Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-11-11
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.
Is Luther a Beforrner >

To the Editors of the Appeal:
Ii Luther is claimed to be reformer in
religion he must have given form to what
was out of form and deformed. Let us
see, then, where is the form which Luther
has modelled or remodeled. If any. if
must be the Lutheran form; but the pr
ent-day Lutherans deviate in too isstify
things which Luther has taught i'll order
to be called the form OF Luther. Every
one may learn this from reading Luthers
writings. Ii Luther could arise to-day
who could not recognize the sect he has
started $50 years ago? Ii Luther dared or
pretended to reform the Catholic Church,
the Church of Christ, he blasphemed
Christ, who has promised, according to
the Bible. that His Church should not fail
in doctrine. But according to Luther's
saving and doing Christ at his tLuther's)
time had not kept His word-ether He
could not or He would not. To say either
| is blasphemy. II some members OF the
/ Catholic Church have Jailed and do fail in
morals, not living up to what their faith
/ prescribes, Christ has predicted it: at
/ must needs be that scandals come. -
| Matthew, xvii, 6. And He also saws that
! there shall be cookie or tares among the
wheat-Alatthew xviii, 24-30 But Luther
could not well pass ior a reformer OF
morals, for the simple reason that he was a
regular old topper himself. Luther says:
| II feed like Il Bohemian and swill like
Il German, thanks be to God. Luther was
the man who writes gaily to Philip of Hess
| 1540): 81 have received your present, a
good bit of Rhine wine, for which your
highness will accept my thanks" And
| the wine was in return for Luther's
gracious permission to Philip to take an
extra wife "to provide for the welfare of
| his body and SOUL and to bring greater
glory to God" That is to say, Luther al
lowed him practice bigamy Ia Mormon.
Luther's "Table-Talk'' is so filthy, lat times,
that according to our laws they could not
be sent through the mail, or be sold in our
news stands. Count Hoyer, of Mansfield,
wrote in 1922: 81 have been all along, as
Twas at Worms, good Lutheran, but l
have learned that Luther is blackguard
and as big drunkard as there is in Mans
field, delghting to be in the company of
beautiful women and to play upon his
flute. His conduct is unbecoming, and he
seems irretrieVably fallen" If Luther
could lawfully marry and was lawfully
married, which | contradict, then he bad
an unlawful son whom he gave his own
wife to nurse \ man who is a drunkard,
man who is yelling cursor and bias
phemer, man who is an adultcrer, and
gives license for bgamy ''to bring greater
glory to God" cannot be reformcr of
morals Luther is not a refOrmer neither
of doctrine nor OF morals. In regard to
the article which your paper brings this
morning Saturday, [ must say in the first
place the writer does not know correct
history, placing Virgil among the great
men OF the fifteenth century He ought
to be ashamed if he does not know that
r Virgil lived before Christ born 20 B. c.
In regard to Tetzel's preaching indul-
gence | NAV admit that he exaggerated
; but that he preached in the manner pro-
duced in the article is a blank lie, which
has been repeatedly shown from historical
| documents But this falsehood in history
originated, perhaps, partly like the blum
, der above placing Virgil (who died 10 B
| c. 400 after Christ. But more likely il
originated through their malice anC
, hatred. 1t is Catholic doctrine that an in
dulgence is only a remission OF tempOra
= punishment, and no indulgence can bC
: gained unless the sin is first forgiven anC
e no sin can be forgiven without we are
f sorry for the sin and promise to avoid i
e for the future. But Luther, indeed. has
taught that faith alone is sufficient, ant
- penance and good works are not ncces
n sary-a man may sin as much as h(
|. pleases, the faith IN Christ alone vii
|. save him anyway. Tetzel was a mora
e man and well educated. Seckendorf,
d Lutheran, in his Commentaries, admits
d frankly that the accusations against Tetze
l. in regard to his preaching the indulgence
/. have been exaggerated without measure
A DR.. Lammer shows clearly that Tetzel an,
If other theologians well understood tht
ii doctrine of indulgence, but Luther wa
l. ignorant on this point, and sal,
n that nobody knew exactly what al
k indulgence is. The first and principa
A motive that brought Luther against Tetze
n was, no doubt, jealousy. arising from hi
E. indomitable pride, he being an Angus
f. tinian and Tetzel Dominican. But SUI
le posing that all was true which has bee
i lied against Tetzel, this could not give an
et right to Luther to overthrow the Who'll
d doctrine. As reiormer he must restor
ID the right form, but not break it all
m pieces and leave it scattered. Luther wa
le a man of contradiction: even in tn
A. ninety-fve Theses he contradicts himse
ne as No. 80 against No. Sc. But in the articl
te of the APPEAL No. 81 is left out, whic
" looks little suspicious. Again, Nos.
II and 26; but 26 is left out. Thesis No.
SAYS; "Cursed be he who speaks again'
the indulgences OF the Pope" Then, surel.
Luther is cursed out of his own mouth, an
in Luther is not n refOrmer VERITNS.