We ask, therefore, the candid attention of all to the use which has been made of the elaborate argument which we have been carefully considering, point by point. We would naturally have expected—if the gentleman felt that he had proved what he desired to, namely, that the Pentecost fell upon the first day of the week—that the real sinews of a masterly logic would have been discovered in an effort to show that it followed of necessity that it must therefore have been holy time. But has he done this? Or, in other words, if he has, in what manner has he brought it about? Has it been by fair logical deduction? We believe that there are very few who will insist that he has attempted such a deduction, with any measure of success, at the very point where it should have been expected most. What he has said in the connection is very _pretty_. Yes, pretty is the word which precisely expresses it. How handsomely he alludes to the analogy between the natural harvest and the in-gathering of souls. But who does not know that such analogies are cheap things, and that one gifted with a prolific fancy can multiply them indefinitely? What was expected, and what we had a right to demand, was something which partook of the nature of certainty. How great was our disappointment at learning that the writer did not even _pretend to have any authority from the Lord_, so far as written statements are concerned. The whole thing he thought was fairly _deducible_ from the coincidence of days, since nothing ever merely “happens” to occur in the providence of God. What has been gained, then? Manifestly, simply the point that God had some object in view in having the Pentecost fall on the first day of the week in the year of our Lord 30, or thereabout. The next question to be decided is, What was that object? Right here is where we _need help_. _God could have given_ it to us, had he _seen fit_ so to do. He has not done so, therefore it is safe to conclude that it was not important that we should know what his purpose was.