3. The Bible Dictionary of the American Tract Society, page 379, brings forward the third of these Sunday-Lord’s day witnesses in the person of Justin Martyr, A. D. 140. It makes him call Sunday the Lord’s day by quoting him as follows:— “Justin Martyr observes that ‘on the Lord’s day all Christians in the city or country meet together, because that is the day of our Lord’s resurrection.’” But Justin never gave to Sunday the title of Lord’s day, nor indeed any other sacred title. Here are his words correctly quoted:— “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read, as long as time permits,” etc.[442] Justin speaks of the day called Sunday. But that he may be made to help establish its title to the name of Lord’s day, his words are deliberately changed. Thus the third witness to Sunday as the Lord’s day, like the first and the second, is made such by fraud. But the fourth fraud is even worse than the three which precede. 4. The fourth testimony to the Sunday-Lord’s day is furnished in Dr. Justin Edwards’ Sabbath Manual, p. 114:— “Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, about A. D. 162, says: ‘Both custom and reason challenge from us that we should honor _the Lord’s day_, seeing on that day it was that our Lord Jesus completed his resurrection from the dead.’” Dr. Edwards does not pretend to give the place in Theophilus where these words are to be found. Having carefully and minutely examined every paragraph of the writings of Theophilus several times over, I state emphatically that nothing of the kind is to be found in that writer. He never uses the term Lord’s day, and he does not even speak of the first day of the week. These words which are so well adapted to create the impression that the Sunday-Lord’s day is of apostolic institution, are put into his mouth by the falsehood of some one.