A REJOINDER. “THE SEVENTH DAY NOT OBSERVED BY THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.” It is, we confess, with some degree of embarrassment, that we attempt the answering of the second article from the pen of the editor of the _Statesman_, in reply to the argument which we presented in the columns of that paper. Our difficulty does not arise from any confusion into which we have been thrown by the superior logic of our opponent; it consists, rather, in knowing just where and how to commence the work. So far as statements are concerned, they are numerous and repeated again and again, in substance. But we have no disposition, nor have we the space, to take them up singly, in their numerical and repetitious order, for consideration. And, besides, the fallacy of nearly every one of them has been demonstrated in what we have already written. This being the case, we have determined to take the general scope of the criticism, and thus, as briefly as may be, make suggestions which, if carried out, will answer its assumptions, as well as its attempted efforts at deduction. We remark, then, in the outset, that we are happy to meet the writer upon the common ground of a Sabbath having originated in Eden, and inserted in a law of perpetual obligation on both Jews and Gentiles. Let the reader keep these mutual concessions continually before his eyes. They are of great significance in this debate. 1. They prove that the Sabbath is not Jewish in its origin, but was given to Adam, as their representative head, for the benefit of the whole race, more than two thousand years before there was a Jew in existence. 2. They also prove that the Sabbath institution was rendered obligatory upon all men by a divine precept, with the phraseology of which we are all acquainted. 3. That that precept is explicit in its declaration that the last and not the first day of the week was the Sabbath. 4. That before any other day can be substituted in the place of the one designated, the Power which originated it must authorize the change. So much for the important results which necessarily flow from the principles which we hold in common, if indeed we are right in supposing that the writer _really_ means what he _actually_ says; namely, that he holds to the perpetuity of the fourth commandment of the decalogue. We shall see, hereafter, whether or not his statements are to be taken for all which they express. We advance, now, in our examination of the criticism before us.