The language of the historians is just that which men would use when speaking of a secular day, and not that which they would naturally employ when alluding to a consecrated one. The expression, “first day of the week,” was not only the briefer—as compared to the other, that is, the “third days the crucifixion”—but was definite in every particular. Once more, therefore, we insist that the fact that the inspired evangelists persisted, twenty years after the occurrence of the events recorded, in calling the Sunday “the first day of the week”—as they have done in the six times in which they have mentioned it—if guided at all in the selection of this term by the usage and opinions of the times in which they wrote, have furnished us with a commentary which, if it proves anything at all, proves that the day now regarded as holy was not so esteemed at that time by the disciples generally, else those among them who, as historians, would have been glad to have conferred upon it this honor, would have referred to it in the use of its sacred title, “Sabbath,” or the “Lord’s day.” As it regards the _design of Christ_, we take issue with our friend, and offer the following reasons for our confident assertion that he is wrong: 1. His conclusion is not one which is either necessary or obvious. God has shown us his method of making a holy day. That method he has set forth in clear and positive statement, and the observance of such a day he has enforced by explicit command. This being the case, we must infer that he chose that manner because it was the best. Hence we should naturally conclude that when he wished to change the day of his choice, once enforced by a law still binding, he would make known his mind in a manner so clear and impressive that there could be no room for doubt. This, however, in the action of Christ alluded to, is far from being the case, because the meeting of the Lord with the apostles did not necessarily affect the nature of the time on which it occurred. Instance the fact heretofore cited, that he met with them on a fishing day (John chap. 21), and again on Thursday, the day of the ascension, without in any way changing the character of those days, as all will admit. Now, if this could be true of those two days, might it not also be true of the first day of the week? 2. Because, as we have seen, there is not the slightest evidence that the _apostles inferred_ that it was the intention of Christ to produce the impression claimed. For, had this been the case, their convictions must have found expression for our benefit. 3. Because, manifestly, the conversation of Christ is given, so far as it inculcated any duty not elsewhere expressed; and in his words there is no allusion to any design on his part to teach them that the time on which they were assembled was holy. 4. Because there is a sufficient reason found for the meeting of Christ with the apostles on these two occasions, in his desire to establish them in the conviction