MR. TAYLOR' S SECOND REPLY. 149 



No po8«ible eva^ion of the Eplstle to the Colos.nan<t. 



•irresistibly confirmingit, is the view tåken of the Sabbath in the 

 Epistles written after the decision of the Jerusalem Council. 

 It is a striking and instructive fact that, while these Scriptures 

 repeatedly refer to the Sabbath, the}' do not once refer to it in 

 commcndation of its observance or in recognition of its authori- 

 ty ; and they do distinctly and uniformly refer to it as a ful- 

 fillcd and evanescent symbol. 



" It may seem a waste of time and strength," says J. N. B., 

 ^'to examine this last Proposition minutely, after what has 

 been said already." (/?. 77.) I agree with him in thinking 

 that every eflfort to dislodge this last and keystone wedge in 

 my fabric of '' Propositions" will indeed prove ^^ 'å. icaste of 

 time and strength I" From such a conviction, no doubt, he 

 has permitted it to stand almost without an a.ftempt to con- 

 troVert it. His Reply betrays throughout its conscious weak- 

 ness. 



One of the most perspicuous and decisive of these scriptural 

 references is that adduced from the Epistle to the Colossians : 

 " Sabbath days are a shadov: of things to come ; but the hody is 

 of Christ.'' The "rest" of the fourth commandment (com- 

 memorating a release from bondage) was but a " provisional 

 type" of the succeedmg dispensation, whose founder embodied 

 the true Sabbatism into which believers enter. The resources, 

 of evasion are here utlerly at fault. Xo effort " more sub- 

 stantial than assertion" has yet been made to show that the 

 word " Sabbath" does not here " refer to the Sabbath !" And 

 none can he! The only glance afforded at this stubborn text, 

 in my friend's Keply, is, " We have searched for it [the 'pro- 

 visional' character of the Sabbath] in the Epistle to the Colos- 

 sians, and it is not there!" {p. 79.) Strange, that the very 

 same sight which could so clearly discern '' Sabbath" in 1 Tim. 

 i. 9, can discover no trace of it in Col. ii. 16 I How inex- 

 plicable is the phenomenon of vision ! The Christian Eathers 

 saw " Sabbath-symbolism" in this passage; but my friend can- 

 not. Luther and Calvin both saw it clearly there ; but to 



13* 



