SIR,—I have had the privilege of reading Mr. Christo- pher
Hollis's article entitled `Sabbatarianism: The general impression I have received from this article is that if only Mr. Hollis had foregone his refreshment at a certain establishment in Fleet Street on one occasion and had not passed this office but entered it, he would have received such information about the Lord's Day Observance Society as would have provided him with more lasting and more profitable Tefreshment.
When Mr. Hollis's article has been boiled down to its essentials and stripped of its padding there is sa
little left that one is almost at a loss to know to what points a reply is needed, but there are some matters which need a little clarification.
Mr. Hollis says that 'they [i.e., the LDOS] never seem to advance any serious reason why they think
that God wishes people to behave in this curious fashion on Sunday.' Although he says he has studied our literature he seems to have overlooked the fact that most of our publications give full reasons for the preservation of Sunday as a God-given asset for man's highest well-being physically, mentally and, above all, spiritually. Sunday entertainment, Sunday trading and Sunday sport where patronised by such elevated parties as the LCC, the Bishop of Coventry or the Prime Minister, all tend to undermine and mar the true benefits conferred by a quiet, restful and worshipfulSunday. A further point is, of course, raised by Mr. Hollis himself and I would underline it. Secular and com- mercial pursuits on Sunday are, in fact, a breach of God's Commandment. But Mr. Hollis goes on to declare that 'the Sabbath is not Sunday and Sunday is not the Sabbath,' but, falling into the error of which he accuses me, he gives us no reason for this categorical statement. Just fancy Mr. Hollis falling into the Seventh Day Adventist trap and thinking that the Fourth Commandent tells us that we must keep the last day of the week as the Sabbath! Let Mr. Hollis rc-read his Bible and he will find that the Sab- bath is a principle of one day's rest in seven and that it is referred to as a seventh day but not as the seventh day of the week. I expect it would be asking Mr. Hollis to delve too deeply into the studying of the Bible to suggest that he should consult references
(such as Leviticus 23 and Psalm 148) which -point
to the change of the day which the Jews observed to the day which is now observed by Christians as the Sabbath. Sunday, being the first day of the week, is the Christian Sabbath and is a seventh of the week and thus complies with the essential principle of the institution and of the Commandment.
One must not allow this reply to develop into a theological dissertation, but one trusts that one has said sufficient to show that we have far more Scrip- tural backing for our principles than your contributor alleges. Similarly, one could demonstrate that, al- though we do not rely upon tradition for our
principles, that factor gives us far more support than Mr. Hollis tries to make out. He has only to consult
such writers as Justin Martyr, lrenieus and Athanasius and also trace general Christian tradition right through the centuries to find that the most reliable opinion amongst Christian writers is that Sunday is to be observed as the Christian Sabbath.
One would like to have known the main objective that Mr. Hollis had in mind in writing his article on `Sabbatarianism,' but one can only assume that it is because he does not desire to see Sunday preserved in this country. If that is his objective then he may rest assured that he is but one of a tiny minority for we have every reason to believe that the people of this country desire to see Sunday preserved as a day of rest and, of course, it is further our desire to see the day observed as the Lord's Day when the principal occupation is worship and the contemplation of the things of God.—Yours faithfully,
H. J. W. LEGERTON
General Secretary
Lord's Day Observance Society Lord's Day House, 55 Fleet Street, EC4
Previous page
