The division and numbering of the Commandments have varied in the course of history. The present catechism follows the division of the Commandments established by St. Augustine, which has become traditional in the Catholic Church. [The Decalogue in the Church’s Tradition,” The Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2.htm#2066]

The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria.” Sozomen (5th century), Ecclesiastical History, Book VII. Diversity in Ecclesiastical Discipline. p. 355. https://books.google.ca/books?id=OIEXAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false,

“The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures [“Synod of Laodicea (4th Century)”, The Canons, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm

"The church took the pagan philosophy and made it the buckler of faith against the heathen. She took the pagan, Roman Pantheon, temple of all the gods, and made it sacred to all the martyrs; so it stands to this day. She took the pagan Sunday and made it the Christian Sunday...The Sun was a foremost god with heathendom. Balder the beautiful, the White God, the old Scandinavians called him.. Hence the church in these countries would seem to have said, "Keep that old pagan name. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified." And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus. "PASCHALE GAUDIUM, by William L. Gildea, D.D., in The Catholic World, Vol. LVIII., No. 348., March, 1894., published in New York by The Office of the Catholic World., pages 808-809." http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moajrnl/bac8387.0058.348/825:7?page=root;rgn=full+text;size=100;view=image

Gregory, servant of the servants of God, to his most beloved sons the Roman citizens. It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these but preachers of Antichrist, who, when he comes, will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work. For, because he pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord’s day to be had in reverence; and, because he compels the people to judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed. Pope Gregory I, “Epistle 1,: Selected Epistles Vol. 13: 92, 93., in New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360213001.htm

“Sabbath (Exodus 16:23) This was the title given to the Jewish day of rest. It is a Hebrew word signifying rest. Sincw thw Christian era, the day of rest is properly called the Lord's day, because it is now commemorative of Christ's resurrection from the dead...Sunday was a name given by the heathens to the first day of the week, because it was the day on which they worshipped the sun; and this name, together wuth those of the other days of the week, has been continued to our times.” John Eadie (ed.), A Bible Cyclopedia (London: Charles GRiffin and Co, 1870). 561. https://books.google.ca/books?id=XN9DAAAAYAAJ

Of course the Catholic church claims that the change was her act..the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power.” ( Faith of our fathers, Cardinal Gibbons. as quoted in Daniel: Understanding the Dreams and Vision By Charlene R. Fortsch https://books.google.ca/books?id=UYGDFHov1b8C&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=of+course+the+catholic+church+claims+that+the+change+was+her+act.&source=bl&ots=i0CIAMGU47&sig=vnoVFzVnQIk708TzDAx_OSQZIuw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hXs1VbeNL8zUoATDvIDwBg&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

“The foremost organizer of the drive for a national Sunday law in 1888 was the Reverend Wilbur F. Crafts, probably the most industrious of the era’s Christian lobbyists. While pastor of a Presbyterian church in New York City, Crafts published The Sabbath for Man in 1884 and a year later began campaigning for a national Sunday law. In that book, which eventually reached seven editions, Crafts drew on a distinction made 20 years before by the Lutheran church historian Philip Schaff to argue that legislation in support of a civil Sabbath was legitimate. Government could not enforce religious observance of the Sabbath, but Sunday rest laws did serve civil interests, benefiting society as a whole by promoting public health, limiting exploitation of workers, reducing crime, and strengthening the home.…. Crafts broadened a campaign for national measures for Sabbath observance that began in 1881 as a petition to Congress for a federal law against carrying or delivering mail on Sundays. Yates Hickey of the International Sabbath Association developed the petition, the NRA endorsed it, and Josephine Bateham’s Sunday observance department of the WCTU led in expanding its circulation. A ban on Sunday military parades was added to the petition, and when Crafts came on the scene in 1885, he added a ban on interstate rail traffic and a general Sunday law for the territories to the list of desired measures. The Sunday law initiative found a welcome response in Congress from Senator Blair, a longtime ally of moral reform causes who had collaborated with the WCTU on behalf of prohibition since 1877. Now, Blair scheduled a hearing on the proposal for a national Sunday law before his Committee on Education and Labor in April 1888. After hearing speakers lined up by Crafts, and thus all favorable, and the reading of a letter from Bateham claiming the support of a million people for the petition, Blair agreed to draft a bill. He also advised Crafts to gain broader support for the measure by seeking the endorsement of the Knights of Labor. Though already declining from the peak of popular national support it reached in 1886, the Knights of Labor remained the nation’s most widely recognized voice of reform on behalf of the working classes. Then, on May 21, 1888, Blair introduced “S. 2983,” “a bill to secure to the people the enjoyment of the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord’s day, as a day of rest, and to promote its observance as a day of religious worship.” Its provisions included prohibition of unnecessary work and recreation “to the disturbance of others” in territories directly under federal jurisdiction, in addition to the restrictions on Sunday mail, interstate commerce and transportation, and routine military “drills, musters, and parades,” as outlined by the petitions from the Christian lobby. Four days later, on May 25, Blair further introduced, to the cheers of the NRA periodical the Christian Statesman, a joint resolution charting a new path to constitutional recognition of Christianity as the nation’s religion. It proposed an amendment to the Constitution requiring all states to offer free public education that included instruction not only in the “common branches of knowledge,” but also in “virtue, morality, and the principles of the Christian religion.” In December, immediately after the second session of the Fiftieth Congress convened, Blair proceeded with a hearing on the Sunday rest bill before his committee. This time arguments both pro and con would be heard. In the intervening months, though, the Christian lobby had marshaled further resources. Crafts laid the groundwork for a new organization, the American Sabbath Union, which held its public organizational meeting on the evening following the December 13 committee hearing. Not only did he succeed in gaining the support of the Knights of Labor; Crafts had in his pocket a letter of endorsement from Cardinal James Gibbons, archbishop of Baltimore and the preeminent member of the American Catholic hierarchy. That letter, Crafts claimed, meant he could add 7.2 million American Catholics to the ranks supporting the national Sunday law, making for a grand total of 14 million.While Frances Willard and W. F. Crafts tapped into the powerful current of idealism in American Protestantism generated by anticipation of progress toward a new millennial social order, Alonzo T. Jones (1850-1923), more than anyone else, brought the distinct eschatology of Seventh-day Adventists to bear on public issues during the late nineteenth century. Jones joined the Adventist movement at the age of 24 in Walla Walla, Washington, where he was nearing completion of a five-year enlistment in the U.S. Army. He rapidly developed into a powerful preacher and polemicist and a prolific writer. By the 1890s he was probably the most influential male leader in the denomination...The stepped-up activity of the Christian lobby compounded the seriousness—even urgency—with which Adventists viewed these matters. In their reading of the biblical prophecies, the national Sunday law and Christian amendment proposals before Congress signaled a new partnership between religion and state coercion that would end religious freedom in America and begin a time of severe and final tribulation, quickly followed by the return of Christ and destruction of the present order of things. ...In October 1888, just two months prior to Senator Blair’s hearing on the national Sunday law in Washington, this internal conflict played out at the Adventists’ General Conference session in Minneapolis, and its outcome connects with our story of how and why the publishers of the American Sentinel sought to influence public policy. …. Jones contended that Sunday laws possessed an inherently religious character, and thus violated the Constitution’s prohibition against “establishment of religion.” However, he cited not secular reason but divine revelation as the primary validation for that constitutional distinction between the civil and religious realms. He also found in Scripture the criteria for determining the category in which a proposed enactment belonged.Putting considerable weight on Jesus’ cryptic saying “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21), Jones declared: “Our national Constitution embodies the very principle announced by Jesus Christ, that the civil government shall have nothing to do with religion, or with what pertains to God; but shall leave that to every man’s conscience and his God.” Furthermore, it was the last six of the Ten Commandments, having to do with how humans treat each other, that delineated the proper scope of civil government’s jurisdiction. This ruled out laws regarding the Sabbath (the subject of the fourth commandment), for Jones denied “the right of the civil government to legislate on anything that pertains to our duties to God under the first four commandments.” On this basis, he denounced the proposed national Sunday bill as not only unconstitutional, but “antichristian.” The question of whether the law would be a religious or a civil measure lay at the heart of the dispute. Senator Blair reasoned that if, in a democratic nation, “Caesar is society,” and if a weekly day of rest is crucial to the common good, it would then come under the proper scope of “Caesar’s” legislation. The references to religion that permeated the bill, Jones countered, belied the claims about its civil purpose. The title itself declared the bill’s purpose both to secure the enjoyment of the day commonly known as the Lord’s day, “as a day of rest” and to “promote its observance as a day of religious worship,” and the language of religious observance and worship extended through the six sections. Josephine Bateham of the WCTU proposed substituting the word “promote” with “protect,” so that the bill would not give any appearance of a “union of church and state.” Blair, however, saw “protect” as even more problematic—a “stronger and more interfering word” that implied the backing of armed force. Jones happily agreed. Douglas Morgan, “A Clash of Millenialisms on Capitol Hill,” Liberty (December 2009) http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/a-clash-of-millennialisms-on-capitol-hill.

“The foremost organizer of the drive for a national Sunday law in 1888 was the Reverend Wilbur F. Crafts, probably the most industrious of the era’s Christian lobbyists. While pastor of a Presbyterian church in New York City, Crafts published The Sabbath for Man in 1884 and a year later began campaigning for a national Sunday law. In that book, which eventually reached seven editions, Crafts drew on a distinction made 20 years before by the Lutheran church historian Philip Schaff to argue that legislation in support of a civil Sabbath was legitimate. Government could not enforce religious observance of the Sabbath, but Sunday rest laws did serve civil interests, benefiting society as a whole by promoting public health, limiting exploitation of workers, reducing crime, and strengthening the home.…. Crafts broadened a campaign for national measures for Sabbath observance that began in 1881 as a petition to Congress for a federal law against carrying or delivering mail on Sundays. Yates Hickey of the International Sabbath Association developed the petition, the NRA endorsed it, and Josephine Bateham’s Sunday observance department of the WCTU led in expanding its circulation. A ban on Sunday military parades was added to the petition, and when Crafts came on the scene in 1885, he added a ban on interstate rail traffic and a general Sunday law for the territories to the list of desired measures. The Sunday law initiative found a welcome response in Congress from Senator Blair, a longtime ally of moral reform causes who had collaborated with the WCTU on behalf of prohibition since 1877. Now, Blair scheduled a hearing on the proposal for a national Sunday law before his Committee on Education and Labor in April 1888. After hearing speakers lined up by Crafts, and thus all favorable, and the reading of a letter from Bateham claiming the support of a million people for the petition, Blair agreed to draft a bill. He also advised Crafts to gain broader support for the measure by seeking the endorsement of the Knights of Labor. Though already declining from the peak of popular national support it reached in 1886, the Knights of Labor remained the nation’s most widely recognized voice of reform on behalf of the working classes. Then, on May 21, 1888, Blair introduced “S. 2983,” “a bill to secure to the people the enjoyment of the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord’s day, as a day of rest, and to promote its observance as a day of religious worship.” Its provisions included prohibition of unnecessary work and recreation “to the disturbance of others” in territories directly under federal jurisdiction, in addition to the restrictions on Sunday mail, interstate commerce and transportation, and routine military “drills, musters, and parades,” as outlined by the petitions from the Christian lobby. Four days later, on May 25, Blair further introduced, to the cheers of the NRA periodical the Christian Statesman, a joint resolution charting a new path to constitutional recognition of Christianity as the nation’s religion. It proposed an amendment to the Constitution requiring all states to offer free public education that included instruction not only in the “common branches of knowledge,” but also in “virtue, morality, and the principles of the Christian religion.” In December, immediately after the second session of the Fiftieth Congress convened, Blair proceeded with a hearing on the Sunday rest bill before his committee. This time arguments both pro and con would be heard. In the intervening months, though, the Christian lobby had marshaled further resources. Crafts laid the groundwork for a new organization, the American Sabbath Union, which held its public organizational meeting on the evening following the December 13 committee hearing. Not only did he succeed in gaining the support of the Knights of Labor; Crafts had in his pocket a letter of endorsement from Cardinal James Gibbons, archbishop of Baltimore and the preeminent member of the American Catholic hierarchy. That letter, Crafts claimed, meant he could add 7.2 million American Catholics to the ranks supporting the national Sunday law, making for a grand total of 14 million.While Frances Willard and W. F. Crafts tapped into the powerful current of idealism in American Protestantism generated by anticipation of progress toward a new millennial social order, Alonzo T. Jones (1850-1923), more than anyone else, brought the distinct eschatology of Seventh-day Adventists to bear on public issues during the late nineteenth century. Jones joined the Adventist movement at the age of 24 in Walla Walla, Washington, where he was nearing completion of a five-year enlistment in the U.S. Army. He rapidly developed into a powerful preacher and polemicist and a prolific writer. By the 1890s he was probably the most influential male leader in the denomination...The stepped-up activity of the Christian lobby compounded the seriousness—even urgency—with which Adventists viewed these matters. In their reading of the biblical prophecies, the national Sunday law and Christian amendment proposals before Congress signaled a new partnership between religion and state coercion that would end religious freedom in America and begin a time of severe and final tribulation, quickly followed by the return of Christ and destruction of the present order of things. ...In October 1888, just two months prior to Senator Blair’s hearing on the national Sunday law in Washington, this internal conflict played out at the Adventists’ General Conference session in Minneapolis, and its outcome connects with our story of how and why the publishers of the American Sentinel sought to influence public policy. …. Jones contended that Sunday laws possessed an inherently religious character, and thus violated the Constitution’s prohibition against “establishment of religion.” However, he cited not secular reason but divine revelation as the primary validation for that constitutional distinction between the civil and religious realms. He also found in Scripture the criteria for determining the category in which a proposed enactment belonged.Putting considerable weight on Jesus’ cryptic saying “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21), Jones declared: “Our national Constitution embodies the very principle announced by Jesus Christ, that the civil government shall have nothing to do with religion, or with what pertains to God; but shall leave that to every man’s conscience and his God.” Furthermore, it was the last six of the Ten Commandments, having to do with how humans treat each other, that delineated the proper scope of civil government’s jurisdiction. This ruled out laws regarding the Sabbath (the subject of the fourth commandment), for Jones denied “the right of the civil government to legislate on anything that pertains to our duties to God under the first four commandments.” On this basis, he denounced the proposed national Sunday bill as not only unconstitutional, but “antichristian.” The question of whether the law would be a religious or a civil measure lay at the heart of the dispute. Senator Blair reasoned that if, in a democratic nation, “Caesar is society,” and if a weekly day of rest is crucial to the common good, it would then come under the proper scope of “Caesar’s” legislation. The references to religion that permeated the bill, Jones countered, belied the claims about its civil purpose. The title itself declared the bill’s purpose both to secure the enjoyment of the day commonly known as the Lord’s day, “as a day of rest” and to “promote its observance as a day of religious worship,” and the language of religious observance and worship extended through the six sections. Josephine Bateham of the WCTU proposed substituting the word “promote” with “protect,” so that the bill would not give any appearance of a “union of church and state.” Blair, however, saw “protect” as even more problematic—a “stronger and more interfering word” that implied the backing of armed force. Jones happily agreed. Douglas Morgan, “A Clash of Millenialisms on Capitol Hill,” Liberty (December 2009) http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/a-clash-of-millennialisms-on-capitol-hill.

That year [1888]  representatives of six major Protestant denominations met in Washington, D.C. to organize the American Sabbath Union; this name was later changed to The Lord’s Day Alliance of the United States. The LDA has been the one national organization whose sole purpose is to maintain and cultivate the first day of the week as a time for rest, worship, Christian education and spiritual renewal. Today, The Lord’s Day Alliance promotes the importance of the Sabbath [Sunday], and a message of spiritual renewal and personal well-being in this fast-paced 24/7, 21st century American culture. “Our History,” Lord's Day Alliance of the US, http://www.ldausa.org/lda/about/

“The foremost organizer of the drive for a national Sunday law in 1888 was the Reverend Wilbur F. Crafts, probably the most industrious of the era’s Christian lobbyists. While pastor of a Presbyterian church in New York City, Crafts published The Sabbath for Man in 1884 and a year later began campaigning for a national Sunday law. In that book, which eventually reached seven editions, Crafts drew on a distinction made 20 years before by the Lutheran church historian Philip Schaff to argue that legislation in support of a civil Sabbath was legitimate. Government could not enforce religious observance of the Sabbath, but Sunday rest laws did serve civil interests, benefiting society as a whole by promoting public health, limiting exploitation of workers, reducing crime, and strengthening the home.…. Crafts broadened a campaign for national measures for Sabbath observance that began in 1881 as a petition to Congress for a federal law against carrying or delivering mail on Sundays. Yates Hickey of the International Sabbath Association developed the petition, the NRA endorsed it, and Josephine Bateham’s Sunday observance department of the WCTU led in expanding its circulation. A ban on Sunday military parades was added to the petition, and when Crafts came on the scene in 1885, he added a ban on interstate rail traffic and a general Sunday law for the territories to the list of desired measures. The Sunday law initiative found a welcome response in Congress from Senator Blair, a longtime ally of moral reform causes who had collaborated with the WCTU on behalf of prohibition since 1877. Now, Blair scheduled a hearing on the proposal for a national Sunday law before his Committee on Education and Labor in April 1888. After hearing speakers lined up by Crafts, and thus all favorable, and the reading of a letter from Bateham claiming the support of a million people for the petition, Blair agreed to draft a bill. He also advised Crafts to gain broader support for the measure by seeking the endorsement of the Knights of Labor. Though already declining from the peak of popular national support it reached in 1886, the Knights of Labor remained the nation’s most widely recognized voice of reform on behalf of the working classes. Then, on May 21, 1888, Blair introduced “S. 2983,” “a bill to secure to the people the enjoyment of the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord’s day, as a day of rest, and to promote its observance as a day of religious worship.” Its provisions included prohibition of unnecessary work and recreation “to the disturbance of others” in territories directly under federal jurisdiction, in addition to the restrictions on Sunday mail, interstate commerce and transportation, and routine military “drills, musters, and parades,” as outlined by the petitions from the Christian lobby. Four days later, on May 25, Blair further introduced, to the cheers of the NRA periodical the Christian Statesman, a joint resolution charting a new path to constitutional recognition of Christianity as the nation’s religion. It proposed an amendment to the Constitution requiring all states to offer free public education that included instruction not only in the “common branches of knowledge,” but also in “virtue, morality, and the principles of the Christian religion.” In December, immediately after the second session of the Fiftieth Congress convened, Blair proceeded with a hearing on the Sunday rest bill before his committee. This time arguments both pro and con would be heard. In the intervening months, though, the Christian lobby had marshaled further resources. Crafts laid the groundwork for a new organization, the American Sabbath Union, which held its public organizational meeting on the evening following the December 13 committee hearing. Not only did he succeed in gaining the support of the Knights of Labor; Crafts had in his pocket a letter of endorsement from Cardinal James Gibbons, archbishop of Baltimore and the preeminent member of the American Catholic hierarchy. That letter, Crafts claimed, meant he could add 7.2 million American Catholics to the ranks supporting the national Sunday law, making for a grand total of 14 million.While Frances Willard and W. F. Crafts tapped into the powerful current of idealism in American Protestantism generated by anticipation of progress toward a new millennial social order, Alonzo T. Jones (1850-1923), more than anyone else, brought the distinct eschatology of Seventh-day Adventists to bear on public issues during the late nineteenth century. Jones joined the Adventist movement at the age of 24 in Walla Walla, Washington, where he was nearing completion of a five-year enlistment in the U.S. Army. He rapidly developed into a powerful preacher and polemicist and a prolific writer. By the 1890s he was probably the most influential male leader in the denomination...The stepped-up activity of the Christian lobby compounded the seriousness—even urgency—with which Adventists viewed these matters. In their reading of the biblical prophecies, the national Sunday law and Christian amendment proposals before Congress signaled a new partnership between religion and state coercion that would end religious freedom in America and begin a time of severe and final tribulation, quickly followed by the return of Christ and destruction of the present order of things. ...In October 1888, just two months prior to Senator Blair’s hearing on the national Sunday law in Washington, this internal conflict played out at the Adventists’ General Conference session in Minneapolis, and its outcome connects with our story of how and why the publishers of the American Sentinel sought to influence public policy. …. Jones contended that Sunday laws possessed an inherently religious character, and thus violated the Constitution’s prohibition against “establishment of religion.” However, he cited not secular reason but divine revelation as the primary validation for that constitutional distinction between the civil and religious realms. He also found in Scripture the criteria for determining the category in which a proposed enactment belonged.Putting considerable weight on Jesus’ cryptic saying “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21), Jones declared: “Our national Constitution embodies the very principle announced by Jesus Christ, that the civil government shall have nothing to do with religion, or with what pertains to God; but shall leave that to every man’s conscience and his God.” Furthermore, it was the last six of the Ten Commandments, having to do with how humans treat each other, that delineated the proper scope of civil government’s jurisdiction. This ruled out laws regarding the Sabbath (the subject of the fourth commandment), for Jones denied “the right of the civil government to legislate on anything that pertains to our duties to God under the first four commandments.” On this basis, he denounced the proposed national Sunday bill as not only unconstitutional, but “antichristian.” The question of whether the law would be a religious or a civil measure lay at the heart of the dispute. Senator Blair reasoned that if, in a democratic nation, “Caesar is society,” and if a weekly day of rest is crucial to the common good, it would then come under the proper scope of “Caesar’s” legislation. The references to religion that permeated the bill, Jones countered, belied the claims about its civil purpose. The title itself declared the bill’s purpose both to secure the enjoyment of the day commonly known as the Lord’s day, “as a day of rest” and to “promote its observance as a day of religious worship,” and the language of religious observance and worship extended through the six sections. Josephine Bateham of the WCTU proposed substituting the word “promote” with “protect,” so that the bill would not give any appearance of a “union of church and state.” Blair, however, saw “protect” as even more problematic—a “stronger and more interfering word” that implied the backing of armed force. Jones happily agreed. Douglas Morgan, “A Clash of Millenialisms on Capitol Hill,” Liberty (December 2009) http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/a-clash-of-millennialisms-on-capitol-hill.

“The foremost organizer of the drive for a national Sunday law in 1888 was the Reverend Wilbur F. Crafts, probably the most industrious of the era’s Christian lobbyists. While pastor of a Presbyterian church in New York City, Crafts published The Sabbath for Man in 1884 and a year later began campaigning for a national Sunday law. In that book, which eventually reached seven editions, Crafts drew on a distinction made 20 years before by the Lutheran church historian Philip Schaff to argue that legislation in support of a civil Sabbath was legitimate. Government could not enforce religious observance of the Sabbath, but Sunday rest laws did serve civil interests, benefiting society as a whole by promoting public health, limiting exploitation of workers, reducing crime, and strengthening the home.…. Crafts broadened a campaign for national measures for Sabbath observance that began in 1881 as a petition to Congress for a federal law against carrying or delivering mail on Sundays. Yates Hickey of the International Sabbath Association developed the petition, the NRA endorsed it, and Josephine Bateham’s Sunday observance department of the WCTU led in expanding its circulation. A ban on Sunday military parades was added to the petition, and when Crafts came on the scene in 1885, he added a ban on interstate rail traffic and a general Sunday law for the territories to the list of desired measures. The Sunday law initiative found a welcome response in Congress from Senator Blair, a longtime ally of moral reform causes who had collaborated with the WCTU on behalf of prohibition since 1877. Now, Blair scheduled a hearing on the proposal for a national Sunday law before his Committee on Education and Labor in April 1888. After hearing speakers lined up by Crafts, and thus all favorable, and the reading of a letter from Bateham claiming the support of a million people for the petition, Blair agreed to draft a bill. He also advised Crafts to gain broader support for the measure by seeking the endorsement of the Knights of Labor. Though already declining from the peak of popular national support it reached in 1886, the Knights of Labor remained the nation’s most widely recognized voice of reform on behalf of the working classes. Then, on May 21, 1888, Blair introduced “S. 2983,” “a bill to secure to the people the enjoyment of the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord’s day, as a day of rest, and to promote its observance as a day of religious worship.” Its provisions included prohibition of unnecessary work and recreation “to the disturbance of others” in territories directly under federal jurisdiction, in addition to the restrictions on Sunday mail, interstate commerce and transportation, and routine military “drills, musters, and parades,” as outlined by the petitions from the Christian lobby. Four days later, on May 25, Blair further introduced, to the cheers of the NRA periodical the Christian Statesman, a joint resolution charting a new path to constitutional recognition of Christianity as the nation’s religion. It proposed an amendment to the Constitution requiring all states to offer free public education that included instruction not only in the “common branches of knowledge,” but also in “virtue, morality, and the principles of the Christian religion.” In December, immediately after the second session of the Fiftieth Congress convened, Blair proceeded with a hearing on the Sunday rest bill before his committee. This time arguments both pro and con would be heard. In the intervening months, though, the Christian lobby had marshaled further resources. Crafts laid the groundwork for a new organization, the American Sabbath Union, which held its public organizational meeting on the evening following the December 13 committee hearing. Not only did he succeed in gaining the support of the Knights of Labor; Crafts had in his pocket a letter of endorsement from Cardinal James Gibbons, archbishop of Baltimore and the preeminent member of the American Catholic hierarchy. That letter, Crafts claimed, meant he could add 7.2 million American Catholics to the ranks supporting the national Sunday law, making for a grand total of 14 million.While Frances Willard and W. F. Crafts tapped into the powerful current of idealism in American Protestantism generated by anticipation of progress toward a new millennial social order, Alonzo T. Jones (1850-1923), more than anyone else, brought the distinct eschatology of Seventh-day Adventists to bear on public issues during the late nineteenth century. Jones joined the Adventist movement at the age of 24 in Walla Walla, Washington, where he was nearing completion of a five-year enlistment in the U.S. Army. He rapidly developed into a powerful preacher and polemicist and a prolific writer. By the 1890s he was probably the most influential male leader in the denomination...The stepped-up activity of the Christian lobby compounded the seriousness—even urgency—with which Adventists viewed these matters. In their reading of the biblical prophecies, the national Sunday law and Christian amendment proposals before Congress signaled a new partnership between religion and state coercion that would end religious freedom in America and begin a time of severe and final tribulation, quickly followed by the return of Christ and destruction of the present order of things. ...In October 1888, just two months prior to Senator Blair’s hearing on the national Sunday law in Washington, this internal conflict played out at the Adventists’ General Conference session in Minneapolis, and its outcome connects with our story of how and why the publishers of the American Sentinel sought to influence public policy. …. Jones contended that Sunday laws possessed an inherently religious character, and thus violated the Constitution’s prohibition against “establishment of religion.” However, he cited not secular reason but divine revelation as the primary validation for that constitutional distinction between the civil and religious realms. He also found in Scripture the criteria for determining the category in which a proposed enactment belonged.Putting considerable weight on Jesus’ cryptic saying “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21), Jones declared: “Our national Constitution embodies the very principle announced by Jesus Christ, that the civil government shall have nothing to do with religion, or with what pertains to God; but shall leave that to every man’s conscience and his God.” Furthermore, it was the last six of the Ten Commandments, having to do with how humans treat each other, that delineated the proper scope of civil government’s jurisdiction. This ruled out laws regarding the Sabbath (the subject of the fourth commandment), for Jones denied “the right of the civil government to legislate on anything that pertains to our duties to God under the first four commandments.” On this basis, he denounced the proposed national Sunday bill as not only unconstitutional, but “antichristian.” The question of whether the law would be a religious or a civil measure lay at the heart of the dispute. Senator Blair reasoned that if, in a democratic nation, “Caesar is society,” and if a weekly day of rest is crucial to the common good, it would then come under the proper scope of “Caesar’s” legislation. The references to religion that permeated the bill, Jones countered, belied the claims about its civil purpose. The title itself declared the bill’s purpose both to secure the enjoyment of the day commonly known as the Lord’s day, “as a day of rest” and to “promote its observance as a day of religious worship,” and the language of religious observance and worship extended through the six sections. Josephine Bateham of the WCTU proposed substituting the word “promote” with “protect,” so that the bill would not give any appearance of a “union of church and state.” Blair, however, saw “protect” as even more problematic—a “stronger and more interfering word” that implied the backing of armed force. Jones happily agreed. Douglas Morgan, “A Clash of Millenialisms on Capitol Hill,” Liberty (December 2009) http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/a-clash-of-millennialisms-on-capitol-hill.

For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this. Socrates Scholasticus, The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, surnamed scholasticus, or the advocate. Comprising a History of the Church, in Seven Books, from the accession of Constantine, AD 305, to the 38th year of Theodosius II, including a period of 140 years. Translated from the Greek: with some account of the author, and notes selected from Valesius. Book 5, 22. as quoted in Philip Schaff, Henry WaceChristian literature Company, 1890 Socrates Scholasticus, The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, surnamed scholasticus, or the advocate. Comprising a History of the Church, in Seven Books, from the accession of Constantine, AD 305, to the 38th year of Theodosius II, including a period of 140 years. Translated from the Greek: with some account of the author, and notes selected from Valesius. Book 5, 22. as quoted in Philip Schaff, Henry Wace Christian literature Company, 1890 https://books.google.ca/books?id=OIEXAAAAYAAJ&dq=For+although+almost+all+churches+throughout+the+world+celebrate+the+sacred+mysteries+on+the+Sabbath+of+every+week,+yet+the+Christians+of+Alexandria+and+at+Rome,+on+account+of+some+ancient+tradition,+have+ceased+to+do+this.&source=gbs_navlinks_s

“Is there any command in the New Testament to change the day of weekly rest from Saturday to Sunday? None.” Walker Gwynne, Manual of Christian Doctrine (London: Joseph Masters & Co., 1883): 127. https://books.google.ca/books?id=VLcCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA127&dq

It was upon this very point that the Reformation was condemned by the Council of Trent. The Reformers had constantly charged, ..  that the Catholic Church had “apostatized from the truth as contained in the written word…...  …. Most christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Roman 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…. The challenge issued by Rome over 100 years ago remains: Either the Catholic Church is right, or the Seventh day Adventists are right. There can be no other choice. And if one choose neither, then the whole doctrine of Sola Scriptura collapses, and with it, the pillar upon which all of Protestantism stands. … The challenge remains yet you will find no response, not from any Evangelical, Fundamentalist or mainline Protestant denomination anywhere. Ultimately, it is the clear authority of the Catholic Church as vested in Her by God Himself, that rules the day…For all other Protestants, an indictment remains unanswered, standing unanswered now for 500 years. They have been arraigned in Council, and have convicted themselves.” http://pdf.amazingdiscoveries.org/References/TO/Romes_Challenge.pdf

"the archbishop of Rheggio made a speech in which he openly declared that tradition stood above Scripture. The authority of the church could therefore not be bound by the authority of the Scriptures, because the church had changed Sab­bath into Sunday, not by the command of Christ, but by its own authority." "Archbishop Kenrick's speech in "Documenta ad Illustrandum Concilium Vaticanum Anni 1870"("Documents Relating to the Famous Vatican Council of the Year 1870"), collected by Dr. Johann Friedrich, as quoted in W.W. Prescott, "Roman Catholicism and the Scriptures," The Ministry Magazine Vol 8 No 2 (February 1935) https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archives/1935/MIN1935-02.pdf

It was upon this very point that the Reformation was condemned by the Council of Trent. The Reformers had constantly charged, ..  that the Catholic Church had “apostatized from the truth as contained in the written word…...  …. Most christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Roman 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…. The challenge issued by Rome over 100 years ago remains: Either the Catholic Church is right, or the Seventh day Adventists are right. There can be no other choice. And if one choose neither, then the whole doctrine of Sola Scriptura collapses, and with it, the pillar upon which all of Protestantism stands. … The challenge remains yet you will find no response, not from any Evangelical, Fundamentalist or mainline Protestant denomination anywhere. Ultimately, it is the clear authority of the Catholic Church as vested in Her by God Himself, that rules the day…For all other Protestants, an indictment remains unanswered, standing unanswered now for 500 years. They have been arraigned in Council, and have convicted themselves.” http://pdf.amazingdiscoveries.org/References/TO/Romes_Challenge.pdf

"the archbishop of Rheggio made a speech in which he openly declared that tradition stood above Scripture. The authority of the church could therefore not be bound by the authority of the Scriptures, because the church had changed Sab­bath into Sunday, not by the command of Christ, but by its own authority." "Archbishop Kenrick's speech in "Documenta ad Illustrandum Concilium Vaticanum Anni 1870"("Documents Relating to the Famous Vatican Council of the Year 1870"), collected by Dr. Johann Friedrich, as quoted in W.W. Prescott, "Roman Catholicism and the Scriptures," The Ministry Magazine Vol 8 No 2 (February 1935) https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archives/1935/MIN1935-02.pdf

“A change of the day to be observed from the last day of the week to the first. There is no record, no express command, authorizing this change.” The Christian Sabbath by William Hague, Nathan Lewis Rice https://archive.org/stream/christiansabbathad00rice#page/60/mode/2up

“If every Sunday is to be observed joyfully by the Christians on account of the resurrection, then every sabbath on account of the burial is to be regarded in execration of the Jews.” Pope Sylvester, quoted by S.R.E. Humbert, Adversus Graecorum Calumnias, in J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, p. 143. [Sylvester (A.D. 314-337) was the pope at the time Constantine I was Emperor.]http://www.bibleprobe.com/sundayworship.htm

“The foremost organizer of the drive for a national Sunday law in 1888 was the Reverend Wilbur F. Crafts, probably the most industrious of the era’s Christian lobbyists. While pastor of a Presbyterian church in New York City, Crafts published The Sabbath for Man in 1884 and a year later began campaigning for a national Sunday law. In that book, which eventually reached seven editions, Crafts drew on a distinction made 20 years before by the Lutheran church historian Philip Schaff to argue that legislation in support of a civil Sabbath was legitimate. Government could not enforce religious observance of the Sabbath, but Sunday rest laws did serve civil interests, benefiting society as a whole by promoting public health, limiting exploitation of workers, reducing crime, and strengthening the home.…. Crafts broadened a campaign for national measures for Sabbath observance that began in 1881 as a petition to Congress for a federal law against carrying or delivering mail on Sundays. Yates Hickey of the International Sabbath Association developed the petition, the NRA endorsed it, and Josephine Bateham’s Sunday observance department of the WCTU led in expanding its circulation. A ban on Sunday military parades was added to the petition, and when Crafts came on the scene in 1885, he added a ban on interstate rail traffic and a general Sunday law for the territories to the list of desired measures. The Sunday law initiative found a welcome response in Congress from Senator Blair, a longtime ally of moral reform causes who had collaborated with the WCTU on behalf of prohibition since 1877. Now, Blair scheduled a hearing on the proposal for a national Sunday law before his Committee on Education and Labor in April 1888. After hearing speakers lined up by Crafts, and thus all favorable, and the reading of a letter from Bateham claiming the support of a million people for the petition, Blair agreed to draft a bill. He also advised Crafts to gain broader support for the measure by seeking the endorsement of the Knights of Labor. Though already declining from the peak of popular national support it reached in 1886, the Knights of Labor remained the nation’s most widely recognized voice of reform on behalf of the working classes. Then, on May 21, 1888, Blair introduced “S. 2983,” “a bill to secure to the people the enjoyment of the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord’s day, as a day of rest, and to promote its observance as a day of religious worship.” Its provisions included prohibition of unnecessary work and recreation “to the disturbance of others” in territories directly under federal jurisdiction, in addition to the restrictions on Sunday mail, interstate commerce and transportation, and routine military “drills, musters, and parades,” as outlined by the petitions from the Christian lobby. Four days later, on May 25, Blair further introduced, to the cheers of the NRA periodical the Christian Statesman, a joint resolution charting a new path to constitutional recognition of Christianity as the nation’s religion. It proposed an amendment to the Constitution requiring all states to offer free public education that included instruction not only in the “common branches of knowledge,” but also in “virtue, morality, and the principles of the Christian religion.” In December, immediately after the second session of the Fiftieth Congress convened, Blair proceeded with a hearing on the Sunday rest bill before his committee. This time arguments both pro and con would be heard. In the intervening months, though, the Christian lobby had marshaled further resources. Crafts laid the groundwork for a new organization, the American Sabbath Union, which held its public organizational meeting on the evening following the December 13 committee hearing. Not only did he succeed in gaining the support of the Knights of Labor; Crafts had in his pocket a letter of endorsement from Cardinal James Gibbons, archbishop of Baltimore and the preeminent member of the American Catholic hierarchy. That letter, Crafts claimed, meant he could add 7.2 million American Catholics to the ranks supporting the national Sunday law, making for a grand total of 14 million.While Frances Willard and W. F. Crafts tapped into the powerful current of idealism in American Protestantism generated by anticipation of progress toward a new millennial social order, Alonzo T. Jones (1850-1923), more than anyone else, brought the distinct eschatology of Seventh-day Adventists to bear on public issues during the late nineteenth century. Jones joined the Adventist movement at the age of 24 in Walla Walla, Washington, where he was nearing completion of a five-year enlistment in the U.S. Army. He rapidly developed into a powerful preacher and polemicist and a prolific writer. By the 1890s he was probably the most influential male leader in the denomination...The stepped-up activity of the Christian lobby compounded the seriousness—even urgency—with which Adventists viewed these matters. In their reading of the biblical prophecies, the national Sunday law and Christian amendment proposals before Congress signaled a new partnership between religion and state coercion that would end religious freedom in America and begin a time of severe and final tribulation, quickly followed by the return of Christ and destruction of the present order of things. ...In October 1888, just two months prior to Senator Blair’s hearing on the national Sunday law in Washington, this internal conflict played out at the Adventists’ General Conference session in Minneapolis, and its outcome connects with our story of how and why the publishers of the American Sentinel sought to influence public policy. …. Jones contended that Sunday laws possessed an inherently religious character, and thus violated the Constitution’s prohibition against “establishment of religion.” However, he cited not secular reason but divine revelation as the primary validation for that constitutional distinction between the civil and religious realms. He also found in Scripture the criteria for determining the category in which a proposed enactment belonged.Putting considerable weight on Jesus’ cryptic saying “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21), Jones declared: “Our national Constitution embodies the very principle announced by Jesus Christ, that the civil government shall have nothing to do with religion, or with what pertains to God; but shall leave that to every man’s conscience and his God.” Furthermore, it was the last six of the Ten Commandments, having to do with how humans treat each other, that delineated the proper scope of civil government’s jurisdiction. This ruled out laws regarding the Sabbath (the subject of the fourth commandment), for Jones denied “the right of the civil government to legislate on anything that pertains to our duties to God under the first four commandments.” On this basis, he denounced the proposed national Sunday bill as not only unconstitutional, but “antichristian.” The question of whether the law would be a religious or a civil measure lay at the heart of the dispute. Senator Blair reasoned that if, in a democratic nation, “Caesar is society,” and if a weekly day of rest is crucial to the common good, it would then come under the proper scope of “Caesar’s” legislation. The references to religion that permeated the bill, Jones countered, belied the claims about its civil purpose. The title itself declared the bill’s purpose both to secure the enjoyment of the day commonly known as the Lord’s day, “as a day of rest” and to “promote its observance as a day of religious worship,” and the language of religious observance and worship extended through the six sections. Josephine Bateham of the WCTU proposed substituting the word “promote” with “protect,” so that the bill would not give any appearance of a “union of church and state.” Blair, however, saw “protect” as even more problematic—a “stronger and more interfering word” that implied the backing of armed force. Jones happily agreed. Douglas Morgan, “A Clash of Millenialisms on Capitol Hill,” Liberty (December 2009) http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/a-clash-of-millennialisms-on-capitol-hill.

It was upon this very point that the Reformation was condemned by the Council of Trent. The Reformers had constantly charged, ..  that the Catholic Church had “apostatized from the truth as contained in the written word…...  …. Most christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Roman 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…. The challenge issued by Rome over 100 years ago remains: Either the Catholic Church is right, or the Seventh day Adventists are right. There can be no other choice. And if one choose neither, then the whole doctrine of Sola Scriptura collapses, and with it, the pillar upon which all of Protestantism stands. … The challenge remains yet you will find no response, not from any Evangelical, Fundamentalist or mainline Protestant denomination anywhere. Ultimately, it is the clear authority of the Catholic Church as vested in Her by God Himself, that rules the day…For all other Protestants, an indictment remains unanswered, standing unanswered now for 500 years. They have been arraigned in Council, and have convicted themselves.” http://pdf.amazingdiscoveries.org/References/TO/Romes_Challenge.pdf

“Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ - [Synod of Laodicea (4th Century)”, The Canons, Canon 29 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm

“The foremost organizer of the drive for a national Sunday law in 1888 was the Reverend Wilbur F. Crafts, probably the most industrious of the era’s Christian lobbyists. While pastor of a Presbyterian church in New York City, Crafts published The Sabbath for Man in 1884 and a year later began campaigning for a national Sunday law. In that book, which eventually reached seven editions, Crafts drew on a distinction made 20 years before by the Lutheran church historian Philip Schaff to argue that legislation in support of a civil Sabbath was legitimate. Government could not enforce religious observance of the Sabbath, but Sunday rest laws did serve civil interests, benefiting society as a whole by promoting public health, limiting exploitation of workers, reducing crime, and strengthening the home.…. Crafts broadened a campaign for national measures for Sabbath observance that began in 1881 as a petition to Congress for a federal law against carrying or delivering mail on Sundays. Yates Hickey of the International Sabbath Association developed the petition, the NRA endorsed it, and Josephine Bateham’s Sunday observance department of the WCTU led in expanding its circulation. A ban on Sunday military parades was added to the petition, and when Crafts came on the scene in 1885, he added a ban on interstate rail traffic and a general Sunday law for the territories to the list of desired measures. The Sunday law initiative found a welcome response in Congress from Senator Blair, a longtime ally of moral reform causes who had collaborated with the WCTU on behalf of prohibition since 1877. Now, Blair scheduled a hearing on the proposal for a national Sunday law before his Committee on Education and Labor in April 1888. After hearing speakers lined up by Crafts, and thus all favorable, and the reading of a letter from Bateham claiming the support of a million people for the petition, Blair agreed to draft a bill. He also advised Crafts to gain broader support for the measure by seeking the endorsement of the Knights of Labor. Though already declining from the peak of popular national support it reached in 1886, the Knights of Labor remained the nation’s most widely recognized voice of reform on behalf of the working classes. Then, on May 21, 1888, Blair introduced “S. 2983,” “a bill to secure to the people the enjoyment of the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord’s day, as a day of rest, and to promote its observance as a day of religious worship.” Its provisions included prohibition of unnecessary work and recreation “to the disturbance of others” in territories directly under federal jurisdiction, in addition to the restrictions on Sunday mail, interstate commerce and transportation, and routine military “drills, musters, and parades,” as outlined by the petitions from the Christian lobby. Four days later, on May 25, Blair further introduced, to the cheers of the NRA periodical the Christian Statesman, a joint resolution charting a new path to constitutional recognition of Christianity as the nation’s religion. It proposed an amendment to the Constitution requiring all states to offer free public education that included instruction not only in the “common branches of knowledge,” but also in “virtue, morality, and the principles of the Christian religion.” In December, immediately after the second session of the Fiftieth Congress convened, Blair proceeded with a hearing on the Sunday rest bill before his committee. This time arguments both pro and con would be heard. In the intervening months, though, the Christian lobby had marshaled further resources. Crafts laid the groundwork for a new organization, the American Sabbath Union, which held its public organizational meeting on the evening following the December 13 committee hearing. Not only did he succeed in gaining the support of the Knights of Labor; Crafts had in his pocket a letter of endorsement from Cardinal James Gibbons, archbishop of Baltimore and the preeminent member of the American Catholic hierarchy. That letter, Crafts claimed, meant he could add 7.2 million American Catholics to the ranks supporting the national Sunday law, making for a grand total of 14 million.While Frances Willard and W. F. Crafts tapped into the powerful current of idealism in American Protestantism generated by anticipation of progress toward a new millennial social order, Alonzo T. Jones (1850-1923), more than anyone else, brought the distinct eschatology of Seventh-day Adventists to bear on public issues during the late nineteenth century. Jones joined the Adventist movement at the age of 24 in Walla Walla, Washington, where he was nearing completion of a five-year enlistment in the U.S. Army. He rapidly developed into a powerful preacher and polemicist and a prolific writer. By the 1890s he was probably the most influential male leader in the denomination...The stepped-up activity of the Christian lobby compounded the seriousness—even urgency—with which Adventists viewed these matters. In their reading of the biblical prophecies, the national Sunday law and Christian amendment proposals before Congress signaled a new partnership between religion and state coercion that would end religious freedom in America and begin a time of severe and final tribulation, quickly followed by the return of Christ and destruction of the present order of things. ...In October 1888, just two months prior to Senator Blair’s hearing on the national Sunday law in Washington, this internal conflict played out at the Adventists’ General Conference session in Minneapolis, and its outcome connects with our story of how and why the publishers of the American Sentinel sought to influence public policy. …. Jones contended that Sunday laws possessed an inherently religious character, and thus violated the Constitution’s prohibition against “establishment of religion.” However, he cited not secular reason but divine revelation as the primary validation for that constitutional distinction between the civil and religious realms. He also found in Scripture the criteria for determining the category in which a proposed enactment belonged.Putting considerable weight on Jesus’ cryptic saying “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21), Jones declared: “Our national Constitution embodies the very principle announced by Jesus Christ, that the civil government shall have nothing to do with religion, or with what pertains to God; but shall leave that to every man’s conscience and his God.” Furthermore, it was the last six of the Ten Commandments, having to do with how humans treat each other, that delineated the proper scope of civil government’s jurisdiction. This ruled out laws regarding the Sabbath (the subject of the fourth commandment), for Jones denied “the right of the civil government to legislate on anything that pertains to our duties to God under the first four commandments.” On this basis, he denounced the proposed national Sunday bill as not only unconstitutional, but “antichristian.” The question of whether the law would be a religious or a civil measure lay at the heart of the dispute. Senator Blair reasoned that if, in a democratic nation, “Caesar is society,” and if a weekly day of rest is crucial to the common good, it would then come under the proper scope of “Caesar’s” legislation. The references to religion that permeated the bill, Jones countered, belied the claims about its civil purpose. The title itself declared the bill’s purpose both to secure the enjoyment of the day commonly known as the Lord’s day, “as a day of rest” and to “promote its observance as a day of religious worship,” and the language of religious observance and worship extended through the six sections. Josephine Bateham of the WCTU proposed substituting the word “promote” with “protect,” so that the bill would not give any appearance of a “union of church and state.” Blair, however, saw “protect” as even more problematic—a “stronger and more interfering word” that implied the backing of armed force. Jones happily agreed. Douglas Morgan, “A Clash of Millenialisms on Capitol Hill,” Liberty (December 2009) http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/a-clash-of-millennialisms-on-capitol-hill.

For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this. Socrates Scholasticus, The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, surnamed scholasticus, or the advocate. Comprising a History of the Church, in Seven Books, from the accession of Constantine, AD 305, to the 38th year of Theodosius II, including a period of 140 years. Translated from the Greek: with some account of the author, and notes selected from Valesius. Book 5, 22. as quoted in Philip Schaff, Henry Wace Christian literature Company, 1890 https://books.google.ca/books?id=OIEXAAAAYAAJ&dq=For+although+almost+all+churches+throughout+the+world+celebrate+the+sacred+mysteries+on+the+Sabbath+of+every+week,+yet+the+Christians+of+Alexandria+and+at+Rome,+on+account+of+some+ancient+tradition,+have+ceased+to+do+this.&source=gbs_navlinks_s

“… So called because this day was anciently dedicated to the sun, or its worship.” "Charles Annandale (ed), The Imperial Dictionary of the English Language, Volume 4 (Blackie & son, limited, 1883 ): 257" https://books.google.ca/books?id=g6RHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257#v=onepage&q&f=false

It’s quite clear that however rigidly or devoutly we spend Sunday, we are not keeping the Sabbath… There is not a single sentence in the New Testament to suggest that we incur any penalty by violating the supposed sanctity of Sunday.” R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments (Shropshire: Quinta Press, 2009): 82 http://quintapress.macmate.me/PDF_Books/RW_Dale/The_Ten_Commandments_v1.pdf

1. I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me.2. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.3. Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day.4. Honor your father and your mother.5. You shall not kill.6. You shall not commit adultery.7. You shall not steal.8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods. “Section Two: The Ten Commandments,” Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican.va: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm).