The Washington herald., 1921-07-04
Declares Sunday Is Sabbath,

To the Editor. The Washington Herald:
Being unwilling to allow the self
accusation of dullness on the part
of the writer of Says Saturday is
the Sabbath" appearing in a recent
issue of your paper. would re-
quest space in your open Court"
columns to make as clear as l
can the distinction which l sought
to bring out in a previous letter
between the significance of St.
Luke 1856 considered in the light
of the entire passage and by COM
parison of the King James and the
revised version) and the apparent
significance of a part of the same
passage, as it appears in the r,i-g
James version (when separated
from its context
The excerpt. the Sabbath accord
ing to the commandment" has been
used repeatedly by Saturday
keepers land was apparently use 4
to convey the idea that these words
sc bhdl lHC ItSllnS wa zone
on a certain day of the week which
was the day specified as the Sab
bath by (or. according to"D the
commandment. In other words. to
the question. on what day did they
rest? the passage is supposed to
contain the reply-Why. the day
(sf the week) which was the Sab
bath, according to the command
ment. However. since the phrase
in reality modifies the word
rested" (as is made clearer by the
rendering of the revised version).
the fact is that the passage does
not point out a particular day of
the week which is according to
the commandment" but instead
simply furnishes the statement that,
on the Sabbath (after six days OF
labor, they rested" according to
the requirements of the Fourth
Commandment. In other words. in
answer to the question, What did
they do on the seventh day (after
six days of labor)? The answer
is, They rested" according to tor,
in keeping with the specifications
of the commandment (the COM
msndment calling for a day of rest
after six days of Rbor). OF course,
If we should all assume (as this
writer does) that the Fourth Com
mandment specifies Saturday, then
there would be no occasion to quote
this passage Cor indeed others) in
an effort to prove it.
Just here. 1 would say that refer
ence to my former letter would
- hnf TOT that
lar works were always" referred
to in an effort to prove that
change of the Sabbath was made
by the Roman Catholic Church, or
(as is very frequently said) by the
papacy. Now that this writer has
given us some references to some
religious works-whiie space will
not permit analyzing all of those
REORGANIZATION will readily
show in most cases (probably in
AID that the quotations given are
not at all out of harmony with the
correctness of the Sunday Sabbath
the day on which the stone
which the builders rejected became
the head of the corner" For ex-
ample when Bucks Theological Die
tionary says There is no law in
the New Testament concerning the
frst day (meaning, of course. the
FIRST day of the week., it simply
Gtrtes' a fact, the truth of which
would be apparent without reference
to any dictionary, either secular or
religious.
The further truth might be added
to this, that there. Is no law in the
Old or New Testament concerning
the seventh day of the week. Con-
cerning the quotation from DR..
Schaff. to the effect that Constan-
tine enjoyed the civil observance
of Sunday. not as the Lords Day,
or the Sabbath. etc." this state
ment does not in any way alter
The fact that Constantine caused
he Romans to change their day tc
the Christian Sabbath. Certainly,
no one supposes that he also made