The Teachings of St. Peter's Cathedral by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Dec 9, 1886

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 12, No. 47.

The Teachings of St. Peter's Cathedral.

By Editor

REV. DR. BARROWS of the First Congregational Church, San Francisco, went to Europe last summer, and since he came home he has had a good deal to preach about. One of his latest Sunday evening discourses was on the teachings of St. Peter's Cathedral, Rome. He said "the teachings which could be gained under the dome of St. Peter's are many." In the first place "it teaches of the devotion which led to the construction of such a place of worship, and the constancy of the devotion of the church of Rome, despite its rigidity, formality, and superstition." The missionary spirit, he said, "is also apparent, for from every quarter there came helpers to the shrine." Yes, that is so, and in the sixteenth century this "missionary spirit" was so great that by Leo X., John Tetzel, and other such men of "devotion" were sent throughout Europe to sell indulgences for sin, to get money, professedly, for the building of St. Peter's, but really to be spent upon the Pope's drunken, vicious worthless nephew, Lorenzo dé Medici. But Dr. Barrows did not say anything about this display of "missionary" zeal.

Another of these lessons is that "St. Peter's is the living representative of Christianity against pagan

ism." If he had said that it is a living representative of paganized Christianity, he would have more nearly stated the truth. And then in his closing prayer he besought that "the two great divisions of the followers of Christ," that is, the Catholics and the Protestants, "might be brought close together and travel side by side, and learn the true way to worship and follow Christ." That was a very appropriate prayer for the occasion. But what would ever the modern leaders of theological thought do for something to preach about if they could not go to Europe or somewhere else on a vacation every summer.

That Sunday Law Convention.

ACCORDING to the call of the Sacramento preachers, noticed in our issue of two weeks ago, a meeting of pastors and church-members favorable to the passage of a Sunday law was held at the Young Men's Christian Association Hall, San Francisco, November 29. There were about sixty or seventy gentlemen present, the majority being ministers of various denominations, and about a half-dozen women. Among the clergymen were Rev. Dr. F. A. Horton of Oakland, Mr. Warren of San Leandro, Mr. Dobbins of West Berkeley, Dr. E. S. Chapman of East Oakland, J. A. Wheeler of Sacramento, Samuel Slocum of Cayucos, and J. C. Eastman of San Francisco, Presbyterians; John Kimball, editor of the Pacific, Congregationalist; M. C. Briggs, Dr. Heacock, Dr. F. F. Jewell, Mr. Rich, and Thomas Filben, Sacramento, Methodists; Dr. Abbott and Mr. Bateman, Baptists; N. R. Johnston, Reformed Presbyterian; and Elders McHatton of Sacramento, and Sweeney of Oakland, Disciples.

A week before the day of the convention, the Congregational Club of San Francisco had discussed the subject in their regular Monday meeting. In that meeting Rev. Mr. Hamlin said that the Sabbath was about as well observed here without a Sunday law as it was at the East with one. The Sunday law was not enforced there, nor was it enforced here when we had one. If ministers stepped out of their sphere and meddled with politics they generally ran things into the ground. The almost unanimous opinion was that it would be useless to try to do anything while the present Legislature existed, and when the question was put whether the club should adjourn over two weeks or hold its next meeting at the same time with the convention, it was voted to hold their regular meeting at the same time that the convention was held.

As those who issued the call were slow in putting in an appearance a good deal of doubt seemed to exist as to who was authorized to call the meeting to order. After waiting about a quarter of an hour, Dr. Horton arose and called for some one to state the object of the meeting so that they could get to work as all could not wait all the afternoon. It was then moved that Dr. Horton take the chair and call the house to order. Mr. Filben of Sacramento, though yet absent, was elected secretary. After prayer, the chairman called for some of the Sacramento ministers, as they had issued the call, to state the object of it.

Dr. Wheeler responded, and said that the pastors of Sacramento had proposed attending the meeting in a body, but for a variety of reasons they had been prevented. The Christian people of Sacramento had not only been disturbed in their worship, but their religious feelings had been outraged by systematic and flagrant disregard of the Sabbath. So serious had the matter become that it had been brought before the pastors' conference, and a correspondence had been opened with divines throughout the State on the subject of a Sunday law, in accordance with which the present convention had been called. He believed that it would not be difficult to secure such legislation as would insure a proper observance of the "Lord's day, or Sunday, or Sabbath, or whatever you are pleased to call it."

Mr. Johnston, a National Reformer by the way, moved that the calling the convention be approved. This opened the way for discussion, and then the thing became really amusing. We were there, and we verily believe that there were not three persons in the hall who were really agreed upon the reasons why a Sunday law should be made, nor upon what kind of a law it should be when it was made. Yet they were all perfectly assured that there should be a Sunday law.

Upon the motion to approve the calling of the convention, Rev. John Kimball was the first speaker. He said he could not vote for the motion as it stood. He believed in the objects of the convention, but it should have been held before the election. It was useless to hope that any church influence could be brought to bear on the next Legislature. The members were pledged, especially those belonging to the Democratic party, against any legislation of this character. A movement at this stage would only be inviting a Waterloo. It might, however, be a good time to begin to agitate for the next election. The Democratic party was now in control, and it was notoriously against any such legislation. The Republican party attributed their defeat to the fact that they had not taken the same ground as their opponents. The speaker believed in agitating the subject and disseminating literature.

Rev. Mr. Briggs said he hoped that those who called the convention would present some plan,—a clear definition of what was wanted. If it is to be a civil Sabbath law, the discussion and advocacy of it must not be allowed to run wild. It must be a law that will protect the citizens. Intelligent instruction on this point would prevent the purblindness that characterized the work of the previous Sunday law campaign, of urging its enforcement as a religious law. He said that information is greatly lacking on this point of the intelligent distinction between the civil and the religious aspects of the question. What he favored was distinctively a civil law.

Mr. Sweeney said that he came in simply as a citizen to work for a civil Sunday, not as a preacher to work for a law to enforce a religious institution. "If we can come in here this year as preachers and call on the State to enforce the observance of the Christian Sabbath, next year we may come in as preachers and ask the State to compel everybody to be baptized; and the next year ask the State to compel everybody to celebrate the Lord's supper, and so we shall have church and State." But none of these things are wanted. Therefore he said he indorsed the remarks of Dr. Briggs. Simply a civil law is all that is wanted. The question was one of political economy and State ethics, and not of religion at all. The preacher should be entirely separated from the question, and the law should be demanded by them as citizens.

Mr. McHatton said that this was the idea of his people. They were working for a civil Sunday.

Dr. Chapman did not think that the minister ought to be left out of the question. The movement was a religious one, and he was decidedly against divorcing it from a Christian standpoint. The ministers of the State were decidedly to blame for their long delay in taking action on the subject, but it was now necessary to do something. Should no attempt be made on the present Legislature, could they expect to succeed with other ones? He said he would not entertain the question as to whether it would be a "Waterloo" or not. He had been in politics long enough to know that legislators keep their finger on the public pulse, and that they generally give what the people want. Besides, if the Legislature is asked and it refuses, then there is something to go into the work with next time. "If the legislators are not on the side of the toiling multitudes, then we shall know how to go to work." It is failure not to try. This speech was much applauded.

Dr. Jewell said, "If parties in their platforms have challenged us, it is cowardly not to accept the challenge. If they have opposed the Sunday law, it is time for us to speak out. I indorse Dr. Chapman's idea. I don't want to eliminate the minister from the subject. If any people are the friends of the workingman they are the ministers. The workingmen have a right to the Christian Sabbath. I am the friend of the workingman. I am traveling in the footsteps of their friend, the Carpenter of Nazareth. I do not propose to drive all the gospel out of the question."

Mr. Sweeney said, "I too am in favor of the workingman. I am too in favor of all this religion. But Jesus of Nazareth never asked the Roman Empire to unsheath the sword in favor of his religion? Nor do we want to invoke the sword of California in favor of his religion."

Dr. Carver stated that he was surprised that Mr. Sweeney should make such an assertion. He would advocate no Sunday law that excluded the Man of Nazareth. If Democratic or Republican parties would not give them what they required, then let them support some party that would. And that a religious Sabbath and not a civil Sunday is what is wanted.

Then Mr. Rich offered an amendment to the motion of approval, reading as follows:— "WHEREAS, The purpose of the Sacramento ministers in calling this convention is to secure by agitation a civil Sabbath for California, therefore, "Resolved, That we approve the object proposed."

Mr. Johnston.—"I don't like the word 'civil' in that."

Dr. Chapman.—"Insert the words, 'to secure a better observance of the Sabbath.' Isn't that what the Sacramento brethren want?"

Several answers, "No."

Dr. Abbott obtained the floor and said, "I like the term 'Sunday,' not Sabbath. I would like some one to show me in the words of Jesus any Christian Sabbath. There is no such thing as a Christian Sabbath. And if any one here has fixed upon the idea of a Christian Sabbath, he had better revise his scholarship. The term Sabbath has no place in Christianity, it is a Judaistic expression. The term Christian Sabbath, the Lord never used, nor his disciples. I want a Sunday law. I believe in having a Sunday law, but I believe that agitation in favor of one at this time is neither timely nor practical. We have been defeated. We must yield all religious ideas in connection with the question. Sweeney is right."

Then in hopes of getting an agreement, the proposed amendment was changed so as to leave out the words civil Sabbath and have it read, "To secure by agitation a Christian Sunday for California."

Dr. Briggs.—"When you leave out the word 'civil' my interest in the question is gone. If you strike out the word 'civil' you cannot reach the Legislature. To urge the Legislature to pass upon anything Christian is fruitless."

Then the proposed amendment was changed again so as to read "civil Sunday."

Then Mr. Morris asked, "Is agitation the proper word to use there, or is it legislation? It is by legislation that we are to get the Sunday law."

Another said, "We have in our churches the Christian Sabbath, it is the civil Sunday that we want."

Mr. Ware.—"It is not a civil Sunday that we want, it is a civil Sunday law."

So then the word "law" was inserted. Then a motion was made to strike out the word "civil." This motion was fortunate enough to get to a vote, and was lost. Then the chair shut off debate, and

put the question of the proposed amendment and it was lost. Then the original motion for approval was put and carried, four voting against it.

A motion was then carried for the appointment of a committee to draft resolutions and an order of business. While the committee was out, the way was opened by the chair for short speeches.

Mr. Johnston advocated stringent Sabbath laws, based on the fourth commandment, and cited the action of the late convention of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union at Minneapolis,—that they were not ashamed to base their claim for law, upon the religious aspect of the question, nor should these. He considered the publication of newspapers, the running of excursion trains, and even funerals, a desecration of God's holy Sabbath and would support a law to prevent them. He would stop excursions and excursion trains on Sundays, if Senator Stanford himself stood on the track.

Another clergyman suggested that a law should be made preventing people from dying or becoming sick on Sunday.

Professor Knowlton said as Sunday newspapers would bear no inconsiderable place in relation to the Sunday law, they should consider the fact that virtually all of the work on a Sunday paper was done on Saturday, while the work on a Monday paper was done on Sunday. They should consider which paper would be affected by the law.

Then a gentleman arose and said, "That is a question that concerns me. I am a newspaper man, and my paper is printed on Mondays, and the work has to be done on Sunday to get it ready. Now will you prohibit that, and stop my Monday paper?"

The answer was, "Yes."

Then said he, "The work on the Sunday paper is done on Saturday, but will you let us sell it on Sunday?"

The answer was, "No."

Then said he, "What then are we newspaper men to do? You will not let us print a Monday paper, and you will not let us sell a Sunday paper, what is to become of the newspaper business in California?"

By this time the Committee on Resolutions had returned, and their report was received. They recommended "the formation of a Sabbath Union for California, on a permanent basis, and the election of officers and an Executive Committee."

Dr. Abbott moved that the word Sunday be substituted for Sabbath.

Another said as Sabbath means rest, he could not see why Sabbath could not be used.

Dr. Abbott replied, "This is for the Legislature to act upon, and we can never get the word Sabbath in the law. If we ever get any law we shall have to get it as a Sunday law not as Sabbath."

Another said, "The old law read, 'The first day of the week commonly called Sunday,' that is what we want."

Another said, "There is already in the civil code of California a recognition of Sunday as a civil day. What more is wanted? Is it not something religious?"

Then a reverend gentleman said that there are some people in the State who keep the seventh day, and are opposed to the Sunday law. But that on this question the majority must rule.

Another said that on that principle, if those who keep Saturday were in the majority, then they would have an equal right to pass a law to compel all to keep Saturday. He said, "You are in the majority and propose to make a law compelling them to keep Sunday. You claim this as your right. Now if they were in the majority, would you recognize it, would you allow it, as their right, to compel you to keep Saturday?"

At this there was a murmur all over the house and the answer, "No."

Then said he, "What becomes of the Golden Rule? It is gone. And then where is your Christianity? For Christ said, on this hangs all the law and the prophets. If those who keep the seventh day were trying to get a law to compel all to keep Saturday, I would oppose it. And when you try to make a law to compel them to keep Sunday, I oppose that."

The nominations for officers was next made: Gen. O. O. Howard for President, Dr. Briggs for Vice-President, Mr. Filben for Secretary, and an executive committee of seven. It was recommended that petitions be prepared as soon as possible and sent throughout the State for signatures, and returned as soon as possible to be presented to the Legislature, which begins its session January 1, 1887. A representative of the Good Templars stated that already that body had 20,000 signatures to a petition for the Sunday law.

A resolution recommending that in all places where there are two or more churches, union services be held for the good of the cause, failed to pass. And then the explanation was made that "as this is a civil, and not a religious movement, it is not supposed that the services would be held on Sunday, but on a week day."

Then it was voted to adjourn and so closed the Sunday Law Convention. Lack of space demands that our comments upon it, and our impressions of it, be reserved till next week. We may add, however, that the papers show that General Howard resigned immediately, and as yet nobody has been chosen in his place. J.