A SEVENTH PART OF TIME by William Henry Littlejohn

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jan 27, 1881

A SEVENTH PART OF TIME.

By William Henry Littlejohn

BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

THIRDLY, it makes the law contradictory in its provisions. Nothing is more manifest than that a rule emanating from the Infinite must be characterized by harmony in all of its parts. In fact, should a document claiming this honor appear to be deficient in this respect, it would be all which would be necessary to disprove its heavenly origin. God never stultifies himself by introducing into the same law conflicting provisions. He never enjoins in one clause a duty in which is implied the right of choice as to the time and manner of its fulfillment, and in the next prevents you, either from enjoying this franchise yourself, or requires, at your hands, that which would render it impossible for others to do so. In other words, applying the principle to the case in hand, God either meant to confer upon all the right of deciding for themselves which day they would keep, or else he intended to withhold it from them altogether. If the latter be true, it was done for good and sufficient cause; if the former, then he was moved to this course by considerations equally weighty. There is no half-way ground in this matter. The right of choice in this thing is either a positive good or a positive evil. If the latter, then he has, unquestionably, guarded against it in every reasonable manner; if the former, then he has, doubtless, shielded it with the most scrupulous care, in order that the greatest good might be accomplished; by leaving to the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the master and the servant, the right, as against every other man, of saying, not only that they would keep the Sabbath, but that which was equally God-given, of determining when they would do so. But this is just what our friends argue that he intended to do in the decalogue. If they are right we shall, undoubtedly, find it constructed upon this principle throughout. Let us test the matter. Perhaps the best method of doing this would be that of allowing some one of their number to attempt,

practically, to carry out his conception of this doctrine.

(1) Let him be a man of family, say a farmer, a portion of whose children are grown up; and who is surrounded by much hired help; also, a man who is not only conscientious in his notions, as doubtless many of that faith are, but a somewhat ardent advocate of them; and one who would spurn the idea of depriving others of that which he believed to be their rightful prerogative.

Having kept Sunday for the whole of his life thus far, he concludes that a sentiment which can never be enjoyed is hardly worth the holding, and decides to deviate from the practice of years, so far as to substitute Wednesday for it in the future. His wife consenting, they gather the household about them, and make known their intentions. While he invites all, as far as they can consistently do so, to unite with himself and wife in this thing, he nevertheless gives them to understand that he shall by no means attempt to coerce compliance, since that would be an infringement on their undoubted freedom to consult their own wishes in such matters. However, it would be exceedingly gratifying if all would make the change with them. The young people, seeing that such a step would be very inconvenient, and many times in the way of their enjoying society as they otherwise would, decide not to take it. The hired help, also, for one cause or another, determine not to depart from the custom of their fathers.

Wednesday arrives at last, and with it the appointed rest. Our venerable friend, true to his convictions of duty, having previously assigned, to all who thus desired, the field of their labor during his Sabbath, in order that his mind might not be turned away from its devotions by the intrusion of matters of a secular nature, withdrawing, in company with his wife, to a retired portion of the house, and congratulating himself upon the liberality of sentiments which, instead of holding all to the same inflexible rule, furnishes so much scope to the gratification of personal tastes and the consulting of individual interests, enters upon his rest. In this mood, the Bible is taken from the shelf, and opened to the 20th chapter of Exodus. The gray-haired man reads: "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Yes, Lord, he replies, we are endeavoring thus to do. "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work." This, he responds, we have already done. "But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." Once more he ejaculates, This has reference to one day in seven, and means that it should be celebrated as we are celebrating this. He begins back a little: "In it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." He pauses. A new idea strikes his mind. He again reads the passage. He is not mistaken. In the light of those words he is a Sabbath-breaker. For, waving all question in regard to time, he is guilty in respect to the manner of keeping the Sabbath; as, by every rule of fair construction, these words clearly imply that his sons, his daughters, his man-servant, his maid-servant, his cattle, and even the stranger that is within his gates, are to abstain from labor on the same hours on which he does; and yet, by his own direction, his daughters and his maid-servants are hard at work in the kitchen; his sons are employed in like manner in one field, while, in another, his oxen, under the goad of a hired man, are pressing their weary shoulders against the yoke, in order that in due time their master may reap in a rich harvest of golden grain—the reward of their Sabbath toil.

Do you say that we are begging the question in saying that the words in controversy, when rightly understood, teach what we claim? We reply, The verdict of all ages and races is in our favor in this matter. From Sinai to the present time it has been the practice of both Jews and Gentiles to hold church members responsible, under the principle enunciated in this language, for the conduct of those under their roof on the Sabbath day. So general, and so deep-seated, is the conviction that this practice is in every way commendable, we venture the prediction that should a conscientious Sabbatarian in search of labor among equally sincere Sunday-keepers, who needed his services ever so much, propose the idea of working for them on the latter and resting on the former day, his proposition would be spurned with contempt by nine out of ten, on the ground that they could not grant it without sin.

(2) The understanding of the clause which you suggest involves absurdities too great to be entertained for a moment. Take, for example, the first two classes mentioned, i. e., sons and daughters. In the majority of cases, they would include children of immature years. Does it seem probable that God would subject a father to the humiliating necessity of consulting the whims and caprices of boys and girls, as to when they should observe the Sabbath on his premises and under his roof? Yet he has done so, unless the language in question confers upon him the power of compelling them to rest at a time either fixed by the Almighty, or to be fixed by himself.

(3) The third class produces an illustration of the folly of such a sentiment, as clearly marked as does that of the second. For it cannot, with any show of reason, be urged that the servant should be made superior to the master by conferring upon him the privilege of deciding in reference to the day upon which he will rest, and, at the same time, the latter be held responsible for the manner in which he passes it. And, besides, is it not manifest that the workings of such a system would be disastrous in the extreme, and that the efforts of every family conducted upon this principle would inevitably be marked by confusion and failure? Surely, nothing is more indispensable to success than the presence of the leading mind at the time when the subordinate ones are to carry out the plans of operation which he has formed. But this, in the case under consideration, would be rendered impossible for at least one day in every week. Not only so, but the sentiment in question, in the hands of skillful shirks, especially where the service, as among the Jews, was many times for life, would prove the never-failing source of vexation and trial; for a change of Sabbath would ever afford a plausible pretext for absence, whenever extraordinary or unpleasant labor was to be performed.

(4) Again, the fact that cattle are mentioned in this connection in common with sons, daughters, men-servants, maid-servants, and strangers, throws light upon the intention of the Lawgiver; for, as it is said of them, in common with the others, that they shall do no work in it (i. e., the seventh day), it becomes too plain to admit of argument that the words "in it," as here read and applied to them in common with the other classes, does not refer to the day of their choice—but must be understood as alluding to the one in which the master himself refrains from labor.

Thus we think we have established that which we at first assumed to be true, namely, that the head of a family does not wholly comply with the law by simply resting on the Sabbath day. He must do more than this. He must compel those about him to follow his example. The bearing of this fact upon the general issue is too plain to require comment; for you will remember that the "seventh-part-of-time theory" is but the enunciation of the principle that God has clothed every man with authority to decide for himself when he will hallow the Sabbath; and yet we discover that, by a decree of the same God, three-fourths of the race, or at least all embraced in the various orders of children abiding at home, men-servants, maid-servants, and strangers, are most effectually debarred from the benefits of this provision. One of two things, therefore, is true: Either the Lord has, in the details of his law, defeated its general purpose and plan, or else this theory does not accord with his original intention. The reader will not be slow to decide which of these hypotheses he will adopt.