In concluding the remarks which will be offered here—in reference to those productions which are attributed to Justin Martyr, and which have been brought forward for the purpose of influencing the mind of the reader in favor of a cause which has found no support in the Scriptures—it is proper to state that their authenticity is by no means above suspicion; or, to speak more accurately, that some of them have been tampered with, is a matter which is settled beyond dispute. Already the reader has seen that by some means they have been made to contribute to the interests of the Romish doctrine of the use of water in the sacrament, as early as the first part of the second century. If it be granted that the statement in question is historically true, then the leaven of the papacy had begun to work so manifestly in the lifetime of Justin, that the opinions of his associates, as well as of himself, ought to have no weight with us who have repudiated the great apostasy. On the other hand, should it be denied that water was then employed, as stated by the venerable father, there remain but two conclusions between which the reader can take his choice; either, 1st. Justin did not correctly represent the faith of his time; or, 2d. What he did say originally has been molded and fashioned by the plastic hand of the man of sin, until it is made to support the heresies of the hierarchy. To our mind, the latter conclusion is undoubtedly the true one. Below will be found an extract from a distinguished historian of the church, which proves that what is said above respecting the treatment which the writings of Justin Martyr have received is correct: “Like many of the ancient fathers, he [Justin] appears to us under the greatest disadvantage. Works really his have been lost, and others have been ascribed to him, part of which are not his; and the rest, at least, of ambiguous authority.”—_Milner’s History of Church_, Book 2, Chap. 3.[11] The fourth historic mention of the Lord’s day, as brought forward, is in the following words of Dionysius. “To-day we kept the Lord’s holy day, in which we read your letter.” By turning to Eusebius, the curious reader will discover that the citation incidentally given occupies but little more space than is required for the words as quoted. Their importance in this discussion does not demand for them any more room than was assigned them by the historian from whom they are extracted. The dispute is not whether there is indeed a Lord’s day, for both parties are agreed respecting this question. What we wish to ascertain is, Which day of the week is entitled to this appellation? The reference before us in no way helps in the settlement of this point. It simply states that the letter was read on the Lord’s day. Whether that was the first or the seventh in the cycle of the week is not stated, so we pass the language as unworthy of further consideration.