Special Edition



It is certainly no exaggeration to declare that few men have had greater influence upon the course of human history than did Martin Luther. Where great generals made massive imprint upon the sands of time by blood and baneful military tactics, Martin Luther did even more through persuasive intellect in sincerity of purpose and belief of the truth. (1 Cor. 5:8) Whatever of bloodshed may have resulted from his great reform activities was not originally instigated or approved by him. His was an effort patterned after the Great Example, whose steps he was honestly endeavoring to follow (1 Pet. 2:21), so it is no surprise that 500 years have witnessed each passing century with Luther ever higher on the mountain top of human respect and praise, and properly included among the greatest of reformers. Thus it is that this paper is produced as an accolade to the great debt all free men owe to all the great Christian reformers before and since the day of Luther, realizing as we do, that whatever of praise may be said of them, it is still insufficient tribute to their great ecclesiastical accomplishments and their “protests” against the sins of teaching and practice against the entrenched religious systems of their time.


In 2 Kings 9:30-37 is related the final flamboyant exit of Jezebel, Queen-mother in Israel (Israel being the ten tribes that revolted and separated from the other two tribes at the death of Solomon), widow of the reprehensible King Ahab, with the King James Version stating it this way:

“When Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window.” This same Scripture is translated by Doctor Rotherham as follows:

“When Jehu entered Jezreel and Jezebel heard of it she set her eyes in stibium and ornamented her head, and looked forth through the lattice.” According to the Septuagint footnote, “She painted her eyebrows and eyelids with kohl, a compound of antimony used by women in the East then and now to add to the beauty of their eyes. Jezebel’s intention is, like Cleopatra’s, to die a queen.”

Before analyzing the above, it is first in order to state that Jezebel was the daughter of Ethbaal, priest-king of Tyre and Sidon. She being thus of heathen descent, Ahab had desecrated the Jewish religion by making her his wife; and, like all such renegades, he attempted to blame another, the Prophet Elijah, for Israel’s difficulties:

“Art thou he that troubleth Israel? And he [Elijah] answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim.” (1 Kings 18:17,18)

True to history – before and since – the real culprit Ahab was ready enough to fault the true reformer Elijah for the results of his own wayward acts, his deflection aggravated and enlarged in that he made provision for Jezebel to worship her native god in Samaria when she became his queen. This was a direct affront to the true God of Israel.

Jezebel had a strong, domineering character, was self-willed and forceful; a fanatical devotee of Melqart (the Tyrian Baal). She maintained 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of the goddess Asherah at the regal Jewish court, and as “star boarders” at the King’s table. She insisted that her god have at least equal rights with Israel’s God Yaveh, which could not go unnoticed by the Prophet Elijah. In 1 Kings 18:17-40 there is related the grand showdown, in which Elijah, triumphant in the test of strength between the true and the false, proceeded to slay all the prophets of Baal. This humiliating defeat enraged the domineering Jezebel instead of silencing her. She had been schooled and raised in an absolute monarchy, which had actuated her in the murder of Naboth when he refused to sell his vineyard to her husband. (1 Kings 21:1-19) For this latter act it had been prophesied of her that “dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.” (1 Kings 21:23) Let us keep in mind, however, that nothing whatever is said in the record about her “beauty-parloring” her face and ornamenting her head until she had arrived at the time of death.


In previous papers we have shown how Elijah was a type of the Gospel-Age true Church in its efforts to reform the world from its course of evil. Therefore, the things that he did, and the people with whom he did them, must represent characters and events in this Gospel Age. In the second and third chapters of Revelation the Apostle John records certain forecasts for the seven stages, or epochs, of the Gospel-Age Church from the days of the Apostles until the Age would reach its complete end. The fourth of such messages is to “the church in Thyatira . . . I [God] know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience . . . Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants.” (Rev. 2:18-20) Inasmuch as Jezebel, Queen of Israel, had been many centuries dead, it is clear enough that this statement by the Apostle John is in the nature of an allegory – a picture of something that would occur in the Thyatira period of the Gospel Church that had close resemblance to the wicked acts of the Old Testament Jezebel. And, at the time this would apply, the name had become a byword among Christians for apostasy.

The word Thyatira means “the sweet perfume of a sacrifice” and it refers to the period of the Gospel Church which had its beginning in 799 and came to its end in 1309. That it has clear reference to the apostate Roman Catholic Church we believe the following explanations will verify. It was in 799 that Charlemagne, Emperor of France, practically ceded his dominion over to the Pope, which established the beginning of The Holy Roman Empire – a reign of the Popes which lasted for a thousand years – until 1799, when Napoleon broke the papal power. The Catholic record terms this thousand years as the thousand-year reign of Christ that is prophesied in Rev. 20:1-9; but which is in reality the counterfeit of such reign. During that time it is stated that the Roman Church became “drunken with the blood of the saints” (Rev. 17:6) – in those merciless persecutions and inquisitions, with history so distorted and perverted that the period is known as “The Dark Ages” – a period so corrupt that not even clear authentic records are available concerning it. Here are just a few outstanding individual atrocities that may be directly charged to the Roman Church during that thousand years:

In 1126 Peter de Brys was burned at the stake by a raging mob.

In 1155 Arnold of Brescia was strangled.

In 1415 John Huss was burned at the stake, and his ashes scattered on the Rhine River. His prosecutor had made this summation of his charge against him: “By destroying this heretic, thou shalt obtain an undying name to all ensuing generations.”

In 1416 Jerome of Prague (close friend of John Huss) was also burned at the stake.

In 1498 Jerome Savonarola was hung on the gallows, then burned by a raging mob.

In 1556 Thomas Cranmer was burned at the stake at the command of “Bloody Mary,” then Queen of England, and a staunch defender of “the faith” (the Roman Church).

The foregoing is but a small fraction of the heinous atrocities committed during the “thousand-year (counterfeit) reign of Christ”; whereas, the true reign of Christ, when it finally is established, is to “wipe away all tears from their eyes . . . no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain.” (Rev. 21:4) But the counterfeit Roman Church is described by the Apostle Paul as “that Wicked” one, the “man of sin,” the “mystery of iniquity,” the “son of perdition.” (2 Thes. 2:3,7,8) The Prophet Daniel styles it “the abomination that maketh desolate” (Dan. 11:31, 12:11). The Apostle John terms it the “antichrist” (1 John 2:18,19), a name meaning “instead of” – that is, a counterfeit. Of such Daniel had prophetically written saying, there was given unto him “a mouth speaking great things . . . And he shall speak great words against the most High.” (Dan. 7:8,25; Rev. 13:5,6) Some of the high sounding titles assumed by the various popes are: “Overseer of the Christian religion; Chief pastor and teacher; Christ by unction; Moses in authority; Heir of the Apostles – Peter in power; Vicar of Christ; Infallible pope.” Ferraris, a Roman Catholic authority, writes, “The pope is of such dignity and highness that he is not simply a man but, as it were, God, and the vicar of God.”


All of the foregoing was in its heyday when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the church door at Wittenberg in 1517; and, while this would seem more than enough for any man to start a reformation, there were other more repulsive causes that primarily motivated him, chief of which was the sale of indulgences, which had sunk to an all-time low when Luther arrived. The sale of indulgences stated in simple language meant securing a license to commit sin – if the sinner had the price to pay. Not only was this done after the offense, but the proper amount of money would secure license for a future offense – almost any kind of offense, even in rare instances the license to commit murder.

This outrageous practice extended over a period of a few hundred years; and, as is usually the way with evil, it became ever worse with the passing of time. And just as the baser violations of morals, human trafficking and narcotics traffic attract the basest of men, so this sale of indulgences had done by Luther’s day. Foremost among these unprincipled traffickers in crime at that time was one John Tetzel, who traveled the length and breadth of Germany dealing out license to almost any kind of sin – if the price was right. Following is a part of what one church historian records about it:

“The reckless and shameless sale of indulgences often made the exercise of church discipline impossible, and the discreditable conduct of the mendicant monks destroyed all respect for the confessional . . . The scholastic theory of indulgences was authoritatively proclaimed by Clement VI in A.D. 1343 . . . Sixtus IV in A.D. 1477, declared that it was allowable to take money for indulgences for the dead . . . The institution of the Jubilee gave a great impulse to the sale of indulgences . . . In A.D. 1300 Boniface VIII at the bidding of an old man, proclaimed a complete indulgence for one hundred years to all Christians who would do penance for fifteen days in the churches of the apostles at Rome, and by this means gathered from day to day 200,000 pilgrims within the walls of the Holy City. Later popes made a jubilee every fiftieth year, then every thirty-third, and finally every twenty-fifth. Instead of personally appearing at Rome it was enough to pay the cost of such a journey. The nepotism and extravagance of the popes had left an empty exchequer, which this sale of indulgences was intended to fill . . .

“In 1517 the aesthetic and luxurious Pope Leo X, avowedly for the building of St. Peter’s, really to fill his own empty coffers, had proclaimed a general indulgence. Germany was divided between three indulgence commissions . . . The most shameless of the traffickers in indulgences employed by him was the Leipzig Dominican prior, John Tetzel. This man had been sentenced at Innsbruck to be drowned for adultery, but on the intercession of the Elector of Saxony had his sentence commuted to prison for life. He now was taken from his prison to do this piece of work for Albert (Cardinal of Brandenburg). With great success he went from place to place, and offered his wares for sale, proclaiming their virtues in the public market with unparalleled audacity. He went to Juterbock, in the vicinity of Wittenberg, where he attracted crowds of purchasers from all around. Luther discovered in the confessional the corrupting influence of such procedure, and on the afternoon of All Saints’ Day, October 31, 1517, he nailed on the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg ninety-five theses, explaining the meaning of the indulgence . . . They compre­hended the real germ of the Reformation move­ment . . . With incredible rapidity the theses spread over all Germany, indeed over all Europe . . . Tetzel publicly burnt the theses at Juterbock, and with the help of Wimpina (Konrad, a Catholic theologian who wrote treatises against the doctrines of Luther) posted up and circulated at Frankfort and other places counter-theses. The Wittenberg students purchased quantities of these theses, and in retaliation burnt them, but Luther did not approve of their conduct.”

Now follows a quotation from another writer on the same subject: “So far as we know, Luther did not draw from these premises any conclusion against any papal doctrine until the fall of 1517, when the Dominican monk, Tetzel, began in the vicinity of Wittenberg to hawk indulgences for sins at so much per . . . Later sins were variously catalogued at so much per, depending on the means of those seeking indulgences. Thus the people got and lived out the thought from the indulgence hawkers that they could sin at will, if they paid for the privilege by way of indulgences. Not infre­quently they would purchase indulgences for sins that they were contemplating in the future. Such an indulgence Tetzel sold to a nobleman, and he himself proved to be the one against whom the nobleman intended to sin in revenge for a wrong that Tetzel had done him. With this intent the nobleman asked how much an indulgence would cost granting him remission for a contemplated act of physical injury on, and robbery of, an enemy. Tetzel’s price struck the nobleman as too high, so he bargained Tetzel down in the price. Finally the lowered price was acceptable to the nobleman, and paying for, and receiving the indulgence that supposedly pardoned him from the guilt and punishment of his contemplated sin, he left Tetzel. Sometime later he waylaid Tetzel, beat him up famously and robbed him of the contents of his treasury chest. Tetzel appealed to the courts, but confronted with his indulgence and pointed out by the nobleman as being the enemy meant by him when he bought the indulgence, Tetzel could obtain no redress . . .

“No wonder that Tetzel’s shameless trafficking in indulgences shocked Luther through and through, and led him at once to question the merchandising of them. Later on through a logical deduction from the doctrine of faith justification, the whole idea of indulgences became repugnant to him, and he rejected them entirely, as contrary to God’s gratuitous forgive­ness through Christ’s merit received by faith.”


During the reign of The Holy Roman Empire the Papacy repeatedly “made” history – made it exactly as they wanted others to believe it; and for four hundred years after Luther’s death all sorts of vilification and calumny were manufactured about him. It is a sound observation that he, and Thomas Cranmer, of England, were by papists the most hated of all “protesters,” the reason being that these two did the Papacy the most damage in their attacks against the erroneous rubble that they had produced by the “infallible” successors to St. Peter. In spite of all this, however, the name MARTIN LUTHER continues to grow in stature and respect by the finest intellects of all Protestant sects; and today a large percentage of the Protestant world adheres to some form of Lutheranism.

The truth about Luther has been much stronger than the falsehoods manufactured about him; and the Papacy, ever ready to play either side of a case that expedience might indicate, is now openly joining the applause for this great reformer who did indeed change the course of human history. And in this they are revealing themselves as the true antitype of infamous Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, King of Israel – they are resorting to “beauty-parlor” tactics, painting their faces in true Jezebel fashion. And what conclusion may we draw from this? Why, it means that her annihilation is nigh at hand! Jehu witnessed the death of Queen Jezebel as she was tossed into the street from the upper window, and some hours later he issued the command: “Go, see now this cursed woman, and bury her: for she is a king’s daughter.” But the report came back to him: “They found no more of her than the skull, and the feet, and the palms of her hands.” (2 Kings 9:34-35) Here then, we have a clear typical statement of what will remain of the Roman Church once “the reward of unrighteousness” (2 Pet. 2:13) is fully meted out to her: All that will remain of her is the memory of her corrupt teachings (skull, intellect) – and the memory of her evil deeds (the palms of her hands) – and the memory of her infamous character (the soles of her feet).


A lurid illustration of this “face-lifting” technique, a master stroke of cosmetic skill (beauty-parlor ingenuity) is to be found in an issue of a very popular magazine, in which five full-illustrated pages were devoted to the praise of Martin Luther. Here was a clever move to climb aboard the band wagon in advance of the 450th Anniversary of Luther’s Wittenberg defiance (celebrated October 31, 1967). Here is a small quote from that article:

“Today, the vast majority of Catholic theologians concedes that Luther was a profound spiritual thinker – who was driven into open revolt by the corruption of the Renaissance church and the intransigent stupidity of its popes. Jesuit John Courtney Murray, for example, calls Luther a religious genius – compassionate, rhetorical and full of insights. An American theologian teaching in Rome allows that Luther was right on indulgences and on most theological points, and his teachings on justification are more palatable than Thomas Aquinas.”

Let us note specifically from the above that Catholic prelates today are willing to brand the popes of the 16th century as “stupid” in order to curry favor with the Protestants of today – especially with those Protestants who no longer believe in “protesting.” But it is well for us to keep in mind that nobody back there called the popes stupid; and we believe it is a proper appraisal that many of them were among the shrewdest and most calculating minds of their time. Luther himself was strong and brilliant – considered by many as one of the greatest intellects of the entire human race – yet “stupidity” of the pope was not the reason for his “protest.” In fact, at the outset Luther had no thought of causing a schism in the Church; he was merely trying to correct some of the evils then prevalent – he would reform the irreformable Jezebel! His major complaint was against the spiritually repulsive indulgences; and it is to his everlasting praise – and to the sagacity of the popes of his century – that the very thing he failed to accomplish during his life was later formally admitted to be wrong at a later Catholic conference – the sale of indulgences was officially tabooed.

However, the prohibition of indulgence sales was not a reform; it was merely an act of expediency, as is clearly shown by heinous crimes in the name of religion in other respects – one specific incident being the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in France on August 24, 1572, only 26 years after Luther’s death in 1546. At that time the chiefs of the Huguenots were gathered together at Paris . . . The castle bell tolled, the same being the signal for the destruction of all the Huguenots then in Paris. For four days the carnage was unweariedly carried on by the City Militia, the Swiss guards, and crowds of fanatical artisans. No Huguenot was spared, neither children, nor women, nor the aged. It is estimated that perhaps 100,000 Huguenots were mercilessly butchered at that time; the streets of Paris ran red with their blood. King Philip II of Spain (a good loyal Catholic), on hearing about it is said to have laughed for the first time in his life. Pope Gregory XIII had Rome illuminated, all the bells rung, the cannons fired, processions made. He instructed the French ambassador to inform his king that this performance was a hundred times more grateful to him than fifty victories over the Turks.

Perhaps the greatest mass murder in all history, the performance was cause for great rejoicing throughout the Catholic world. “In thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents.” (Jer. 2:34) “In her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints.” (Rev. 18:24) With such a record of past performance staring them in the face – and undeniably true – it is merely elemental politics to want everyone to forget it, to ignore the sins of the past as “stupid” tactics, and to conjure up some present virtue (real or manufactured) to detract attention from the wretched past. And for this purpose the magazine has this to say:

“A new Luther would almost certainly be as much of an unpredictable surprise to Christianity as the original was. There are Protestants as well as Catholics who believe that a modern reformer has already appeared in the person of Pope John XXIII. ‘If we think functionally of someone who opened up the Church to reform,’ contends Claremont’s Dean Trotter, ‘the closest to Martin Luther has been Pope John.’”

Here is reprehensible Jezebel once again in the beauty parlor! The audacity of it! The long chain of popes who one after the other heaped imprecations and excommunications upon Martin Luther were simply “stupid,” but the modern successors to those popes living today are saintly “reformers,” just as he was.

But “stupid” or not, the popes of Luther’s day all claimed Apostolic succession – to sit in the chair of St. Peter in Rome – to be the Vicar of Christ on earth – to speak infallibly on the Bible. Shall we just blithely forget all this? And have the present-day pope “reformers” rejected those bombastic claims, even as they attempt to brush easily aside their monstrous crimes under the guise of “stupidity?” They just did not know any better, the dear boys! Shall we join in with them, and declare that Hitler also was just stupid, that his diabolical crimes should be forgotten because he was just ignorant, an upstart paperhanger? Surely, any intelligent appraisals of such men would force us to conclude that they possessed superior intelligence to concoct the crimes they did against “the poor innocents” – against the “heretics” – just as we must also conclude that Satan himself is a wily superior intellect, regardless of the adverse opinion we entertain concerning him.


It is a sad commentary against the human race that each generation has had its despised “heretics,” even as they laud the same kind of heretics of the past. Thus, the Jews were high in praise of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at the time they were heaping abuse and torment upon the grand and noble Moses. Later generations spoke the name of Moses in awe, while they were stoning Zechariah to death in the court of their temple. (2 Chr. 24:17-22) At the opening of the Christian era the Jews were lauding Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and other past martyrs, as they proceeded to crucify the Lord of Glory. Much the same may be charged against this present generation. They, too, are ready enough to sing Te Deums over the memory of past saints, even as they persecute the same kind of people today – and even as they embrace and attempt to place a halo over those who have “blood on their skirts.”

Nor was Jesus unaware of this condition. He “needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.” (John 2:25) In Matt. 23:29-31 He said this to His listeners: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets . . . And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.” And in Matt. 21:33-46 He presents the matter in fine and eloquent detail:

“Hear another parable: There was a certain householder [God], which planted a vineyard [the Jewish nation, which in turn was typical of Christendom, especially here in the end of the Age], and hedged it round about [with the Divine Law, the inspired prophecies, the superb leadership of Moses and Aaron], and digged a winepress in it [representing the instruction and worship of the true God], and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen [the scribes and Pharisees, who sat in Moses’ seat], and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son [the Lord Jesus], saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen [the chief priest, rulers, etc.] saw the son, they said among themselves [privately, deceitfully and conspiratorially], This is the heir [the One claiming to be the Messiah]; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance [retain our power, our fat easy life, our high position in Israel]. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him [crucified him, because ‘he stirreth up the people’]. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husband­men? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen [‘lo, we turn to the Gentiles’] . . . And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they per­ceived that He spake of them.”

It is well stated that distance lends enchantment; distance also tends to mitigate past crimes. Thus, it is so very easy to place upon a pedestal the faithful servants of the past – and perhaps also some that were not so faithful; just as it also is very easy to discount the same kind of faithful who now walk side by side with us. Thus, “A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” (Mark 6:4) This was tragically true of Jesus; His brothers and sisters would have none of Him, so that even as He hung on the cross it was necessary to commit the care of His mother to that Disciple whom He loved – the Apostle John – rather than to one of her own sons.


In our paper No. 121 we presented certain similarities between the Roman Church and its “Little Twin,” the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The same comparisons may be drawn between the latter and Jezebel, as they are indeed her “Little Sister.” And, as such, they, too, have been resorting to some “beauty parlor” tactics in recent times. They once more refer in favorable terms to Pastor Russell, although for some twenty years after his death they made great effort to efface him from the memory of their adherents. But now the Six Volumes of Studies in the Scriptures, which he wrote, are becoming popular; they are once more warmly saluting each other as “Brother” – as did Pastor Russell when he was here – instead of just plain Jim, Joe or Mike. “Only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.” (Isa. 4:1)

After the cleavage became complete between Luther and Rome – after the Diet of Worms in 1521 – Luther expanded his attacks on indulgences to include with them also his devastating attacks on the papal teaching of justification by works, as against the true Bible teaching of justification by faith for this “faith” Age. “Therefore by the deeds of the law [works] there shall no flesh be justified in his sight . . . But now the righteousness of God . . . which is by faith of Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 3:20-22)

Luther’s stewardship doctrine was “Justification by faith” and he used it with adroit skill, unfailing courage, and persuasive eloquence against the strong papal error of “Justification by works.” Words rolled from his tongue like oil from a spoon. While in a lesser manner than their Big Sister Jezebel, the Witnesses also advocate “Justification by works,” and it is very common to see their “dedicated” deluded devotees on the street corners of every city “working” their way into the Kingdom. They also would have us forget the monstrous sins of their past leaders against those who have upheld the truths taught by Pastor Russell, as they also change from year to year various of their teachings, yet ever pointing to themselves as “the Channel” from which to expect due truth – even as Jezebel also still claims to speak infallibly in the name of St. Peter.

And we might call attention to the condition of some of the Epiphany-enlightened brethren since the demise of Pastor Johnson. Their leaders, in effect, tell their sectarian adherents to close their eyes, open their mouths and swallow all they teach, without question or investigation – especially directing them not to read the refutations of their errors (their revolutionism against the Truth), the exposures of their sins of practice (revolutionism against the Arrangements) lest their eyes might become open to their “path of error” (See James 5:19- 20 and also 2 Pet. 2:18).

It is indeed fitting that we should honor those whom God honors. “Them that honour me I will honour.” (1 Sam. 2:30) And how do we recognize a true reformer? Why, it is by the Truth he presented against the errors of his time – even as Jesus said of Himself: “Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice.” (John 18:37) “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:31,32)

“But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth . . . Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thes. 2:13-15)



Epiphany Bible Students Association

P.O. Box 2246, Kernersville, NC 27285-2246


Please go to http://epiphanybiblestudents.com/other to read the following papers:


·        Where Are the Dead?

·        What Is the Soul?

·        The Resurrection of the Dead

·        Two Distinct Salvations

·        God’s Great Sabbath Day

·        The Great Reformer

·        The Permission of Evil

·        The Day of Judgment

·        God’s Standard

Printed copies will also be mailed free upon request.