INIR. TAYLOR' S SECOND REPLY. 139 



Opposite conclusions from 1 Tim. i. The whole Law under dis^cussion. 



the best expositors within my reach. Still I can see notliing 

 in the passage of what appears to J. N. B. so obvious, — a re- 

 ference to the Decalogue ; nor anything to warrant his conclu- 

 sions : ^'1. That the Decalogue is recognized as the moral 

 standard ;" and " 2. That Sahhath-hreakers are certainlj in- 

 cluded among Hhe ungodly and profane.' " It is perhaps a 

 singular fact ] but the more I have considered the text, the 

 more directly oppodte have been my convictions on both these 

 points. Still, as I have no wish to deprive my friend of its 

 just force, I submit it to the candid and intelligent, without 

 argument. I doubt not he has, in this quotation, done the 

 best possible ; but I sce no reason for modifying my first re- 

 ception of it. 



V. The formal Ahrogation of the Sahhath at Jerusalem. 



The original objection to my " Fifth" conclusion was that 

 the controversy before the Jerusalem Council was " restricted 

 to the Jewish ceremonial law." {p. 18.) The fourth com- 

 mandment, being clearly proved to be a '^ Jewish ceremonial 

 law," falls necessarily within the admitted consideration of 

 the Apostolic convention, and consequently (as before re- 

 marked) within the class of observances rejected as unneces- 

 sary for the Gentile Christian. 



To meet, however, the entire question involved, and to 

 place the investigation on its broadest grounds, I showed, by 

 the very proceedings of the council, that the great subject 

 presented for adjudication "was evidently the whole 'Law of 

 Moses,' and the extent of its obligation." My friend, after 

 assenting to this by the emphatic "Precisely so" {p. 71), 

 seems desirous of exceptmg " the Decalogue !" (p. 73.) To 

 which I simply reply, that the Mosaic law is never once 

 alluded to in the New Testament, as exclucling the Decalogue.* 



* The application of BisKop Middleton's learned canons of criti- 

 cism respecting the use of the Greek article settles this question deci- 

 sively. My friend J. N. B. finds it convenient to his argument some- 

 times to wholly exclude the Decalogue from the " Law of Moses" 



