“Most of the writings, bearing the name of the apostolic fathers, are regarded as spurious by various modern critics. The genuineness of all has been disputed; but the fragments that remain are curious as relics of an early age, and valuable as indicating the character of primitive Christianity.” (Am. Cyc., Art. Apostolic Fathers.) Thus much for the estimate which Protestants place upon the authorities which are brought forward by the gentleman in the _Statesman_. Assuredly, he would never have appealed to them, had he not felt that his cause was hopeless one, when left to the arbitrament of Scripture. Should it be pleaded in extenuation of his cause that they have not been advanced with a view to influencing the judgment of the reader in reference to the continuity of the old Sabbath, but were introduced simply to furnish, as suggested in the outset, a criticism showing the use of the term, “Lord’s day,” in the first three centuries, then, we inquire, why cite Ignatius at all? It will be perceived at a glance that, according to the rendering which he has given us—and for which, and his note thereon, he will receive our thanks, since it will save us much labor—there is not in it a single mention of the term, “Lord’s day.” If the passage conveys any meaning at all, it is either that the Sabbath should be observed in a manner differing from that in which it was kept by the Jews, or else that it should not be observed at all. But the last of these propositions, the writer will not admit to be sound, since he has fairly repudiated such a conception, and has, in so many words, stated that he heartily agrees with us in the perpetuity of the Edenic Sabbath. He has also stated that the fourth commandment—which it will be admitted commences with the words, “Remember the _Sabbath day_, to keep it holy”—is a Sabbath law which is still binding, and which, the words of Ignatius to the contrary notwithstanding, forever settles the question that this is not a Sabbathless dispensation.