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 26th, 1821.	[NO. 27.

      Mr. T's 7th and last argument for the punishment of "Sabbath breakers" is, "We argue from analogy in favor of punishing the open and gross profanation of the Sabbath. Respect to things deemed sacred has always been enforced by penal laws; or to speak more correctly disrespect or contempt of them has always been thought deserving of punishment. Swearing is a religious or holy act, the Sabbath is holy time, why punish a profanation of the one and not of the other."¹ Such is mr. T's argument from analogy. Mr. T. asks in his remarks upon this argument, from analogy, whether Candidus thinks profane swearing, is to be punished by the civil magistrate in order to make his argument from analogy the more forcible. He talked once of narrowing the ground of debate, but here he seems disposed to enlarge it by claiming some from me. If mr. T. desires to know my mind upon this query, he will find it fully expressed, at the close of my 8th No. old series. His 7th argument proves nothing positively, "why punish a profanation of the one and not of the other," is all its force. And this is a mere begging of the question, as logicians say. Upon this principle of analogy, I will ask mr. T. a question or two. 1st. If there is an analogy in all respects, (and if there is not, 'tis in vain to construct an argument from analogy) I ask, why is the sin of Sabbath profanation rated at 4 dollars and the sin of profane swearing rated at 68 cents?² Is it so much more criminal, to profane what you call "holy time," than what is called, & justly too, a holy name. Is not the third commandment as obligatory as the fourth? Is it not as sacred too? There is something in this too deep for my dull genius, please cast a few rays of your light upon it. 2d. Again, is not the analogy betwixt "the profanation of the Sabbath," and the profanation of "Baptism," or "the Supper" as striking as that between the profanation of the Sabbath, and the profanation of the Divine name? And thirdly, if the one is punishable by the civil magistrate, why not the others? But while we are in the humour of asking questions, and as we can, in this way, expose the fallacy of the above, I would beg to ask mr. T. as he doubtless knows, whence originated the idea of punishing profane swearers & Sabbath breakers by taking their cash? And as I conceive myself entitled to a little complaisance from the gentleman, having paid a marked attention to his 7 arguments, I would trespass once more upon his good nature by asking a double question; and this, I do with more confidence as I know he is not easily puzzled. Pray then mr. T. in what light is the money viewed, taken from those analogical sinners, Sabbath breakers, and profane swearers, & what comes of it? Is it viewed as the sin money of old, and does it go to the church, or the state?

      Upon the whole we may safely conclude that the sin of "Sabbath profanation" as viewed in this controversy is as perfect an anomaly as can be found, and is not analogical to any crime mentioned in the Bible. So that with all due deference to mr. T. we must say his argument from analogy is, in no respect, more conclusive than if I should say; he that gathered a bundle of sticks upon the seventh day was stoned to death, by a Divine command, therefore he that gathers a bundle of sticks or drives his wagon upon the first day shall, by the command of men, be stoned to death. I fear that this is more conclusive than mr. T's argument from analogy, and that the penalty of 4 dollars may be commuted into stoning to death.

      Thus I have painfully diligently, and with great patience examined fairly, fully and impartially, according to the best of my judgment Tim's 7 boasted arguments. And I shall now leave it to the impartial to say whether or not I have refuted them. As mr. T. appears to have "backed out," nothing having his signature appearing, of a more recent date, than the 18th of September, it appears unnecessary to add any thing more on the subject. But as his last No. very modestly, intimates his intention of an occasional review which is to answer every purpose, one number of which, is to despatch 13 of mine, we hold ourselves in readiness to notice him when he appears. But we must inform him, that, unless he begins at my first argument, new series, and states it fully, we shall consider him fairly silenced. It will not suffice to say, he has refuted it already, I have not so served him, though I could have said, and with some degree of propriety too, that his 7 arguments were generally refuted long since. If he refuted it once, it will be easy doing it again. I insist upon a formal refutation of my arguments from the first, & no assertions that they are weak, foolish, &c, &c. I could assert more in one minute than I could prove in a life time. Though I have said the controversial discussion of this subject appears no longer necessary on my part unless T. begin, as I have said; yet, I do not mean to say that my essays here conclude. I intend to continue my essays on general topics without intermission until my contract fails--but not in a controversial way, unless in the case above mentioned. My subsequent essays shall be on christian morality, and the best means of promoting it.

[The Reporter, 26 November 1821, p. 4.]