p. 1250 | Three Conventions by S. B. Horton

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D.C. · Dec 25, 1913

Three Conventions

By S. B. Horton

Lord's Day Alliance Convention

BALTIMORE, Md., was recently treated to three conventions of more than ordinary interest. The Lord's Day Alliance, of Maryland, held a convention from December 1 to 7, beginning with meetings conducted in fourteen churches the first night, which were designed to furnish a preparation for the consideration of plans looking to a better observance, by enforcement and otherwise, of the Sunday institution. A special feature of the meetings was a “Lord's day clinic,” conducted by Dr. T. T. Mutchler, of Philadelphia, Pa., well known as the leader in Lord's Day Alliance matters. Dr. W. H. Dunbar, who spoke on the subject of “The Lord's Day and the Home,” insisted that there is more hope in securing better Sunday observance through the religious influence of the home than is to be expected through civil legislation.

Dr. Earle Wilfley was assigned the subject of “Maryland and the District of Columbia One in Organized Effort for Lord's Day Observance.” In the beginning of his remarks he pleaded for a happy medium between the ultrapuritanical Sunday and what has been often referred to as the Continental Sunday of Europe. He took the position that if Sunday baseball and Sunday amusements were to be taken away from the laboring men, something must be put in the place of these; for, said he, we cannot enforce the puritanical sabbath, and we must prevent a Continental sabbath. He urged that Maryland and the District of Columbia should cooperate for the welfare of each other; that Maryland Lord's day matters should engage the attention and support of the District of Columbia friends, and, vice versa, the Maryland people should come to the aid of the District of Columbia when it is engaged in a campaign in behalf of more stringent observance.

Mr. Wm. Knowles Cooper, general secretary of the Washington Y. M. C. A., gave an address on “Lord's Day Conditions in the District of Columbia,” in which he said, among other things, that Sunday legislation through Congress seems impossible. He stated that among the opponents of Sunday laws for the District of Columbia are Seventh-day Adventists, and that from the work they are doing in the distribution of literature and communication with members of Congress one would judge that there must be about three millions of this sect in the United States. He assured his audience, however, that there were only about three hundred thousand in this country; and that they held the balance of power in many Congressional districts where the vote is close. This will certainly be news to the rank and file of the denomination.

Dr. Cooper visited a certain senator for the purpose of investigating the status of Sunday legislation before Congress, and was informed by the senator, who pointed to a mass of manuscript lying on his desk, that members of Congress receive more correspondence, literature, and petitions on the subject of Sunday laws than is received upon any other subject of public moment.

One of the speakers during the church rallies (Dr. Beall, at the Broadway M. P. Church) said that if the Jews do not desire to comply with our Sunday laws, they should go elsewhere.

Dr. Mutchler also was far from occupying the position of a generous Christian during the “clinics” which he was conducting. In one of his clinics he said: “I opposed the Johnston Sunday Bill (S. 237) because it carried a provision exempting religious sects who observe another day of the week as the Sabbath. That exemption made the proposed legislation religious. We must stand for Sunday, our American sabbath, and let the Jew leave this country if he is not satisfied with our institution.”

Council of Federated Churches

The Lord's Day Alliance convention had hardly started its work before the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America began a convention composed of delegates from different parts of the United States. The president of the council, Dr. Shailer Matthews, who presided at the meetings, in his speeches exhorted the organization to take advance steps in its program of humanitarianism. The council, among other things, planned for a series of great religious meetings, to be held during the Panama Exposition at San Francisco. It indorsed the action of its officials in petitioning for an increase of chaplains in the army and navy. It approved the holding of a world congress of churches to consider questions of social significance, and the meeting of clergymen of Germany, England, and the United States in the interests of international peace, to be held in London next summer.

A very significant action was taken with reference to public charities. Alleging that much loss and misunderstanding attend the present promiscuous way of administering charities, the council went on record as favoring the licensing of organizations having philanthropy as an objective endeavor of their work. Another important move made by the council, which is filled with significance, was the appointment of Dr. Henry King Carroll, the religious statistician of the United States Census, as the representative of the church federation in the city of Washington. His duties will include keeping in touch with Congress in matters affecting the program of the federation.

Columbia Religious Liberty Association

Preceding the above-mentioned meetings, and covering the time of the same, the Columbia Religious Liberty Association conducted a convention and institute in the Baltimore Seventh-day Adventist Church and at Lehmann's hall. The program at the church began November 28, and included the following subjects: “Lest We Forget,” “The Model Government,” “The Limits of Human Authority From the Biblical Standpoint,” “Are the Ten Commandments the Basis of Civil Government?” “The Declaration of Independence and ‘Glittering Generalities,’” and “A Lesson From Conditions in Mexico.” The speakers who were assigned these subjects were: C. S. Longacre, W. A. Colcord, A. J. S. Bourdeau, L. L. Caviness, and S. B. Horton, of Washington, D. C.; J. S. Washburn, of Philadelphia, Pa.; and R. T. Baer and F. W. Paap, of Baltimore, Md.

A missionary convention was held on Sunday, November 30, from 2:30 to 5 P. M., at which Brethren I. A. Ford and A. J. S. Bourdeau, of the Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D. C., gave timely and instructive counsel with reference to the importance of the campaign at that time in Baltimore, and the duty of distributing literature among the people.

Three meetings were held at Lehmann's hall on North Howard Street, as follows:—

Thursday, December 4, at 7:30 P. M., Prof. W. W. Prescott spoke on the subject “A Plea for the Conservation of American Freedom,” giving a clear and forceful presentation of the movements which are at work in this country antagonistic to the principles upon which this country was founded, principles which cost so much bloodshed and treasure on the part of a patriotic ancestry. He was preceded by Rabbi Rubenstein on “The Beilis Case,” an incident of Russian persecution at Kief. The Takoma Park orchestra favored this meeting with patriotic numbers.

Sunday, December 7, at 2:30 P. M., a symposium was conducted as follows: “The Kingdom of God Through the Gateway of Politics?” by S. B. Horton; “Origin and Essentials of Church and State,” by Prof. B. G. Wilkinson; “Civil Government and Religion From the Viewpoint of American Founders,” by C. S. Longacre. The closing meeting of the convention was held the same day at 7:30 P. M., at which two short addresses were delivered on the subject “The Declaration and Constitution: Shall They Be Repudiated?” by S. B. Horton and C. S. Longacre. Brethren Baer and Paap closed the meeting with appropriate remarks, inviting the audience to visit the church as time and opportunity might afford.

More than 30,000 pages of literature and several hundred Liberty and Protestant magazines were distributed during the convention. These, together with references and articles in the local press, will doubtless bring encouraging results.

Cardinal Gibbons on Religious Liberty

It seemed that the agitation carried on by the above-mentioned organizations led Cardinal Gibbons to preach on the subject of religious liberty, on Sunday morning, December 7, in the pulpit of the Baltimore cathedral. He said that all should rejoice in the victory which Constantine achieved over Maxentius on the banks of the Tiber before Rome, at which time the proclamation of liberty of worship was issued throughout the Roman Empire. The cardinal pointed to the victory of Constantine, to the signing of the Magna Charta 700 years ago, and to the settlement of Maryland about 300 years ago, as great triumphs for religious liberty which the Catholic Church should receive credit for bringing about.

“The Catholic Church,” he said, “has always been a devoted friend to civil and religious liberty, and whenever any one professing the Catholic faith has violated these rights they have acted against the church and against sacred authority. . . .

“The Catholic Church at all times has

respected the rights of other people to follow the dictates of their conscience, and she has been the defender of others against encroachments of temporal sovereigns.

“The church flourishes alone in the sacred atmosphere of liberty. I do not care to see the day when the church will be subsidized by the state in erecting her buildings and academies. I hope conditions that prevail now may continue.”

It is fortunate that there still remain in some libraries of the world a faithful record of what the Roman Catholic Church has done and has stood for in times past. If it were not for that fact, the utterances of the cardinal, as above given, might have a tendency to deceive. The cardinal's work “Faith of Our Fathers” is not in harmony with his most recent utterances. On page 264 of that work (43d edition, 1893) we are told: “A man enjoys religious liberty when he possesses the free right of worshiping God according to the dictates of a right conscience, and of practising a form of religion most in accordance with his duties to God.” The cardinal does not grant man's right to worship God “according to the dictates of his own conscience.” It must be according to the dictates of a “right” conscience, and a conscience is a “right” conscience only when it is in harmony with Catholic belief and teaching. Moreover, only the Roman Church can tell him when he is “practising a form of religion most in accordance with his duties to God.”

S. B. HORTON.