162 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



The two DispensatioQs not amtrasted, An acquittal of disingenuousneps. 



consistent with fair reasoning? Does he hope to conviuce me 

 by reaffirming an interpretation which I, at least, believe has 

 been set aside, by fair and full examination, in part li. of my 

 Second Reply ? I shall have oceasion to recur to this point 

 hereafter. I on ly add here that the same assumption appears 

 in his affirming that it is " a sign of weakness to ^ esteem one 

 day above anothcr/ " Paul nowhere affirms this. It is my 

 friend's construction only; and that a wrong one, as was 

 shown, I think, clearly, in part IV. of my Reply. But, as 

 Truth, and not mere tilt, is my object in this Discussion, as 

 nothing else would tempt me one moment to turn aside from 

 other pressing engagements, or to redeem time, as I am com- 

 pelled to do, from needful rest, to continue it, — so I shall, in 

 its place, give this point a fresh investigation. Only I must 

 aim at a wise brevity. May the Holy Spirit of Truth, so in- 

 dispensable to us all, and so often promised to those who seek 

 his influenee, condescend to guide us into all truth ! 



I. The Day required hy the Sahhath Laio. 



On his explanation of the object in dropping the last clause 

 of his original complex Proposition, I here gladly acquit my 

 friend W. B. T. of any artful disingenuousness. Ile will for- 

 give me, I trust, for saying it was done ingeniously. I was 

 struck so strongly with its effect on the argument that I too 

 hastily inferred desiyn. But as I, above all things, deprecate 

 in discussion whatever destroys mutual confidence, or a full 

 repose in each other's sincerit}' and integrity, I here say, once 

 for all, that if in any other instance I have been betrayed into a 

 like fault, I willingly bear my own solemn and eurnest witness 

 against it. I only ask of my friend that he judge me, and 

 those of my persuasion, in the same spmt with which he would 

 himself be judged. I have long believed that no soundness of 

 Logic can atone for a breach of Charity. 



One thing alonc under this head will rerjuire attcntion. As 

 W. B. T. chooses to waive the vital question on the Origin of 

 the Sabbath, until the discussion of Proposition II., I shall 



