Saturday, September 29, 2018

The Invaders series - Part 19


Sabbath Reform In Scandinavia THERE were many Sabbath-keepers in Norway even in the days of Catholicism. The Sabbath seems to have been brought to the Scandinavian countries partly by the Waldenses, and partly as a direct work of the Spirit of God. But Rome was no more favourable towards the Sabbath there than in other parts of the world. When the Inquisition of the twelfth century scattered the Waldenses, they were forced to flee to more obscure places and to countries lying on the outskirts of civilization, and as the persecution continued, they gradually drifted into Scandinavia. Then, too, in the "Catechism" that was used during the fourteenth century, the Sabbath commandment read thus: "Thou shalt not forget to keep the seventh day."1 We are told by Swedish historians that the Sabbath-keeping public claimed that angels had appeared to them, instructing them to keep the Sabbath on Saturday. Of the church council held at Bergen, Norway, August 22, 1435, we read: "The first matter concerned a superstitious keeping holy of Saturday. It had come to the ear of the archbishop that people in different places of the kingdom, 'partly from the weakness of nature, partly by the deceptions and promptings of the devil,' had ventured to adopt and keep holy days, which neither God nor the holy Church had ordained or sanctioned, but on the contrary is against the commands of both, 'namely the keeping holy of Saturday, which Jews and heathen used to keep, but not Christians.' It is strictly forbidden - it is stated - in the Church-Law, for any one to keep or to adopt holy days, outside of those which the pope, archbishop, or bishops appoint." - "The History of the Norwegian Church under Catholicism," R. Keyser, Vol. II, p. 488. Oslo: 1858. At another church conference, held at Oslo, the next year, the same archbishop commanded: "It is forbidden under the same penalty to keep Saturday holy by refraining from labor." - Id., p. 491. In another old publication from nearly the same period we find this accusation against the priests: "Also the priests have caused the people to keep Saturdays as Sundays." - "Theological Periodicals for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Norway," Vol. I, p. 184. Oslo: P. T. Mallings, 1871. Sabbath-keepers continued to keep the Bible Sabbath in Norway, in spite of persecution, for we read of new laws made against them in 1544: "I, Christoffer Whitefeldt, [governor] over Bergenhus, Stavanger, and Vaardoem, greet all you peasants kindly and with good wishes, who live in the district of Bergen. Dear friends: Mr. Gieble Pederson, superintendent of the district of Bergen, related to me that some of you have kept Saturday holy, especially at Arendal in Sogen, contrary to the ordinance given you last year by Peter Ottesen, my brother, and Niels Bernsen, who had charge of the palace by my authority, in my absence, in which you have done very wrong, and would receive great damage if I would punish you. But, however, because of the solicitation of Mr. Gieble, the superintendent, I will still forbear with you. But now it has been determined at the public Parliament for these two districts, Bergen and Stavanger, that whoever is found keeping Saturday holy shall be fined ten mark in money. So now ye know what ye have to go by. 1 This is quoted from “Documents and Studies Concerning the History of the Lutheran Catechism in the Nordish Churches." p. 89. Christiania: 1893. Page 109 "In the next place you are rebellious and disobedient in the Holydays you keep, and are not willing to be satisfied with those which the priest announces which are contained in the ordinance. We now command you in the name of His Majesty, the King, that you solemnly obey the ordinance of His Grace. And whoever disobeys, he shall by my sheriff be punished for his rebellion as a rebellious and disobedient citizen, and be fined ten mark." - "History of King Christian the Third," Niels Krag and S. Stephanius, Vol. II, "Statutes and Ordinances," p. 379. Copenhagen: 1778. In Sweden And Finland Sabbath-keepers were also scattered over Sweden and Finland. Bishop L. A. Anjou says that there was a peaceful but continued movement on foot in these two countries for the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath, "one that required the sanctification of Saturday as Sabbath day. The first known origin of this goes back to the middle of the preceding century, when King Gustav I, in the year 1554, wrote a letter of warning to Finland against those who alleged that they through visions and dreams had come to the conviction that famine, etc., were God's punishments because people did not keep Saturday holy. In the beginning of the seventeenth century the same faith was found in Sweden, and even there it was founded on alleged revelations. It was zealously opposed in 1602 by Charles IX." - "Swedish Church History from the Meeting at Upsala, Year 1593," p. 353. Stockholm: 1866. "Segregated from any movements opposed to the church, we must consider those who kept Saturday holy, and on this day abstained from labor, but otherwise did not separate themselves from the church. We do not find that those who held this view . . . observed any other Jewish habits or customs. . . . Had this movement been connected with anything that could be considered apostasy from Christianity, then without doubt the accusations against it would have been stronger and the laws more stringent. "Independent of older influences, the inculcation of Sabbath-keeping could easily bring up the question of keeping Saturday holy, by questioning whether the Sabbath law had any validity if it was not applied to the Sabbath day previously appointed in the Old Testament. . . . The customary reading of the Bible, and the appeal to the law of God . . . could attract the attention to the commandment which required Saturday to be kept holy."- Id., p. 855. This keeping of Saturday holy did not stand alone, at least in most cases, but was part of the Pietism [pious worship] of that age, and was connected with sermons on repentance and warnings against prevailing sins and vices." - Id., p. 855. Theodore Norlin, another important Swedish Church historian, says of these Sabbath-keepers: "We can trace these opinions over almost the whole extent of Sweden of that day - from Finland and northern Sweden, Dalarne, Westmanland, Nerike, down to West-Gotland and Smaland. "In the district of Upsala the farmers kept Saturday in place of Sunday. . . . At several places they pressed their requests so vehemently upon the priests, that they yielded to their wishes to the extent of beginning to hold services on Saturday. At the time of Gustaf Adolphus we see this peculiar faith arising at different places in the country. “About the year 1625 . . . in West-Gotland, Smaland, and Nerike, revelations and visions of angels were related in which the necessity of keeping Saturday holy was strictly commanded, and in which Page 110 warnings were given against the sins that were secretly practiced. This religious tendency became so pronounced in these countries, that not only large numbers of the common people began to keep Saturday as the rest day, but even many priests did the same, which gave occasion for no small schism.” – “History of the Swedish Church,” Vol. I, part 2, chap. 3 p. 256. But the enemy of souls could not endure this revival of primitive Christianity, and Sabbath-keeping in Sweden and Finland was finally suppressed. But when the work of the Holy Spirit was suppressed in these Scandinavian churches, the same dire fruit of spiritual declension was seen, as formerly in the apostolic church. Whenever the warning voices are hushed up, spiritual darkness sets in. Dr. Scharling, Lutheran Professor of Theology, says: "Luther's great work of Reformation was still far from having been accomplished, it was followed by a continual retrogression, a deeper sinking of the religious consciousness, until it at last reached its zero point in Ritualism. . . . Little by little the Evangelical church becomes chilled, . . . and it takes on an unpleasant similarity to the Romish church." - "Menneskehad og Kristendom," Vol. 2, p. 248. A church in a lukewarm condition does not usually concern itself with spiritual reforms. But in the early part of the nineteenth century, when the great spiritual revival passed over almost every country, and affected nearly all denominations, Sabbath reform came to the front again, and deeply impressed the honest in heart. We find leading men in different denominations reaching out to find Bible proof for the change of the Sabbath, and when this could not be found, they either accepted the Bible Sabbath, or gave up their former faith in the immutability of the Ten Commandments. The Lutheran Church In America Pastor A. C. Preus, in an article in Kirkelig Maanedstidende [Monthly Church Tidings], of August, 1855, endeavored to quiet an agitation on the Sabbath question that had arisen in Wisconsin, by claiming that the Sabbath commandment simply required the keeping of one day in seven. He wrote: "It is a moral law, founded on a moral necessity, that a rest day must be appointed; . . . but it is ceremony, resting on outward occasion of circumstances, whether one day or another is established. "We know that 'the law is a lamp and the commandment a light,' and woe be to us if we would 'abolish' even one of the least commandments and 'teach men so.' But the law, the unchangeable moral law, which proceeds from the nature of God, says nothing about which day. The third [fourth] commandment simply reads thus: 'Remember that thou keep holy the rest day,' it does not say the seventh day!"2 -, 1855, pp Kirkelig Maanedstidende, August. 94-97. Inmansville, Wis. A few Lutheran ministers saw in this article a direct blow against the sanctity of Sunday, others took exception to the claim that the Sabbath commandment is binding on us. The struggle that ensued is spoken of in their book on "The Jubilee of the Norwegian Synod, 1853-1903," in the following statement: "The struggle which began against the sects outside of the Lutheran Church thus soon became a 2 The Catholic Church dropped the second commandment out of their catechism, and Lutherans followed the same numbering, making the Sabbath command the third. In the Lutheran catechism it reads as Pastor Preus here quotes it, and not as given in Exodus 20:1-17. Page 111 controversy with those who had false ideas within the Lutheran Church itself, a controversy which was kept up till well towards the eighties, when it gradually died away, because other points of dispute arrested the attention." - "Festskrift, " p. 289. Decorah, Iowa: 1903. During this long controversy much was written in their official organ, Kirkelig Maanedstidende [Monthly Church Tidings], in Emigranten, and in their Synodical Reports, especially from 1863 to 1866, and discussions continued in their "Synods." The one side held to the "Explanation of Luther's Catechism" (Oslo, 1905), which says that the ceremonial law was abolished at the cross, but that "the moral law, which is contained in the Ten Commandments, . . . is still in force. . . . because, it is founded on God's holy and righteous nature, and hence is immutable as God Himself." - Pp. 5, 6. The other party said: “Either the words in the 3rd [4thl.commandment regarding the seventh day on which God rested are binding on us, and then we must and shall keep Saturday, or, if these words are not in force for us, then we have nothing to do with any definite day, or any day whatever. . . . We notice that the 3rd [4th] commandment does not speak of one day in seven, or a seventh day, but only and solely of the seventh day, that is Saturday. As long as they will acknowledge this, which every honest Christian with common sound judgment certainly must, and they also acknowledge that the New Testament nowhere institutes or commands any other day, or says that one day in seven shall be taken in its place, then it also must be acknowledged that there is no word in Scripture to sustain the assertion that one day in seven is a moral command.” – “Record of the First Extraordinary Synod of the Norwegian- Evangelical-Lutheran Church in America,” held at Holden, Minnesota, reported in Kirkelig Mannedstidende [Monthly Church Tidings], Aug. 1, 1862, p. 232. "To say, that the commandment regarding outward rest (Exodus 20: 10, 11) [refers to one day in seven] is only arbitrary misrepresentation and falsification of God's word, for it does not say 'every seventh,' but 'the seventh day, on which God rested,' and that, every one knows, was Saturday. If therefore this commandment concerning outward rest for man and beast is in force as a moral command for us Christians, then we must rest on Saturday, as that is the only day on which such rest was commanded."- Id., April 1, 1862, p. 99. Having called attention to the fact that the fourth commandment enjoins observance of the definite seventh day (Saturday) they then referred to Romans 14 and Colossians 2 as proof that the Sabbath was abolished. But those who held that the moral law is still in force, answered: "In regard to the places, Romans 14 and Colossians 2, these refer . . . to the appointed days of the Old Testament, which the contents in the whole chapter show. . . . By 'Sabbaths' is not to be understood the weekly Sabbath, which, before Moses, yea already at Creation, was instituted [Genesis 2], but [they refer] to other feasts, which have been types of Christ, and ceased at Christ's coming." - Id., September, 1863, pp. 271, 272. The other side answered: "Sunday, no doubt, had sacred memories, but so had the day of Christ's death and the day of His ascension, without Friday and Thursday thereby becoming appointed days for weekly meetings, and even if Sunday had the most glorious memories, there would not be in that the least obligation to keep it. . . . After all, examples prove nothing, they only illustrate what has already been proved. And here it actually is incumbent on those who would make Sunday-keeping a divine ordinance to show us a Page 112 definite command of God for it." - Id., September, 1863, pp. 261,262. The former, in their review, quoted Matthew 5: 17-19 and James 2:10, 11, and declared: “If it is so dangerous to offend on one commandment, what must it be then to wholly throw away one commandment? . . . God has distinctly commanded that every tittle in His law is to be kept. And how it will fare with those who take away from, or add anything to, God's word we can read in Revelation. [The writer then referred to the fate of the priests of Baal in 1 Kings 18]" - Id., April, 1866, p. 103. We recognise that this was an argument in which two groups of Sunday-keepers were engaged, and in which each in his own way was trying to present reasons for the observance of the first day of the week. But in fact, the truths brought to light by this close study of the question prove that the fourth commandment enjoins the careful observance, not of one day in seven, but of the seventh day of the week in particular, that the Sabbath was instituted at creation, that while the ceremonial feasts, which were types of Christ, ceased at the cross, the seventh-day Sabbath did not pass away at that time, that there is no definite command in Scripture for Sunday observance, and that those who attempt to remove a jot or a tittle from the holy law of God by substituting the first day of the week for the seventh day fall under the curse of Revelation 22: 19. In Norway The controversy in America had its counterpart in Norway and Denmark. At the "Ecclesiastical Association in Christiania [Oslo]," February 8-10, 1854, and at the "Theological Association of the Deans of Drammen," held August 15, 1854, the Sabbath question was the great subject for discussion. At first some seemed to think only of the proper observance of Sunday, but the question soon arose, how the sacredness of the Sabbath could be transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week. Pastor Kaurin thought it could, but Pastor W. A. Wexels declared that this could not be done, for "God Himself cannot transfer the reason for sanctifying the seventh day (God's rest at creation) to another day. Besides this we have no certainty of any transference of the day." - "Theologisk Tidsskrift for den Norske Kirke," Vol. VI, pp. 629,630. Oslo: P. T..Mallings, 1855. Some of the speakers felt that the only way to get around this troublesome question was to teach that the Sabbath commandment was abolished, but "Dean Lange found it incomprehensible that any one who knew the sermon on the mount [Matthew 5] could urge the abolition of the Sabbath commandment." - Id., p. 533. And Wexels pointed out that the Sabbath commandment forms such an integral part of the moral law that what was said against one command affected the whole law. But he felt that as Christ had "finished" His work on the cross Friday evening, and rested on the Sabbath, "the Christians have [thus an appeal] on Saturday to live in . . . the memory of the Lord's own rest after His work on earth was finished, and of the Sabbath rest. . . . If these sacred Sabbath-memories, considered as the common property of the church, should seek an expression in a united outward service on Saturday, it would be entirely becoming." - Id., pp. 608, 609. During these long debates one cannot but see a carefully worded attempt to return to the only Bible Sabbath, but who had the courage of a staunch reformer, daring to stand out alone on Bible truths? Dean Fr. Schiorn, of Oslo, says: "It has been claimed, that the relation of Jesus to the Sabbath commandment was one of protest against Page 113 the continued validity of this command in the New Testament. On the whole it may he safely considered that the effort to remove the Decalogue as the unchangeable rule of divine authority can be traced principally to the fact that they want to blot out the Sabbath commandment. They can, of course, see, that it is impossible to take this one commandment out of the series of commandments as long as they acknowledge the other nine binding and obligatory. The Ten Commandments form such a definite circumscribed unity that they must stand or fall together. So they would sooner let all fall than to let the third [fourth] commandment remain standing." - "Relation of the New Testament to the Old Testament Legislation," p. 11. Oslo: 1894. It is clear also that this commandment belongs to the divine law for the church. It has always been a mystery to me, why many have such a living interest in getting this commandment blotted from the Decalogue. That the enemies of Christianity want the Sabbath day, or its divine validity, removed, that I can naturally understand. But why living Christians, zealous workers in the church, want it removed, that I cannot understand." - Id., p. 12. "Has Jesus anywhere expressed Himself against the Sabbath commandment or the continuance of its validity? Has He ever violated it, or advised His disciples to violate it? Never! He has combated the misuse of the Sabbath commandment by the Pharisees in the same way that He combated their misuse of prayer, fasting, tithing, almsgiving, etc., that is, all selfrighteous piety by works, all spiritless use of the Sabbath, but never the Sabbath commandment itself. . . . He says (Mark 2:27): 'The Sabbath was made for man.' . . . God gave man - not only the Jews - the Sabbath . . . and He has protected this His gift by a definite command, which has its continued validity for the new covenant people as well as for the people of the old covenant, because their need and circumstances are essentially the same. "When it is said that the third [fourth] commandment does not obligate the church, because Jesus has not imposed on us any Sabbath commandment, then this is to me very strange and incomprehensible talk. The commandment was already given in the law, which Jesus would not abolish, but fulfill. It was therefore a piece of superfluity for Jesus to give a Sabbath command. He, as Lord of the Sabbath, has caused His church to retain it, for which His church owes Him the very greatest thanks." - Id., pp. 14, 15. On the other hand Pastor L. Dahle declared: "The third [fourth] commandment is abolished for us Christians, and has no more as a command any binding claim. "It is a false imagination, if any one thinks he obeys the third [fourth] commandment in the law of Moses by keeping holy the first day (Sunday) instead of the seventh; for the commandment does not at all speak of one day in seven, but of the seventh day of the week. If therefore the commandment continued to be in force, then without doubt, were the Jews and the Adventists right, when they say that if we will obey God's command, we must keep Saturday holy. There cannot be the least doubt about this. Every attempt to explain away this fact will and must fail. "It is therefore only an imagination that we keep holy our Sunday according to the requirements of the third [fourth] commandment. "Consequently it is an established fact, that if the third [fourth] commandment is still in force, then we must acknowledge the Adventists to be right, and begin to keep Saturday holy. If we are unwilling to do this, we must prove from the word of God that the Sabbath commandment is abolished in the New Page 114 Testament and is no more binding on us Christians." – “The Adventists, Sabbath, and Sunday,” pp. 23,24. Stavanger:1903. Pastor K. A. Dachsel says, significantly. "For this reason many godly Christians have solemnly upbraided the Christian church for keeping Sunday instead of Saturday: it [the church] can have no right to change God's commandment, and if in the catechism the whole commandment had been embodied verbatim from Exodus 20: 8-11, as has been done in the Heidelberg Catechism, then we should still keep Saturday holy, and not Sunday." - "Edifying Instruction in the Catechism," p. 24. Bergen: 1887. Thus we see how the truth was forced upon the minds of leading churchmen by this prolonged discussion, and all were given the opportunity to make their choice. But, as is always the case, no one wishes to step out alone, they wait for all to step out in a body, a thing which has never occurred during the whole history of the world. God's work is an individual matter, not a mass movement. In the discussion carried on in Denmark, Bishop Skat Rordam and Dr. Fr. Nielson took the same stand as Pastor L. Dahle in Norway, and "The Norwegian Synod" in America, that the Sabbath commandment was abolished, but that the church keeps Sunday as a proper church regulation. (See Bishop Rordam's remarks on p. 108) On the other side stood Dean C. O. C. E. Krogh; Pastors John Clausen, Wilh. Beck, I. Vahl, P. Krag, A. G. Fich, and 1. S. D. Branth, who declared that we have not nine, but ten commandments. "And the Ten Commandments are God's commandments for all men in all ages. It is that law which Christ would not destroy, but fulfill, and the Sabbath commandment is a part of it," declared Dean I. Vahl. Pastor P. Krago said: "When Paul in the letter to the Colossians speaks about the law being abolished by Christ, he refers to the middle wall that separated Jews and Gentiles, the law of Moses. The Ten Commandments, in which Moses had no part, were given by God's own voice, and this God wrote with His own hand as an evidence that they should be in force for all times." - "Report of the Second Church Meeting in Copenhagen," Sept. 13-15, 1887, P. Taaning, pp. 68, 69. Copenhagen: 1887. The reports of these discussions are very interesting and illuminating, but our limited space does not permit us to quote further. This, however, is sufficient to show how God led one by one of the leading denominations to investigate the Sabbath truth, and offered them the grand privilege of carrying the Reformation to completion. If they had accepted the Sabbath truth, He would have led them on step by step till they had reached the divine standard of the apostolic faith. Many of the truths of God's word, which the Roman church, during the Dark Ages, had buried beneath the rubbish of human tradition, still lay untouched, as costly jewels beneath the sand of centuries. These must be dug up, so that the "remnant" church could stand forth in its apostolic purity, possessing the complete "faith which was once delivered to the saints"; for those who shall meet the Lord in peace, when He comes in glory, must "keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Jude 3; Revelation 12: 17; 14: 12.

Saturday, September 22, 2018

The Invaders series - Part 18


Finishing the Reformation -- THE Reformers of the sixteenth century had done much to bring people back to the primitive Christianity of apostolic times. While they did not live long enough to see their work fully carried through, they had laid a deep and broad foundation for their children to build upon; namely, faith in "the Bible, and the Bible only." They expected their followers to carry their work through to a triumphant conclusion. But after the death of the Reformers, the Jesuits nearly wrecked the work of the Reformation, and some of the Protestant countries formed state churches to protect themselves from utter annihilation. The popes and the Jesuits worked incessantly in conjunction with the bishops and the heads of the larger Catholic states to force the smaller Protestant countries back under the papal rule. This compelled Protestant princes to make common cause and stand together to save the day, as was the case in the Thirty Years' War. After the worst storm had blown over, the Protestant churches found themselves under the protection and control of the state. They were no longer free to accept more light, and to progress along the way they originally had started. The state now dictated what they should believe and teach, who should be taken into church fellowship, and who should be their leaders. Their growth was stunted, their spiritual life stifled. Instead of progressing along the line of reform, they retrograded and gave up several of the points of truth held by the Reformers. This was especially true during the period of Rationalism in Europe. But God's work must go on to completion. No human consideration can stop it, and the time has now come for the work of the Reformation to be finished. It is a remarkable and fascinating study to see how God offered one religious denomination after another the privilege of carrying the Reformation to a finish, and how they, one by one, rejected God's plan. The Church Of England God is no respecter of persons; He will use everyone who allows himself to be used by Him. In the seventeenth century He brought the Church of England face to face with the troublesome Sabbath question, but they declined the opportunity of becoming His chosen instrument to complete the Reformation on this and other important points, and many books were written in England to justify this refusal. "Upon the publication of the 'Book of Sports' in 1618, a violent controversy arose among English divines on two points: first, whether the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was in force among Christians; and, secondly, whether, and on what ground, the first day of the week was entitled to be distinguished and observed as 'the Sabbath." 'Haydn's Dictionary of Dates', art. "Sabbatarians" p. 602. New York: Harper Brothers, 1883. Leaders of the church found themselves divided into three camps: One party claimed that Sunday is the "Christian Sabbath" and, from the fourth commandment, urged its observance in a Puritanical manner. Another party claimed that there is no Bible proof for the change of the Sabbath from the seventh day of the week to the first, but that Sunday is merely a church ordinance, the same as Christmas and Page 106 Easter, and that we should obey the ordinances of the church, but without Puritanical rigor. A third, small minority, through this discussion, began to see that the only Sabbath in the New Testament is the one Christ and His apostles kept, and they began to teach and to write in favour of the seventh day (Saturday). Thus the Church of England had its call, and was forced to make its decision. The Baptist The English divines who began the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath in London during the seventeenth century, also practiced immersion as baptism, and they are now reckoned as a branch of the Baptists. After some of them had emigrated to the United States, they felt a special call from God during the first half of the nineteenth century to bring the Sabbath truth to their Christian brethren. It seemed as though the time had come for a Sabbath reform; for not only Baptists, but God-fearing Men in different denominations, were simultaneously impressed with the importance of the Bible Sabbath, and that, seemingly, independent of one another. Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, author of the "Baptist Manual," says: "There was and is a commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will be said, however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges, and sanctions. Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask, Where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament, absolutely not. There is no Scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week." A series of articles appeared in the organ of the Swedish Baptist church, Evangelisten (The Evangelist), Stockholm, May 30 to August 15, 1863. The articles, which appeared as editorials, took a bold stand against the abolition of the Sabbath commandment, and proved the binding claims of the Sabbath, from its institution, and from the teaching of Christ and His apostles. In regard to the abolition of the Sabbath the editor says: "In opposition to this doctrine we will now endeavour to show that the sanctification of the Sabbath has its foundation and its origin in a law which God at creation itself established for the whole world, and as a consequence thereof is binding on all men in all ages." - May 30, 1863, p. 169. "Thus we find that the Sabbath commandment is placed side by side with the other eternally binding commands, which God has given as a rule and guide for the whole human race. Therefore, he who will maintain that the Sabbath commandment is only a ceremonial command, and so binding only for a certain time, can with equal right explain all the other of the ten commandments as ceremonial commands, with which we have nothing to do in the new covenant." - Id., July 31, 1868, p. 235. This agitation was not without its effect. Pastor M. A. Sommer began observing the seventh day, and wrote in his church paper, Indovet Kristendom, No. 5, 1875, an impressive article about the true Sabbath. In a letter to Elder John G. Matteson, he says: "Among the Baptists here in Denmark there is great agitation regarding the Sabbath commandment. . . . However, I am probably the only preacher in Denmark, who stands so near to the Adventists, and who for many years has proclaimed Christ's second coming." - "Advent Tidende," May, 1875, p. 154. "The Confession of Faith," which the Danish Baptists received from Hamburg in 1852, contained the following: Page 107 “’Art. 12. Concerning the Law. Here is emphasized the absolute and eternal validity of the Jewish law, especially the ten commandments. And by this is inculcated the sanctification of the Sabbath (Sunday).’ What the brethren, who wrote the Confession of faith had in mind, was the violation of the Lord's day, and they did not realize that they shot over the mark. But when the Adventists came, they took advantage precisely of this article; it was namely an easy matter for them to point out, that 'the Sabbath day' was Saturday, and not Sunday. This brought the leading brethren to a real investigation of this matter, and when they met at the Conference in 1878 it had become clear to them . . . that we Christians have nothing to do with the Jewish law, and that we should keep Sunday as a day of rest, because the first Christians did so, and not because of the Sabbath commandment.' - "History of the Danish Baptists," S. Hansen and P. Olsen, pp. 162,163. Copenhagen: 1896. In their new "Handbook" by W. J. Anderson (1903) there is no mention of the Ten Commandments, nor of the moral law. Thus they had made their decision. On the other hand the American "Baptist Church Manual," by J. Newton Brown, 1853, and the "Star Book" by Dr. Edward Hiscox, both of whom wrote in representatives of Sundaykeeping denominations, have the following statement concerning the moral law, or the Ten Commandments: "We believe the Scriptures teach that the Law of God is the eternal and unchangeable rule of His moral government; that it is holy, just, and good; and that the inability which the Scriptures ascribe to fallen men to fulfill its precepts, arises entirely from their sinful nature; to deliver them from which, and to restore them through a Mediator to unfeigned obedience to the holy law, is one great end of the gospel, and of the means of grace connected with the establishment of the visible church." - "Manual," p. 15, and "Star Book," p. 18. Philadelphia: American Baptist Pub. Soc., 1880. Thus we see that God, who is no respecter of persons, offered to the different denominations the honor and privilege of finishing the work so nobly begun by the great Protestant Reformers, that of digging up the precious truths of God's Word, which the Papacy had buried beneath it's traditions for so many centuries. Daniel 8:12; 7:25. This effort of God to bring His people back to the whole truth of His Word, will be seen more clearly in the next two chapters. Page 108 18. Sabbath Reform In Scan

Saturday, September 8, 2018

The Invaders series - Part 17


THE REFORMATION --
The Reformation -- Necessary Because The Church Had Fallen -- THE Roman church was sadly in need of a reformation, but she refused to surrender the elements that corrupted her, and slew those who tried to save her. There were two papal ordinances which especially contributed toward the terrible and widespread depravity of her priesthood: (1) enforced celibacy (forbidding priests to marry), and (2) exemption of the clergy from the domain of civil law, so that government officials could not punish them for any crime. H. C. Lea says of the Roman Catholic clergyman: "No matter what crimes he might commit, secular justice could not take cognizance of them, and secular officials could not arrest him. He was amenable only to the tribunals of his own order, which were debarred from inflicting punishments involving the effusion of blood, and from whose decisions an appeal to the supreme jurisdiction of distant Rome conferred too often virtual immunity.' - "History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages," Vol. I, p. 2. New York: 1888. This author makes a further statement concerning a "complaint laid before the pope by the imperial Diet held at Nurnberg early in 1522. . . . The Diet, in recounting the evils arising from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction which allowed clerical offenders to enjoy virtual immunity, adduced, among other grievances, the license afforded to those who, debarred by the canons from marriage, abandoned themselves night and day to attempts upon the virtue of the wives and daughters of the laity, sometimes gaining their ends by flattery and presents, and sometimes taking advantage of the opportunities offered by the confessional '. It was not uncommon, indeed, for women to be openly carried off by their priests, while their husbands and fathers were threatened with vengeance if they should attempt to recover them. As regards the sale to ecclesiastics of licenses to indulge in habitual lust, the Diet declared it to be a regular and settled matter, reduced to the form of an annual tax, which in most dioceses was exacted of all the clergy without exception, so that when those who perchance lived chastely demurred at the payment, they were told that the bishop must have the money, and that after it was handed over they might take their choice whether to keep concubines or not." - "An Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church," pp. 431, 432, and Note 1. Boston: Houghton Mifflin and Co., Riverside Press, 1884. Let the reader remember that those "complaints were made by the highest authority in the empire." - Ibid. Professor Philip Limborch records the same fact, and adds: "Erasmus says: 'There is a certain German bishop, who declared publicly at a feast, that in one year he had brought to him 11,000 priests that openly kept women' : for they pay annually a certain sum to the bishop. This was one of the hundred grievances that the German nation proposed to the Pope's nuncio at the convention at Nuremberg, in the years 1522 and 1523. Grievance 91' - "History of the Inquisition," p. 84. H. C. Lea says: "The extent to which the evil sometimes grew may be guessed from a case mentioned by Erasmus, in which a theologian of Louvain refused absolution to a pastor who confessed to having maintained illicit Page 97 relations with no less than two hundred nuns confided to his spiritual charge." - "An Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy," pp. 567, 568. While the pope had ample machinery in the Inquisition for correcting his sinning priests, yet he was very lenient with them, except for "heresy." In fact, heinous depravity seemed to have been worse where the Inquisition reigned supreme. H. C. Lea continues: "It is rather curious that in Spain, the only kingdom where heresy was not allowed to get a foothold, the trouble seems to have been greatest and to have first called for special remedial measures." - Id., p. 568. Of the "remedial" laws enacted in 1255, 1274, and 1302, Lea says: "However well meant these efforts were, they proved as useless in all previous ones, for in 1322 the council of Valladolid, under the presidency of the papal legate, [enacted still more laws]. The acts of this council, moreover, are interesting as presenting the first authentic evidence of a custom which subsequently prevailed to some extent elsewhere, by which parishioners were wont to compel their priests to take a female consort for the purpose of protecting the virtue of their families from his assaults."' - Id., p. 310. "The same state of affairs continued until the sixteenth century was well advanced." - Id., p. 312. "We have already seen ecclesiastical authority for the assertion that in the Spanish Peninsula the children sprung from such illicit connections rivalled in numbers the offspring of the laity." - Id., p. 336. Such conditions seem almost unbelievable. But, when in 1900 W. H. Taft was sent to the Philippines to establish civil government with a public school system there, he reported finding in those islands conditions similar to those described above. See Senate Document No. 190, 56th Congress, 2nd Session: "Message from the President of the United States, 1901 A. D." If some Protestants of today had known the conditions existing at the time of the Reformation they would not have judged Dr. Martin Luther so critically for his harsh statements. That the Reformation was the inevitable result of the fallen condition of the Catholic Church, was acknowledged by the speakers at the Council of Trent. H. C. Lea says: “Even in the Council of Trent itself, the Bishop of St. Mark, in opening its proceedings with a speech, January 6th, 1546, drew a fearful picture of the corruption of the world, which had reached a degree that posterity might possibly equal but not exceed. This he assured the assembled fathers was attributable solely to the wickedness of the pastors, who drew their flocks with them into the abyss of sin. The Lutheran heresy had been provoked by their own guilt, and its suppression was only to be hoped for by their own reformation. At a later session, the Bavarian orator, August Baumgartner, told the assembled fathers that the progress of the Reformation was attributable to the scandalous lives of the clergy, whose excesses he could not describe without offending the chaste ears of his auditory. He even asserted that out of a hundred priests there were not more than three or four who were not either married or concubinarians - a statement repeated in a consultation on the subject of ecclesiastical reform drawn up in 1562 by order of the Emperor Ferdinand, with the addition that the clergy would rather see the whole structure of the church destroyed than submit to even the most moderate measure of reform.” – “An Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy,” pp. 518, 519. Page 98 "Sale Of Indulgences" Aroused Protest The subject of indulgences is of great importance at this time, for the strenuous protest of Romanists against any discussion of this subject has changed both our schoolbooks and our encyclopedias. We therefore invite the reader to a careful investigation of this subject. The grossest doctrines that ever disgraced the church of Rome, usually began as apparently innocent injunctions, which developed for centuries into the final monstrosity. This was the case with "indulgence." It began simply as a release from some ecclesiastical punishment. Catholic authorities today teach that there are two kinds of punishments for sin, one eternal and the other temporal. Dr. M. J. Scott, S. J., says: "The forgiveness of sin is . . . the remission of the eternal chastisement. . . . "After the guilt and eternal punishment have been remitted there remains the temporal chastisement . . . which must be suffered either here or . . . hereafter . . . by the suffering of Purgatory." - "Things Catholics Are Asked About," p. 145. New York: P. J. Kenedy and Sons. 1927. The debt in purgatory may be settled in this life by penances, masses, or by indulgences. On the cost of having masses celebrated see "Fifty Years in the Church of Rome" by Charles Chiniquy, chap. XXV. Catholic authors admonish a Catholic to settle his account with the church in this life, for when he dies "his family might have hundreds of Masses offered up for his soul," before it affects him in purgatory.- "Things Catholics Are Asked About," p. 147. As some Catholics may be unwilling to pay such sums for their deceased relatives, Dr. J. T. Roche warns them: “The last will and testament of a Catholic in which there is no provision made for Masses gives evidence of an oversight which is truly deplorable. Children and heirs-at-law are the same the world over. In many instances they are dissatisfied with the bequests made to them individually. Their disappointment precludes the possibility of having Masses said for the dead testator. Some of them too are so selfish and grasping that they cannot think of parting with even a small portion of their inheritance to comply with what is clearly a duty.” – “ Masses for the Dead,” pp. 23, 24. (This booklet bears the sanction of the Catholic Church and its censor). The Pope's Spiritual Bank The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a person can by his good works and penances, pay off his own debt, and have some to spare. These extra good works form a Spiritual Bank from which the pope can draw for the benefit of those who lack, as the following quotations show. Dr. M. J. Scott says: "A sinner has it in his own power to merit forgiveness and mercy while he lives." - "Things Catholics Are Asked About," p. 148. Rev. J. Procter writes: "Some holy ones of God more than satisfy the debt of temporal punishment which they owe to the Eternal Father. . . . All these 'satisfactions,' these merits, these uncalled-for penances, are not lost, nor are they useless and in vain. They form a spiritual treasure-house, a 'bank' we have called it, upon Page 99 which the Church can draw for the benefit of her needy children." - "Indulgences" (Roman Catholic), p. 9. London: Catholic Truth Society. Canon Law says: "To the Roman Pontiff is committed by Christ the entire spiritual treasury of the Church, wherefore only the Pope and those to whom he has given participation in the power by law, have the ordinary power to grant indulgences. (Canon 912)." - "The New Canon Law," Rev. S. Woywod, O. F. M., pp. 143, 144. New York: 1918. The Catholic Encyclopedia testifies: "According to Catholic doctrine, therefore, the source of indulgences is constituted by the merits of Christ and the saints. This treasury is left to the keeping, not of the individual Christian, but of the Church. "This treasure He . . . entrusted to Blessed Peter, the keybearer, and his successors." - Vol. VII, pp. 785, 784. "By a plenary indulgence is meant the remission of the entire temporal punishment due to sin so that no further expiation is required in purgatory. A partial indulgence commutes only a certain portion of the penalty. "An indulgence is valid both in the tribunal of the Church and in the tribunal of God." - 1d., p. 788. "When the church, therefore, by an indulgence, remits this penalty, her action, according to the declaration of Christ, is ratified in heaven." - Id., p. 785. "Here, as in many other matters, the love of money was the chief root of the evil; indulgences were employed by mercenary ecclesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain." - Id., p. 787. We shall now enter into a careful examination of the two questions: (1) whether Catholic authorities, before the Protestant Reformation., had begun to represent indulgences as actual remissions of sin.; and (2) if these indulgences could be purchased for money. Professor William E. Lunt says of the period following 1095 A. D.: "The commercialization of indulgences began with those issued in connection with the Crusades." - "Papal Revenues in the Middle Ages," Vol. I, p. 115. Columbia University Press, 1934. "Boniface IX (1389-1404) issued several bulls of plenary indulgence to aid the building of the dome of the cathedral at Milan. In the course of the fifteenth century plenary indulgences for similar purposes became common. . . . One third or one half was the share most commonly taken by the pope, occasionally it amounted to two thirds." - Id., p. 114. "The general Summons of Pope Innocent III to a Crusade A. D. 1215 [requested all civil rulers] for the remission of their sins [to furnish soldiers. To all who joined in the Crusade, and also to those who could not go themselves, but who paid the expense of sending a substitute, the pope declared:] 'We grant full pardon of their sins.' [To those who went at their own expense, he promised not only] full pardon of their sins, [but he says:] 'We promise them an increase of eternal salvation." - "Bullarium Romanum, editio Taurinensis," Vol. III, p. 300; copied in "Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages," E. F. Henderson, pp. 337, 339, 343. London: 1892. Page 100 This papal permission to secure an indulgence by paying for a substitute in one's place, to fight in the Crusades, soon developed into a system of paying for indulgences. Another means of enormous income to the Holy See was started by Pope Boniface VIII, by inaugurating the "Jubilees" with their indulgences. We read of these: "Jubilees. - On the 22nd of February of the present Year 1300, he issued a Bull, granting a full Remission of all Sins to such as should in the present Year, beginning and ending at Christmas, or in every other Hundreth Year, visit the Basilica of the two Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul [on fifteen different days.] - Bower's "History of the Popes," Vol. VI, year 1300, P. 474. Herbert Thurston, S. J., in his book: "The Roman Jubilee," bearing the sanction of the Catholic Church, and of its "censor," says: "And the same year, since a solemn remission of all sins, to wit, both of guilt and of penalty (solemnis remissio omnium peccatorum, videlicet culparum et poenarum), was granted by Pope Boniface to all who visited Rome, many - both Christians and Tartars - came to Rome for the aforesaid indulgence." Id., p. 12. London and Edinburgh: 1925, abridged edition. Of the Jubilee of 1450 we read: "Large sums of money were brought as offerings by the pilgrims, and we learn that money was scarce at this time, because 'it all flowed into Rome for the Jubilee.`. . . Early in the following year the Pope . . despatched legates to certain foreign countries, to extend the Jubilee indulgence to the faithful who were unable to visit Rome. The conditions usually enjoined were a visit, or series of visits, to the cathedral of the Diocese, and an alms to be offered there for a special intention." - Id., p. 27. During one of these Jubilees, we are told, there were millions in Rome, and the plague that had broken out carried off innumerable victims. Graves were to be seen all along the roads. H. C. Lea declares: "The pilgrim who went to Rome to secure pardon came back much worse than he started." And any one who joined the "crusades " against the Turks or the "heretics" to gain a "plenary indulgence," if he came back alive, "was tolerably sure to return a lawless bandit." - "The Inquisition of the Middle Ages," Vol. I, pp. 42, 43. Pope Alexander VI ordered a Jubilee in 1500, but great as the crowds were who sought the papal indulgence at Rome, there remained a still greater number in the British Isles, "who were prevented from seeking Rome"; and so the pope issued another "Bull dated 9 December 1500," proclaiming a Jubliee in 1501 for Britain. Professor William E. Lunt quotes the following from Polydore Vergil's "Historiae Anglicae": "A Chronicler's Account of the Sale of Jubilee Indulgences in England. - It was not gratuitous liberality, for Alexander . . . had decreed what was the price of his grace for providing for the salvation of men." - "Records of Civilization Sources and Studies," Vol. XIX, "Papal Revenues In the Middle Ages," Vol. II, p. 477. Professor Lunt informs us that this Papal Bull is found in the “British Museum, Cottonian MS, Cleop. E. III, fol. 157V,” “as entitled by Gairdner, Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III and Henry VII, 11, 93-100," from which we quote the following: Page 101 "The Article of the Bull of the holy Jubilee of full remission and great joy granted to the realm of England, Wales, Ireland, and Garnesey, . . by granting of great indulgence and remission of sins and trespasses." Those who "at any time after the publication hereof to the last evensong of the Octaves of Easter next coming, truly confessed and contrite, visit such churches as shall be assigned . . . and there put into the chest for the intent ordained such sum or gratuity of money, gold or silver, as is limited and tared here following in the last end of this paper, to be spent for the defense of our faith, shall have the same indulgence, pardon, and grace, with remission of all their sins, which they should have had if they had gone personally to Rome in the year of grace." - Id., pp. 478, 479. Then follows the “Tax List”: "Tax that every man shall put into the chest that will receive this great grace of their jubilee. "First, every man and woman. . . . having lands, tenements, or rents, amounting to the yearly value of £2,000 or above, must pay, or cause to be paid . . . . and effectually, without fraud or deceit, put into the chest . . . lawful money current in that country where they be, £3, 6s. and 8d.1 "Also, every man and woman having tenements and rents to the yearly value of £1,000 or above, to the sum of £2,000 exclusive, must pay for themselves and their wives and children 40s." - Id., pp. 481, 482. This sliding scale goes down to the payment of 12d. "The Pope . . . granted full authority and power to the venerable father in God, Jasper Powe, his orator and commissary, to absolve [any one who] hath committed simony. . . .with all those that occupy evil gotten goods, all usurers, and all such that wrongfully and unlawfully occupyeth or witholdeth other men's goods, . . . that they may lawfully keep and occupy the same goods, first making composition for the same with said commissary of some certain sum of money to be spent in the foresaid holy use." - Id., pp. 482, 483. Hon. Thomas E. Watson, U. S. Senator from Georgia, writes: "Claude Wespence was Rector of the University of Paris in the sixteenth century. He published a 'Commentary on the Epistle to Titus.' He was [a] devoted Roman Catholic and his standing was high in his church. . . . Here is what he wrote and published about the 'Tariff on Sins': "'Provided money can be extorted, everything prohibited is permitted. There is almost nothing forbidden that is not dispensed with for money . . . . They give permission to priests to have concubines . . . . There is a printed book which has been publicly sold for a considerable time, entitled, 'The Tares of the Apostolical Chancery,' from which one may learn more enormities and crimes than from all the books of the Summists. And of these crimes, there are some which persons may have liberty to commit for money, while absolution from all of them, after they have been committed, may be bought.' "In the British Museum are two small volumes which contain the Pope's Chancery Tares, and his 1 £r is $4.8o, 1s. 24 cents, and id. is 2 cents. Page 102 Penitential Tares. These books - in manuscript bound in vellum - were taken from the archives of Rome, upon the death of Innocent XII. The Prothonotary, Amyon, was the abstractor. One of the booklets bears date, ‘6 February, 1514’: the other '10 March, 1520.' The inscription is 'Mandatum Leonis, Papae X.,' - which, freely rendered, means that the compilation of these Tares was ordered by Pope Leo X."2 - "The Watsonian," October, 1928, Vol. II, No. IX, pp. 275, 276. "Pope Could Empty Purgatory" Henry Charles Lea says: “An enthusiastic Franciscan taught at Tournay, in 1482, that the pope at will could empty purgatory. . . The same year . . . the church of Saintes, having procured a bull of indulgence from Sixtus IV, announced publicly that, no matter how long a period of punishment had been assigned by divine justice to a soul, it would fly from purgatory to heaven as soon as three sols were paid in its behalf to be expended in repairing the church. . . . The doctrine . . . was pronounced to be unquestionable Catholic truth by the Dominican Silvestro Mozzolino, in his refutation of Luther's Theses, dedicated to Leo X. (F. Silvest. Prieriatis Dialogus, No. 27) As Silvestro was made general of his order and master of the sacred palace, it is evident that no exceptions to his teaching were taken at Rome. Those who doubt that the abuses of the system were the proximate cause of the Reformation can consult Van Espen, Jur. Eccles. Universi P. II., tit. vii, cap. 3, No. 9-12.” – “History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages,” Vol. I, p. 43, note. Some Roman Catholic writers claim that the "tares charged in those "Tax Tables" were simply registration fees for the absolutions or pardons granted. If this were true, why are they called "tares," and why should the registration fee for one man be fifty times as much as for another that had committed the same sin? Or why should registration fees vary so greatly for the different sins? William Coxe, F. R. S., F. A. S., speaking of the time of Luther, says: "The sale of indulgences gave rise to the schism of a great part of Europe from the church of Rome. "Indulgences, in the early ages, were merely a diminution of ecclesiastical penances, at the recommendation of confessors or persons of peculiar sanctity. This license soon degenerated into an abuse, and being made by the popes a pretext for obtaining money, was held forth as an exemption from the pains of purgatory, and afterwards as a plenary pardon for the commission of all sins whatsoever; and this unchristian doctrine3 was justified on the principle no less absurd than impious and immoral. “With a view to replenish the exhausted treasury of the church, Leo X had recourse to the sale of indulgences, an expedient which had been first invented by Urban II, and continued by his successors; Julius II had bestowed indulgences on all who contributed towards building, the church of St. Peter, at 2 Of these "Tax Tables" forty-seven editions were issued. Eighteen at Rome itself. They itemised all classes of sins: “simony”, “perjury”, “murder,” “rape,” etc., stating the exact amount of “tax” for “absolution” of each class of crime. See “Spiritual Venality of Rome”, Rev. Joseph Mendham, M.A., “Traffic in Pardons,” George Hodson, and “Philosophical Dictionary”, Voltaire, Vol. II. pp. 474-478. See also “The Pope and the Council.” Dollinger, pp- 351-353. 3 The doctrine of the "treasury" containing the surplus of good works. Page 103 Rome, and Leo founded his grant on the came pretence. But . . . this scandalous traffic had been warmly opposed in Germany. . . . These indulgences were held forth as pardons for the most enormous crimes; they were publicly put up for sale, and even forced upon the people, and Tetzel and his coadjutors indulged themselves in drunkenness, and every other species of licentiousness, in which they squandered their share of the profits, and not unfrequently produced indulgences as stakes at the gaming table.” – “History of the House of Austria,” Vol. I, pp. 384-386. Professor Coxe continues in a footnote: "We subjoin the form of absolution used by Tetzel: "'May our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon thee, and absolve thee by the merits of his most holy passion. And I, by his authority, by that of his blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and of the most holy pope, granted and committed to me in these parts, do absolve thee, first, from all ecclesiastical censures, in whatever manner they have been incurred; and then from all thy sins, transgressions, and excesses, how enormous so ever they may be, even from such as are reserved for the cognizance of the Holy See; and as far as the keys of the holy church extend, I remit to thee all punishment which thou deservest in purgatory on their account; and I restore thee to the holy sacraments of the church, to the unity of the faithful, and to that innocence and purity which thou possessest in baptism; so that when thou diest, the gates of punishment shall be shut, and the gates of the paradise of delight shall be opened: and if thou shalt not die at present, this grace shall remain in full force when thou art at the point of death. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' - Seckend. Comment Lib. I, p. 14." -Id., p. 385. The author has several photographic reproductions of these "Indulgences." The "Congregation of the Propaganda" at Rome, 1883, published a book called "Il Tesoro dele Sacre Indulgence," which attempts to justify the sale of indulgences by monks at the time of Martin Luther. (Chap. III) Dr. William Robertson gives the same facts in the "History of the Reign of the Emperor Charles the Fifth," Vol. 1, pp. 460-463, as have been quoted from Dr. Coxe. In a footnote Dr. Robertson adds the following of Tetzel's arguments: “’The soul confined in purgatory, for whose redemption indulgences are purchased, as soon as the money tinkles in the chest, instantly escape from that place of torment and ascend into heaven. . . . For twelve pence you may redeem the soul of your father out of purgatory; and are you so ungrateful that you mill not rescue your parent from torment?’” - Id., p. 462. Turning The Tables On Tetzel John Dowling, D. D., relates: "A gentleman of Saxony had heard Tetzel at Leipsic, and was much shocked by his impostures. He went to the monk, and inquired if he was authorised to pardon sins in intention, or such as the applicant intended to commit? 'Assuredly,' answered Tetzel; 'I have full power from the Pope to do so.' 'Well,' returned the gentleman, 'I want to take some slight revenge on one of my enemies, without attempting his life. I will pay you ten crowns, if you will give me a letter of indulgence that shall bear me harmless.' Tetzel made some scruples; they struck their bargain for thirty crowns. Shortly after, the monk set out from Leipsic. The gentleman, attended by his servants, laid wait for him in a wood between Juterboch and Treblin, fell upon him, gave him a beating, and carried off the rich chest of Page 104 indulgence-money the inquisitor had with him. Tetzel clamored against this act of violence, and brought an action before the judges. But the gentleman showed the letter signed by Tetzel himself, which exempted him beforehand from all responsibility. Duke George who had at first been much irritated at this action, upon seeing this writing, ordered that the accused should be acquitted." - "History of Romanism," p. 445. New York: 1870. Some people finally began to feel that, if the pope could empty purgatory at will, he must be very hard hearted to leave so many millions in the flames just because the people did not buy sufficient indulgences to free them! Was not the pope more concerned about the souls of his spiritual children in purgatory, than about the building of a magnificent church at Rome? Should not the shepherd be more concerned about his sheep than about their wool? People had begun to break the shackles and think for themselves. A storm was brewing, only waiting for some one to take the lead. When God's hour strikes, He always has His instruments ready for action. On the 31st of October, 1517, Dr. Martin Luther stepped up to the beautiful Castle Church at Wittenberg, and nailed on its door the ninety-five theses he had written against the sale of indulgences. In two weeks "these propositions were circulated over all Germany. . . . In a month they had made the tour of Europe." - "History of Protestantism," J. A. Wylie, Vol. I, chap. X, p. 267. Thus the Reformation began, and it continued till a large part of Europe broke away from the Roman Church; and only by the work of Jesuits were some of these countries brought back to the Roman fold. We shall now leave it with the reader to decide, whether or not sufficient proof has been given of the corrupt condition of the medieval church to justify a Reformation. When the Church refused to be reformed, turned against the Reformers, and bitterly opposed all attempts to place the Bible in the hands of the common people, then the time had come to separate from her communion, and establish churches where the people would be fed with the word of God, and where there was liberty to obey it. Page 105 [TO BE CONTINUED]