IN a number of instances in the New Testament, Christ proclaims himself Lord of the Sabbath day. And there is no mistaking the day that is meant: it is the seventh day of the week, the ancient Sabbath of Jehovah, which had come down from paradise. But nearly all Christendom have now enthroned another day, the first day of the week, as the Lord’s, because they claim that Christ is Lord of it. Now it is not a little amusing to notice how marvelously the signification of the expression, “the Lord of the Sabbath,” changes as it is applied to those different days. For instance, in the little tract, “One Hundred Facts about the Bible Sabbath,” it is argued that Christ was Lord of the Sabbath “to sustain and protect it.” This tract, it seems, fell into the hands of one B. D. Haskell, of Haverhill, Mass., whereupon he came out in the Messiah’s Herald of Feb. 19, 1879, in a fiery charge against said tract, accusing the author of “handling the word of God deceitfully,” and claiming that Christ was “Lord of the Jewish Sabbath to abrogate it, and he has so done.” But lo! this same B. D. H. is a zealous partisan of the Sunday Lord’s day, believing that Christ is Lord of that day. We accordingly wrote him, inquiring in what sense he considered Christ the Lord of the first day of the week, when and how that day became the Lord’s day, etc. To these questions he refused to reply, choosing rather, like some other writers of that class, the ignominious course of keeping himself concealed behind his paper breastworks, and carrying on a guerrilla warfare in ambush. He did, however, condescend, instead of returning fair answers to plain and appropriate questions, to hurl imperiously at our head a few solemn admonitions to “confess in penitence before God, and deplore your offense, and receive pardon” for contending that Christ is Lord of the Sabbath to sustain and protect it. Nevertheless the question remains, In what sense is Christ the Lord of the Sunday? What does the expression signify when applied to that day? Now behold the inconsistency of these Sunday advocates. When the seventh day is spoken of, lo, Christ is Lord of it to abrogate and abolish it! but when Sunday is the day in question, presto! what a change! then he is Lord of it, hallelujah! glory! to establish, confirm, exalt, honor, and sanctify it! Oh, shame! where are thy blushes at the trifling these men are guilty of when handling a sacred institution of the Lord our God? Our Saviour, by proclaiming himself Lord of the Sabbath, bestowed upon it the highest honor. He acknowledged it an institution of Heaven. He showed the intimate relation existing between himself and it. Was this to indicate that he had abolished it? How absurd. God declared of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that he was not the God of the dead, but of the living. He would have considered it a dishonor and reproach to his name and government to call himself the God of those who had passed hopelessly out of existence. So we may say of Christ and the Sabbath. He would not proclaim himself Lord of a dead institution, or one that was soon going out of existence. That would be a dishonor to his name. The argument of our opponents on Matt. 12: 1-8, either nullifies itself, or leaves those who use it on the side of the wicked Pharisees who accused Christ of breaking the Sabbath, and hence charged him with being a sinner. Thus they say that Christ was justifying his disciples in doing that which was contrary to the Sabbath law, and gave as a reason that he was Lord of the Sabbath, which proves that he had abolished it. But hold! this was some two years at least before the cross; and the Sabbath was in full force, and any desecration thereof was sin, up to that time, as all admit. Therefore all that Christ did, or justified his disciples in doing, was strictly in accordance with the Sabbath law, or else he was a sinner and the minister of sin! Our friends may take this latter view if they think it safe. But if he was only doing what was strictly according to the Sabbath law, then his words that he was “Lord of the Sabbath,” cannot, except by willful perversion, be taken to indicate that he was relaxing its claims, or that he designed to do so, but only as showing why he was so solicitous to defend it against the abuse and superstition of the Pharisees. Any attempt to dispose of this matter otherwise simply shows the perversity and malignity of that carnal heart which Paul says is not subject to the holy law of God, and cannot be.