That First-Day Sabbath.
By Editor
IN a recent report of meetings in Pennsylvania, found in the Review and Herald, it was stated that opposers "secured the help of Dr. J. Litch and Elder Osler from the East to attack us." Also that Dr. Litch claimed "that in the Greek the first day was always called Sabbath." We are much surprised to read this statement. Dr. Litch must know that he was "handling the word of God deceitfully." The reason why we were particularly struck with this report is that he once made the same statement in the Advent Herald, the organ of the denomination with which he then stood and now stands connected. This was in 1851, when Sylvester Bliss was editor of the Herald. Mr. Litch accused the seventh-day people of a want of candor in saying that the first day is never in the Scriptures called the Sabbath, and referred to the Greek of Matt. 28:1, etc. Mr. Bliss was an accomplished scholar, both in Hebrew and Greek, and he was also a man of more than usual candor; for it too often happens that disputants will pervert or evade the truth in order to overcome an opponent. To the assertion of Mr. Litch, the editor, Mr. Bliss, appended the following note:— REMARKS.—Lest any should gather from the above that the word 'Sabbath' is represented by the phrase 'first day of the week,' we add that 'Sabbath' is simply translated 'week' in those texts—other words indicating the day of the week. The word 'Sabbath' is originally a Hebrew word, and signifies rest; but occurring at regular intervals, by a metonymy it became significant of the periods separated by these rests. So that we have the seventh day of the rest, and the first day of the rest, week, or Sabbath.—ED. Mr. Bliss was a keeper of the first day, but he could not let such a false statement as that made by Mr. Litch pass uncorrected. And now for Mr. Litch489to reiterate the statement does not speak well for his conscience. We see by a note in the Christian Advocate of San Francisco that the man whose errors we pointed out on this subject proposes to refer the question to the faculty of a college for decision, and inquires if the editor of the SIGNS will agree to this proposition! It struck us as being singular that he should consider it necessary to ask our consent to submit it to a college faculty. But if that is what he wants, he has it, given most heartily. We have in our possession the decision of a college faculty in the East to whom the same question was submitted. They were all Sunday-keepers, but they decided against the Sunday-Sabbath view on those passages, as every scholar is bound to do. We shall anxiously wait for the decision of the faculty on this coast, and when it appears, we will also publish the other. We may also give a more extended collation of the testimony of versions, lexicons, and commentaries, than we gave before. We hope to see that decision soon.