MR. TAYLOR' S FIRST REPLY. 43 



The Sabbath uniformly regarded as a shadow in the Epistles. 



must avow that I have seen notbing calculated to '' abate tbe 

 tone of confidence" witb wbicb I reiterate tbe unimpeacbed 

 conclusion, tbat wbile tbe apostolic council at Jerusalem clearly 

 rejected tbe Sabbatb from tbe ^^ tbings necessary" for Gentile 

 Cbristian observance, tbe Epistles uniformly regard tbe in- 

 stitution '^ as a provisional type, fulfilled and superseded by 

 tbe gospel dispensation : tbe S*es< wbicb remainetb to tbe peo- 

 ple of God' being not tbat of 'tbe seventb day^^ but tbat into 

 wbicb tbey 'wbo bave believed do enter/ wben tbey 'bave 

 ceased from tbeir own works/ ^' If in a solitary instance tbese 

 Epistles regard tbe Sabbatb otliericise tban as '^ a sbadow," I 

 bave yet to read it, and I sball be under deep obligations to 

 bim wbo sball tbus enligbten me. 



Two points of my friend's revieW; tbat I particularly desired 

 to notice, yet remain ; tbe "obligation" of Mosaic law, and 

 tbe ^^Antinomianism" of its rejection : but I bave already so 

 encroacbed upon your courtesy, Messrs. Editors, and, I fear, 

 upon tbe patience of your readers, tbat I must for tbe pre- 

 sent neglect tbem. 



In conclusion, I would ask your correspondent J. N. B. 

 one serious question : Does it not painfully impress bim as a 

 most suspicious circumstance for tbe doctrine be advocates — as 

 a circumstance well qualified — not to '^ abate" — but to destroy 

 bis confidence in its trutb, tbat, wbile tbe Anti-sabbatarian calm- 

 ly reposes on tbe perspicuous and repeated declarations of Scrip- 

 ture, be bimself is driven to tbe merest expedients in futile 

 efiforts to evade or to extenuate tbeir signifioance, and tinds no 

 single text to counteract tbeir force — no single intimation 

 from tbe wbole New Testament, to sustain bis Sabbatb obliga- 

 tion ? 



W. B. T. 



