MR. taylor's second reply. 131 



SabbatariaTi Pharisees rebukcd. The Sabbath's "Lord." P.auFs declaration. 



tions to "every unprejudiced mind/^ " This miicli perverted 

 quotation," says J. N. B. (modifying my remark), was not 

 against " Sabbatarians/' but against "bigoted Pharisees I" — 

 Stillj as tbcse bigoted Pharisees certainly were not Anti-sah- 

 hatarians, its legitimate force was against almost " the straitest 

 sect^^ of Sabbatarians, by my friend's admission ! and ^'hon- 

 esti/ requires that it should not be employed for an opposite 

 purpose/^ 



But Jesus was "Lord of the Sabbath/' These words im- 

 port something vastly more signifieant than that " his authority 

 was paramount in settling the construction !'' {p. 64.) Thus 

 understood, " every trace of their glory vanishes."" Jesus 

 claimed to be " Lord" — not of the construction, but of the in- 

 stituiion ! and being its Sovereign, could acknowledge no al- 

 legiance to it ! Lord "of a ' strictly ceremonial and Jewish 

 institute !' '' exclaims J. N. B. incredulously. (p. 67.) Yes, 

 my frieudj it was of all these ceremonial institutions that Jesus 

 was pre-eminently "Lord F' {UjjJi. ii. 15; Seb. ix. 9 — 11; 

 Col ii. 14.) 



I have quoted the express assertion of Paul, that " the Sab- 

 bath days are a shadoiv ;" rcminding J. N. B. that he who 

 affirms a limitation of its application must clearly prove it. He 

 replies: "And I hope clearly to prove it thus. Paul is the 



more apparent ; — if such a tliing indeed be possible. To a-aQQarov 5ta 

 TOV a\8^ai7rov jj/svero, ov^, o avSjWTrof ^la. to sraC^aTDV .* " Tlie Sabbath for the 

 man was made, not the man for tlie Sabbatli." How utterly inexcusa- 

 ble tlie version — the Sabbath was "designed, like all oth er moral laws, 

 for the benefit of the whole race!" (p. 66.) To complete my friend's 

 paraphrase, he should add — " and not the whole race — for the Sab- 

 bath!" For the term "man" must certainly be as comprehensive on' 

 the one side of the antithesis as on the other. He must be delighted 

 with the following parallel: " Spectacles were made for man; not man 

 for spectacles:" whence it is obvious that spectacles "were designed 

 for the benefit of — the whole race .'" As Gill well observes, " by < man' 

 is iiot meaut all mankind ; for the Sabbath Avas never appointed for all 

 mankind, nor hlnding upon all." {Comment. on Mark ii, 27.) 



