The Sabbath and the Mails Again.
By W. H. Littlejohn
Very soon after the publication in Review, No. 19, Vol. 37, of an article under the above caption, the following letter was received at the Office: “Hamilton, Mo., May 8, 1871. “Messrs. Editors Review and Herald: I noticed in a copy of the Review of April 25, an article headed, ‘The Sabbath and the Mails,’ signed W. H. Littlejohn, in which he is rather inclined to think it to be a violation of the holy Sabbath to take mail from the post-office on that day; even though a person may be living several miles away and be in town on the Sabbath to attend church. Now if the act of stepping into the office and getting your mail is a clear violation of the letter of God’s law (as he says), Is it not as much a violation of God’s law for us to hitch up a team and go several miles to church? Let us see what Moses says in Ex. 16:29; 20:10, 11; 23:12; 31:15; 35:2. As I understand the Scriptures, the Sabbath was set apart—not as a day of merriment, or of feasting; neither are we commanded to worship God on that day more than on other days of the week; but rather as a day of rest for man and beast. It appears to me that according to the strict letter of the law, a person is not justifiable in harnessing and driving his team three, five, or ten miles on the Sabbath day. How is this? Will some one please answer through the Review, for the benefit of all seekers after truth and holiness. Yours in hope. P. J. V.” If we comprehend the meaning of the author, he intends to take the position that the ten commandments do not set apart the Sabbath as a day of public worship, and that the letter of them strictly forbids the employment of teams for the purpose of going to the place of meeting. So far as the question at issue in the article above mentioned is concerned, we cannot see that it is one which can in any way be affected by the inquiry of our friend. Most assuredly, if his construction of the Sabbath law be correct, then we were right in insisting that a person would not be authorized to go to the office for his mail on that day. For if we are forbidden to leave our own premises, even for the purpose of attending church, certain it is that we shall not be justified in doing so for a less worthy purpose. But so far as the opinion is concerned which is advanced in the above communication regarding the design of God in the wording of the commandment, we cannot agree with our brother. It seems to us that he is pushing the affair beyond what the facts in the case will warrant. It may be true that, by adopting a rigid construction of that portion of the law which says that “in it” (i. e., in the Sabbath) “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,” his view might appear to be correct. But when it is taken in connection with the rest of the commandment, the difficulty is removed. The work here referred to is evidently the same as that spoken of previously in the connection, wherein it is stated, “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;” i. e., “any work” of thine; and as this is the same expression which governs in deciding the course to be pursued with one’s cattle, the inference is that they are not to be employed by the owner in any service which can be said to be his work, in contradistinction from that of the Lord. Now to prove that we are right in this, we have but to apply a rule of interpretation which is common in all courts of justice; namely, that of construing doubtful passages of the law, so as to make them harmonize with the utterances and actions of the lawmaker which relate to the same, or kindred subjects. Is it true, then, that there is in the word of God any expression of his which will throw light on the subject? Fortunately there is. In Lev. 23:3, we read; “Six days shall work be done; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein; it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings. See also verses 37 and 38.” Here side by side are found first, the declaration that the Sabbath shall be a day of convocation (i. e., assembly), and second, that in it no work be done, thus showing conclusively that our construction of the law was right; else God would be guilty of stultifying himself by commanding first, that the people should perform no labor of any description on his rest day, and then compelling the same persons to violate the statute which he himself had given, by making it necessary that they should go to the place of assembly. But no one will venture to represent God as occupying an attitude like this. Hence the only conclusion which remains, is, that we should understand the expression in the law which forbids “any work” as referring to servile labor; thus relieving the subject of all difficulty. Having done this, our labor in this controversy is at an end. For the moment we concede that the people were required to convene on the Sabbath, the question as to the manner in which they should come together, whether on foot or in vehicles employed for that purpose, and drawn by horses or other beasts of burden, becomes an immaterial one. For it certainly could be no more for them to ride to the place of convocation after a pair of well-fed horses than to drag their weary limbs along toward the place of meeting, on foot. If it should be replied that the ordinance spoken of in Lev. 23:3, passed away with the Mosaic economy, we are ready to concede it. So did all the texts quoted by the objector except the one found in the decalogue. Nevertheless it abundantly serves the end for which we have employed it. For it shows that God simply designed to teach that manual labor was wrong only when it conflicted with the observance of the Sabbath as holy time. If, therefore, those living at that period were acting in harmony with such a use of the day by pursuing the course in question, certainly we shall be; for the prohibitory restrictions are removed with the exception of that which it is claimed is found in the law itself, and which, like the others, we have shown should not be construed in the manner claimed. Nay, furthermore, we shall not rest the matter on negative grounds. For we believe it is a positive virtue, even in the absence of explicit directions to this effect, for the people of God to assemble on foot or by teams for his worship on the day which he has claimed as his own. The requirement is that it should be kept holy; i. e., devoted to a holy or religious use.—Web. But how can this be done so satisfactorily, and so much to the good of the people, and to the glory of God, as by stated worship during its hours? Says the apostle, “Let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” Heb. 10:24, 25. Now this may not relate to a definite day, but it contains a general principle. It shows that the assembling of the saints is a very important means of grace, and ought to be brought into requisition more and more as we approach the time of the end. But should we pursue the course suggested by our friend, it would be the very opposite of that recommended by the apostle. For instead of meeting together more and more frequently, as the latter directs, we should make those meetings more seldom; since in the former dispensation they were in the habit of devoting the Sabbath to such uses, but in this, we should have dispensed with such an employment of it altogether. Having said thus much, we think that it is not necessary to take up the texts quoted from the Mosaic law, in order to explain them one by one. Suffice it to say that there is no way in which they can be construed without dishonoring God and making him appear to contradict himself, unless we understand them as relating simply to secular labor. Nor is this all; any other conception of them would involve Christ and the apostles in an open disregard of God’s will. For it is said of Christ in Luke 4:16: “He came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.” Again at a later period it is said of Paul in Acts 17:2, that he, “as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.” Now in order for them to reach these places they must have put forth physical effort; and, beyond all contradiction, they must have departed from their own houses. But this, according to my brother, would have made them commandment breakers. Any construction, therefore, that would drive us to such erroneous conclusions must be wrong in itself. Simply take the position that the Sabbath is to be so used as shall best glorify God, and we are relieved from all our embarrassment—there is a perfect consistency in all that God has said—it becomes to us at once the most precious day of the week by affording to both saint and sinner the privilege of hearing the preached word—and at the same time the sacredness of its hallowed hours prevents us from encouraging their devotion to secular uses by resorting to the office for our mails or doing any other work which is not strictly within the scope of God’s grand original design. W. H. Littlejohn. Washington, Iowa, May 22, 1871.