The testimony already adduced from the early fathers in our last issue will be regarded by most of our readers as sufficient in itself. But for the sake of giving a complete view of the patristic testimony to the first-day Sabbath up to the close of the third century, we shall occupy some additional space with extracts, on the accuracy of which our readers may confidently rely. First among the witnesses now cited is Irenæus, bishop or presbyter of Lyons, A. D. 178. Let it be remembered that in the case of this witness we have the testimony of one who was brought up at the feet of Polycarp, the disciple and companion of the Apostle John. The first point to be noted in the testimony of Irenæus is the abrogation of the seventh-day Sabbath. As the rite of circumcision was no longer required, so the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath had ceased. Each was a sign or shadow of the substance to come. This thought is dwelt upon at great length. (See _Contra Hæreses_, book iv. ch. 30, Grabe’s Edition, Oxford, 1702, pp. 318, 319; also Benedictine Edit., Paris, 1710, p. 246.) Lest his statements might be understood to be opposed to the authority of the ten commandments, Irenæus adds the following sentences: “The Lord spoke the words of the decalogue in like manner to all. They remain, therefore, permanently with us, receiving, through the Lord’s advent in the flesh, extension and increase, not abrogation.” (Book iv. ch. 31, p. 320.) Thus the law of the Sabbath remains, though not binding to the observance of the seventh day. We now come to this writer’s clear and distinct testimony, in its more positive aspect, to the Lord’s day. Irenæus took a prominent part in what has been called the Quarta-Deciman controversy. The question at issue was—Should the anniversary of the Lord’s resurrection be in connection with the Jewish passover, on whatever day of the week that might occur, or on the Lord’s day invariably? This question first arose on a visit of Polycarp, bishop or presbyter of Smyrna, to Aniest, bishop of Rome, about 160, and was discussed for many years. Irenæus, acting as the representative of the Christians in Gaul, wrote to Victor, then bishop of Rome, in these terms: “The mystery of the Lord’s resurrection should be celebrated only on the Lord’s day.” (_Euseb. Hist. Eccles._ book v. chap. 23, 24; Paris ed., 1678, pp. 155, 156.) It will be remarked here that while there was diversity of view in regard to the _yearly_ celebration of the Lord’s resurrection—a celebration of which we have no account whatever until the year 160, there was no question concerning the sacred observance of the first day as the _weekly_ commemoration of the Lord’s rising from the dead.