182 OBLIGATION OF THE SABBATH. 



The root of all the errors. The clay teinporary, — not the Sahbath. 



can only treat of tJie most vital points. And I find these fair- 

 ly involved in the very first " Proposition/^ on the Day op 

 THE Sabbath. On thisj therefore, I have chosen to concen- 

 trate my streng th. 



All diffieulties arise from radical mistakes here. All the 

 cther five Propositions of W. B. T. are but branching errors 

 which logically grow out of this single root, and live or die 

 with it. If the Fourth Commandment, like the rest of the 

 Decalogue, is a universal and perpetual Law, and the 

 actual designation of the day of the week to be observed 

 as the Sabbath is fixed by a separate temporary statute 

 (as I have fully shown and confirmed by the unwilling con- 

 cession of W. B. T. himself), then it follows irresistibly that 

 the Sabbath is not what W. B. T. supposes, " a merely ceremo- 

 nial and Jewish institution" — that it was not ^' repeatedly and 

 studiousli/ violated'^ by our Lord, and that it was not set aside 

 by the ''decree'^ of the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem. 



Again, if the temporary Jewish statute, by which the 

 Sabbath was fixed to Saturday under that preparatory dis- 

 pensation, was abrogated with that dispensation, and the 

 first day of the week was established thenceforward as 

 the Sabbath (or, which is the same thing, "the Lord's 

 day")j then all the real force of what W. B. T. has advanced, 

 under the other Propositions, is seen to strike merely against 

 the observance of the Jewish Saturday Salhath by Gentile 



the other hand, is purely "etymological." So that he has actually 

 charged on me a fault which is exclusively his own ! This misrepre- 

 sentation, if designed, is dishonest; if (as I think), not designed, is 

 distressing. 



Again. He chargés me with making an unreal distinction between the 

 Offices of the logician and the interpreter, {p. 102.) If the distinction ta 

 unreal, or if it is more nice than wise, he must impute it, not to me, but 

 to his favorite author, Dr. Whately. (See Whately's Logic, passim.) 

 It depends entirely upon his restricted view of the province of Logic. 

 W. B. T. cannot deny the distinction without in the same proportion 

 derogating from Dr. Whatelt's general soundncss of judgment. Either 

 way, it is immaterial to my argument. 



