The Sabbath and Servants
By D. B. Staples
BRO. SMITH: I am a stranger to you, but I trust not to the truths advocated by the Review, which is a truly welcome weekly visitor. But my object in writing is for the explanation of a text of Scripture; I shall therefore leave out the "preface" and enter at once upon the question. It is a question upon which the brethren here are somewhat divided. We are as one man in regard to the perpetuity of the royal law, but we do not all understand it alike. "But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;" this we are all agreed upon, and try to observe it as such. "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." Ex. xx, 10. "Thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." Here is the point in question. What are we to understand by man-servant and maid-servant? Is it limited to those who may be bought with a price, to serve for life, or to those who may be bound for a term of years, as apprentices, or does it extend still farther and include those whom we may hire to do our work for us? Does this compound in the general acceptation of the term, mean bond-servant, or does it extend still beyond this and include those who may be hired by the day, or week, or month? Are we to understand that this command shall not extend beyond our own borders, and that if we have work to do outside of our own limits, we are at liberty to employ men or women to do that work? Or to come right down to the substance of the question at issue, does it mean that thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy bond-servants, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates, shall not do any work; but if thou hast any work to do outside of thine own gates, thou art at liberty to employ any one, (outside of thine own gates,) to perform that work, even on the Sabbath day. Many texts of Scripture might be brought to bear on this question. If we should decide in accordance with man's decision, that the receiver is as bad as the taker, then we should say, that the employer is as bad as the employed; but I submit the question to any who may feel inclined to answer it. Hoping soon to hear from some one on this point, I subscribe myself yours, desirous of keeping the whole law. D. B. STAPLES.
Dodgeville, Wis., Oct. 29th, 1858. [We think the commandment embraces all within our employ whether far or near; and that the expression, "within thy gates," is applicable only to the stranger.—Ed.]