates of the city, verse 19--when it began to be dark before the Sabbath, he charged that the gates should not be opened till after the Sabbath," that there should be no burden brought in on the Sabbath day. Thus the "holy city" was protected on the Sabbath from the temptations of the Tyrians and thus the Jews were kept from Sabbath profanation--verse 20--So the merchants and sellers of all kinds of wares lodged without Jerusalem, once or twice," Verse 21--"Then Nehemiah testified against them and said why do you lodge before the wall, if ye do so again I will lay hands on you." From that time forth, came they no more on the Sabbath. Now the question is, did Nehemiah charge the Tyrians with the crime of Sabbath profanation? Most assuredly he did not! Again, did he compel them to observe the Sabbath? Most certainly he did not--And what then? He prevented them from exposing the wares to tempt the Jews to profane the Sabbath. Just as if A had a family of children confined to their books on the first day of the week, and a neighbours children should come to A's house and seduce or attempt to seduce A's children from their task, A then puts his neighbours children out of his house. But they stand before the doors or windows still endeavoring to seduce them from their studies, A then says, if you don't go home or depart hence I will lay hands on you, then they depart. Who then would say that A had compelled his neighbours children to learn. No he only compelled his own children to learn. And prevented his neighbours from interrupting them. Such is our views of the import of the passage we have quoted. So that not an instance can be adduced from the whole Bible, of any man being charged with the crime of Sabbath profanation, or compelled to observe the Sabbath, save a member of the commonwealth of Israel.

CANDIDUS.      

      P. S. I have seen mr. T's 13th No. which is dated 18th of September.² It is so stale and so much in the spirit of his former No's and letters that we cannot reply to it. It is unanswerable by me for the following reasons, 1st. There is no argument in it. No not the semblance of it. 2nd. Because the contents of it are of no importance to any person save T. and myself, as for instance, what if I have like old Job "but three friends." Though indeed it is strange that one so much on the devil's side, as I am said by T. and his friends to be, should have but 2 or 3 friends, and T. an angel of light should have all but these 2 or 3. The devil's party is got mighty weak--what is this to the publick--that T. read "Ely's Journal" of the lunatics and crackbrained debauchees. Whether I or he was the first assailant, though I long since proved he was. And what does his apology for old Nick's Letter now avail!! And what his eulogy on his satire, and what my stupidity and mighty dullness," spirit of slumber, &c. &c. &c. T. and myself in private, might trifle our time in talking those things over, but why trouble the publick about them--I know I am a great sinner. I confess it; and I wish mr. T. was as perfect as Paul. But let mr. T. begin at the first of my arguments, New Series, as I have done with his, and state and refute it if he can, or else go to bed and sleep.

C.      

[The Reporter, 19 November 1821, p. 4.]