The Sermon by W. H. Littlejohn

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 25, 1868

The Sermon.

By W. H. Littlejohn

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.

PREACH THE WORD. 2 Tim. iv, 2.

THE SEVENTH-PART-OF-TIME THEORY.

BY W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

In the interpretation of Scripture, we are generally safe in rejecting as unsound, any theory which would represent it as inculcating doctrines which are impracticable. The reason for this may be found in the fact that there must, from the very necessity of the case, be a harmony between the physical and moral laws which govern the universe. For as God is the author of both, he would be justly chargeable with tyranny, should he point out in one a line of duty, and enforce it by penalties, and, in the other, render it impossible for us to comply with its requirements. If, therefore, we entertain a view of the import of any portion of God's law which seems to make it conflict either with the highest interests of society, when properly organized, or with any of the other provisions of the same code, we shall do well to give it a most critical examination, with a view to ascertaining whether it may not be false.

It is well known that, among those who keep Sunday, there is a large class who assign as a reason for so doing, that it is their belief that all that the fourth commandment requires is that they keep holy one seventh part of time.

It is our purpose in the present discussion of this subject, to examine this proposition, in as brief a manner as possible, in the light of the principle enunciated above. In doing so it will first become necessary that we demonstrate the impracticability of this view.

Our labor in this direction will not be long. For, by placing these men upon the stand, we shall obtain the proof desired, not from what they say merely, but also from what they do. To illustrate: These persons, while claiming that by the true construction of the statute in question, they have a perfect right to select any day of the week as the one they are to keep holy, are, nevertheless, uniform in the observance of the first.

The query naturally arises, why is there no greater diversity in this matter? Of what value is a privilege which can never be enjoyed? Are there no individual interests which sometimes conflict with this Sunday observance? Would it not sometimes be profitable as well as agreeable to substitute some other day? Then why is this never done? It can only be accounted for on one of two hypotheses: Either these men lack the moral courage to carry out their own convictions, and are bowing and cringing to those of others, or they are, in this thing, actuated by principle. As the former supposition would involve the infamy of a whole class, we much prefer the latter. And while we are compelled to believe that some have adopted this view merely as a subterfuge, we incline to the opinion that many entertain it honestly. To these last then, we look for an explanation of their course. As far as we have observed, they, almost without an exception, reason on this wise: We (say they), seeing that great evils would result from a multiplicity of Sabbath days, have yielded up our individual opinions for the common good, and consented to conform to the usages of the community whereby Sunday has been set apart for this purpose. Now, while we are ready to admit that this is the language of wisdom, so far as it relates to the evils which would flow from the observance of a multiplicity of Sabbaths, we would impress its truthfulness upon the mind of the reader, and then draw what we consider the legitimate consequence therefrom. Let us examine it therefore, in the light of facts. In order that we may do this to the best advantage, we will, in imagination, organize a State upon the principle in question; i. e., that every citizen shall have the right to follow his own inclination in the choice of a day of rest. As a consequence of the above privilege, every day of the seven would be observed by one or more persons. Now, as in the present order of things, courts of justice are necessary to the enforcement of law, they will be indispensable in our commonwealth. Having instituted them, therefore they immediately enter upon their work.

The judge in the exercise of his undoubted prerogative, has set apart Sunday as his rest day. The bar, and officers of the court, numbering in all fifteen or twenty, have, in the enjoyment of an equally undisputed right, for one reason or another, so far differed from him and from each other, that every day of the week has been appropriated by some one of them to religious services.

With this state of things, on Monday morning the judge expresses a desire that the sheriff proclaim the opening of the court, but is informed that this is the rest-day of that official, and consequently his services cannot be had. Another officer is summoned and this difficulty is surmounted. The calendar is then taken up in order. To the mortification of all present, it is found that there is hardly a case in the long list in which some one of the parties or attorneys is not absent for the same reason as was the sheriff. At length an isolated cause is found, which is, to all appearance, ready for trial. Unfortunately, some of the witnesses whose services cannot be dispensed with, are second-day keepers. The trial is therefore necessarily postponed, and the court adjourns until the following morning. The calendar is again taken up. This time the results are a little more favorable. One case seems to be fully ready for adjudication. Night comes on before it is finally disposed of, and the next morning it is to be resumed. But some of the witnesses and clients who were ready to try it on the second and third days, cannot conscientiously do so on the fourth. And besides, a portion of the jurors who had been previously empaneled, are now at home, the fourth day being to them, also, holy time. The fifth, sixth, and seventh days, are passed with like results. Either parties, attorneys, witnesses, jurors, or the court, have, in the exercise of a legally-recognized right to determine for themselves the particular day which they are to regard as sacred to the Lord, effectually blocked up the wheels of justice. The whole judicial system is rendered inoperative, and powerless to punish crime or enforce the rights of the citizen. As an inevitable consequence, anarchy and ruin follow in quick succession.

How would the effect of the policy under consideration differ materially from the above, when applied to the other departments of social life. Take for example the commercial world. Who does not see at a glance that the system of exchange now carried on with so much profit between individuals and communities, would be seriously obstructed, if not wholly interrupted, by the system in question. The commonest transactions of every-day life frequently involve the action of several individuals. Take for instance the transfer of a piece of real estate; this seldom occurs without the co-operation of seven or eight persons, and, very frequently requires the services of two or three times that number. As matters are now, it is no small undertaking to bring about the harmonious and timely action of all the parties; but how much would the difficulty be enhanced by a variable Sabbath.

If, however, you would comprehend in its fullest extent the inconveniences which would spring from the practical operation of the view mentioned, you must not confine yourself to a single branch of business.

Take a great metropolis with its converging railways, its acres of shipping, its prodigious wholesale and retail establishments, its banks, its offices, its markets, and its vast throng of human beings congregated from all parts of the country for the purposes of trade; now let any considerable number, say one-seventh, of the resident actors in this great financial drama, withdraw each day from active life, and what is the result? The cars are standing idle in the depots on account of the absence either of conductors, engineers, brakemen, or employees in some station, whose services cannot be dispensed with; hundreds of vessels are lying at the wharves unemployed, because one or more of the warehouses at which they wish to take on or discharge freight is closed; thousands of individuals from a distance are impatiently waiting at a great expense, the opening of the establishments with which either interest or necessity requires that they should deal; and every person from the merchant-prince whose yearly transactions can only be estimated by millions of dollars, to the humblest carrier on the street, finds himself annoyed and hindered at every turn by a state of things diametrically opposed to every principle of public policy.

Finally, without pausing to show that a want of uniformity in this thing would paralyze our whole educational system, or that with it, stated worship could not be maintained, let us descend from the public, to the private walks of life; from man in his political, to man in his domestic, relations. Before doing so, we shall be allowed to remind you that the proposition under examination is broad and unqualified; that by it is claimed the right of every person to choose for himself or herself the day of the seven which shall be set apart to the Lord.

Since it is not to be presumed that Jehovah was so unwise as to introduce with his law, provisions which would necessarily defeat its general purpose and plan, if we find that by a fair construction of its terms any one would be debarred from the enjoyment of this privilege, we must conclude that it was not the original design that they should have it, and that, as a consequence, those who claim that it was, are in error.

We come now to regard the Sabbath institution from the stand-point of the family. And as the commandment enforcing the Sabbath is addressed largely to householders, it is possible that its true import may be better learned here than elsewhere. That we may arrive at its real meaning, we will suppose that one of those with whom we take issue is a husband, a father, and a man who has in his employ a large number of persons, male and female; also that his children have matured into manhood and womanhood, or at least have attained an age when they are supposed to be competent to judge for themselves in affairs of this kind. As he would not willingly abridge their liberty to consult their own preference, since he is convinced that this is the purpose of the Lord, he is anxious to afford them an opportunity of acting according to his idea of the true interpretation of the commandment. Right here he discovers a serious difficulty. His eye rests on these words containing the Sabbath law: “In it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter.” The language is unequivocal, and the conclusion unavoidable. The same day in which he is to rest, his children under his roof and control are to do likewise. So far therefore as the exercise of volition on their part is concerned, it is out the question, unless they choose to separate from their father's family, and start in life for themselves. A meager privilege indeed!

He turns now to consider the case of his hired help. Inasmuch as they are so far from sustaining to him the relationship of children, that they are not even of the same lineage, in them will undoubtedly be recognized the right of independent action. However, lest he should mistake in the second, as in the first instance, he concludes to examine the law once more. Beginning at the same point as formerly, he reads: “In it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.” and even the stranger that has chanced to lodge within his gate, are all placed in the same category, and upon him is imposed the solemn obligation of seeing to it, that while they remain upon his premises, they respect the Sabbath of the Lord his God on the same day on which he does. The cattle also which are in his field are to enter into this rest, and it would be unlawful for him even to let them to another. Now, as the right to command, implies the duty to obey, the persons above enumerated find themselves compelled to carry out the wishes of their respective father, employer and host. As a result, individual choice is out of the question, and conformity to the usage of the acknowledged head becomes the inflexible rule of the whole household without an exception. And the only alternative left to those who still insist upon selecting a day different from the one observed by the body, would be that of keeping two Sabbaths in the week. But who does not see that this would be wholly impracticable, both on account of the time it would consume, and the discord which would follow therefrom.

If you would feel the full force of the argument presented above, it will be necessary that you turn from the occident to the orient, from the present time to a remote period when pastoral life was more generally followed, and when families reached proportions seldom witnessed among us.

Take as a familiar illustration, that of Abraham, in which, according to the record found in Genesis xiv, 14, there were three hundred and eighteen trained servants born in the house. Since these were unquestionably all males, add to them their wives and children, and you have a community large enough to form a modern village, and every member of it subject to the rule alluded to above.

Without wearying the intelligent reader by prosecuting the line of argument further, which has been pursued to this point, we leave you to elaborate it at will, believing that enough has been said to establish two propositions; viz., First, A variable Sabbath would be disastrous to the State, both because of the confusion it would introduce into the business world, and because with it the administration of justice would be out of the question. Second, That it could not be carried out in the family without producing the worst results, and requiring, on the part of the head thereof an utter disregard of responsibilities imposed upon him by language as plain as could well be employed.

But if we are right in both or either of these positions, the controversy is at an end. For you will remember that the law in question is not the product of human wisdom, but emanated from the infinite God, was written with his own finger, and has been repeatedly pronounced by him perfect. See Ps. xix, 7; Rom. vii, 12.

But what is a perfect law? The answer is obvious. First, it is one which is exactly calculated to meet the necessities of those for whom it was made. Secondly, its phraseology must be such that it will harmonize perfectly with its general purpose and plan when rightly understood. But neither of these is true of the fourth commandment as interpreted by our opponents. For it is evident, both from the facts in the case, and from the admissions of those holding an opinion different from ourselves, that the Sabbath, in order to prove a blessing and not a curse, should be observed by all alike on a stated day.

It is equally clear that if it was the original design of Jehovah to recognize in each the right of separate action, he has unwittingly defeated the object which he had in view by requiring at the hands of one class that which would prevent another, much more numerous one, from enjoying the benefits which he designed to confer. One of two things is therefore manifestly true. Either these men are in fault respecting the construction which should be placed upon the statute, or else we are all wrong as respects its authorship. Reader, which horn of this dilemma will you take? Are the Scriptures true? Then make them consistent. Did Jehovah utter the ten precepts of the Decalogue? Then accept them in their obvious import, and spurn as unworthy of a moment's consideration, any view of their teachings which would impute to the Deity a folly, either in their conception or expression, hardly paralleled in the history of human legislation. Believe that he said what he meant, and meant what he said, in the use of the definite expression, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” and the Bible, rescued from the charge of contradiction, will unite with reason in enforcing an institution which vindicates its claims to heavenly birth, both from the plain declarations of the written word, and the fact of its wonderful adaptation to the wants of a fallen race.

Do you say that inasmuch as the masses can never be induced to fall in with the change desired, any effort on the part of an insignificant number to do so will only serve to produce the very confusion which has been so much deprecated in this article? We reply, For this neither the Lord, nor you individually, can be held responsible. For if men, in their folly and madness, have presumed to set at naught the explicit declarations of Holy Writ, and substitute a secular day in the place of the one which it has pronounced holy, those, and those only, who have been participants in this sacrilegious act will be held responsible for the results of their temerity. It is true that by coming up on the common platform of Sunday keeping, unity of action might be preserved, but it would be at a cost which we can ill afford; for we shall find, perhaps too late, that the harmony which we have secured is not that sweet accord which exists where all are earnestly striving to do right, but that it is that other state of things of which it is said, “Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not go unpunished.” No, there is no room for compromise in this matter; no half-way ground on which extremes can meet and unite. The creature must yield to the Creator, in this thing, or all moral government is out of the question, and the fiat of the Sovereign of the universe will cease to command respect from those who have learned that its claims should only be recognized when seconded by the majority, and agreeable to the usage of the age.

There is but one safe and honorable exit from the difficulties and dangers of the situation. This is found in the path of obedience. Do your neighbors and friends refuse to go with you? Then travel it alone. It may be that before you reach your journey's end, your heart will be cheered by the society of some of the very persons who, being honest in heart, though they misapprehended your motive in the outset, nevertheless, by your exemplary life, and by the strength of the arguments for the truth which you have adduced, have been persuaded that you have chosen the part of wisdom and have resolved to share it with you. In the meantime, if any, while you are pursuing the even tenor of a consistent and God-fearing life, should attempt to hold you accountable for the disorder which would necessarily spring from the singularity of your faith, you will be permitted to reply in the burning words and with the holy boldness of one anciently under like circumstances: “I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord.” 1 Kings xviii, 18.