A "NEW national movement in favor of Sunday observance," which appears to be somewhat formidable, is on in England, and "received great support at a meeting of citizens" held at the Mansion House in London under the presidency of the Lord Mayor, on October 29. This meeting showed that the movement has the support, not only of the Anglican, Roman Catholic, Evangelical, and even Jewish clergy, as also many prominent public men, and prominent representatives of trades-unionism. Resolutions were unanimously adopted, declaring it "essential to the moral, industrial, and physical well-being of the nation to preserve one day in seven as a day of worship and rest," and demanding that the bill for the SUNDAY CLOSING OF SHOPS, which failed of passage at the last session of Parliament, "BE INTRODUCED AND PASSED BY HIS MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT AT THE NEXT SESSION OF PARLIAMENT."
A document giving "a short account of the movement" that was circulated at the meeting "showed that, in pursuance of the resolutions of the Caxton-hall conference of last May, steps have been taken to organize a general movement throughout the country on behalf of the Christian Sunday about March 10-17, 1907." [The caps are supplied to emphasize some features.]
Prominent Men in the Movement.
"The gathering, which was convened by the Sunday Law Movement Council was well attended, and among those supporting the Lord Mayor were the Archbishop of York, the Bishops of Southwark and Stepney, the Rev. Father Bernard Vaughan, the Earl of Stanford, Lord Avebury, Sir John Kennaury, M. P., Sir J. Dorrington, Mr. Samuel Hope Mosley, Mr. F. A. Bevan, Sir C. Ernest Tritton, the Rev. B. F. Meyer, the Rev. Prebendary Carlisle, and others. Among others present in addition to the speakers were the Bishop of Hereford, Bishop Taylor Smith, Chaplain General of the Forces, the Bishop of St. Andrews, Lord Stanford, the Dean of Hereford, Chancellor P. V. Smith, the Rev. T. Law, secretary of the National Free Church Council, and Mr. G. W. E. Russell. Letters of sympathy for the movement were received from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rev. J. Scott Lidgett, president of the Free Church Council, the Chief Rabbi, Dr. Adler, Archbishop Bourne, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Southwark, Dr. Horton, Dr. Munro Gibson, Dr. Campbell Morgan, the Rev. R. J. Campbell, the Rev. C. Kelly, the Rev. Thomas Spurgeon, the Rev. Sylvester Horne, the Rev. T. Phillips, the Wesleyan Sunday School Union, representing over a million children, the Prime Minister, the Lord Chief Justice, the Marquis of Salisbury, the Dukes of Argyll and Norfolk, Lord Tweedmouth, Lord Kelvin, Lord Roberts, Lord Ripon, Lord Landsdowne, Mr. Bryce, M. P., Mr. Herbert Gladstone, M. P., Mr. Keir Hardie, M. P., and the whole bench of bishops, Mr. Lloyd-George, numerous provincial mayors, the head masters of public schools, and many well-known city men.
"The Lord Mayor read a telegram from Lord Aberdeen 'declaring that the cause of Sunday observance was worthy of all support on the grounds of religion, patriotism, and humanity.' In his letter the Archbishop of Canterbury bade 'Godspeed to the endeavor to set forward and keep forward the great cause we have at heart,' and declared that 'few things affect more closely the welfare of England.' Rev. J. Scott Lidgett, president of the Free Church Council, wrote promising any help the council could give, and hoping that public attention would be awakened to the urgency of the question. The Chief Rabbi wrote that he would naturally have wished to see the seventh rather than the first day of the week recognized, but he was glad Christians were agreed as to the inestimable advantages resulting from one weekly day of rest."
The chairman of the Sunday Law Movement, Mr. T. Kingscote, moved: "That it is essential to the moral, industrial, and physical well-being of the nation to preserve ONE DAY IN SEVEN AS A DAY OF WORSHIP and rest—to which every man is, BY DIVINE LAW and by human necessity, justly entitled; and therefore this meeting heartily welcomes the proposal for simultaneous endeavor to recall to the nation the true ideals, privileges, and obligations of the Christian Sunday, as a unique and permanent safeguard of religion, and of social and domestic prosperity, and to warn the people of the Empire of the perils that threaten their highest interests from its increasing disregard and secularization." He hoped that next Lent there would be a mission in favor of the better observance of Sunday in every parish in the country.
The English Sunday and the Clergy.
"In seconding the motion, the Bishop of Stepney said there was no need of argument but great need of combined effort to preserve THE ENGLISH SUNDAY, which was in imminent danger of vanishing. THE CLERGY THEMSELVES COULD NOT SPEAK WITH QUITE A CLEAR CONSCIENCE, FOR MOST OF THEM KNOWN TO HIM WORKED SEVEN DAYS A WEEK. The laymen who had initiated the movement did not discuss the nature or extent of the obligation of the fourth commandment, but took their stand on the broad, non-controversial ground of a universal human need, not making appeal to theological sanctions. The movement aimed at securing for every class at least one day in seven for recreation and recollection. Cheers followed these remarks.
"Father Bernard Vaughan, who supported the motion, said that the CHRISTIAN SUNDAY WAS SET APART FOR THE WORSHIP OF GOD [by whom?] and for rest from servile work, and the extent to which this had been forgotten was almost a national calamity [one report was that he said "the present state of Sunday amounted almost to a national calamity"] They were told that eighty per cent. of the population of this mammoth metropolis went nowhere to worship God on Sundays, and he believed that if they were to eliminate the children and those who went twice a day from that list they would find that ABOUT TEN PER CENT. WENT TO WORSHIP GOD ON SUNDAY. What was the cause of this terrible change? Was it that they were swinging to agnosticism? He hoped to God it was not so. There was a fever of unrest, a hungry thirst for excitement, as the Sunday came round, and 'week-ends' had become a part of the British Constitution. It was not the going away and the going to the country on Sunday that he complained of, but the making of that day so busy that there was no time to worship God. People had a right to go to the country, but not to go away from God, nor to keep their servants away from God. IT WAS SHOCKING TO THINK OF THE STATE OF THINGS EXISTING AMONG THE SOCALLED15UPPER CLASSES. The proposed revival might be a good thing, but if the people had true religion they would not need to be told to go to church. It would be a good thing if business men paid their wages on Fridays at noon; it would almost solve the problem they were discussing. On Saturday nights even the children did not get to bed till 1 a. m. There was too much room in the churches. Within a radius of one square mile from where he was speaking SIXTY CHURCHES HAD BEEN PULLED DOWN, AND MANY LEFT WERE VERY LITTLE USED. A united and practical effort should now be made TO MAKE GOD ALMIGHTY DOMINANT IN OUR COUNTRY.
"Mr. Frederick Rogers, secretary of the National Committee of Organized Labor, said there had been a great increase of Sunday work in the last twenty years. Hundreds of railway men bitterly hated the necessity of Sunday work now imposed upon them. He knew of a signalman who only got on an average one Sunday in four, working twenty-one days right off.
"The resolution was adopted unanimously, and Lord Avebury [who is fathering the Sunday closing bill for shops in the House of Lords and seems to be the member of the English Parliament most interested in Sunday legislation] then moved: 'That this meeting rejoices that the House of Lords' Committee of 1905, and the Joint Committee of both Houses in 1906, in each case unanimously recommended the passage of a measure for the Sunday-closing of shops (with such exceptions as circumstances may render necessary), and trusts that the Shops Sunday Closing Bill, which is supported by over 350 shopkeepers' associations in all parts of the country, will be introduced and passed by his Majesty's Government at the next session of Parliament.
A Matter of Business.
"He sketched the history of the bill in the House of Lords, and said that it had been introduced at the request of the whole shopkeeping community. At present, if a new man, generally a foreigner, came to a town and opened his shop on Sunday, the other shopkeepers felt that they would lose their business unless they opened too. He was sure that the majority of sixteen which defeated the bill did not represent the real opinion of the House of Lords. The shopkeepers were supported by the trades-unions, showing that working men would not be so seriously inconvenienced by the bill. The great Sunday markets, which it was said would be injured, were now breaking the law and taking the bread out of the mouths of shopkeepers who kept the law.
"In seconding the resolution, Mr. J. G. Talbot, M. P., said it would require a good deal of impetus if the bill was to be placed on the statute book. It was a reproach to England that she should be driven by the example of France to do what had been the boast of England for many generations.
An Unbiblical Day a Common Ground!
"Speaking for the Free Churches, the Rev. F. B. Meyer said they would take no second place in enthusiasm or resolution on behalf of Sunday observance. IN THESE DAYS OF DISUNION THEY WERE THE MORE ANXIOUS TO DISCOVER SUCH COMMON GROUND AS THIS, ON WHICH THEY COULD STAND TOGETHER WITH THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH. If they laid less stress on the religious than on the ethical, physical, and moral aspects of the question, it was only because they were afraid of trying to force Sabbatarianism on their fellow countrymen. The word 'Sabbath' was a difficulty; they did not believe in the Sabbath. 'Lord's Day' savored of cant; 'First Day' was pedantic, and 'Sunday' came from a heathen festival; but the use of the word 'Rest-day' would remove such difficulty."
Yes, the use of the word "Rest-day" will remove such difficulty if its use removes entirely the religious and theological character of the matter; otherwise it will not, and the classic query will be pertinent, "What's in a name? would not a rose by any other name smell as sweet?" THE RELIGIOUS AND THEOLOGICAL SABBATH BY ANY OTHER NAME WILL BE THE SAME, and its enforcement under any other name will be as odious as the enforcement of "Sabbatarianism," for it will be the same thing. It is not probable that the sentiment and motives of clergymen of the type of Dr. Meyer in this matter will be much different when the term "Rest-day" is used from what they are when "Sabbath" and "Lord's Day" are used, and until they are, there will not be much removal of difficulty so far as the fear of their "trying to force Sabbatarianism on their fellow countrymen" is concerned. Rev. Meyer realizes right where the difficulty is, but he will have to do more than invent a new term to remove it. It is not by laying "less stress on the religious than on the ethical, physical, and moral aspects of the question," that the difficulty can be removed, but by ceasing to have any religious aspects to the question.
It seems that one of the devices employed in behalf of Sunday Sabbatarianism in the United States obtains in England also. The way in which the support of "over a million children" is given to the movement recalls the way in which the Sunday closing of the World's Fair by Congress secured the support of not only every human inhabitant of several of our states, but that of the animals and fishes as well. Doubtless all those "over a million children" are much wrought up over the Sunday movement in England, and are eager for the joys of that most galling and unnatural of all impositions upon childhood—the dogmatic Sabbath.
