But more than this. Even if it could be proved, that the apostles and primitive Christians _did_ actually regard the first day of the week _as a Sabbath_, it would not follow that the old Sabbath is no longer in force, unless it could be proved that they considered the new as a SUBSTITUTE for the old; or, that so far as the particular day was concerned, it was of a CEREMONIAL character. But where do we find proof for either of these points? In the whole record of the transactions and teachings of the apostles, where do we find this idea of _substitution_? No where. Where do we find evidence that, so far as the _particular day_ was concerned, it was _ceremonial_, and therefore to cease at the death of Christ? No where. The argument that proves the _Sabbath law_ not to be ceremonial, proves the same of the _day_. Did the _Sabbath law_ originate in Paradise, when man was innocent, and had no need of a Redeemer? So did the _day_. It was then sanctified and blessed. Does the _Sabbath law_ take cognizance of the relation on which all the precepts of the moral law are founded, viz. the relation we sustain to God as _creatures_ to _Creator_? So does the _day_. It is a memorial of this relation, and of the rest entered into by God after he, by his work, had established the relation. It appears, then, that neither the _Sabbath law_, nor the _day_ it enjoins, was of a ceremonial character. True, it is not _moral_, in the strictest sense, but rather _positive_. Nevertheless, by divine appointment it is in the same category with the moral law, and must be considered a part of it. If this reasoning is correct--and if it is not, we hope you will point it out--it would not follow that the old Sabbath is done away, because Christ and his apostles sabbatized on the first day of the week; but only that there are _two_ Sabbaths instead of _one_.