CHURCH HISTORY.

Marlborough Express, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5, 6 January 1900, Page 2

CHURCH HISTORY.

» TO THE KDITOB. Bib,— My intention is to be brief. In mine of Deoember 26th I purposely gave the exact words of the various ediotß and the sayings of the aotora themselves m that troubled time of 1517 to 1529. Of Lather's works the best edition is that of J. Q. Walob, of Jena, m 24 volume?, published 1740-53. The Lutheran press of Germany refers to it as " undeniably the moßt oomplete and most convenient edition." From the 16th volume of W&Iob I gave two exoerpta— the one of Charles V., the other ot Loiher-— both plainly stating, as may be seen by referenoe to the above letter, the intolerance of the protest from the Reformed Piinoeß m 1529. Let the impartial reader of the Ewbebb be judge— whether they are to be trusted bb authorities or the unauthenticated Dr Sohaff. For me this finishes the question of intolerance, nor do I intend to refer to it further. The Rnv W. 0. Eobb confesses his ignorance of the ooeasion and motives of Luther's breaking from the Oatholio Ohnroh and says "of what value, as history, are books that oontain such inoredible statements." Unfortunately for the rev. gentleman the book that contains the statements is Luther's own work the '•Hans Worst," published 1541 (Walob, vol. 17). Again the rev getleman treats ns to a few lines about fire, death, and imprisonment, asserting the above to be the penalties ot the ezoommunicated and that all spoh wers placed under the ban of the empire, Historically, that is false. We expeot, at least, truthful statements from auoh as the Bey. W. 0. Robb. As a matter of faot, all exootnmunioated were not placed under the ban of the Empire. Luther, though, was, not merely for heresy but for his seditious writings. Nor is this pure assertion on my part, for m De Wette's oolleotion of Luther's Letters (vol. 1., p. 47) we read the following written m 1520 to G. Spalatin: 'If you understand the Gospel rightly, I beseeoh you not to believe that it can be oarried on without tumult, scandal, sedition. The word of God is war, is ruin, is scandal, is perdition, is poison" If anyone wantß further knowledge on this point, he has only to oodbdU the works of Erasmus. Harsh even as the sentence of excommunication was, yet, m bo doing, the Oatholio Oburoh but followed the example of St. Paul. He fulminated the first awful sentence of excommunioation m these words : " Having faith and a good conscience, which some rejeoting have made shipwreck oonoerning the faith, Of whom ib Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I have delivered np to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme,"— (1 Tim., i., 19). The eld Boman, " saora famesauri " is given by rev gentlemen as the test neirness to God— according to that a luxurious Augustus is holier than the oruoifiaed Chrißt. Surely, m spite of the world's diotum, the fetid, poverty strioken Lazarus wsb dearer to the Almighty tbßn the purple clad Dives ! Why m the very lifetime of the Divine Master, Egypt was rioher, Greece more cultured, Borne more powerful than the " deoadant or dying " I Palestine. Are these temporal superiorities I to be aooepted as proof positive that the I polyglot paganism of theße nations was more divine than the yet unabrogated Judaism, founded, as it was, on the revealed truthß of God oontained m the Old Testament? All thiß is irrelevant to the original question, so for the nonae it is my intention to conclude by plainly stating to the Rev. W. 0, Bobb that the Oatholio Ohnroh is quite willing to stand the test of the scriptures as the tree bearing forth fruit through Ohriet, as against the ohnrohes of the Reformation, initiated by the bibulous Lather, the branded Calvin and the seven wived Henry VIII.— I am, etc., W. D. GoaoiN, 8.M., St. Mary's, Blenheim, January sth 1900.