of the whole catalogue of duties specified in the ten commandments. Those of them which are purely and exclusively religious in their nature cannot be, or be made, civil duties, but all the rest of them may be, in so far as they involve conduct as distinguished from mere operations of mind, or states of affections."

Judge Graham concurred with the opinion of Chief Justice Bleckley, and supported his position by stating that Christ respected the law of the land when He sent one of His disciples to the fish to get the coin to pay His taxes.

Distinction Between Religious and Civil Duties

Mr.

Our Duty When Conflict Arises Mr. Simmons then told Judge Graham, who had by this time become conversational and interested, that the Bible condemns the enforcement of any law of the land which attempts to regulate one's duties to his God. He showed that in opposition to the Roman law, which forbade the teaching of any new religion, the disciples preached the gospel and sealed their faith with their blood. The

Simmons then told the court that he believed it to be in harmony with the teachings of the Bible for all Christian people to pray for and to honor those in authority, and to obey the laws of the land so long as those laws are not in conflict with the law of God.

It is both right, and good religion to pay debts, including taxes. When Chief Justice Bleckley applied this principle to the whole ten commandments in justification of laws enacted by the state to enforce all the ten commandments, the Honorable Court was in error. The first four commandments, including the Sabbath commandment, regulate one's duties to his God, and the state has no right to legislate concerning them. The last six commandments tell of one's duties to his fellows as well as to God, and in so far as they can be enforced they are proper subjects for legislation. The observance of the Sabbath is "purely and exclusively religious," and could not be rightfully and constitutionally enforced directly or indirectly under pretense of regulating civil conduct.

men.

reason given for this opposition was that Christianity unsettled the minds of men, and tended to render civil institutions less stable. But when Peter and John were brought before the authorities for teaching and preaching in the name of Jesus, they exclaimed: "We ought to obey God rather than

Because the faithful followers of Christ did preach the gospel in opposition to the law of the land, and did "obey God rather than men," we are enlightened and Christianized by the beautiful religion we enjoy.

The experience of the three Hebrew children was then presented to the Court. Mr. Simmons emphasized the fact that the law of Nebuchadnezzar, requiring all his subjects at a certain time to bow to the great image, was contrary to the first and second commandments of the decalogue, and the miraculous deliverance from the burning fiery furnace of the three Hebrews who refused obedience to the king's decree, attested God's approval of their loyalty to Him. When King Nebuchadnezzar exclaimed, "The form of the fourth is like the Son of God," he gave evidence of the fact that Christ himself came down from the courts of

heaven, and entered the fiery furnace with His three faithful followers, delivering them in vindication of the superiority of His law over civil legislation.

The case of Daniel was also cited. Darius, the Medo-Persian king, issued a decree making the offering of prayer or the presenting of a petition to any one but the king a capital offense for thirty

64

"The question is whether the Act of 1762 was not repealed by the Tenth Section of Article IV of the constitution of Georgia. Does not this act give those religious societies which believe that the Lord's day' is the first day of the week a preference over those which believe that the Lord's day' is the seventh day of the week? If it does, it is in conflict with that section. These questions we do not determine, that not being necessary in the view we take of the case."

days. Notwithstanding this unchangeable law, Daniel, as his custom was, three times a day prayed to the God of heaven with his face toward Jerusalem. His trial and condemnation resulted in his sentence to the lions' den, where he remained unharmed overnight. Daniel explained to the king why he was miraculously delivered: "My God hath sent His angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me."

Mr. Simmons emphasized the fact that God sent His angel to deliver Daniel from the penalty of that presumptuous and tyrannical law which the king had no right to make. This interposition of God in behalf of His faithful servant was further evidence of the inability of the state rightfully to legislate against or

Correct View of the Lord's Day Mr. Simmons further proceeded to show the Court that the law in question reveals its religious character by requir ing cessation from labor on "the Lord's day." Religionists differ as to which day of the week is "the Lord's day." Some say Sunday is "the Lord's day," in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ. The defendant in this case believes the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, is "the Lord's day," because God in His commandment says, 66 the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." In harmony with this, Isaiah 58: 13 reads: "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on My holy day." The defendant holds that the State had no right by law

for the enforcement of any of the first four commandments of the decalogue.

Sunday Laws Unconstitutional Mr. Simmons then argued that notwithstanding the numerous decisions by the supreme court of Georgia upholding the constitutionality of the Georgia Sunday law, it still remained an open question whether the Sunday law was in violation of the Constitution. In support of his position he referred to the obiter dictum expression of Chief Justice Simmons in the case of Sanders vs. Johnson, 29 Ga., p. 526:

to determine which day is "the Lord's day," and that to the individual conscience should be left the decision of that question.

Judge Graham referred to the divergence of religious faith. Mr. Simmons replied that because of this confusion every citizen should be given the freedom of choice.

According to the rules of the highest court in the State, in the case of Gunn vs. State, 89 Ga., p. 341, it is held that "Sunday" and "the Sabbath day" are synonymous. "Sunday," "the Sabbath day," and "the Christian Sabbath" are

frequently used interchangeably. Sunday is called the Christian Sabbath " by many because Christ rose on the first day of the week. The defendant, S. T. Page, believes the seventh-day Sabbath is "the Christian Sabbath," because he believes that Christ made the seventhday Sabbath at creation.

JUDGE GRAHAM: "Do you mean to say that Christ made the Sabbath?"

MR. SIMMONS: "Yes, Your Honor, Christ was the active agency in the Godhead that not only created the Sabbath, but also the world." JUDGE GRAHAM: "That was before He came to the earth?"

MR. SIMMONS: "Yes, Your Honor, He not only made the first Sabbath, but He rested on or kept the first Sabbath, and when He was on earth He kept the Sabbath day that He made, and called Himself Lord also of the Sabbath.' 'All things were created by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.'. 'He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.'"

From these texts, and others, the defendant believes as a part of his religion. that the seventh day of the week is "the

that they work six days as it is that they rest on the seventh. And if their conscience compels them to rest one day, and the law forces them to also rest another, they would thus be forced to violate the first provision of the commandment they are attempting conscientiously to keep."

Court Hesitates to Condemn Sabbatarians

The argument in this case consumed half a day. The judge, after carefully going over the different features of the case and reading from authorities on the question, manifested a reluctance to overrule the demurrer. He finally said:

"The eloquent and splendid presentation of the case by the learned counsel has been beneficial to the Court, and has been enjoyed very much. This very important question has been fully and ably argued, and whatever my personal views on this question may be, it would be both egotistical and presumptuous for me, as an inferior court, to rule contrary to the many decisions in our State on this question."

Sabbath," "the Lord's day," and "the Christian Sabbath," and he should be permitted to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his conscience.

The Oklahoma Decision Favors
Sabbatarian Rights

Mr. Simmons further argued that in order to keep the Sabbath it is important not only to rest on the seventh day of the week, but to work on the other six days. The commandment to work six. days is just as imperative as the injunction to rest. "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work."

The opinion of Judge Brett, in the case of Kreiger et al. vs. State, 160 Pacific Reporter, p. 36, was read to the Court on this point:

"But it is facetiously argued by some courts that to say to these people they shall keep our Sunday, does not prevent them from also keeping the day they regard as 'holy day.'

"But these courts overlook the fact that under the divine commandment these people are striving to obey, it is just as imperative

The argument was made to a crowded courtroom composed of judges, lawyers, jurors, litigants, and visitors. A profound impression was made on the audience. Many lawyers congratulated Mr. Simmons, and said that if they were on the Supreme Bench they would either modify or annul the Georgia Sunday law so that Seventh-day Adventists could keep the seventh-day Sabbath and work the other six days according to their religious convictions.

Judge Graham spoke from the bench in complimentary terms of the high class of citizenship of Seventh-day Adventists, of the world reputation the sanitariums conducted by them are enjoying, and the great respect they merit as dietitians.

The case was dismissed upon motion by the solicitor for the State, very much to the gratification of many of the good people of that community who were present at the hearing, and who firmly believe in liberty of conscience.

A

N earnest effort is being put forth to bring to life the two compulsory Sunday observance bills that were introduced at the beginning of the last session of Congress,- one in the Senate and the other in the House of Representatives.

The Lord's Day Alliance, which is represented by Dr. Harry L. Bowlby, and the International Reform Bureau, represented by Dr. Wilbur F. Crafts, are the instigators and promoters of a campaign to Puritanize the District of Columbia, and ultimately the whole United States. These two bills, which they framed and caused to be introduced, prohibit all unnecessary things on Sunday. If these bills are enacted into law, they will transport the inhabitants of the District of Columbia back to the days when Puritanism held absolute sway in all things civil and religious. All Sunday privileges, outside of church attendance, will be denied them.

But this is only a small part of the program. This law is to be a model law for the whole nation, after the battle has been won in the District of Columbia. This Sunday blue law for the District is simply to serve as an entering wedge for a flood of religious legislation of the most drastic nature to follow. If these socalled "reform " societies, or rather leaders, could have their way and manipulate Congress and our courts, it would not be long until the streams of America would flow crimson with the blood of martyrs as they did in Europe under a union of church and state.

Since they aim to apply these drastic "blue laws" to the whole nation as well as the inhabitants of the District of Columbia, who are helpless because of being disfranchised, it behooves every citizen of the United States to stand up for his own and his brother's rights under the Constitutional guaranties of religious liberty. These compulsory Sunday observance bills, if enacted into law, would

destroy every immunity and guaranty of the rights of the individual to obey the dictates of conscience, and would impose a yoke of bondage upon the American people, worse than the Pharisees and scribes of Christ's day imposed upon the Jewish people. We appeal to every American citizen, to the American press, and to every Christian who loves the fundamental principles of American liberty and a Christianity that does not rest upon force and consequent hypocrisy, to petition his Senators and Representatives in Congress to use their influence against the passage of these un-American and unchristian bills-S. 635 and H. R. 12504.

We appeal to the Congressmen to stand by the Constitutional guaranties of civil and religious liberty which our Constitutional forefathers handed down to us as our heritage of freedom, and which Congress has thus far so grandly and nobly safeguarded whenever assailed. More than one hundred seventy compulsory Sunday observance bills of more or less drastic character have been introduced into Congress during the last forty years, but to date there is not a single Sunday law upon the Federal statute books. May Congress continue to turn a deaf ear to every churchand-state measure. Our liberties are safe as long as the church and state remain separate and religious observances are matters of choice, of faith, of piety, and of conscience.