interest of Sabbath rest, allow us to suggest that sinners are not made Christians, after the pattern of Christ, by civil law, but through grace,- on our part by persuasion, on their part by free choice. There is something radically wrong when Christian men stoop from their high calling of preaching Christ, to enforce Sunday rest by law in order to promote righteousness.

There can be no such thing as a civil sabbath rest law, because in very truth there is and can be no civil sabbath. Periodical rest acts no part in civilization. The man who plays ball, takes a flight in an aeroplane, hoes in his garden, works in a factory, takes a pleasure trip in his automobile, or goes fishing on Sunday is just as civil as he would be were he compelled to attend. church and sit on the front seat. The only good

come

on account of the conduct of certain covetous men who are in competitive business and keep their stores open every day in the week; that these seven-daysa-week workers are unfair competitors, and that they thus invade the personal rights of their neighbors by prohibiting them from resting on Sunday. That could not be any invasion of rights or liberties, for each man has the natural right of choice either to work or to rest, as he may elect.

Note that Seventh-day Adventists observe the Sabbath (Saturday) instead of Sunday; but none of the men who rest

that can from a fixed rest day over that of rest on other periods, comes because of its religious influence; and such rest must be from personal choice and sincere motives on the part of the citizen.

The law of physical rest requires rest to be taken when one is weary; not on a stated day of the week, when, perchance, he who rests has had nothing but continuous physical rest for many months, and as the result of his overrest, his family is suffering the pangs of hunger. What the people of the State of Oregon need and desire is work, and the opportunity of doing it when most convenient, without interference from any would-be regulator of other men's liberties.

It is said that certain grocers and other merchants who desire to rest and go to church on Sunday are compelled to keep their places of business open that day,

on Sunday and work Saturday, nor even those who work seven days in the week, invade the inherent rights of the Adventists either to rest on the day of their choice or to earn a support for themselves and carry forward with their earnings aggressive missionary

work both at home and in the darkest heathen lands.

In the preamble of the proposed Sunday rest law, Rev. G. L. Tufts, of Berkeley, Cal., chief promoter of the bill, says, "The proposed law makes no religious. requirements." Rev. Mr. Tufts is a Methodist clergyman. However, in this utterance he does not express the views held by the bishops of the great denomination of which he is a minister. Observe that in the carefully prepared and written. address of the board of bishops of the denomination, read by Bishop John W. Hamilton, of Boston, at the opening of the Methodist General Conference at Saratoga Springs, N. Y., May 1, 1916, and reported in the Portland Evening Telegram, they advise against "the repeal of Sabbath observance laws." This is a public official rebuke to the view

being advocated by lesser lights, that Sunday laws are not religious, but "civil," or "police regulations."

A Roman Catholic Writer Thinks So

THE "Rome Letter" in Cardinal Gibbons's organ, the Baltimore Catholic Review, Aug. 14, 1915, gives an insight into some of the Vatican's plans. Under the subhead "The World of Politics" the correspondent writes:

"Politics are in the very air of Rome these days, and will continue to be so until the termination of the war of nations; therefore we must return to them. On the tenth instant the concordat between the. Holy See and the kingdom of Serbia came into force; conse

quently on the following day His Excellency Michael Gavrilovitch, minister plenipotentiary of Serbia to the Vatican, presented himself for

audience with Benedict XV. And in about

three weeks' time the minister plenipotentiary of Holland, His Excellency Louis Regent, will do likewise. Who knows but a French and a United States representative may in the not distant future ascend the royal stairs of the oldest and grandest palace in the world for a similar purpose!"

Luther Goes Part Way Up and Turns Back

Martin Luther once went to Rome. He started to ascend Pilate's staircase on his knees. When part way up, he heard, or seemed to hear, the wonderful words, "The just shall live by faith." Shamefacedly he arose and hurried down the stairs, and returned home. With those divine words ringing in his ears, he started the mighty Reformation. That great movement revived the vital principles of liberty upon which our nation. was later built. Shall this great Protestant nation now climb the Vatican stairs, as Luther started to climb Pilate's staircase, and in so doing repudiate the prinples handed down to it by the Re

former? To do this would be to discredit Luther's act in exalting the Word. with its message of liberty and equality. and to repudiate our principles of civil

government.

No Excuse for America

Luther should not be condemned for going to Rome and crawling up the stairs. of the Church of St. John. His training had been in that direction. At that time he knew no better. But there is no excuse for the American government's ever supplicating the Vatican for lodging. The history of the Papacy lies bared before the world. Spiritual darkness, illiteracy, tyranny, and physical suffering have followed in the wake of Rome wherever she has ruled in the past.

The founders of our free institutions were thoroughly awake to the blighting influences of this monarchical system, and they repudiated its doctrines of bigotry and intolerance. The Continental Congress was not afraid to voice its opinion of this power:

'Nor can we suppress our astonishment that a British Parliament should ever consent to establish in that country [Canada] a religion that has deluged your island in blood, and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, and murder, and rebellion, throughout every part of the world."- Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. I, p. 44.

Nov. 15, 1774, Judge William H. Drayton, while on his circuit through South Carolina, delivered a charge to the sev eral grand juries. In this exhortation he explained the relation of this country to the Catholic religion. Speaking of the

"It is compounded of the most generous civil liberty that ever existed, and the sacred Christian religion released from the absurdiies which are inculcated, the shackles which are imposed, the tortures which are inflicted, and the flames which are lighted, blown up, and fed with blood by the Roman Catholic doctrines,- doctrines which tend to establish a most cruel tyranny in church and state, a Eyranny under which all Europe groaned for many ages."

It is not at all surprising that serious. objection was

made when it was even suggested that this country receive a delegate from the Vatican. John Adams wrote to the presdent of Congress that

"It is pointed out here [in Rome] that in the near future the United States will, peaceably or otherwise, find itself face to face with the whole of Latin America, where the influence of the Roman Catholic Church is unquestionable. Is it therefore possible, it is asked, that what may be very important interests for the Republic should be left to the mercy of possible incidents due to misunderstandings, such as that which marred Mr. Roosevelt's visit to the Eternal City?

It is quite noticeable that the clamor for a United States representative to the Vatican comes entirely from one direction - Catholic. On the other hand, the principles of the Declaration of Independence are against it; the spirit of the Constitution is opposed to it; the majority of the citizens abhor the thought of it; and, if the claims of many Catholics are sincere, they would not approve it. Then why send a diplomatic representative to Rome?

The following, taken from the Wash

lands, as a precedent. Mr. Taft's errand to the Vatican was purely a business one. It carried no more weight in favor of a diplomatic representative than if a government official should make arrangement with Cardinal Gibbons to buy a lot of the church in Baltimore. In fact, the position taken by the Catholic writer is squarely denied by the government. In a communication to Hon. William H. Taft, May 9, 1902, Mr. Elihu Root, Sec

eous

retary of War, states this clearly:

"Your errand will not be in any sense or degree diplomatic in its nature, but will be purely a business matter of negotiation by you as governor of the Philippines for the purchase of property from the owners thereof." - Annual Report of the Secretary of War, 1902, p. 235.

In order that Mr. Taft should thoroughly understand the situation, Mr. Root warned him to "bear in mind" certain propositions, "which are deemed to be fundamental, and which should be fully and frankly stated to the other side in the negotiations." The first one of these propositions reads:

"One of the controlling principles of our government is the complete separation of church and state, with the entire freedom of each from any control or interference by the other. This principle is imperative wherever American jurisdiction extends, and no modification or shading thereof can be a subject of discussion." Id., p. 234.

It is true that this country had a representative at the Pope's court from 1848-70. From the debates held in our national Congress at the time he was sent, it is evident that it was intended that he should merely look after the commercial affairs in our business with the Papal States, when the Pope had his temporal sovereignty.

No Recognition of the Head of the
Catholic Church

Mr. Jacob L. Martin was the first chargé d'affaires of the United States to the Papal States. Before entering upon his mission, he was given definite instruction by the State Department regarding America's relation to the Catholic Church and its head, the Pope. The Secretary, Mr. Buchanan, wrote:

"There is one consideration which you ough always to keep in view in your intercourse with the papal authorities. Most, if not all the governments which have diplomatic repre sentatives at Rome are connected with the Pope as the head of the Catholic Church. Ir this respect the government of the United States occupies an entirely different position It possesses no power whatever over the question of religion. All denominations of Christians stand on the same footing in this cou try; and every man enjoys the inestimable rights of worshiping his God according to the dictates of his own conscience. Your efforts therefore will be devoted exclusively to the cultivation of the most friendly civil relations with the papal government, and to the extersion of the commerce between the two countries. You will carefully avoid even the appearance of interferring in ecclesiastical ques tions, whether these relate to the United States or to any other portion of the world. it might be proper, should you deem it advisable, to make these views known, on some suitable occasion, to the papal government, so that there may be no mistake or misunderstanding on this subject."- MS. Inst. Papal States 1, 3, April 5, 1848.

A similar statement was made by the State Department in 1871:

"In the United States, Christianity is not prescribed by statute, and the government, ai such, is not and cannot be interested in any form of religion. .

"If, therefore, the United States, as such. exerts no influence upon the religion of its citizens concerning questions of faith and of individual opinion, in the formation of which the government neither has nor can have any voice, it would seem to follow that the United States, as such, should take no greater interest in the propagation of the Christian faith in foreign lands than it does in the development and growth of religious denominations within its own territory; that is to say, the United States cannot well be a party to missionary enterprise in the sense that the missionaries are in any way clothed with an official character, or that they may be granted greater rights and privileges by virtue of their sacred calling than other American citizens engaged in lawful pursuits. . .