A VOICE FROM A PRISON IN DENMARK IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.
By John G. Matteson
The following is an extract from a letter from Bro. M. A. Sommer, containing his defense before the court. He was accused of manifesting contempt against the State church in an article on the Lord’s prayer in the paper which he published. He requested that this letter be published in the ADVENT TIDENDE, as himself was in prison and his paper confiscated. This remarkable transaction shows the truthfulness of the English adage, “There is something rotten in Denmark.” But it shows also, that there are some in that country who love truth more than error.
“Defense in the case against Mogens Abraham Sommer for the publication of Indøvelse i Christendommen, No. 1, 1874, and especially, for the article, ‘Our Lord’s Prayer’ against Notary Public Wadum of Veile.
“The gentleman insists that I, M. A. Sommers, of Bredballe Strand per Veile must be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, to pay all the cost of this case, and to have said number of my paper confiscated.
“The points of accusation are: 1. ‘We find in said paper the following words: “The terrible abuse of this prayer (the Lord’s prayer) on every occasion when the priest and deacon stand up as the advocates of the church, and repeat it carelessly, only because it must be said, makes a disagreeable impression on a mind that feels for religion and desires to respect it.”’
“How can the gentleman say that anything is said here of the State church? Are there no other priests and deacons than those in the established church? . . . The State church accepts the faith of Luther as the only true doctrine, and Luther teaches that Christ is the only advocate, and none beside him. Consequently my remarks can not apply to the Danish State church, if it still stands on true Lutheran ground.”
“We do not here speak of the use of the Lord’s prayer, but of the abuse of it, when it is read carelessly only because it must be read. Would not the gentleman himself feel disagreeably and wounded in his feelings, provided he had any interest in religion and respect for Christ, if he should step into a church—even if it was the State church—and hear the Lord’s prayer read about ten times by the priest and deacon during the services with expressions and motions as though they were fully in earnest, when he knew that religious earnestness was far from them in their every day life, and that they were perfect infidels and only performed for the sake of the revenues of the office? Yet because I have such feelings and write them, I must be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, &c. A man with common sense cannot possibly understand why such action should be taken, and knows not whether to laugh or to cry over such action.
“The second point of accusation is this: ‘It is written in said paper, p. 2: “If we consider still farther, how often unbelieving teachers, covetous and worldly-minded ministers, have repeated the Lord’s prayer, and said, Lord, Lord! our Father! when they made no effort at all to do his will, is it not then reasonable to ask such hardened souls, who always resist the Holy Ghost, to cease to take the name of God in vain; to cease to mock God by calling him Father, when they have no desire at all to be his obedient children!”’
“This is the crime alleged against me! These words are called mockery against the faith and service of the established church! For speaking and writing these words I must be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. I have preached these words before thousands of hearers, and they have been read by at least 4000, among whom are many ministers and teachers. Yet not one of these have told me that I have mocked and despised the faith and worship of the established church by these words. They acknowledge the sad truth that we find unbelieving teachers and covetous and worldly ministers in the world in one church as well as in another,—ministers who say their prayers with their lips, but whose hearts are far from the Lord, exactly in the same manner as our Saviour testified that the ministers and teachers did in his day. (Matt. 15: 9.)
“If the gentleman himself was zealous for the Christian religion, and knew that an unbelieving, covetous and worldly-minded minister declaimed the Lord’s prayer carelessly with his lips, I think he would exclaim: ‘I wish that priest would at once stop with his motions and pretensions. I know him well. He cares nothing for prayer. But when he can drink wine with his friends his whole soul is in it.’ Would not the gentleman say, ‘There are no greater blasphemers of God than such ministers, who put on the mask of holiness, and act the part of a hypocrite?’ . . . Yet when I have such feelings and publish them I am accused of mocking the faith and religious services of the State church.”
“I acknowledge that my words would have been worthy of censure if I had singled out a certain minister and said that he was a hypocrite, if he was not one. Had I for instance stated of the priest in Veile that he was a drunkard, a gambler, a usurer, an enemy of the cross of Christ, who only preached for the sake of the office, and generally whiled away his time in idleness and worldly enjoyment, then the question might have been introduced, whether my words ought to have been censured or no. But I have not said any such thing in said paper. The reason why is, because I do not know the priest in Veile at all. (He is by occupation, or ought to be, the shepherd of my soul, and for this I have to help pay his salary, but I have never seen nor heard the man.) . . .
“Any one who understands the teachings of Christ and the apostles must acknowledge that that which in most religious denominations is preached under the name of Christian religion differs very much from the word of God, and it is astonishing how many errors have been accepted for Bible truth. This I have heard, not only in the State church long ago (for I have not seen a priest in his ornate robes during the last eighteen years in the established church, for it hurt my religious feelings even from childhood to see the priest arrayed in a robe which looked to me more like a fool’s robe, suitable only for a mask), but also in many other churches (for instance Henry Ward Beecher’s church in Brooklyn), and I have wondered at the doctrines that are offered to men in the name of Christian religion. . . .
“It is furthermore evident that since I have preached the gospel almost every day for the last twenty-five years, it would be the greatest self-contradiction for me to mock the evangelical Christian religion. I have only pointed out the abuse of the word of God. . . .
“I therefore insist that there is no lawful reason for the accusation, and pray to be delivered from the intended sentence. . . .
“M. A. SOMMER.
“Veile, July 17, 1875,”
The case of Mr. Sommer came before the different courts and was finished in February, 1876. He was first sentenced to four months in prison and to pay the cost, but appealed to the circuit court and finally to the supreme court, where he was sentenced to imprisonment for two months and to pay the cost, amounting to about 200 crowns ($50 in gold). He writes farther in his letter:—
“The time is near for the return of our Lord, and all who see light in his light will learn to understand that Satan has but a little time. For this reason he uses all the means within his reach to defend himself against the proclamation of the gospel and the revelation of the truth of God.
“Concerning the Sabbath I believe that most believers in Denmark agree with the Adventists that the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week, and not the first. The last-named theory is only an invention of the pope, like infant sprinkling, confirmation, &c. Yet there is a great step from the understanding of this to the yielding of obedience to the commandment. I have presented my views on the Sabbath to some of our congressmen, as they are now about to present some regulations concerning the holidays. I have asked them to try to get the Sabbath changed from the first to the seventh day of the week, but they know only the rudiments of this world, and answer that the Jews keep the seventh day, but the Christians keep the first day in memory of the resurrection of Christ. But this is not found in the Bible, not a syllable of it. It is the great deception of the pope which through 1500 years has gained a reputation, and the ignorant hold on to it, as they do to many other papal errors.”
Mr. Sommer was released from prison, April 7, 1876. JOHN G. MATTESON.