The Sabbath and the Mails.
By W. H. Littlejohn
LIKE all other questions, that which relates to the manner in which the Sabbath should be kept, has its difficulties. As it would be out of the question for the Holy Spirit to draw in full and complete outline the course to be pursued by each individual in every circumstance in life; that has been done which alone was practicable; namely, the Lord has directed in general terms that the day of his rest should be kept holy by giving up the mind to religious contemplation, and withholding the hand from all secular labor. But it is right here that our trouble originates. From the very necessity of the case, each individual is left to draw for himself the line between the holy and profane; and, as we differ widely in our habits of thought and modes of reasoning, disagreement naturally arises as to where it properly belongs. Our attention has been called to this fact more especially of late in seeing the diversity of practice which exists among our brethren in the matter of going to the office for their mail on the Sabbath. While some avoid this with scrupulous care, others engage in it as a practice every way defensible. Since this state of things is, to say the least, a misfortune; and, as the usage in question must be either right or wrong, perhaps a few reflections bearing upon it would not be out of place. What, then, are the arguments usually urged in defense of this custom? So far as our observation extends, they generally relate to the convenience of the opportunity which is afforded by attending church for a visit to the office; or else the necessity that they should have the REVIEW AND HERALD which is a religious paper, with which to spend the hours of God's holy day in a profitable manner. But are these reasons conclusive? So far as the first is concerned, it is of such a nature that, should it be admitted that it furnishes a justification in the case before us, it could be pleaded with equal propriety in the behalf of nearly every violation of the Sabbath which has ever occurred. In fact, it would subvert the institution altogether. Or should it stop short of this, it would, at least, cover with its ample folds, as we have seen illustrated in a thousand instances, the adherence to the observance of the first day of the week without any authority, in the place of that of the seventh, which stands upon divine appointment, on the ground that it is so inconvenient to be out of joint in a matter of this nature with society in general. We can readily see, that to one living several miles from town, there might be a saving of time and expense, by stopping at the office for the mail, while on the way to church, and that at times it might do away with the necessity of a special trip for that purpose. But is this the proper scale by which to measure the morality of the act? Is expediency to be consulted when the question at issue is purely one of right or wrong? If so, then the purchase, at the same time, of articles at the dry-goods store, of which the family stand in need, and which can never again be obtained at so slight an expenditure of time and labor, would constitute an act every way justifiable. The issue is not whether the occasion in question furnishes the best opportunity—economically speaking—for the accomplishment of the desired end. But it is this. Is the practice one which the word of God upholds? If so, it must come under one of two heads. It must be from its very nature either a work which is religious in itself, or one which, while constituting a departure from the prescribed rule, is to be defended on the ground of necessity. So far as the last proposition is concerned, it will hardly be urged that, ordinarily speaking, it is absolutely necessary that we should procure our papers and letters on the only day of the week which God has reserved exclusively to himself. Mark it! I do not say that the servant of God can never be so situated that he would be justified in employing the mails on that day, or that God might not be glorified thereby. But this would be an extreme case, one which would very seldom arise, and one which could not with propriety be said to warrant a man in doing likewise in ordinary circumstances, any more than it could be urged that David would have been pardonable for eating the show bread which had been set apart for the priests, had he not acted under the pressure of necessity; or the priesthood in departing in other respects which related purely to their own individual interests, from the law of the Lord, because they were permitted, while exclusively engaged in his service, to perform the work which was inseparably connected with the offering of sacrifices on the Sabbath. Again: it cannot be urged that the act under consideration is one which is exclusively religious simply from the fact that the paper which is sought to be obtained is a religious one. For should this be insisted upon, then the individual making this plea, resting it as he does upon the character of the periodical which he seeks to obtain, would thereby admit the impropriety of taking other publications and letters of a more secular nature; in this manner rendering it necessary that he should reject all but the one in question; thus placing himself in a position, which, to say the least, would be somewhat embarrassing. But to illustrate this more fully: suppose that it were desirable, yet not absolutely necessary, that one should have a copy of the Bible on the Sabbath, since his study of the Scriptures would be facilitated thereby. Would he be justified in stepping into a book store to purchase the same? You readily answer, No. But the case is a parallel one, since his desire to read the Scriptures was most certainly commendable, and they in themselves furnish matter which, above all that can be read or obtained, is free from objections. Where, then, lies the difficulty? You reply that the transaction was not purely religious, since it involved an unnecessary encouragement of the book-seller in carrying on an illegitimate business for the purpose of gain on God's holy day. But is this not equally true of the postmaster? The vendor of Bibles labored for the reward which he found in the profit of his books; the employee of the government for the stipulated wages which he received for his work. The principle is the same. The logic which condemns the one will necessarily condemn the other, unless you can show that the latter differs from the former in the fact that it is purely a moral institution. But this is not so. And for the purpose of testing it, we propound this question: Is the postmaster justified in throwing open the doors of his office, and standing behind his counter on the Sabbath day to wait upon those who may see fit to resort there to obtain the mail? If he is not, then we should be careful how we unnecessarily encourage him in his offense, lest we become accountable therefor. Should any one attempt to evade the consequences of this query by arguing that he does not do this for the sake of Sabbath-keepers particularly, but more especially for the larger number who have no regard for the day, then we will shape our question as follows: Would the postmaster be justified in keeping his office open on the Sabbath exclusively for the benefit of those who desire to obtain religious papers? This of course would be impracticable. But we think, to say the least, all will be compelled to concede that it would furnish an instance of a clear violation of the letter of God's law. It certainly would be doing for wages a work which in itself does not pertain to the service of God; and which, as a consequence, if justified at all, must be upon the ground of absolute necessity. But this could never be urged in its favor, since its claims could not, as we have already seen, rise above those of mere convenience and expediency. We urge, therefore, those who have been doing that which we are compelled from the foregoing considerations to regard as wrong, to give our premises and conclusions careful and prayerful attention. And even should they be unable to agree149with us in every respect, we submit, that the question must be regarded as in some respects a debatable one; and that there is a bare possibility that they are mistaken in their views. This being the case, since there is not only danger of offending God by pursuing the course heretofore entered upon, but since also many of those who keep the first day of the week regard the question in the same light in which we have presented it, and since they look upon your conduct with less charity than we have done, and take occasion from it to reproach the cause which we love, would it not be safer, better every way, to avoid even the appearance of evil? W. H. LITTLEJOHN. State Center, Iowa, April 12, 1871.