MR. TAYLOR' S SECOND REPLY. 103 



Purport of the word " sanctify." 



rest." (p. 55.)* A '-positive" law teas given to Adam {Gen. 

 ii. 17) ; and that law which was merely " a shadow of good 

 things to come, and not the very image of the things" {Heh. 

 x. 1), miyht also have been given to him as readily as to Mo- 

 ses ; and still have been no less provisional.f He who com- 

 manded, might, if He saw fit, at any time repeal an ordinance 

 — even though it iDere " from the beginning.'^ 



^'God hlessed the seventh day and sanctijied it.'^ {Gen. ii. 

 3.) " The word ' sanctify/ '' says J. N. B. {p. 48), " is used 

 in the sense of setting apart to the special service of God hy 

 divine authoriti/."X He appears to have been misled by our 

 inexact version. On the contrary, I assert — and fear no con- 

 tradiction from the learned — that the word l^np (qadasJi') here 

 used and rendered " sanctified," never has intrinsically such 

 a meaning. It radically signifies — '^ to appoint" — "to set 

 apart" — " to devote." Its sanctiti/ can only be inferred from 

 the agent or the object. Things and persons devoted or set 

 apart to the most infamous purposes are correctly described 



* "These Sabbatarians do not consider tliat it is not the time "wlien 

 a command was given, nor even the author who gave it, that discovers 

 the class to which it belongs, but its nature as discoverable by hu- 

 man reason." Bishop Warburton. [Div. Legat. Book iv. sec. 6, note 



"RRRR.") 



f J. N. B, thinks the conclusion irresistible, " that if the law of the 

 Sabbath was given to our first parents, it was given to all their pos- 

 terity." [p. 49.) Will he be willing to admit the equally irresistible 

 sequence, "that if the law of sacrifices was given to our first parents 

 it was given to all their posterity?" 



X "Doubtless he hallowed it as touching himself," says Milton, 

 *'for <on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed' (JExod. xxxi. 

 17) : but not as touching us, unless he had added an express command- 

 ment to that efi"ect ; for it is by the precepis, not by the example even of 

 God himself, that we are bound." {Christian Doctrine, Book ii. ch. 7.) 



<' This text," says Archbishop Bramhall, " only tells us what God 

 did HimseJf, not what He commanded us to do ; God may do one thing 

 Himself, and yet command us to do the contrary." {Discourse on the 

 Sabbath.) 



