RELIGIOUS by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Feb 6, 1893

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 19, No. 14.

RELIGIOUS.

By Editor

—Montevideo advices state that the pope has appointed a Catholic Convention for South America, and named Bishop Soler as presiding officer.

—Minot J. Savage, the noted Unitarian preacher of Boston, issues this challenge, which it is safe to pass along: “I challenge the scholarship of the world to show any biblical or divine authority for the transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week.”

—The discussion as to the Hon. James G. Blaine's religious persuasion will probably be set at rest now, by the holding of his burial service in a Presbyterian Church. Like that of General Sherman, his religious conviction, if he had any, has long been a matter of dispute, and he has always seemed content to let it be so.

—In the National Conference of Christian Prohibitionists held in Philadelphia last week, there was a lively discussion in regard to the duty of Christians toward the liquor traffic. Mr. Lindley, of New York, criticised the attitude of the Methodist Church of California toward prohibition, and Rev. Dr. Swindells, rising to defend the denomination, was not permitted to speak fully, and thereupon declared that he would remain simply as a spectator.

—This item from the Union Signal is quite significant: “It is said that the pope is moving toward throwing the influence of the Roman Catholic Church in favor of peace among all Christian nations, and has offered to preside at a congress held for that purpose. This is one of the best tokens of progress toward human brotherhood that we have seen in many a day.” By some hook or crook the pope is bound to pose before the nations as indispensable in the settlement of their affairs. Occasionally his chances get an apparent setback, but it is only to loom up again in a more advantageous position.

—A letter from Sacramento states that petitions in favor of a Sunday law are being presented to the Legislature. This effort was being offset by the distribution of some adverse literature. The San Francisco Examiner expresses the opinion that neither of the large parties will father such a measure in view of a previous disaster to the Republicans on such an issue. But politicians are coming to be somewhat fearful of church antagonism, as was shown by the last Congress in the act of passing the Sunday-closing Act under the whip of a few ministers who claimed to carry all the church vote of the country in their pockets.

—That leading Catholics sought to defeat President Harrison at the recent election for religious purposes is thus acknowledged by the Catholic News: “We have no reason to regret the part we took in securing the removal of so improper a person from so important an office. The only way to get rid of Morgan was to get rid of Harrison, who, knowing the bigotry and unfairness practiced by his subordinate, permitted him to continue his shameful work. Harrison was responsible for Morgan's actions and he seemed satisfied to face the consequences. He has done so and both will go home.” With Protestants also striving for prestige in the government, even resorting to fraud and gross deception to further their ends, who can contend that we are not menaced with the evil of Church and State Union?

—The Occident speaks thus in regard to the Briggs' case: “We give elsewhere a résumé of opinion in the Briggs case as it now stands. This is due our readers. It is also due them that we express our own judgment. After this we shall be glad if the subject can have pause for a time, if possible until the assembly shall have spoken once more.” Keeping still “until the assembly shall have spoken once more,” carries the idea that that body's judgment should settle the orthodoxy of any doctrine. That is the way the Papacy was formed. Her councils have settled many things, some that the Occident would pronounce absurd. Yet these were the councils of the popular church, called to settle disputed points of doctrine. One of them, that of Laodicea, A.D. 364, finally settled the Sunday question, making it heresy punishable by excommunication to observe the seventh day as the Sabbath. Another one, that of Rome, 1870, finally settled the infallibility of the pope. When we look up to any human authority as the one to settle doctrine—whether it be a “pope,” a “propaganda,” a “council,” or an “assembly”—we virtually credit that authority with infallibility. And who is to judge which, if either, is infallible?