Is the Reformation Complete?
By Eld. I. J. Hankins
EVERY work of reform meets opposition. As the work grows in strength, the opposition increases. But why are reformations necessary? Because men have neglected, or have not made a proper use of, the light and knowledge they have had. Especially is this true when we speak of religious reforms. Our minds at once revert to the important religious movement of the sixteenth century, in which Martin Luther was the prominent character. His object was, not to bring out new truths, but to restore the truths taught by Christ and his apostles—truths which for ages had been covered over by papal superstition. It was by preaching the plain, simple truths of the Bible that the papal errors were exposed. The Roman bishops were sensible of the weakness of their position, and when it was to be tested in open discussion they greatly feared the consequences. And they had cause to fear; for the gross darkness, under whose cover they had committed their crimes, must soon vanish before the light of the gospel as presented by the great reformer. Luther points to the close of the discussion at Leipsic as the moment of his emancipation from the papal yoke. "Learn from me," said he, "how difficult a thing it is to throw off errors confirmed by the example of all the world, and which, through long habit, have become second nature to us." For several years after Luther began to expose the errors of the papacy, he still retained his connection with the church. He did not at once discover all the errors in the creed of the Romanists, nor the terrible wickedness of their practices. But as light broke in upon his mind, these iniquities appeared to him in all their enormity, and he resolved to expose them, even at the risk of his life. It required no small degree of faith and courage to stand up in defense of a doctrine which, if maintained, would undermine the foundation of Popery. "I am surprised," said Dr. Eck, Luther's opponent at Leipsic, "at the humility and modesty with which the reverend doctor undertakes to oppose, alone, so many illustrious Fathers, and pretends to know more than the sovereign pontiffs, the councils, the doctors, and the universities! . . . It would be surprising, no doubt, if God had hidden the truth from so many saints and martyrs—until the advent of the reverend Father." Nor is this so strange after all; for error is always surprised at the appearance of truth,—though its humble and modest garb should not occasion surprise, because truth is always clothed in this manner. Not very unlike the days of Luther do we find the professed Christian church in our time. People are married, as it were, to some particular church, and they express great surprise at any intimation of error in their creed. All Protestants believe that Luther was a special agent in the hands of God in breaking the Roman yoke, and freeing God's true people from papal errors and superstitions. But, it may be asked, did Luther finally discover and eradicate all papal errors? And are the churches sound in their religious principles to-day? Let the various opposing sects answer in the negative. Then, since there is such a diversity of opinion, shall errors be corrected, and the pure, unadulterated principles of truth be established in the churches? Only in one way can this ever be accomplished, and that is by comparing very critically our various theories with the Bible—the only true standard—and conforming to its teachings. This course would unite the people of God, because the Bible teaches but one doctrine. But, alas! we find too few that, when convinced of error, will renounce it, or exchange it for truth, and are therefore not so sanguine as to hope for this desired unity. The Christian world has for some years past avoided religious controversy. Each sect has seemed to feel satisfied with its creed, not perhaps because they know of a surety that it is founded upon the Bible, but because it has been handed down as the religion 'of their fathers, and established by learned and eminent men. It is a question whether or not these eminent divines are not more highly regarded by many than the apostles themselves, and the creed of the church considered of greater authority than the Bible. The prevailing sentiment seems to be, "I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing"—let me alone. If there is a well-established doctrine in any particular creed, that has stood the test of severe criticism, it may be discussed at length to the perfect satisfaction of its adherents; but let a point in which there is an apparent weakness be suggested for investigation, and there is a cry raised at once. We do not believe in religious discussions; they create strife and division. But this claim only betrays a conscious weakness in the positions of those who present it. Man trusts his eternal salvation to the performance of certain requirements which he supposes are found in the Bible. But when the thought is suggested to him that in all probability he is following tradition instead of the Bible, it should be his first duty to settle the matter by careful and prayerful investigation; and, if he find himself arrayed on the side of error (though he may have been honest), to change immediately to the platform of truth. Christ found a people in his day who transgressed the commandment of God by their tradition, and he said that they worshiped him in vain. Martin Luther found many of the same class; and even in our own age of boasted light there may be found not a few who are more willing to follow the customs of their fathers than they are to obey the commandments of God. The reader doubtless believes that the keeping of the commandments of God is necessary to man's salvation, and that "whosoever keeps the whole law and yet offends in one point, is guilty of all." Now allow me to suggest a thought which may not have occurred to all the readers of the SIGNS. Are you well satisfied that the observance of the first day of the week for the Sabbath is not authorized by custom and tradition instead of by an express command of God? Do not reply as others have done, that it must be right, or the church would long ago have discovered the error. Thus did people reason in Luther's day, as was seen in Dr. Eck's remarks; and thus have some tried to reason away every work of reformation. But this is poor satisfaction to the earnest seeker after truth. If the work of reformation for our time consists in a restoration of the seventh-day Sabbath, as the SIGNS affirms, this then becomes the matter of vital importance to every lover of truth. And vain would be the efforts of man in opposing it; for what can the opposing arm of flesh effect when God has set his hand to the accomplishment of his work?