"BAPTISTS PERSECUTED IN GERMANY."
THE foregoing is the caption of an article in the Baptist Argus, by Prof. J. G. Fetzer, D.D., of Dresden. It is hard to realize that in the land of Luther, where so-called Lutheranism is the state religion, such a condition as is here described could possibly exist. Professor Fetzer quotes a letter from Rev. Braun, of Chemnitz, Saxony, as follows: After a baptism in June, which was very favorably reported in some of the papers by an unknown spectator, I was notified that a fine of mks. 200 ($50) or twenty days' imprisonment was imposed upon me. At the same time, every communion service and every baptism was forbidden and a fine of mks. 150 ($37) or fifteen days' imprisonment for every single transgression of this decree was threatened, stating as the motive, that as we had no recognition in the state as a religious body, we had no legal right to hold public worship. A memorial directed to the chief of police to annul the fine as well as to stay the entire criminal proceedings was refused. In the second instance, to which we appealed, we were treated no better. I have now appealed to the minister of public worship and am awaiting the decision. We hope that such unheard of restrictions will yet be removed, it is impossible for us to comply to such a demand, hence we continue to celebrate the Lord's Supper and baptize as heretofore. Another instance is cited on reliable authority, which emphasizes the condition, and shows that the principle is well established: Rev. Mr. Hellwich, pastor of the church of Dresden, held a meeting for prayer and Bible study in the house of one of his members beyond the city boundaries. For the city itself he has official "recognition," but for holding this private gathering outside he was fined mks. 100 ($25). He refused, on conscientious grounds, to pay. The "cultus-minister," with whom he had a long interview, acknowledged that the fine was too heavy, and advised him to appeal for a reduction of the amount. He replied that this would be an acknowledgment that he had done wrong, and that he could not pay a single pfening. To these quotations Professor Fetzer adds this comment: To read the Bible, and pray; to hold a communion service and to baptize is criminal, but to do things in contradiction to the Word of God and the teachings of our Lord is allowed without even, at least in many instances, a word of censure. And thus are not only the Baptists treated, but the Methodists, and others do not fare much better. Obstacles of various kinds are put into their way, too. It is well, however, to note that tho our brethren are persecuted, they are not discouraged. They know that they have the Lord's command for them, and that it is better to obey Him in things pertaining to religion than to listen to what others say, even tho they be persecuted for being obedient to the Lord. It is pertinent to add here, that should these Baptist and Methodist brethren see the duty of keeping all "the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus" (Rev. 14:12) they would find the reins of intolerance tightening still more.