MR. brown' S SECOND REPLY. 61 



Col. ii. iiecessarihj limited. Perpetuity of the Decalogue taught by Christ. 



palladium of nations, '' the pearl of days/' the blessing of this 

 world, and the beacon light of that which is to come ; 

 who that rightly understands its worth, can fail to ^'call the 

 Sabbath a delight, ihQ holy of the Lord honorable !" 



But my friend now calls in to his aid the authority of the 

 Apostle to the Gentiles. " ^ Sabbath-days/ " saysPaul (in Col. 

 ii. 16, 17), ^are a sliadoic of good things to come.' This, 

 apart from all the previous considerations, would itself be con- 

 clusive. No one will pretend that a shadow or type can be 

 other than ritual." {p. 24.) My friend has inserted the word 

 ^' good" into the teXt ; probably from inadvertence. I hope 

 its discovery may be a lesson of caution and charity to him in 

 f uture. But now for the Apostle' s meaning. ^' The language 

 of the text," says my friend, " is comprehcnsive and unquali- 

 fied. The weekly Sabbaths are certalnhj at least as much in- 

 cluded in the phrase ' Sabbath-days,' as any other ' ceremo- 

 nial fasts and festivals of the Jews.' — ^This is clear from the 

 context,' and confirmed by the uniform tenor of the other Epis- 

 tles. He who asserts a limitation of its application must 

 clearly prove it." (^. 25.) And I hope clearly to prove it 

 thus. Paul is the servant of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ 

 taught the perpetuity of the Decalogue, in even the least of its 

 commandments, of which the Sabbath is one. This, therefore, 

 was the doctrine of Paul. '' The disciple is not above his Mas- 

 ter," says Christ, '^ but every one that is perfect, shall be as 

 his Master." {Luhe vi. 40.) With what astonishment would 

 Paul, if he were now among us hodili/, behold an attempt 

 to torture his language into a direct opposition to a fundamen- 

 tal doctrine of his Master ! What concei vable form of '^ wrest- 

 ing the Scriptures" could be more painful to his generous 

 spirit ? It may not be ! Ilaving received the Grospel by the 

 direct ^^revelation of Jesus Christ" (^Gal. i. 11, 12), it is im- 

 possible that he could mean to teach the abrogation of the De- 

 calogue, in direct contradiction to his Lord. Any interpretation 

 that leads to such an issue violates an axiom, and overturns 

 6 



