MORALITY OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT.
By L. A. Reed
ONE Sunday morning not long since, I had the opportunity of listening to a sermon by a Christian (Campbellite) minister. He was trying to impress upon the minds of his hearers the necessity of their observing Sunday more sacredly. In the course of his remarks, he related the following incident which, to my mind, quite aptly illustrates the morality of the fourth commandment:— "There once lived a rich man who had in his orchard a tree on which grew seven large bunches of fruit. Near him lived a poor man who had no orchard and hence no fruit. When the fruit had become fully ripe, this rich man, desiring to show an act of kindness to his poorer neighbor, took six of the bunches of fruit and gave them to him. Of course the poor man was greatly pleased and thanked his benefactor for his kind act. But, when his wealthy neighbor had gone away, he began to think of the present he had received, and, counting over the bunches, he remembered that, originally, there were seven upon the tree. He had six, the other one must still be there. He continued to think of that one bunch he had not received until it seemed to him more important and desirable than the six he had received. Oh, if he could only have that other bunch! Why couldn't his neighbor give him the seven just as well as the six? Allowing his mind to dwell upon such thoughts as these, it finally seemed to him that his future happiness depended upon the possession of that seventh bunch, and,—would you believe it?—under cover of darkness, he went to the garden of the man who had treated him so kindly and stole that last and only bunch which its owner had reserved to himself." Was not that a little ungrateful, and does it not show in a degree a selfish propensity? It seems unnatural for one to act so; but, before we pass sentence on him, let us look at another picture. Away back in the beginning, God, the great Creator, planted the tree of time. From the fruit of this tree, he took six days and gave them to man in which to attend to his temporal affairs, saying, "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work." But he reserved the seventh to himself, saying, "But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." Has man been content with the gift? No, indeed, but, like the contemptibly ungrateful man, many have taken this seventh day, thus robbing God of every one. Others have taken this seventh day, but, making a semblance of atoning for it, have tried to tie that first day back on the tree with strings made of traditions of man. But do you suppose God delights in such high-handed proceedings? The man who took the fruit from his neighbor stole it; it was a genuine case of theft. This latter is exactly parallel, and is theft also; but in a far greater degree. And yet people will have the assumption to tell us with all the assurance possible that there is no morality in the fourth commandment, no morality in the Sabbath precept. If there is not then pray tell us where there is any morality. Anyone who will candidly consider the matter can see that there is morality in that precept, and, in the great day of God, that commandment—for all will be judged by the law of which this is a part (Rom. 2: 12)—will condemn their terrible immorality in profaning the rest-day of Jehovah. May God help us to honor that precept, as well as all other God-given commands, that he may honor us at last, and, with the nation that keepeth the truth, welcome us into the Eternal City. L. A. REED.
Marshfield, Oregon.