138 ABROGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



A solenin consideration. Arclibishop Whately's " indorsement." 



I see not how he could possiblj escape the conclusion: "This 

 man is not of God because he keepeth not the Sabbath-day V 

 {John ix. 16.)* In vain would " the Son of man" claim to be 

 ^^ Lord of the Sabbath.'' By my friend's acconnt^ he could 

 only be Lord of the construction ! (p. 64.) If so, how sub-' 

 versive that construction ! I still expect, however, from the 

 candor of my friend, an admission that the Proposition under 

 proof is not ^' calumnious/' and that it is not " false I" 



J. N. B. ^' acquits" Paley of having indorsed this " Third 

 Proposition." (jj. 67.) Considering that this writer does not 

 even advert to the subject, this acquittal is very liberal, and 

 very — -Jvst ! If, however, my friend attaches any importance 

 to the indorsement of so irrefragable a/acf, by a "professedly 

 Christian writer," I am happy to present him with that of 

 " one of the first scholars and soundest thinkers in Great 

 Britain" — Archbishop Whately : " It will be plainly seen," 

 says he, " on a careful examination of the accounts given by 

 the evangelists, that Jesus did decidedly and avowedly violate 

 the Sahhath ; on purpose, as it should seem, to assert in this 

 way his divine authority." — {Essays, No. v. note A. On the 

 Sahhath.^ 



IV. Tite silcnce of the New Testament Scriptures. 



The solitary passage previously quoted by my friend (1 Tim. 

 i. 9 — 11), to impeach the " Fourth Proposition," is still re- 

 tained. (p. 68.) At his request, I have given the chapter a 

 careful and repeated examination, and with the assistance of 



all these outicard ordinances. . . He may say wlien the 'sliadow' 

 shall give place to the substauce." Trench. (Notes on the Miracles: 

 chap. 19.) 



* The syllogism is simple, and invulnerable ! 



Minor premise : — Jesus "not only A«f? broken the Sabbath, but said 

 also that God was his Father." (A Bible asserted fact !) 



Major premise : — " If he did thvis yiolate it, he was guilty of sin V 

 (J. N. B.J3. 16.) 



Conclusion : — Thcrefore " this man is not of God T 



