»rR. TAYLOR' S SECOXD REPLY. 89 



The rccl-oning. imdisputed. A supernatural application not to be set aside. 



But it is contended that "the connection was fixed by statute 

 only for that people" — the Israelites. (p. 59.) Then, most 

 certainly the statute itself was "only for that people." As 

 "U^HATELY well observes, " the difference between the Jews 

 and the Christians is not a difference of reckoning. Our 

 computation is the same as theirs." And the legal term is as 

 exclusive in its application now, as it was in the time of 3Ioses. 

 " The seventh day is the Sabbath/' says the Decalogue ; and 

 Saturday is " ^7«e seventh day/' says God by the manna; there- 

 fore Saturday " is the Sabbath," says the Decalogue. If the 

 seventh day is the day " fixed" by the law, then beyond all 

 refuge, is Saturday the day " fixed" by it. And my friend has 

 admitted that the day, ''if once ascertained, becomes the ex- 

 cJushe object of the law's consideration." 



Concerning the authoritative determination of the day (by 

 a suspension of the manna), J. N. B. remarks : "This very mode 

 of fixing the particular day of the week by miracle is a circum- 

 sfancc applicable alike to any change of dispensation." (/>. -47.) 

 Very true, if he means that the circumstance of a Divine reve- 

 lation of what is required by a law, is as applicable to one dis- 

 pensation as another; but he surely does not design to inti- 

 mate that because a miracle has determined what the particular 

 thing referred to by the law really is, — a new miracle may es- 

 tablish a different intent in the very same law. This would 

 be to suppose that a supernatural iuterpretation of a statute 

 might be allowed to disprove the correctness of a previous 

 supernatural iuterpretation! Show us however the miracle, 

 (fixing another ^'seventh day"), and it sufiiceth us. 



''The whole authority of the Sabbath enjoined in the Deca- 

 logue," it is said, "may for sufficient reasons by the 'Lord of 

 the Sabbath' be transferred to the /Irst day of our week." 

 {p. 47.) This seems to be a new phase in the ahffi/. Surely 

 this Jirst day cannot still be "the Sabbath enjoined in the De- 

 calogue," for that is expressly limited to the seventh day of the 

 week: and if "the whole authority" is transferred to "the first 



8* 



