RELIGION
The city that welcomed Nathan Cole's Los Angeles Times on Dec. 4, 1881
was, as the editor proclaimed in an article that day, a "City of Churches." It
was also a city well on its way toward becoming a Protestant stronghold, which
was the brand of religion editor Cole had in mind. Along Fort Street {now
Broadway} several Protestant denominations were preparing to construct new
houses of worship, leading the editor to proclaim that Los Angeles was
"Developing into a Mighty Moral Town." Yet the nearly 5000 Catholics
comprised about half of those who attended religious services in 1881 and the
largest Protestant denomination would not reach a membership of 1000 until
mid-decade. By 1890, however, not only had Protestant church membership easily
surpassed that of the city's Catholic churches, but political and economic
power were also concentrated in the mainstream Protestant denominations.
Whether the city had yet reached the status of "a Mighty Moral Town" was,
however, open to debate.
This rapid growth in Protestant strength and influence in the 1880s
contrasted sharply with the snail-like pace by which Methodists, Baptists,
Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Congregationalists established themselves in
the 1850s and early 1860s. Ministers from those denominations came and went in
the first decades after American acquisition, and when Sheriff Jim Barton was
killed in 1857 no Protestant minister was currently in town to officiate at his
funeral. During the 'fifties Protestant churches fared better in the
surrounding farm settlements, such as the Baptists in El Monte, where groups of
immigrants already affiliated with one of the denominations took up residence.
As Protestants moved into Southern California, a Catholic decline took
place. It was more than a matter of relative numbers. The policies of
Thaddeus Amat, who presided as Bishop over Southern California for two decades
until his death in 1878, alienated many Hispanic families who were offended by
his hostility toward local Catholic customs. Furthermore, Amat's overly
restrictive insistence that Catholics avoid any Protestant contact that might
threaten the faith of Catholics tended to divide Protestants and Catholics in
Los Angeles. His repeated warnings against Catholic participation in the
public schools was especially irritating to Protestants from older states where
public school systems were looked upon as essential to the republic's growth .
Editor Cole, in his "City of Churches" article, wrote that "Schools and
churches are the pride and heart of the intelligence and morals of every
community."
The anti-Catholic view occasionally expressed in the Times letters column
is easily understood in light of the antagonism that had built up during Amat's
leadership and in light of the growing tension between Catholics and
Protestants in the Northern states from which most of the post-Civil War
immigration came. Specifically, the role of the Catholic church in combating
alcohol drew forth a series of letters from John Cooney, whose criticism of the
Catholic clergy is somewhat surprising since city directories list John Cooney
as a teacher at St. Vincent's College, "H. R.," "Protestant" and "Veritas." The
letter by "Veritas" that ran on Dec. 1 is unavailable since no copy of that
date's paper exists on microfilm. Bishop Francis Mora was Amat's successor.
{Times, Nov. 28, 1887, p. 3}
The Catholic Church and Prohibition.
Los Angeles, Nov. 27.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
May I ask through the columns of your worthy paper why Bishop
Mora or any of his priests do not openly come out in favor of
total prohibition? They would add to the strength of the
cause, and most assuredly Catholics need such a good measure.
Bishops and priests have fallen by the wayside, and have not
been impervious to the hellish broth.
JOHN COONEY.
{Times, Nov. 29, 1887, p. 3}
The Temperance Movement.
Los Angeles, Nov. 28.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
Like your correspondent John Cooney, I often wonder at the
conspicuous absence of the Catholic clergy from temperance
meetings, although it is a well-known fact that the Catholic
Church urges temperance on its own people at all times. But
it is this religious exclusiveness which leaves the cause
without that backbone which would cement all the people on
one common platform for the universal good, without respect
to race, creed or color. I therefore say all temperance
meetings should be strictly secular, as even prayers or hymns
drive Catholics and non-church-goers away.
The various societies now operate as rivals, contending
for the leading position in the cause. This is all from want
of federation under one banner. Another thing, I would urge
speakers to carefully avoid the use of bitter, intemperate
language about saloon men, and on the contrary direct all
their energy to the consumers of liquor rather than the
retailers. Speakers and writers might just as well abuse the
landlords, brewers and distillers, who enjoy the profits, the
saloon men simply acting as collectors. Yours respectfully,
H. R.
{Times, Dec. 2. 1887, p. 6}
Catholic Church and Temperance.
Los Angeles, Dec. 1.--[To the Editor of The Times.] A
correspondent of The Times who signs his effusion, remarkable
only for its lack of discrimination and reckless
misstatements of facts, "Veritas," alleges that "Catholics in
Los Angeles are more united against prohibition than they are
in support of each other, either socially, civilly or
materially," and asks if Catholics have ever unitedly
supported any measure for public or private weal. The gross
absurdity of "Veritas'" statement quoted is too apparent to
call for comment. Your correspondent desires to refute the
imputation, alike unjust to the Catholic Church and to the
cause of temperance, that the Catholic Church is indifferent
to the importance of this question. One of the foremost
temperance organizations in this country is the Father
Matthew Total Abstinence Society, whose membership is
exclusively Catholic, whose champions come from the priestly
ranks, and whose records will show as effective work as those
of any other denominational organization in the temperance
field. In the grand galaxy of orators whose eloquence has
won converts to the cause of temperance, the Catholic Church
is represented by His Eminence Archbishop Feehan of Chicago,
and most prominently by Bishop Ireland of St. Paul, whose
eloquent pleas and personal influence have perhaps been as
fruitful as the efforts of any Protestant advocate of
temperance. Another little less noted total-abstinance
worker is Father Cotter. Various dignitaries of the church
might be named as indorsing the work, besides a full
proportion of lay workers in the church. "Veritas" injures
the cause he champions when he seeks to belittle the work of
the Catholic Church by a flagrant disregard of the simple
facts, and an exhibition of narrow bigotry.
PROTESTANT.
{Times, Dec. 11, 1887, p. 5}
"Protestant's" Sham Defense of Catholics.
Los Angeles, Dec. 2.--[To the Editor of The Times.] It
is evident that your would-be "Protestant" correspondent has,
wilfully or otherwise, arrived at a "grossly absurd"
interpretation of my very plain and comprehensive inquiry, in
reference to the censurable indifference of "Catholics, as
such, collectively" toward questions or issues of national or
even Catholic importance in this country. Any child of
reason understands, when any party or denomination is alluded
to, that such allusion does not merely and exclusively
include their principles in the abstract, nor their leaders
solely; but to all their adherents "collectively," who are
the living, responsible embodiment of said principle, in
which case the great majority, and not a few exceptional
persons, have to be proven either in favor or against an
issue before the whole body can be held responsible. Would-
be "Protestant" finds it much easier to dodge my whole
question and assertion, and charge, in an altogether new and
uncalled-for issue, namely, the teachings of the Catholic
Church and the eloquent appeals of a few of her reverend
clergy, all of which make the shameful indifference of the
great majority of Catholics more censurable. Of what avail
are the greatest moral truths and eminent instructors, if
those truths and instructions, like the seed mentioned in the
gospel, fall on barren soil. Would-be "Protestant" makes a
decidedly false statement when he asserts that a full
proportion of the Catholic laity are zealous, active workers
in the cause of temperance, much less prohibition, which, by
the way, he again dodges, and substitutes temperance in his
gigantic effort to make a very, very few exceptions answer
for millions of Catholics who make it necessary for the Pope
to frequently call upon, to awake, to arise, to engage in
politics as active, model citizens, zealous for the public
good. When would-be "Protestant" feels disposed to
politically champion Catholics "as such collectively," in
their unenviable position as being the most flatulent, most
inane, portion of the body politic of this glorious republic,
or as reliable workers in the cause of church or state, then
we will be only too willing to meet him with or without
gloves.
VERITAS.
Other writers criticized the papacy. "A. G. J.," responding to an attack
on the Methodists by "Catholic," may well have been a Republican, as indicated
by his intimation that Grover Cleveland's gift to the Pope was politically
inspired. "Observer" also raised the specter of church interference in
politics, whether it be in Ireland or the United States. "Tara's" reply to
"Observer" is important because it comes from a Republican Irish-American
workingman.
In the spring of 1888 the Times carried frequent telegraphic dispatches
from London regarding relations between Britain and Ireland. The National
League, an Irish tenants' organization, supported Charles Parnell's struggle
for home rule and represented tenants in their demand for fair rents.
According to the wire service and various British newspapers, Pope Leo XIII had
declared that the League's methods were contrary to Catholic principles and
anyone declining to renounce membership in it would be refused absolution. At
the same time the papacy was in conflict with the Italian government and King
Humbert over the authority of the church within Italy.
{Times, Jan. 28, 1888, p. 6}
A Small Religious Skirmish.
Los Angeles, Jan. 25.--[To the Editor of The Times.] I
noticed in The Times of the 25th inst. that the Methodists
have officially condemned President Cleveland for presenting
Pope Leo with a copy of the Constitution of the United
States.
In so doing they, at least, show that they are
consistent with the spirit of their society. For if history
is correct, and their own writers to be believed, they
condemned Washington and Jefferson for giving a constitution
to the United States.
One wing of their sect condemned Lincoln for liberating
the colored people, and called it robbery to deprive their
bishop (Andrews) of his hundred slaves.
When the followers of Wesley were doing their utmost to
prevent the United States from ever having a constitution,
the Catholics of Maryland were found in the front, fighting
for liberty. Look at Bishop Carroll and Charles Carroll of
Carrollton, Lynch, Barry, Sullivan of Maine, and hosts of
Catholics who gave their lives and fortunes to give us our
Constitution. Were it not for aid received from countries in
which the Catholic faith was professed, we would find it very
difficult to wrest our freedom from the tyranny of Protestant
England.
When the Catholics were in possession of power or
influence in Maryland, they proclaimed the broadest
toleration, the fullest liberty to every Christian sect. In
Catholic Maryland there had been no ear-cropping, no boring
of tongues with hot pokers; such exhibitions of brotherly
love and mercy were reserved for the Puritans of Plymouth.
It is to be hoped that President Cleveland may send a
copy of the Constitution and a history of our country to our
disgruntled protesting brethren of the Methodist camp.
CATHOLIC.
{Times, Jan. 29, 1888, p. 6}
"They're at It."
Los Angeles, Jan. 28.--[To the Editor of the Times.]
Under the heading of "A Small Religious Skirmish," in The
Times, "Catholic" ventures to criticise the Methodist
Conference, which officially condemns the action of President
Cleveland in sending a copy of the Constitution to Pope Leo.
The Methodists had a right to pass such a resolution if
they saw fit to do so, and it concerns no Catholic or
Protestant either. It is certainly an open question whether
President Cleveland could or can consistently send a present
to the Pope, who is doing his utmost to cause the Government
of Italy trouble and annoyance, while our relations with that
country are of the best.
But anyone having the least conception of President
Cleveland, knows he cares as little for the Pope as he does
for a Chinese god, and his sending a present to him looks
quite as absurd as it is ridiculous. On the surface it
appears a gracious act, but what man of average intelligence
takes it for such? When "Catholic" cuts his eyeteeth in
politics, he may realize why the present was sent at all.
"Catholic" has a tendency to make a man weary when he talks
of his church favoring or fostering constitutional
governments, particularly republics. He must either be very
young, or his stock of knowledge limited in the matter of
history.
I do not care to enter into history, but if I did I
think the Inquisition would put into shade any tortures he
may rake up. He must remember The Times is read by people
who know something about history of an earlier date than the
settlement of Maryland.
A. G. J.
{Times, May 3, 1888, p. 3}
The Pope and Politics.
Los Angeles, May 1.--[To the Editor of The Times.] I
see by the European telegraphic news published in your
journal for the last few days, several items concerning the
attitude lately assumed, or rather resumed, by the Pope
concerning political questions, which have caused much
controversy of late years in not England and Ireland
alone--which countries are most directly interested--but also
in the United States.
In fact, the whole civilized world are interested
spectators of this constitutional agitation of the Irish to
restore to their country that independence which they were by
bribery and fraud deprived of in 1800.
In England today the most gigantic intellects are
striving to solve this Irish question in such a manner as
shall be conducive to the happiness of both countries.
Mr. Gladstone is of the opinion that to give the Irish
people the right to make their own laws of a local nature
would make England a more powerful nation both in peace and
war than she now is, with a disaffected people like the
Irish, obstructing her legislation in the House of Commons,
and ready to at least exult when any danger threatens her.
Mr. Gladstone believes that the Irish people have a
right to legally combine and meet and express their
disapprobation of the means used to coerce them.
But now His Holiness Leo XIII solemnly informs them that
he understands better what means to acquire their local
independence is legal or not, better than Mr. Gladstone, Mr.
John Morley and a host of honest, manly Englishmen who have
struggled and are now struggling to help Irishmen to receive
a tardy recognition of their rights in and out of Parliament.
It is humiliating to an intelligent Irishmen to thus see
their English friends placed in such a position by the
attitude of the Pope.
Any Irish Catholic claiming intelligence will, of
course, treat with merited contempt this latest effort of the
Pope to interfere in the politics of their country.
Of course, if they wish to submit to his ruling on
matters of politics in Ireland, that is their business, and
they can wear the yoke, and nobody will particularly care.
But civilized mankind, outside of Ireland, cannot be blamed
for treating a race with contempt who will allow the Pope to
do with them what his own countrymen have rebelled against,
and who relegated him to the privacy of the Quirinal, there
to meditate on how to properly save souls, and leave
political questions to those whose interest it is to look
after them.
It is evident that English intrigue has at last
triumphed in Rome. The diamonds--I suppose bought chiefly by
the Peter's pence sent by the poor Irish, although starving
at the same time--to Her Majesty, Queen Victoria, on the
occasion of her golden jubilee, have produced the desired
result, in a fulmination against the National League.
Will the Irish submit? That is a question they must by
their course soon answer. The people of America demand an
answer. Irish Catholics in America must speak out in no
uncertain tones. Irish-American Catholics must place
themselves on record. The Catholics of this city must place
themselves squarely on the record and say whether it is true
or not that their first political allegiance is due the Pope.
It is due to themselves that they place themselves right
before their fellow-citizens on this most important subject.
For if they acknowledge the right of the Pope to interfere in
matters purely of a political nature in Ireland, they must
acknowledge his right to interfere in matters political in
America. This charge has often been made. Now is the time
to prove whether it is true or false. It will not do to
remain silent. The question is of vast importance to every
American citizen and should be answered. If Catholics
concede the right of the Pope to interfere in politics in
Ireland, can they consistently refuse to be guided
politically by him in American political affairs. "There's
the rub." If the Catholic priests of Ireland are instructed
to deny absolution to a certain class of their countrymen,
holding certain ideas on matters political, why not the same
authority issue instructions to the Bishop of Los Angeles
instructing him to refrain from absolving a certain class who
have their views of political matters which they believe to
be correct, and which they desire to see carried into effect
in a perfectly legal manner?
The American people are awaiting the answer to this
latest political ukase from the Vatican.
The Catholics of Los Angeles should be heard from, and
their verdict given as to the right of the Pope to dictate to
them politically.
OBSERVER.
{Times, May 4, 1888, p. 3}
Pope and Politics.
Los Angeles, May 3.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
"Observer" in today's issue challenges an answer from the
Irish Catholics of Los Angeles. I am one and will give him
my individual opinion on the subject, although I think he is
premature in asking for an expression on a decree which is
not officially before us instead of waiting, as the Catholic
Irish are doing (with a calmness for which they do not
usually get credit), until from the altars and from the
mouths of their pastors the words of Pope Leo (if he has
uttered any) are distinctly heard. So far all telegrams are
ominously dated London, and vouched for by the papers which
are the authors of "Parnellism and Crime," and which exulted
over the result of Errington's mission, until it was proved
without a doubt that he had come home with his "tail between
his legs." I hate polemics, and refuse to discuss them but I
claim for the Catholic Church a right to exclude from its
commission whom it chooses, and have no kick coming when
another excludes liquor dealers, and a third refuses its
colored brethren the right of way on its special tramway to
heaven.
Priests--and by that term I mean all ministers of
religion--have exactly the same right as I have in politics,
no more, no less. Any extra influence they may exert should
be in proportion to their honesty, their abilities and their
unselfishness as exemplified in their lives. That influence
is legitimate.
But to the main point. The Pope, no more than Bismarck,
has any right to dictate politics to us. The only way,
therefore, in which the question of the plan of campaign
could be touched on by him would be as to its moral effect.
The opponents of the plan call it a robbery, a refusal
to keep contracts, therefore dishonest. (If the church
asserts that robbery and breach of contract are wrong, it
declares what no one disputes.)
The supporters of the plan traverse that statement,
bringing forward three pleas:
First--That no title rests with the landlords except
that founded on confiscation.
Second--That a state of war exists, and that the refusal
to pay rents is in the form of a reprisal consequent on the
refusal of the landlords to accept a land-purchase bill
giving them 22 years' purchase.
That it bears the same relation to this contest as the
emancipation and confiscation of the slaves did to the
American rebellion, except that instead of absolute
forfeiture, the rent is merely put in escrow until the
landlords accept reasonable terms.
Third--That the contracts are not legal; being obtained
and enforced by violence and duress, as fully as if the
pistol of a highwayman were pointed at their heads, instead
of a writ of ejectment, which is as deadly a weapon, and is
backed by the rifles and bayonets of the police and the army.
That there is no hope of legal redress. The courts are a
farce. That all conditions, except fair chance of success,
are sufficient to justify the last resort--armed rebellion.
I scarcely believe that the Pope will pass a sweeping
condemnation on exparte evidence on the National League or
its acts. Each individual case presents different aspects;
and cannot be decided in bulk, so I believe that each man
will settle with his conscience and his confessor on the
morality of his action.
If, however, His Holiness should declare that de facto
means also de jure, the league may reply: "Your Holiness
will please set us the example by dropping your title of King
and swearing allegiance to King Humbert in temporal matters."
But I do not believe that the Pope will stultify himself in
this manner. The Irish have, through all the centuries, and
with a discrimination surprising in a people of such
mercurial temperament, kept the line carefully distinct
between their unswerving devotion to the religion of their
fathers and its representative, the Vicar of Christ, and the
temporal Prince who ruled at Rome.
We defied Breakspear and Cardinal Cullen; rather, we
calmly ignored their pretensions; and king, kaiser or pope
will fail to draw us away from our allegiance to our
motherland, or to the land of our adoption.
Before I close I want to state one fact not exactly
relevant to the subject. I got a paper the other day from
Dublin, and found reported that in the courts of three
different counties the Judge had been presented with white
gloves. (No criminal case on the docket.) That in a country
where crime is rampant! Where it has become necessary for
the English Tory and the Irish Orangeman to go to Babylon to
court the Scarlet Woman; to ask aid from anti-Christ--and
all, to pull down the league which Balfour declares, in
Parliament, is dead.
In the meantime, if I know my countrymen, they will not
begin to fight the Church till it begins to strike them.
They will remember that the enemies of Ireland and of
Catholicity would enjoy nothing so much as to see them at
loggerheads--while they laid back and laughed; and, like the
spectator of the fight between the rattlesnake and skunk,
"Didn't give a d--- which licked." Yours truly,
TARA.
The Catholic church was not the only religious institution to be scolded
by Times contributors. Throughout the 'eighties Protestant churches raised
funds through various social activities to purchase lots, build sanctuaries and
carry out their religious mission. K. F. Junor roundly condemned this
practice. His concluding paragraph, using the repeal of the Sunday Law as an
indication of the church's declining influence, was seized upon by "A Friend of
Jesus" as a vehicle for a much more damning condemnation of the state of
Christianity in California. For a fuller discussion of the Sunday Law, see the
chapter on prohibition.
{Times, April 17, 1883, p.3}
More Questions for the Churches.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: A Church in which
souls are not being saved has abdicated its functions and
there the spirit of Christ dwells not. The Church is not of
the world, but, according to the command of Christ, must come
out from the world, and be separate. The ends of the Church
are spiritual ends, and its members must be consecrated to
these ends.
Our spirit and our methods of work must be according to
His word, or we can expect no blessing of God. We seem to be
drifting into the godless condition when the blessing of God
is out of our minds altogether. The blessing of God is the
pouring out of His holy spirit.
It is not a matter of doubt as to whether we have that
blessing here or not. We have not. We have fine churches,
some of them free from debt, but we are without the blessing,
and, therefore, the sanction of God.
Doubtless one of the main reasons for this is the
methods we have allowed to come into the Church. Like the
Jews in Christ's time, we have made God's house a house of
merchandise, and even worse; whereas His house is a house of
prayer. It is not essential that these things should take
place in the church building. If the people of Christ pursue
wrong methods, in the name of the church, the crime is all
the same.
Where is the difference between a raffle and a lottery?
Where is the difference between tableaux and the theater?
There is just as much sacrilege for the people of Christ to
do these things in a hall as in the church. It is for the
church and might just as well be done in and from the pulpit;
being for the Church and by the Church.
To my mind there is perfect justification for employing
the coming circus of educated horses for raising money to buy
Bibles for our churches, as to employ the methods that are
being employed to raise money for any purpose for the church.
God and the Bible cannot sanction them, and therefore God's
blessing cannot be upon the people or the preached word. It
will and must kill out any spirituality that there is in the
church.
An index of the spiritual condition of the Church may be
found in the fact that the Christian Sabbath has been
abolished by the Legislature of this State. Now we have no
Sabbath, and yet the Church of Christ has uttered no protest.
God has said that one day is to be given to him of the seven,
but the legislature of California says on the statute book we
abolish such a regulation so far as the people of the State
are concerned. But even that is not so significant as that
the Church of Christ should quietly acquiesce.
K. F. JUNOR.
{Times, April 24, 1883. p. 3}
No More Christian Sabbath.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: In regard to the
allusion made by Brother Junor in last Tuesday's Times, that
the Christians have no more Sabbath, which has been abolished
by the Legislature, it is a fact which stuns every good, true
Christian and law-abiding citizen. It is true now, what I
have heard in former years, that California is an uncivilized
State. Correct. The cannibals have no Sabbath, and do not
need any. Where does the Christian Sabbath originate? From
the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, who rose on the
first day of the week, and He is called, and is, the Sun of
Righteousness to every Christian, which now shines over them,
and in them, and never sets. Hence the name Sun-day. On
that day the disciples of Christ came together to break the
bread, to read the word of God, to sing His praises, to pray
for spiritual power, to exhort and edify each other, to
accumulate a spiritual treasure within their hearts, to
subsist on during the week. And all true Christians do so
now, for they feel the need of a God and Savior, to assist
them in every day life, to do the will of their father, God.
And the United States Constitution has accepted and upheld
the Christian Sabbath as a Christian nation. And all other
later States have done the same. But California, as regards
the Sunday law, stands by itself without the Union. Then,
according to the United States Constitution, the repealing of
the Sunday law of California would be unconstitutional, null
and void; so it seems to me--let the lawyers decide the
question. Now, then, that shows plain that all who voted for
the repealing of the Sunday law were no Christians; if they
were they would have done as other States did, and there
would be unity, but now there is none. Christ came to
destroy the works of the devil, that is, all that is wrong in
the sight of God and injurious to man. But our lawmakers
gave the devil full power to do on Sunday whatever he
pleases. Christ has bound Satan with the chain, which is
God's law and gospel; but our wise (?) men had to pledge
themselves to their constituents to cut that chain, this
Sunday law, and let him loose, and what faithful servants he
had. The Bible reads, "To whom ye yield yourselves servants
to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin
unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness." Have they
done the will of God? No. But the will of the devil. The
Bible reads further, "He that committeth sin is of the
devil." They cannot pray the Lord's prayer, "Thy will be
done." If they had done the will of God they would never
have repealed the Sunday law. When our lawmakers do such
things, which are considered the best (?) picked men, what
can we expect from their constituents? Now on every Sabbath
day--for the true Christians have one yet--we can see the
devil's followers in the low dens and other places without
restriction, for their faces and defying looks make all good
Christians blush, on their way going to church. Who is to
blame? No one else but our legislators who voted for the
repealing of the Sunday law. Now we shall have plenty of
crime; and we shall need more policemen and jurors and jails.
Now ye taxpayers, prepare yourselves for all the expenses.
Do they, who voted for the repealing of the Sunday law, think
that God's blessing will rest upon them and their labor? No.
Christ says, "But whoso shall offend one of these little
ones, which believe in me, it were better for him that a
millstone were hanged about his neck and he were drowned in
the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world, because of
offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to
that man by whom the offense cometh."
A FRIEND OF JESUS.
While Junor and "A Friend of Jesus" attacked a broad spectrum of churches,
"Orthodoxy" criticized the "Liberal Christianity" of local Unitarians and Eli
Fay, their pastor from 1883-1891. On the day "Orthodoxy's" letter ran in the
Times Fay repeated his popular lecture on "Liberal Christianity" in Armory Hall
at the request of several of the city's leading citizens. Unitarians, despite
their relatively small numbers, had great influence in Los Angeles, counting
among their members woman's club founder Caroline Severance and prominent
journalist William Spalding. While Fay was a leader among the city's clergy,
one historian referred to his congregation as a "motley crowd" of free thinkers
and iconoclasts, a theater audience rather than church members.
{Times, Jan. 27, 1889, p. 6}
Liberal Christianity.
Los Angeles, Jan. 26.--[To the Editor of The Times.] I
learn from this morning's Times that Rev. Dr. Fay is to
repeat his sermon on "Liberal Christianity." Now, I would
like to ask what kind of Christianity that is which has no
Christ in it? It seems to me a bold assumption for a
denomination to talk about its Christianity, and its broad
and liberal nature, when it denies the divinity of
Christianity's founder and refuses to worship him.
"And the disciples were first called Christians in
Antioch." Christians, then, are, properly, the disciples and
followers of Christ, and Christianity, as I take it, embraces
only such. "Liberal Christianity" sounds well, and is very
pleasing to the ear of the natural man, but in the light of
the origin of Christianity it is an empty and meaningless
term, a senseless paradox.
ORTHODOXY.
{Times, Jan. 28, 1889, p. 5}
"Liberal Christianity."
FROM THE OTHER SIDE.
Los Angeles, Jan. 27.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
"Orthodoxy" in this morning's Times expresses the opinion
that "liberal Christianity" "is an empty and meaningless
term--a senseless paradox." Possibly that would be true if
the great creeds of Christendom had not declared to be
essentially Christian. Much, very much, that was and is, so
narrow, so irrational, so intrinsically irreligious, so
illiberal, that it became necessary for those who resolved to
abjure the creeds and to take their theology directly from
Christ to give it a name in accord with His gospel and
spirit. "Orthodoxy" thus assumes that "liberal Christianity"
has no Christ in it. This charge is stale, and has been
repeatedly and explicitly denied. What are the facts?
First--In glad recognition of the character and work of
Christ, the Unitarians observe Christmas as generally and as
religiously as do other denominations.
Second--Throughout the East in their older churches the
same is true of the Lord's supper.
Third--A very large number of the sweetest hymns to
Christ in the English language were written by Unitarians.
Fourth-the exhortations and prayers in our
denominational service book are replete with hearty
recognition of the doctrine, the example, the spirit of Jesus
Christ. True, we do not look upon him as "Orthodoxy" does.
Nor does "Orthodoxy" look upon baptism or the eucharist as do
the Catholics and the High Church Episcopalians. But what
would "Orthodoxy" think if it were charged that his church
repudiates baptism and the Lord's supper? Unitarians do not
believe the doctrine of the Trinity; let it be known far and
wide. In conclusion, let me ask if "Orthodoxy" believes that
the Omnipresent Spirit, the creator of this material
universe, He who resides in and is as necessary to the sun,
moon and stars as He resides in and is necessary to this
speck of earth, in person, came here 1800 years ago, that He
might be born of a woman as His only hope of regaining what
he had inadvertently lost? Does he believe that the Virgin
Mary carried in her arms and nursed at her breast as a
hungry, crying child the illimitable and immortal God? If
so, he is in little danger of being lost, if faith in
absurdity that puts heathen mythology to shame has any saving
power. "Orthodoxy" holds that to deny the divinity, the
Godhead of Christ, is to deny Christ. Is the Christ of
"Orthodoxy" a pure myth? Do Unitarians deny the actual
Christ of the New Testament?
ELI FAY.
According to religious historian Sandra Frankiel, editor Otis was a "self-
appointed crusader against all cults and a strong supporter of the city's
Anglo-Protestant culture...." His editorials and his news columns reflected
that position throughout the 1880s, but particularly in the boom of the mid and
late 'eighties when the city's large population of newcomers with loose cash in
their pockets attracted an increasing number of visiting faith healers and
revivalists. "Justice," perhaps somewhat naively, wrote a defense of the
Salvation Army and sent it to the Times, which earlier in the month had
reported in prurient detail the conviction of an Army woman on charges of child
neglect. Otis converted the letter into an opportunity to denounce the Army,
as he did frequently, in a tone almost as sneering as that which he would later
use to attack the faith healers. Years later Harry Chandler, his son-in-law
and successor at the Times, made the Salvation Army his favorite charity.
{Times, Sept. 29, 1887, p. 4}
The Salvationists.
Los Angeles, Sept. 27.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
The people seem to be all fighting against the Salvation
Army, who walk around on the street with drums, horns, etc.,
singing religious songs. Of these people I would like to ask
a question. Which is the more degenerating and harmful to
mankind, the noise of the Salvation Army on Sunday night or
the loud voice of the mule who brays away on Spring street,
between Second and Third streets, calling upon people to just
step inside and see the only two living alligators ever on
exhibition, and the only American mummy ever exhumed? Why,
the Salvation Army are Princes by the side of this howling
disgrace, against whom no one ever thinks of crying out. If
the people would only remember the principle of American
liberty, and allow those who are trying to do good in the
world to do their good unpersecuted, while they bend all
their strength to suppress such nuisances as the sideshow,
the saloon and other like institutions of vice, this city of
Los Angeles would be far worthier of the name it bears.
Again, which does the more harm and makes the more noise, the
Salvation Army or the street-hawkers who congregate in front
of the Temple block nightly and draw people into buying their
worthless patent medicines, etc.? Has it got to give full
possession of the streets? Let us have law and order on our
streets, but let this law and order be established in an
unprejudiced manner. Let justice be dealt out to all.
JUSTICE.
There seems to be an effort on the part of some of the
"unco gude" to place the Salvation Army in the attitude of
martyrs. But they are not martyrs; they are allowed to
parade the streets by day and night with their uniforms,
their hideous horns and bass drums, their tambourines and all
the ridiculous paraphernalia that they can devise. Nobody
says them nay; nobody interferes with them in the least,
unless it be an occasional gang of hoodlums, whom their
outlandish demonstrations attract and invite to prankish
demonstrations. It is probably because the authorities
refuse to make martyrs of them that the so-called
Salvationists are eating their nails with chagrin.
People of serious religious convictions would do well to
let this riff-raff who are trailing the sacred banner of
religion in the gutter severely alone. They cannot do the
cause any good with their ill-advised and clownish methods,
while they must surely do a good deal of harm in shocking the
sensibilities of those who have real veneration in their
hearts.
Enough has already transpired in the public courts to
show of what material these people are composed. One of the
women was recently arrested for cruelly neglecting her
children. She left them in squalor and hunger to take care
of themselves, while she remained out with the army, or one
of its elect, until the small hours of the morning. If this
is the way they exemplify the religion of Jesus Christ, they
are not worthy representatives. It is a matter of note that
some of the big loafers who parade the streets at night
bubbling over with religious ardor, do it as a mere "lark,"
or as a makeshift to obtain an easy living. One of the
number who had been drawing regular pay at $7 a week recently
struck and betook himself to type-setting because he could
make more money at it.
No, these people are not worthy to be made martyrs of,
and the severest punishment that can be meted out to them is
to ignore them.
When faith healer A. P. Truesdell came to Southern California in the mid-
1880s the Times labeled him a "false prophet" and facetiously referred to him
as a "devil-evicter." Mrs. T. M. Adams disagreed. Although her communique to
the paper may not have been in the form of a letter to the editor, it is
treated here as though it were. While in most letters the editor seems to have
corrected misspelled words and other grammatical problems, he occasionally let
such errors stand when he was particularly displeased with the correspondent's
point of view. That may have been the case with Mrs. Adams' letter. "G. H.
W.'s" reply was as cynical as any editorial written by Otis.
Little is known about Truesdell, who had moved to Los Angeles by 1890
after three or four years in Pasadena, other than his two publications, both
printed in San Francisco. The OCLC catalog lists one work, The Secret Volume
of Life, a thousand page opus dated 1880, under the subject heading "Popular
Medicine." Otis' condemnation of the faith healer {the city directories
listed him as "physician"} may not have been entirely due to Truesdell's
linkage of religion and medicine, for Truesdell had dedicated The People's
Champion, his 1878 pamphlet on land monopoly, the Chinese question and related
topics, to Denis Kearny's Workingmen's Party of California.
{Times, Aug. 8, 1886, p. 5}
ROT.
Yes, Rot of the Rottenest Sort--Read It!
Here is a sample of the unspeakably disgusting stuff
that has been coming into the Times office for, lo! these
many weeks, by the procurement of the colossal fraud, always
with the request to "publish as a matter of news." Well,
here goes, "news" and advertisement all rolled into one:
THESE SIGNS.
"These signs shall follow them that believe. In my name
they shall cast out devils. They shall lay hands on the
sick, and they shall recover."
While many professing Christians have doubted these
words of the Son of God spoken just before his assension, I
have excepted them, as light has entered my mind through the
example and teachings of Dr. Truesdell. As has already been
stated in the Times, I have been healed of either a tumor or
floating kidney which gave me years of suffering. This is
gone and so is my desire for any kind of opiates, and I feel
that I would be even meaner than the nine leapers if I did
not give God the glory, and the public the benefit of my
experience. And to those who are afflicted I would say
before visiting Dr. Truesdell for treatment leave big I big
self and {illegible} in the form of what some one may say at
home then go believing in God as your Father Creator, and
Christ as your ever present Savior, and my word, and the Word
of God for it, you will "be made every whit whole."
MRS. T. M. ADAMS.
{Times, Aug. 13, 1886, p. 2}
The Holiness Humbug.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: No sooner do we get
rid of one humbug than close upon her heels follows, as we
believe, one of the greatest impostors of modern times--the
self-styled Dr. Truesdell, who sets himself up as the Soul-
Healer, the Mind-Healer and the Body-Healer--all three
combined in one. Let us notice his mode of operations: He
comes to town, advertises himself as the great Soul-Healer,
and announces that the lame walk, the deaf hear, the blind
see, etc., and that he will give free lectures every Sunday
and Tuesday. At these so-called lectures (which are nothing
more or less than a further means of advertisement) he
announces that he will give private lectures, which will each
cost only the small sum of $5, or six lectures for $30. As
an inducement for the public to attend, he tells them that
after attending six of these lectures they too can become
qualified to heal the sick and do all the wonderful things
which he claims to do. How cheap the road to health, wealth
and prosperity now seems! He also has an office where you
may consult him or pay him $3 for rubbing the back of your
neck. After a sojourn of some ten weeks in our city this
great Soul Healer finds himself in quite a prosperous
condition, financially, with about twenty disciples (and
still hankering for more) the majority of whom are women, to
whom he gives what he calls a "Diploma." Let us notice this
as we pass, and his form of giving the same. "All those who
are entitled to a diploma come to the front"--toe the mark.
Then he holds in his hand the so-called diploma and reads:
"Christian Science Union" (naming date and place) this is to
certify that Miss or Mrs. So-and-So has attended a full
course of the lectures given by A. P. Truesdell. Signed by
the president and secretary of the board) How ridiculous!
He does not endow them with any of the "power," nor does he
ever acknowledge the thirty dollars. How sharp! When
gamblers beat you out of your money you might recover it or
lock them up or make them leave town; but this seems to be a
hopeless case. I attended his tirade on the Times editor
last Sunday (I will not call it a lecture) and heard him tell
the story of the ring-worm which is so absurd and so silly
that I will not repeat it, and which I believe to be a lie.
Our Saviour said: "Whether is it easier to say to the
sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee? or to say,
Arise and take up thy bed and walk?" Now, if A. P. Truesdell
can forgive sins, he can cure the soul; for sin is the
disease of the soul. Let us notice for a moment the manner
in which our Saviour called His disciples. The word was,
Leave all and follow me. But this self-styled "man of God"
would say:, "Just wait a moment before you make up your mind
to follow me. How much are your assets? How much will your
fishing-tackle, boats and what sea-crabs you have on hand
sell for--can you make out thirty dollars?"
Mr. Editor, I have already encroached upon your valuable
space, but hope you will bear with me; and, if this man who
raids all the different denominations of religion and all the
scholars of medicine, wants to hear more from me, I will give
it in another dose.
Yours very respectfully,
G. H. W.
Early in 1889 itinerant Methodist revivalist Samuel P. Jones held forth
before great crowds, reaching 5000 in one instance, at Hazard's Pavilion. He
had been invited to Los Angeles by local clergymen, several of whom sat on the
platform during his sermons. Accompanied by a choir of 200 voices from local
churches and a 12 piece band, with his own traveling music director, Jones
treated his audience to what the Times called "religious buffoonery." Jones
peppered his sermons with slang and tantalized his audience with "incipient
blasphemy" - a sort of shock religion that to the Times smacked of "profanity,
vulgarity and indecency."
Although the Times gave Jones front page publicity and ran numerous
articles including a verbatim stenographic report of one sermon, the paper
criticized local ministers for inviting him to preach in the city.
Representing the Southern wing of the still divided Methodists, the Reverend
George Baugh of the Mateo Street church defended both the invitation and Jones'
message. Other correspondents, however, joined the Times in questioning the
support given Jones by some of the local clergy.
{Times, Jan. 20, 1889, p. 2}
A Defender of the Faith.
Los Angeles, Jan. 19.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
Sir: While unnecessary for me to attempt a defense of either
"Sam Jones" or the "ministers" you criticise, I respectfully
ask to say a word as one of them. You say, in your last
Saturday's issue, that it is "most remarkable that ministers
of the gospel" by their presence sanction the meetings of the
Rev. Sam P. Jones. But would it not be much more remarkable
for them to be absent, since he is here on their express
invitation?
Unquestionably, his methods, style and vocabulary are
his own, and he is as free to use them as an editor is to use
his pen; nor is he less a man, or a gospel minister, because
he is no co-priest. The wonderful success that has attended
his labors everywhere is proof positive that God approves
such labors, and in this he and his friends have reason to be
satisfied.
In all fairness you will admit that morality, law and
order in Los Angeles are far from being dominant among many.
Drunkenness, gambling, debauchery, with their attendant
evils, have too long run riot, and lovers of purity and right
have felt that the city was being made a hotbed of anarchism
and every abomination, until it was high time that even "Sam
Jones" should be called to try and help in the lessening of
the evil, if not in its total overthrow, and I for one thank
God that he is here. May full success crown his labors here
also.
You condemn his use of strong words in his denunciation
of folly and sin, but are any--can any of his words be
stronger (more "vulgar," if you will) than those used by the
wisest and best of preachers, Christ, when calling some of
His hearers "slow of heart," "fools," "generation of vipers"
and "hypocrites?" Nay, verily, and "wisdom is justified of
her children" still. Permit me to assure you that "Sam
Jones" seeks only the highest and most durable good of every
one of the community--this and nothing else. May I ask, sir,
if you have heard him yourself, or if you write about him on
hearsay? If the latter, permit me, respectfully, to invite
you to hear him in person, several times, and I shall be
surprised if (doing so) you do not change your criticisms.
I remain yours truly.
GEORGE BAUGH.
M. E. Church, South.
{Times, Jan. 20, 1889, p. 2}
A Lutheran View.
Los Angeles, Jan. 19.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
Has any one of the Lutheran ministers of this city been
present on the platform at Sam Jones's meetings? If so, he
did not practice Lutheranism. "Thou art of another spirit."
A LUTHERAN.
{Times, Jan. 24, 1889, p. 5}
Concerning Samuel.
Los Angeles, Jan. 23.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
Why is it that the leading divines of the city, Dr. Hutchins,
Dr. Chichester, Dr. Pendleton and Dr. Fay, do not materialize
on the platform at Rev. Sam Jones's meetings? Is it because
they cannot stand as much smut and slang as a Methodist
minister, or because they take no stock in the holy variety
show at the Pavilion?
CITIZEN.
{Times, Jan. 28, 1889, p. 5}
Concerning Mr. Jones.
Los Angeles, Jan. 27.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
The Express of Saturday evening contained some interviews
with "several" city pastors, promising in the headline,
"Striking Evidences of the Good Work at the Pavilion." The
Rev. Mr. Reed has the nerve to say that he does not approve
of Mr. Jones's methods; for which he has the thanks of those
Christians to whom it is gall and wormwood to have the
sacredness of their religion dragged in the gutter; or, as
the Herald has it, hawked about for the personal benefit of
Sam Jones. Dr. Fay is reported as sharply criticising the
clerical mountebank. But most affecting are the remarks of
Dr. Cantine. Truly, evil communication corrupt good manners!
Recognizing the efficacy of the Jones style, Dr. Cantine
tells us that "for 17 years he had had religion in his head,
his heart, his hands and his feet." He also says that he is
"glad the emissaries of the devil are mad." Now, could not
he emulate his friend still more and speak out--tell us to
whom he refers as the "emissaries of the devil?" Also, will
he please tell just how many times he has gone down into the
congregation asking men if they were Christians, and got the
reply "none of your business?" If he were only at "liberty
to do so" he could tell us wonderful tales. Truly 'tis a
pity the converted-gamblers, saloon-keepers, and others of
that ilk, should be so ashamed of their reformation! He
speaks of these gentry in the plural; now, if he will point
out a few saloons that have been closed by the consciences of
the proprietors it will be much more to the point. If he
will give the address of some of those lachrymose gamblers we
would like to interview them. Perhaps they have concluded,
like another reformed gambler, that preaching will pay
better, and we shall have competition in the revivalist
field.
M. D.
M. M. Winfield spent a Sunday listening to both Sam Jones and Eli Fay.
Otis' snide title over Winfield's letter clearly indicated the editor gave
little support to Winfield's analysis, which not only found both the revivalist
and the Unitarian wanting but also challenged a practice basic to all Christian
denominations. No M. M. Winfield is listed in city directories of the 1880s,
although an M. J. Winfield appears in the 1881 issue.
{Times, Jan. 30, 1889, p. 3}
Rather Impious and Somewhat Incoherent
Los Angeles, Jan. 29.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
Last Sunday at 11 o'clock I listened to Dr. Fay while he
promulgated his ideas about practical Christianity. In the
evening I heard Sam Jones. I wish briefly to discuss the
positions of the two. Dr. Fay's address was clean and
unusually free from the technicalities of the schools. He
advanced no new idea. His discourse was based upon
principles advanced centuries ago. However, a virtue loses
nothing by being covered with the dust of antiquity. A
diamond in the deep of Golconda is just as precious as when
it glitters in the diadem of royalty. His polemic launched
at a vicarious atonement and the trinity of a Godhead was a
masterpiece of logic. Whether it was uncontrollable
celebration or not, I cannot say, but he mingled agnosticism
and pantheism to such an extent that I am unable to determine
whether he is agnostic, pantheist, or neither.
His declaration that a kind and loving God would never
create a vicious, malignant devil to divide his empire and
wreck with woe and misery the human family--to say the least
is an assumption somewhat comforting.
He also believes in the efficacy of prayer. Referring
again to Jones, I will simply state that in the way of
preaching he did the best he knew. He, too, believes in the
efficacy of prayer. Upon this question I wish to say a few
words. What is prayer? In a religious sense it is a
petition or invocation addressed to a supposed Deity or power
superior to ourselves, asking immunity from evil and the
granting of good. Self-interest lies at the foundation of
every prayer. I have heard invocators detail to God what
they wanted and what they did not want, and finally close
their petition with the words: "Not as we have asked, O Lord,
but as Thou dost see we need."
Is not this a confession that God knows what the
petitioners need better than themselves? Hence, is not the
effort useless and nugatory? I ask, in all seriousness, is
there efficacy in prayer? For years I prayed honestly and
sincerely, but the heavens were dumb as stone. I received no
responsive Nepenthe which brought sweet surcease of sorrow to
my lacerated heart. No thundering prophecy told me of a
coming benediction. I heard not the rustle of angel wings.
No music greeted my hungry ear. No cherishing drops fell
upon the scorched and arid waste of my soul. My invocations
came back to me as idle, solemn vocalization. No answer even
came. I challenge Dr. Fay or Sam Jones to produce tangible
proof that any of their prayers have been answered.
For 6000 years the world has been on its knees, trying
to placate an angry God.
The earth has been drenched with the blood of fanaticism
and the tears of woe. The screams of agony have filled the
universe, and space is stuffed with prayers, and still the
tide is rising. When will the answer come? Is it not time
that the harvest sown with blood and tears shall be reaped?
Is it not time that the piteous wail of earth and hell should
be heard?
I have thought if all the woes, pains, sorrows, signs,
tears and prayers of earth could be siphoned into hell it
would burst from plethora, and the great mysticism would be
no more. Or concrete them, and Titan-like, pile Pelion on
Ossa at the feet of "I Am," would he not abandon his throne
and with horror flee, and, like Faust in the profound fable,
exclaim: "I have evoked from the mighty deep spirits
uncontrollable."
M. M. WINFIELD.
As the Jones revival ended - with the Pavilion still crowded to standing
room only - "S. G." continued the attack on Jones in terms very similar to
those Otis had used in his editorials. Eli Fay, however, thought the time had
come to move on to other matters.
{Times, Jan. 30, 1889, p. 3}
Mr. Jones Again.
San Gabriel, Jan. 28.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
"Mountebank Sam" still continues his antics. It is no wonder
that outsiders are prejudiced against Christianity when they
see the preaching of the gospel degraded into a money-making
scheme. As a clown he may be, and probably is, a success,
but as a follower of the meek and lowly Savior he is
certainly not so. Who ever heard of Christ or His apostles,
while preaching the gospel, indulging in slang, or trying to
raise a laugh among the auditors? Out upon you, Sam Jones,
you rather remind one of the money-changers in the temple.
S. G.
{Times, Feb. 1, 1889, p. 5}
Will Talk of Something Better.
Los Angeles, Jan. 31.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
Please allow me to say through your paper that the subject of
my sermon next Sunday morning will be "Salvation," not Sam
Jones. Very respectfully,
ELI FAY.
The words of "G.H.W." regarding Dr. Truesdell - "No sooner do we get rid
of one humbug ..." - may have been recalled by Angelenos as Australian faith
healer John Dowie followed Sam Jones into the city in May, 1889. Dowie had
been in California for several months when he reached Los Angeles, having held
forth in Northern California earlier. His "Divine Healing" went on for the
better part of a year as he made a well-publicized tour of the state. The
reaction of Times readers was to be expected.
{Times, May 29, 1889, p. 3}
"Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness."
Los Angeles, May 28.--[To the Editor of The Times.] On
Monday night Mr. Dowie made the following statement in the
Pavilion, "Enough lies have been told by the ministers of
this town to sink half the churches."
If this statement is true Los Angeles morality or
religion must be in a most deplorable condition.
But is this statement true? And if it is not true Mr.
Dowie stands before the public as a falsifier of his
brethren. And the question then arises, what effect will the
knowledge of this fact have on those who accept his teaching
and believe in his miraculous healings?
Is it at all likely, in view of the New Testament record
of the doom of Ananias and Sapphira, that God would now use a
public falsifier as His agent in working miracles? Or, to
look at the subject from the lower ground of Christian
courtesy, could a man of refined and gentlemanly instincts
make any such baseless assertion? A number of our city
pastors last Sunday, while not approving of Mr. Dowie's
teaching and methods, had enough kind consideration for him
to announce from their pulpits, as they were requested, these
closing meetings in the Pavilion. And yet, after not only
asking their people to attend these meetings {illegible} they
were thus {illegible} insulted by being stigmatized as
"liars;" for, until Mr. Dowie gives the names of the
falsifying pastors and the specific instances of such
falsifying, the entire ministry of Los Angeles rests under
this sweeping charge.
CHURCHMAN.
{Times, June 1, 1889, p. 5}
An Australian Faith-Healer Exposed.
Colton, May 20.--[To the Editor of The Times.] Some few
years ago, I think about five or six, the writer was living
in Fitzroy, one of the suburbs of Melbourne, Australia, when
a certain minister named James Alexander Dowie, who had
achieved some little local notoriety as a sensational
preacher, was called upon to take the place of a minister
named Cherburg in a little chapel in Collingwood, an
adjoining suburb, during the absence of that gentleman in
Europe. Through some financial juggling on the part of the
"Rev." Dowie Mrs. Cherburg was left in rather embarrassing
financial circumstances, such as to necessitate her husband's
immediate return from Europe and the subsequent removal from
the church of the "Rev. Jem," who subsequently developed into
a full-fledged faith-healer, where, for some time afterward
in Melbourne, he made "Rome howl" with his so-called faith
cures. He then built a large tabernacle in Johnston street,
Fitzroy, which was afterward attached by Messrs. Oldfield and
Lindley for an unpaid lumber account, and Dowie then
gracefully adorned the interior of the Melbourne goal
{gaol? - Ed.} by posing therein as a (compulsory) modern
Christian martyr for a week or two. The writer has a vivid
remembrance of seeing him one Sunday evening, escorted by a
lot of police and his own friends from his tabernacle, to an
adjacent house, through a hostile mob that had assembled in
proportions sufficiently large to temporarily stop the street
traffic. The memory of his so-called faith cures soon passed
away, and with it Jemmy himself to "fresh fields and pastures
new."
Can it be possible that he has gravitated to Los
Angeles? If I am wrong I beg the pardon of the gentleman now
there; if it is the same individual, I do not. If the Rev.
Jas. Alexander Dowie wishes to authenticate his powers beyond
all possibility of dispute, why does he not take, say 10 or
15 patients from one of our large hospitals whose cases are
known to have an actual existence by the specialists
attending them, and after his treating them, let a diagonosis
be made of his so-called cures. In the meantime, although,
no doubt, he can and does possess a certain amount of
magnetic influence over his patients for the time being, no
authenticated case of lasting benefit has yet been produced.
A man who is reported in the Los Angeles Evening Express of
May 28th to have removed cancerous tumors from under the arm
of Mrs. Faulkner to an empty sack by simply laying on of his
hands is either a man invested with the divine power of
performing miracles, and whose powers should be recognized,
or else his victims are acting under a temporary magnetic
delusion that they are cured, and he should be driven from
our midst as a rank impostor. Let actual science prove which
he is. Yours obediently,
WILLIAM AMBROSE.
P. S.--I have a dim recollection that at one time he
used to breathe through a piece of red flannel upon his
patients in performing the operation. W. A.
{Times, June 21, 1889, p. 5}
A Nut for the Rev. Mr. Dowie to Crack.
University, June 20.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
Will you allow me the use of your columns to suggest a sure
and easy method of deciding once for all the genuineness of
the claims of the Rev. John Alex Dowie? About ten months ago
I listened to a lecture or sermon by Mr. Dowie in the leading
Methodist church in San Jose. After hearing his extravagant
pretension regarding the healing of all diseases by faith, I
was astonished to notice that the gentleman's head was
bald--very bald. I am told it has remained so ever since.
Now Mr. Dowie must have enough knowledge of medical
science to know that the state of his head is diseased. It
seems a wonder, therefore, that this physician has not
already healed himself. Possibly, however, he has never
thought of the matter, and therefore has never exercised
faith regarding it. If so, he has a splendid chance to put
doubt forever at rest in the mind of at least one doubter.
His answer to his "adversaries" tomorrow evening will be
complete provided he appears before his audience with a
healthy head of hair. Otherwise rational people must brand
Mr. Dowie as a fraud, either conscious or unconscious.
Yours truly,
REASON.
Not all letters regarding religion dealt with such serious matters.
"Stranger," whose two letters appeared six years apart, probably would have
enjoyed the fellowship that came from the singing at a Sam Jones meeting. "M,"
on the other hand, must have been a bored parishioner who spent a Sunday
morning calculating the size of the church. Interestingly, the area measured
roughly corresponded to that of the newly constructed Christian Church on
Temple St., one of the structures applauded by Cole in his "City of Churches"
piece. Follow-up letters suggested "M" was misinformed. His math also left
something to be desired. The postscript at the end of his letter was probably
added by Otis.
{Times, Aug. 23, 1883, p. 2}
For Congregational Singing.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: The progress of the
country is largely indebted to the newspapers. Reforms are
whipped into use by this driver. Even matters pertaining to
the spiritual can be handled to their betterment by the force
of a secular newspaper. I trust you will push a little on
this wheel.
To a stranger visiting your city there is no want so
noticeable as that of congregational singing. Your ministers
are men of ability far above the average; peers of any; the
music is generally good, in some cases excellent; in fact one
cannot fail being favorably impressed and edified by the
services. I am not fault-finding; the intention is to
suggest another good thing. Let the ministers and officers
make it known that the evening service will be one of song as
well as of the word, and the aisles and galleries will be
full. Is it not gratifying to see and hear your neighbor try
to sing "Hold the Fort." How he swells and gets red in the
face. As he leans back to let the words out, his dignity
impresses you. He is a better man for it, and you feel glad
to have heard his discord.
Ministers, try it! Have your people bring books to
church and sing. A good result will be consequent.
STRANGER.
{Times, July 16, 1889, p. 6}
"Let All the People Sing."
Los Angeles, July 14.--[To the Editor of The Times.] It
has come to be considered that the singing of hymns, and the
general devotional exercises, are as much features of public
worship as the sermon. In a leading church of this city this
morning the pastor made use of these words: "Let all the
people sing." In the possession of more than 80 people
immediately surrounding the writer there was but one
hymnbook, from which "all the people" were to gather the
words and music. Fort-street M. E. Church, North, can you
not do a little better than this for the ever-present
STRANGER.
{Times, Mar. 17, 1883, p. 1}
What is the Result?
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: The Normal School
pupils tell me that thirty-three cubic feet of air pass
through the lungs of each person every minute, and thereby
becomes unfit to breathe again, having become poisonous.
Now in a church 40x60 feet, with a ceiling 16 feet high,
there are 38,400 cubic feet. Two hundred and fifty persons
in that church consume 7250 cubic feet of air every minute,
or all the air within six minutes.
If all the doors and windows are closed for half an hour
or more, as they sometimes are, during service, what is the
result?
M.
The probable result would be that some of the
congregation would arrive in the promised land prematurely
and suffering from a headache.