That law was also one which shadowed forth Christ (Heb, 10:1). To the second text we shall give but little space. In the presentation of it, our friend attempts to be _facetious_. Nor are we disposed to find fault with him for this. It is sometimes admissible, even in the discussion of the _gravest_ questions, to indulge in _harmless_ humor. That the effort in question partakes of _this character_, _i. e._, that it is _harmless_, we shall not dispute. At all events, when we read it, it amused rather than offended us. A second thought, however, suggests the possibility that if _we_ were not damaged by the sally, it might have been _pernicious_, nevertheless, since it is possible for it to _react upon its author_. Certain it is, that it will damage either him or Paul, because he represents the great apostle as making a special effort, in his general labors, to teach men that they must under _all_ circumstances keep _one_ day holy, and that under _some_ they might be allowed to regard a _second_ also in the same light. But, unfortunately, if this exegesis is correct, and if the language of Rom. 14:5, applies to the weekly Sabbath at all, Paul blundered egregiously in communicating his intentions; since he virtually told them whom he was addressing that, of the days of which _he was speaking_, they _need not_ keep them at all, or they _might_, at will. Here follows the text “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Now we have heard men Who believed in no Sabbath employ this text again and again to prove that there is now no holy time; we have also heard conscientious first-day observers argue forcibly and conclusively that this text proved no such thing, simply because it referred to days that were connected with meats and drinks, and not to the weekly Sabbath at all. But we confess that the position of our friend is somewhat novel. Nevertheless, we feel sure that the reputation of the great apostle for perspicuity will not suffer by this attempt, and we think that, so far as he is concerned himself, reflection will prevent him from ever seriously urging it. In conclusion on this point, we append a brief comment from the pen of Adam Clarke, whose reputation, and the fact that he was an observer of Sunday, will give him no little authority with our opponent. He says: “Reference is here made to the _Jewish_ institutions, and especially their festivals; such as the passover, pentecost, feast of tabernacles, new moons, jubilee, &c. The converted _Jew_ still thought these of moral obligation; the _Gentile_ Christian, not having been bred up in this way, had no such prejudices.”—_Com. in loco._