MR. TAYLOR' S SECOND REPLY. 95 



A " change" disproTed by the continued observance of the law. 



fe W unconnected historical (!) passages, not one of which is pre- 

 tended to contain anj commandj and which go to indicate a 

 divine preeept about as much as thej do a Sabbath; — a 

 ^' Sabbath'^ as much as they do a '' New-moon V Well may 

 we say, with Paley, " The opinion that Christ and his apostlcs 

 meant to retain the duties of the Jewish Sabbath, shifting 

 only the day from the seventh to the first, seems to prevail 

 without sufficient proof !" {3Ior. Phil. B. v. ch. 7.) 



Not only have we no shadow of evidence that Jesus or his 

 apostles changed the Sabbath day, but, in the language of 

 Archbishop Whately, " it is even abundantly plain that they 

 made no such change. There are indeed sufficiently plain 

 marks of the early Christians having observed the Lord's day 

 as a religions festival ; but so far were they from suhstitutiiKj 

 this for the Jewish Sabbath, that all of them who were Jews 

 actually continued themselves to observe the Mosaic Sabbath." 

 {Essay on the Sahhath.) J. N. B. himself admits (p. 68) 

 that '^ indeed it is evident that for many years the Apostles 

 observed hoth, though for different reasons and only among the 

 Jews :"* admitting thereby, that Sunday did not supersede the 

 '' Sabbath.'' The apostle James (called " the Lord's brother," 

 and first bishop of the mother church at Jerusalem), in advo- 

 eating the Gentile exemption from the Mosaic law, reminds 

 the believing Jews that they could still, as of old time, have 

 their law preached " every Sabbath day" {Acts xv. 21); and 

 in his general Epistle to them, written several years after- 

 wards, he makes evident allusion to their Sabbath assemblies; 

 {ovvayu^yTiv) — literally " synagogue.'' (James ii. 2.) His own 



* " The efFect of which consideration is this: that the Lord's day 

 did not succeed in the place of the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was 

 wholly abrogated, and the Lord's day was merely of Ecclesiastical 

 institution. It was not introduced by virtue of the fourth command- 

 ment; because they, for almost 300 years together, kept that day 

 which was in the commandment ; but they did it also without any 

 opinion of prime obligation." Jeremy Taylor. (Duct. Dubitant. B. 

 II.. ch. 2, rule vi. 51.) 



