It must be seen, therefore, that civic righteousness and the realm of civil authority are matters in which man's relation to his fellow man is involved, and this is covered by the last six commandments of the decalogue.

Now, it is possible for a citizen to be civilly righteous, and yet not altogether in harmony with God. Witness the case of the young ruler who inquired of Jesus, "What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? See Matt. 19: 16. The response was, "Keep the commandments." "Which?" Here the opportunity presented itself to teach a great lesson on the question of positively religious as well as civic righteousness.

Upon being told of the commandment affecting his relation to his fellow man, the young man said, "All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?" "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me," the Saviour replied. The young man turned away very sorrowful, for he had great possessions. This indicates that while civilly righteous, he was not in proper relation to his God.

Our duty to God is epitomized in the first four commandments of the decalogue. These duties are to be rendered to God, not to Cæsar. In the early centuries of the Christian church, the attempt to coerce men to serve God by civil laws is what produced the union of church and state, causing the Dark Ages, and the need for, and the coming in due time of, a nation which would recognize the distinction between what is due to God, and what is due to Cæsar, or civil government.

In the repeated demands for civic. righteousness in America, we see evidences which portend evil to the state as well as to the church. In the call for compulsory Sabbath observance, there is a demand that men shall render to Cæsar (a civil government) that which belongs to God. Sabbath observance belongs to God, a claim which is borne out by the

Holy Scripture. Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between. me and them [not a sign between God and the nations of the world, but simply between him and his people], that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them." Eze. 20: 12. The Sabbath law is one of the commandments which define our duty to the Creator. That this is territory which mere human government is not commissioned to enter is fully demonstrated in the cases of Mordecai; of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; of John the Baptist; of Peter, James, and John; of the martyrs of the first and subsequent centuries, a territory forbidden to Congress by the Declaration of Independence and by our national Constitution.

Shall this country turn back the hands of the clock which for a century and a quarter has struck the hours of religious and civil liberty? It is to be hoped that our rulers and legislators may not be seduced into amending the Constitution, declaring this to be a religious nation, the sign of which shall be compulsory Sunday observance. Let us have civic righteousness personal integrity and upright civil administration by all means, but let it come in accordance with the American and Christian idea of civil government, and as pointed out by the One who ordained "the powers that be, and gave them the bounds of their authority," and not by a union of church and state in the open or in disguise.

Is it wrong to purchase a newspaper? Surely it is not. Probably no candid. person will question this conclusion. Is it an invasion of any one's natural rights? Again the answer must be, No. Then should the people of Oregon favor an initiative measure to be enacted into a Sunday-closing law that will prohibit the sale and purchase, on Sunday, of something which all are agreed is in itself good? If, then, a law shall be made prohibiting the purchase and sale on Sunday of a newspaper, which is perfectly proper to buy on any other day, it will be evident that the law is made to protect Sunday as a religious institution.

The principle here is unlike the one involved in the legal prohibition of the liquor traffic, for an intoxicating beverage is not a good article on any day of the week, since it dethrones reason -a thing to which every man is inherently entitled.

All Sunday legislation, when when unmasked, will be seen to be religious in its nature. Dr. G. L. Tufts, field secretary of the One-day-of-rest-in-seven League, is said to be the moving spirit behind the agitation for initiating a proposed Sunday-closing law at the next general election in Oregon, the proposed law to be so drastic that it will close theaters and other places of amusement, all places of business, even drug stores, and "make it impossible to buy even a newspaper on Sunday."

The interpretation that has been placed on proposed Sunday laws by their advocates in recent years is that Sunday legislation is in the interest of "civic rest" for the masses of working people, and not in the interest of a religious institution. Dr. Tufts has advocated the "civic rest" idea and the idea of an "American sabbath," in direct opposition to the fact that all such legislation is, when unveiled, really in the interest of religion.

The supreme court of the universe has defined the rights of divine and civi. governments, from which decision there can be no appeal, or recall of the Judge. Said our divine Lord, "Render therefore unto Cæsar [civil government] the things which are Cæsar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Matt. 22: 21.

There is much agitation today in ministerial and other religious and politica! circles over the question of Sabbath rest. The Sabbath belongs to God, according to the decision of the Supreme Judge of the universe, and should be rendered to him in harmony with his above-quoted decision, and not to civil government. whether the day be Sunday, Monday. Friday, or Saturday. "Render unto God the things that are God's." "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Ex. 20: II. Of Christ it is said, he "is Lord . . . of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28), and "Judge of all" (John 5: 22; Rom. 2: 16).

True Sabbath keeping is worship. therefore it cannot, of right, be rendered to civil government. To enact and enforce upon Christian and non-Christian citizens or subjects a "civil" law requiring obedience to Christian institutions, such as the Sabbath, baptism, or the Lord's Supper, is to form, to just that extent, a union of church and state. And in such a case may we not be assured that the partnership would not always be the most agreeable? To form such a union, and to require such obedience, is to do the very thing our divine Lord forbade. He ordained civil government to control in civil affairs, and divine government to deal with the consciences of men, and to control in religious matters. In contradiction to this, Pope Pius X, in his letter addressed to the bishops of France, under date of Feb. 11, 1906, said, "That it is necessary to separate church and state is a thesis absolutely false a most perni

cious error." But should not we obey the word of God, the Supreme Ruler, by keeping church and state forever separate?

Why, then, all this agitation about civil-law enforcement of Sabbath rest? It is the privilege of a Christian or of any other person to rest on the Sabbath, whichever day of the week it may be, without initiative measures to make laws to compel himself to rest upon the day of his choice. Or is this course a tacit acknowledgment that he is so weak morally that he cannot observe the day unless compelled so to do by civil law? Or may it be true that the lack of personal Christian experience impels him to endeavor, through civil law, to compel those who are not Christians to act at least one day in seven (Sunday) as if they were, and to compel Christians of other persuasions to act at least on Sunday as if they were of his sect?

All religio-civil laws, even though they should be declared constitutional, are nevertheless an invasion of the God-bestowed personal right of choice in matters of conscience; for every person has a natural right to choose his religion if he has chosen to be religious. Likewise any person has the inalienable right of choice not to be religious if he so desires, provided only that in each case, in the carrying out of his ideas, he does not invade the equal rights of others.

A Sunday law and its enforcement is also an invasion of the rights of the men who make it, for by said law they compel themselves ever after to act in religious matters as they are now acting, however much greater light they might thereafter obtain.

Circuit Judge Morrow in a recently. rendered opinion declared Sunday laws in Oregon unconstitutional. This decision has since been reversed by Justice Burnett of the supreme court, which leaves religio-civil laws of the State constitutional according to the latter decision.

This decision leaves the citizens face to face with class legislation; one class being favored to the detriment of an

other class whose ideas may differ from their neighbors as to the day of rest. If religion is to be enforced by civil law, the religion of what sect shall it be? If it be contended that the majority of Christians are agreed that Sunday is the Sabbath, and that it should be enforced on all men by civil law, would not such an act be an invasion of the realm of conscience of the minority of Christians, to say nothing of that still larger body of well-disposed men and women — honorable citizens who make no profession of religion, but who have equal inherent rights with Christians?

If it be really true that the one-dayof-rest-in-seven agitation is not in the interest of religion, but only "civic " rest is desired, should not the promoters proceed to make use of the initiative in the interest of a weekly state holiday. with no hint of Sabbath sacredness, or of compulsory observance? Every citizen would then retain his liberty of conscience to serve God in harmony therewith, or not to worship him, as he might elect; for upon state or national holidays men labor or rest at will.

Civil government was ordained of God to direct and control in civil matters, assuring equal protection to all citizens or subjects in the enjoyment of their inherent rights to worship Almighty God, or not to worship, as they may severally. elect, provided their conduct in worship or nonworship does not invade the equal rights of their fellow men.

Religious legislation is contrary to the teachings of our divine Lord, and to the First Amendment of the federal Constitution. Every citizen should therefore. enter his protest against all proposed legislation in the interest of Sunday, Saturday, or any other day of the week, and of every other phase of religious legislation; for God, through his Word, will take care of the religion of his people.

First prosecution, then persecution. Remember the experience of the Baptists, Quakers, Roman Catholics, and others, who were whipped, banished, and hanged under the New England blue laws.

IT has been the policy of the LIBERTY MAGAZINE to defend the religious rights of all peoples, irrespective of nationality, color, or creed. We shall continue this policy as long as any man is oppressed for conscience' sake.

On August 3 and 4, the Blaine County Court, at Watonga, Okla., tried G. J. Krieger and his son, Isaac Krieger, on the charge of violating the Sunday law of Oklahoma. These men are both conscientious Christians, members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Hitchcock, Okla. They conscientiously observe the seventh day, or Saturday, as the Sabbath. A special clause was enacted by the legislature of Oklahoma to exempt and protect all seventh-day observers from the obligations imposed by the statutes of the State requiring the observance of Sunday.

The section under which these men could legally claim exemption from the penalties imposed by the Sunday law of

that State reads as follows:

It is sufficient defense in proceedings against servile labor on the first day of the week, to show that the accused uniformly keeps another day as holy time, and does not labor on that day, and that the labor complained of was done in such manner as not to interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of the week as holy time.-" Revised and Annotated Statutes of Oklahoma," sec. 1965.

The Oklahoma State Constitution also contains the following seemingly ample guaranties and immunities to all citizens of that State:

Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secure, and no inhabitant of the State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; and no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil and political rights. Art. I, Sec. 2.

Reason, logic, and good sense would seem to say that these statutory and constitutional guaranties and immunitie: ought to constitute a sufficient safeguard and protection to the conscientious observer of the seventh-day Sabbath. If these could not protect from indictment under the Sunday law, they certainly ought to secure to the conscientious observer of the seventh day the right to prove by his own testimony and that of others that he regularly observes another day than Sunday. But the said court in Oklahoma denied the defendants any and all rights of appeal to these constitutional guaranties and statutory immunities, as we shall presently show from the transcript of the evidence in the case. court ruled against this defense, on the ground that they were not trying the defendants under a religious statute, but under a civil statute.

The

This preamble sets forth a "religious reason" for the statute, and it is for a similar reason that the exemption clause is inserted; namely, to protect the religious faith of those who observe “another day as holy time." No one would ever think of denying the religious character of the exemption, and the religious reason for the law is just as evident.

During the trial the prosecuting attorney put forth a most determined effort, and finally the court sustained him in his contention, to keep the attorney for the defense from supplying the evidence that

the accused belong to a church which observes "another day as holy time," and that the defendants had conscientiously and uniformly kept another day as holy time, as the law required. The very evidence that would have cleared the accused in the sight of the law, was denied the defense and kept from the jury. The very weapon that the constitution and statutes of Oklahoma put into the hands of the defendants to protect themselves in such an issue was stricken out of their hands by the court, who should have seen to it that they had the benefit of every legal safeguard.

We herewith submit a few of the questions bearing on this phase of the trial as they appear in the transcript of the evidence from the court records:

Direct examination of Isaac Krieger by Attorney Woolman for defendants.

Question.-State to the jury of what religious faith or sect you are.

By Prosecuting Attorney Mr. Boardman: State objects to the question as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; not defensive matter to the issue in the case.

By the Court: Sustained.
By Mr. Woolman: Excepted.

Ques. Did you on the twentieth day of June, 1915, belong to any religious sect?

Objected to by prosecuting attorney, and objection sustained by the court.

Ques. I will ask you if at that time you kept and believed in another day as a holy day, except Sunday, commonly called the first day of the week?

Objection of prosecuting attorney again sustained by the court.

Ques. Did you at that time and were you observing your day as holy day, and doing so from a conscientious belief of your religion? Objection of prosecuting attorney again sustained by the court.

Ques. I will ask you, if at any time within the last three years have you performed any secular work on Saturday, commonly known as the seventh day of the week?

Objected to again by prosecuting attorney, as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, constituting no defense. Objection sustained by court.

Mr. Woolman, the attorney for the defense, then asked that the jury be excused from the court room while he made a statement to the court. After the jury left the room, Mr. Woolman made the

following statement in behalf of the defendants before the court:

The defendants now offer to prove by the witness on the stand that on the twentieth day of June, 1915, this witness, being one of the defendants, and also his father, G. J. Krieger, were at said time members of the sect, or church body, known as the Seventh-day Adventists, and that it was one of their religious beliefs, and is now, that it was their duty as such observers to keep another day of the week as a holy day other than Sunday, and that at said time, these defendants, and each of them, kept and observed as holy time the seventh day of the week, commonly known or called Saturday. That owing to the conscientious convictions of these defendants, and each of them, and under the belief and doctrine of the church to which they then belonged, they closed their place of business at the going down of the sun every Friday evening or night, and the same remained closed for all kind of business until the going down of the sun on Saturday night or evening.

That during said time these men worshiped as said Seventh-day Adventists, and conscientiously believed that this was their duty from a religious and moral standpoint.

That during their holy time they performed no work or labor, and devoted said time to the worship according to their religious belief.

That during said first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, they conducted their business and labor in such a manner as to not interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of the week as holy time.

That these defendants, and each of them, in good faith observed the seventh day of the week as holy time, and observed no other day as such.

The prosecuting attorney replied:

To which offer the State objects, for the reason that the testimony and evidence offered is wholly incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and constitutes no defense.

Objection was sustained by the court.

The court sustained all these objections in the face of the exemption statute which grants the seventh-day observer the right "to show that the accused uniformly keeps another day as holy time, and does not labor on that day, and that the labor complained of was done in such manner as not to interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of the week as holy time." The statute states that after this is shown, it shall be regarded by the State as a "sufficient