WHAT'S HIS NAME

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto
me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end
of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:18-20)

Hopefully we all know the name of the Son. His name is given in the English Bibles as Jesus. In the Hebrew rendering of the New Testament, we read that his name is Yeshua. The Hebrew Names Version of the New Testament has the text in English, but carries the various names of the characters in the English rendering of the Hebrew. Here is how Matthew 1:21 reads in that version.

"She shall bring forth a son. You shall call his name Yeshua,
for it is he who shall save his people from their sins."

Christians have become familiar with the so called 'great commission' given by Jesus in Matthew 28:18-19. We use it to claim that Jesus told us to be missionaries. We don't normally include verse 20 when we quote the passage, even though that verse is part of what Jesus said. I wonder if we ever think about what the entire passage says? That's a subject for another writing, but let's do consider what Jesus said in verse 19.

"baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Do we baptize people in the name of Jesus? The person doing the baptizing usually ends what he has to say by saying: "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:". Where was Jesus' name in all of that? Shouldn't we expect to hear something more like; 'I baptize you in the name of Jesus'? There is a scripture supporting that idea.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)

An answer might be that we say exactly what Matthew 21:19 says we should say, and perhaps that is as it should be, but then, I would have to ask if I can use that same logic in the application of Jesus' words in John 14:14?

"If you will ask anything in my name, I will do it."

Should we close our prayers by saying something: "in my name, Amen"? Of course not. Look how Peter used the actual name when he pronounced a blessing of health upon the lame man at the gate of the temple (Acts 3:6).

"Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give
I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk."

What did Jesus mean when He told us to baptize in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? Again, we know the name of the Son, but

What is the name of the Father?

What is the name of the Holy Ghost?

Let me answer with two statements.

1) We are not given separate names for 'the Father' and the 'Holy Ghost'.

2) Acts 4:12

That being said, let me ask a foundational question: How many Gods are there?

The correct answer is: Only one. (Isaiah 43:10-12, Isaiah 44:6-8, Isaiah 45:5-7, Isaiah 46:9)

Another question: Is Jesus, God?

The correct answer is: Yes.

Next question: What is the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

The correct answer is: Jesus.

I propose that we take Peter's example and use the actual name of God, Jesus when we call on Him and when we baptize people.

Since there is only one God, His name is Jesus. Notice what Jesus said about us praying.

"These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time
will come, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but
I shall shew you plainly of the Father. At that day ye shall ask
in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father
for you: For the Father himself loves you, because ye have
loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came
forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again,
I leave the world, and go to the Father." (John 16:25-28)

Previously, Jesus had told them that He would pray to the Father on their behalf, and that the Father would grant the request. Here, Jesus says that things will be different after He departs. He will no longer be praying to the Father for them, but they will be praying to the Father "in his name".

What does "in his name" mean? Does it mean that we're supposed to conclude our prayers with words like; "in the name of Jesus" or "in your name"? That's what we have been taught to say.


John 16:28 above says that Jesus came forth 'from' the Father, and will return 'to' the Father. The language presents a somewhat 'side-by-side' image of Father and Son. In verses 27-28, Jesus is trying to explain why the situation will change after his departure. He tells his disciples:

"For the Father himself loves you, because ye have loved me,
and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth
from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave
the world, and go to the Father."

It's almost like we can see Jesus coming away from God; departing from His side. I've highlighted the word from for a reason. We need to look at the original language there. If you click on this link you will see Strong's presentation on that word. Notice the usage numbers.

AV — of 51, with 42, from 24, by ... side 15, at 12, than 11, misc 45

This word can mean either from or of. The problem with it being translated as from in these verses is that it conveys the idea of Jesus being at the side of the Father, and that can confuse the casual reader. The Father and the Son are not two separate beings that can stand side-by-side. They are one and the same being; there is only one God. Take a look at this same passage with the word translated as of rather than as from, and remember, that to the Jewish ear, there is no distinction. It is simply the Greek word; para.

"For the Father himself loves you, because ye have loved me,
and have believed that I came out of God. I came forth
of the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave
the world, and go to the Father."

The Greek word para is translated as of 51 times in scripture, as compared with being translated only 24 times as from. The numbers don't mean everything, but they may indicate something. However, the most important thing to remember is that, to the original writer, it was simply the word para; it was that translators who decided that it would say from.

Now back to Jesus' explanation to his disciples. He told them that once He returned to the Father, He would no longer pray to the Father for them, but that they would pray to the Father directly, "IN HIS NAME" (the name of Jesus). His words indicate that there is significance to His Name.

IMPUTED

When you think back over the past month, was there a time when you transgressed one of God's commandments? He does have laws you know. Many people believe that God's laws don't apply to them. No. I'm not talking about the general public; I'm talking about Christians who don't believe that God's laws apply to them. For some, the favorite quotation from the New Testament is Romans 6:14:

For sin shall not have dominion over you:
for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

So, I ask again; did you transgress one of God's commandments during the last month? How about in the last week? What about yesterday? What about this morning?

Perhaps I should rephrase the question; did you steal anything this week; a pencil or pen or some paper from the office? Did you look at a person other than your spouse and lust after that person? Did you get really angry at someone; angry enough to meet the qualifications of Matthew 5:22? Any of these would be a transgression of God's commandments. Do these commandments not apply to you?

Consider a word: 'Impute'.

Most of us are probably only familiar with this word because we have read it in scripture. Paul used it several times in the fourth chapter of Romans. Perhaps the most familiar sentence containing this word is Romans 4:22; "And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness." The context shows Abraham believing God, and righteousness being 'imputed' to him as a result of that trust. This verse in Romans is actually a reference to Genesis 15:6.

And he believed in the LORD; and he
counted it to him for righteousness.

Here in Genesis we see that Abraham was counted righteous by God. Was it because Abraham did some great deed of righteousness? Was it because Abraham wasn't a liar? No. Abraham was a liar. Was it because Abraham was faithful to his wife? No. Abraham fathered a son by his wife's Egyptian slave girl. God didn't count Abraham righteous for any of these reasons. God counted Abraham righteous because Abraham trusted Him.

God is a bookkeeper. In the day of judgment, the books will be opened. God keeps books; He keeps accounts on each of us, and what God did in the case of Abraham was to make an adjustment to the books. God put "righteousness" on the page in His books where Abraham's name was. God juggled the books. He imputed righteousness to Abraham.

But, we read in another passage of Romans chapter four;

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Those are the words of verse eight, and they tell us that God can exercise the option to NOT impute sin to someone. What we are seeing here and in verse 22 is that either righteousness or sin can be placed on our sheet in God's books at God's will. In the case of verse eight, we see that even if a man sins, God can elect to not enter that sin into His books.

Question: Is God just whimsical about this sort of thing, or what?

Of course, that answer to that question is that God is not whimsical, and that He uses a specific criterion in 'imputing' both sin and righteousness in His books. The point that we need to see in connection with this process is that God doesn't blink when He makes his entries in the books. He doesn't break His own rules, and He doesn't eliminate them either. His commandments are still very much in place.

Notice that God can elect to not impute sin to someone. That necessarily means that the person in view here sinned; and that means that the person had to transgress God's commandments.

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law:
for sin is the transgression of the law. (1st John 3:4)

The religious leaders of Jesus' day claimed that He was trying to do away with the Law. Jesus clearly stated that He did not come to eliminate the Law.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)

The Law is still in place, defining what God expects from His created beings, but God can exercise His option to NOT impute sin when His commandments are transgressed, and blessed is that man to whom God will not impute sin when transgressions occur. The point to remember is that God isn't whimsical about it, and He follows a long established criteria for doing so.

I trust that I am not the only one who, at one time or other has read scripture and been confused by the words. For a long time, I had trouble reconciling these two verses:

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is
born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat
loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1st John 5:1)

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;
for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin,
because he is born of God. (1st John 3:9)

I know that I fully believe that Yeshua of Nazareth is the Christ; therefore, according to scripture, I am born of God. And yet, I know myself. I know my nature. I know I transgress God's commandments. I do not doubt one bit that I am born of God; so how can 1st John 3:9 be true?

The answer is that God elects to NOT impute sin to my account when I transgress His commandments. His criteria is that I am born of Him, and this is where we return and again consider the concept of God 'imputing' or 'not imputing' sin.

We have seen from Romans 4:22 that God can impute righteousness based upon whatever criteria He elects to use. Similarly, we have learned from Romans 4:8 that God can choose to NOT impute sin to the transgressor. We also noted herein that 'impute' is an accounting term. As we examine this concept of 'imputation', it may serve us well to think of sins as 'debits' and righteousness as 'credits' on the ledger sheet.

Recognition of God's plan for our salvation is all important. He has established his plan, and only those who follow his plan will be saved. His plan has provided for anyone and everyone to be saved who will follow his plan. The plan was demonstrated by the Old Testament 'scapegoat' imagery. It allows God to impute any particular sin to the scapegoat's ledger sheet, but the condition that has to be met is that the sinner must believe in the scapegoat.

Jesus is the scapegoat. Anyone who desires to have their sins wiped from their ledger sheet, must simply believe that Jesus was provided by God to be the punished for sins. When I trust God on that matter; when I believe that Jesus was who He said He was; when I trust him to have taken the punishment for my sins; God imputes my sins to Jesus' ledger sheet. God counts my sins against Jesus' ledger sheet, and since Jesus paid for all sins, the matter is closed. I walk away scot free.

God didn't just let me off the hook for my sin. He just changed the recipient of the punishment. God didn't do away with the law. His law is eternal. Even Jesus didn't destroy the law, much less any of the apostles of the New Testament time period. God's law still applies to me, but when I transgress God's law, He imputes what should have been my sin to the ledger sheet of Jesus. He doesn't even see me as sinning. This is how our two verses of scripture are reconciled. Now, let's look at them a final time.

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is
born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat
loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1st John 5:1)

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;
for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin,
because he is born of God. (1st John 3:9)

I believe that Jesus is the Christ, therefore, I am born of God. I am born of God, therefore, I do not commit sin. When I transgress the law, God does not see me as sinning because the sin is imputed directly to the ledger sheet of Jesus who has already paid for my sin.

IN GOOD COMPANY

In February, I posted a series on the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24-27, in which I concluded that the 70 'shabuwa' of that passage were completed by resurrection morning, and that all of the items listed in verse 24 were accomplished by Yeshua of Nazareth prior to the end of his earthly ministry. I am happy to find that this opinion is shared by another person. Let me quote him.

". . . [the] resurrection of Christ; whereby transgression should be finished, and sins ended, iniquity be expiated, and everlasting righteousness brought in, and this Vision be accomplished, and the Prophet consummated, that Prophet whom the Jews expected; and whereby the most Holy should be anointed, he who is therefore in the next words [Daniel 9:25] called the Anointed, that is, the Messiah, or the Christ. For by joining the accomplishment of the vision with the expiation of sins, the 490 years [the 70-weeks of Daniel 9:24] are ended with the death of Christ."

Scroll down to read the name of the man who is the author of the above statement.


















His name was Isaac Newton; Sir Isaac Newton

WHAT AMAZES ME

Statements made by the Catholic Church about the Sabbath day

“Protestants...accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change...But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that...In observing the Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the Pope.” Our Sunday Visitor, February 15, 1950.

“Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
“Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
“Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
“Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50, 3rd edition, 1957.

“The Catholic church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday...The Protestant World at its birth found the Christian Sabbath too strongly entrenched to run counter to its existence; it was therefore placed under the necessity of acquiescing in the arrangement, thus implying the (Catholic) Church’s right to change the day, for over three hundred years. The Christian Sabbath is therefore to this day, the acknowledged offspring of the Catholic Church as spouse of the Holy Ghost, without a word of remonstrance from the Protestant World.” James Cardinal Gibbons in the Catholic Mirror, September 23, 1983.

“It was the Catholic church which...has transferred this rest to Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Therefore the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the (Catholic) church.” Monsignor Louis Segur, Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today, p. 213.

“They [the Protestants] deem it their duty to keep the Sunday holy. Why? Because the Catholic Church tells them to do so. They have no other reason...The observance of Sunday thus comes to be an ecclesiastical law entirely distinct from the divine law of Sabbath observance...The author of the Sunday law...is the Catholic Church.” Ecclesiastical Review, February 1914.

“Most Christians assume that Sunday is the Biblically approved day of worship. The Catholic Church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the Biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.” Rome’s Challenge www.immaculateheart.com/maryonline Dec 2003

“Is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917 edition), p. 72-73 (16th Edition, p 111; 88th Edition, p. 89).

“For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the [Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible.” Catholic Virginian, October 3, 1947, p. 9, article “To Tell You the Truth.”

“Written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, this Divine code (ten commandments) was received from the Almighty by Moses amid the thunders of Mount Sinai...Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept of charity--love of God and of the neighbour; He proclaimed them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5)...The (Catholic) Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s Day...He (God) claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy...”The Catholic Encyclopaedia, vol. 4, “The Ten Commandments”, 1908 edition by Robert Appleton Company; and 1999 Online edition by Kevin Knight, Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

“Question: How prove you that the church had power to command feasts and holydays?
“Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.

“Question: Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?
“Answer: Had she not such power, she could not a done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; -she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day of the week, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.” Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism On the Obedience Due to the Church, 3rd edition, Chapter 2, p. 174 (Imprimatur, John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York).

“Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday. ‘The day of the Lord’ was chosen, not from any direction noted in the Scriptures, but from the (Catholic) Church’s sense of its own power...People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy.” St. Catherine Church Sentinel, Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 1995.

“Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday...Now the Church...instituted, by God’s authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made. We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday.” Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About, 1927 edition, p. 136.

“Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day - Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes. Did Christ change the day’? I answer no!”
“Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons.” James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, Md. (1877-1921), in a signed letter.

“Question. - How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holy days?
“Answer. - By the very act of changing Sabbath into Sunday which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church.
“Question. - How prove you that?
“Answer. - Because by keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the Church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin: and by not keeping the rest by her commanded, they again deny, in fact, the same power.” An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine, composed by Henry Tuberville, p. 58.

“Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The (Roman Catholic) Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days.” John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, 1936 edition, vol. 1, p. 51.

“Question. What warrant have you for keeping Sunday preferably to the ancient sabbath which was Saturday?
“Answer. We have for it the authority of the Catholic church and apostolic tradition.
“Question. Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?
“Answer. The Scripture commands us to hear the church (St.Matt.18:17; St. Luke 10:16), and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles. 2 Thess 2:15. But the Scripture does not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath.

“St John speaks of the Lord’s day (Rev 1:10) but he does not tell us what day of the week that was, much less does he tell us what day was to take the place of the Sabbath ordained in the commandments. St.Luke speaks of the disciples meeting together to break bread on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7. And St. Paul (1 Cor.16:2) orders that on the first day of the week the Corinthians should lay in store what they designated to bestow in charity on the faithful in Judea: but neither the one or the other tells us that this first day of the week was to be henceforth a day of worship, and the Christian Sabbath; so that truly the best authority we have for this ancient custom is the testimony of the church. And therefore those who pretend to be such religious observers of Sunday, whilst they take no notice of other festivals ordained by the same church authority, show that they act more by humor, than by religion; since Sundays and holidays all stand upon the same foundation, namely the ordinance of the (Roman Catholic) church.” Catholic Christian Instructed, 17th edition, p. 272-273.

“Protestantism, in discarding the authority of the (Roman Catholic) Church, has no good reasons for its Sunday theory, and ought logically to keep Saturday as the Sabbath.” John Gilmary Shea, American Catholic Quarterly Review, January 1883.

“The Sunday...is purely a creation of the Catholic Church.”American Catholic Quarterly Review, January 1883.

“Sunday...is the law of the Catholic Church alone...” American Sentinel (Catholic), June 1893.

“Sunday is a Catholic institution and its claim to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles...From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first.” Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia, August 1900.

“It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church.” Priest Brady, in an address reported in The News, Elizabeth, New Jersey, March 18, 1903.

“From this we may understand how great is the authority of the church in interpreting or explaining to us the commandments of God - an authority which is acknowledged by the universal practice of the whole Christian world, even of those sects which profess to take the holy Scriptures as their sole rule of faith, since they observe as the day of rest not the seventh day of the week demanded by the Bible, but the first day. Which we know is to be kept holy, only from the tradition and teaching of the Catholic church.” Henry Gibson, Catechism Made Easy, #2, 9th edition, vol. 1, p. 341-342.

“Sunday is our mark or authority...the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.” Catholic Record of London, Ontario, September 1, 1923.

“Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday Sabbath to Sunday) was her act...And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical authority in religious things.” H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons.

“The (Roman Catholic) Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday.” The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4.

“Sunday is founded, not of scripture, but on tradition, and is distinctly a Catholic institution. As there is no scripture for the transfer of the day of rest from the last to the first day of the week, Protestants ought to keep their Sabbath on Saturday and thus leave Catholics in full possession of Sunday.” Catholic Record, September 17, 1893.

“Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:

“1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.

“2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws...

“It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible.” Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Magazine, USA (1975), Chicago, Illinois, “Under the blessing of the Pope Pius XI”

“I am going to propose a very plain and serious question to those who follow ‘the Bible and the Bible only’ to give their most earnest attention. It is this: Why don’t you keep holy the Sabbath day?...

“The command of the Almighty God stands clearly written in the Bible in these words: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.’ Exodus 20:8-10...

“You will answer me, perhaps, that you do keep the Sabbath; for that you abstain from all worldly business and diligently go to church, and say your prayers, and read your Bible at home every Sunday of your lives...

“But Sunday is not the Sabbath day. Sunday is the first day of the week: the Sabbath day is the seventh day of the week. Almighty God did not give a commandment that men should keep holy one day in seven; but He named His own day, and said distinctly: ‘Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day’; and He assigned a reason for choosing this day rather than any other - a reason which belongs only to the seventh day of the week, and cannot be applied to the rest. He says, ‘For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it’, Exodus 20:11, Genesis 2:1-3. Almighty God ordered that all men should rest from their labor on the seventh day, because He too had rested on that day: He did not rest on Sunday, but on Saturday. On Sunday, which is the first day of the week, He began the work of creation; He did not finish it. It was on Saturday that He ‘ended His work which he had made: and God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.’ Genesis 2:2-3...

“Nothing can be more plain and easy to understand than all this; there is nobody who attempts to deny it. It is acknowledged by everybody that the day which Almighty God appointed to be kept holy was Saturday, not Sunday. Why do you then keep holy the Sunday and not Saturday?

“You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! But by whom? Who has the authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, ‘Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day’, who shall dare to say, ‘Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day: but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead?’ This is a most important question, which I know not how you answer...

“You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet, in so important a manner as the observance of one day in seven as the holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the Ten Commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding. Who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible, and the Bible only you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered.” Excerpts from “Why Don’t You Keep Holy the Sabbath Day?”, pages 3-15 in The Clifton Tract, vol. 4, published by the Roman Catholic Church 1869.

“The arguments...are firmly grounded on the word of God, and having been closely studied with the Bible in hand, leave no escape for the conscientious Protestant except the abandonment of Sunday worship and the return to Saturday, commanded by their teacher, the Bible, or, unwilling to abandon the tradition of the Catholic Church, which enjoins the keeping of Sunday, and which they have accepted in direct opposition to their teacher, the Bible, consistently accept her (the Catholic Church) in all her teachings. Reason and common sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicism and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible.” James Cardinal Gibbons, in Catholic Mirror, December 23, 1893.