Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1884-02-14


Lutheran Church" paper read in the
Lutheran Diet of 1877 in Philadelphia.
He saws I'm recent work on the
Creeds of Christendom among
other unrracious things said of the
Lutherans, the stale charge of man wor.
ship is again insinuatcd against us
"The towering greatness OF Luther" is
there put forward as the particular fly in
the ointment of our sancity. We may
be excused for remanding it to its
source rs n particular talsehood.
Whether the enuuciator of the truth
be saint or sinner, great or small, that
truth we must acknowledge. Mere per
sons. or the worth and credit Of men,
are nothing TO the obligations of truth
For this reason we would be bound TO
acknowledge Luther as witness, were
he score of times greater or less than
he was. Gold is gold, whether on the
finger of the king, or on the neck OF
harlot and the truth is the truth, equally
divine and binding whoever speaks Il.
We are bound to confess IL, fully and
without stint. even with n Martin Luth-
er, though his "tov ering greatness be
"a misfortune" and "a constant tempta'
ton to hero worship But we are
not quite ready to admit that God, IN
ordering His Providence concerning
His church, made grand mistake, IN
not availing Himself of the wisdom OF
certain Reformed theologians.' And
as Mr.. DeIong mootcd the question oi
transubstantiation concerning Luther
view of the Lords supper, | Will again
auote Sciss from the same paper above
referred to. 1t will further show how
reliable an authority Dr. Schnti Is on
Luthoranism. Sciss says w hen we
uuthcransl speak OF the Word n an
earthly vehicle or medium IN and
through which the Saviour communi.
Gates Himself and His salvation, there
is no difficulty in understanding us; but
when we say tho same thing OF the
corresponding Visible Word OF the
Lords Supper-peoplc cNcla'm IN hor'
rur - Transubstantiatlon - "tonsuh'
sanitation some other abomination.
which our confessions distinctly reject
and condemn. and all our theologians
repudiatc. The old lie of the Sacran'
entarian controyersialists, 20 often rc'ut'
cd and exposed, which charges the mon.
strosity of conzubstnntiation upon our
invulnerablc doctrine of the Holy Eu.
chaEjst, we had hoped was eilectually
buried, never To appear again IN any hu.
thor worthy of respect, but ala. ma
il rcsurccted and again put forth in the
recent volume. on the Crcods Of Christ.
endom. to the great discrcdit of their
author, who certainly ought to know
better. if he does not. DR.. Schai', D" 1t
remembered, is the author OF the
Crceds Of Christendom. you see, Mr.
DcI.ong, that have most excellent
company in my Literary crime, OF
saving that Schatr twists And
while on this point. will quote the fol.
lowing from "kocstlin life of Luther 2.
| 40. "Ue Luther himself was still
/ "compelled to correct some misr"prc.
"scntntinus Of his doctrine, and he did
this calmly; he said that he had Hcy
/ "cr taught that Christ had 10 dcccud
/ from heaven in order 20 D" present at
/ "thc supper, but stated that the man
| ''ner i'm which his body was truly given
Ito the guests. he would commit 10 the
divine OmniIotence.' And also hi-
| 81 tuthcrsl view. written by him less
"than nine wears before his death, a. O.
"doctrinal statement found in his Small
| "cald Articles, lac says ave care
nothing about the sophisticnl .ubil"ty
"conccrning tronsubstantiation by
(which they tthc papi,tsI teach thai
/ bread and wine leave or lose their owl
! natural substance and remain only TIA,
appearance and color Of bread and not
true bread For it agrees best with
Holy Scripture that the bread b" and
remain there AZ Paul himself calls IL. II
/ Cor. Y .lG.I "Thc bread which we break,
and / Cor. Xi. Is: Let him so esi
| Of that bread. And aa 60 DR., p5Tuer
! Mr.. DcIoug will not dar" insist that hs
| tDorucrl i. good Lutheran to quote ia
/ this connection.
Is. I charge Rev peLnug with having
-aid in his memorial address that "Lu
/ therana had largely come to Iwiurli
view Of the Lords supper He denic.
| this Though have his statement r
writingl and says that Revs. .,tiroh, Year
/ ick and Roeder are with him IN his de
nial. Let il be observed, with all du,
| respect for thesc brethcren, that | car
get dozen at least land some Of then
no church members az all who sustain
me i'm my charge to the address. And
| can assure Rev. belong that nv pco
pie want none Of his sympathy They
are well satisfied with the manner ano
spirit in which | have thus far '+set then
right
I. BY referring to my charges, as stated
in the CENTRE DKNoCRAT by me, th'
reader will see that Mr.. belong admits
at least fpe of them, and that IS abou
all Of them. And thus my genera
charge OF bslittling Luther stands.
need only ask the reader to notice thu
contradictory utterauces under Mr.. DE
Longs 5th and 9th heads in his sum
ming up his reply. He makes denia
of what charged upon Zwinli, in re
gard TO the Eternal Election of certain
heather, and then almost in tie sam
breath admits it. Who were noble
heather than Socrates, etc?
3. On the matter Of Luther's refusing
the hand Of Zwingli at Marburg, in I'D
dition to what | have already said b.
way Of justifying Luther in that act
let me yet add quotation from DT
Krauth, recently deceasedl, but at tn
| t,t,,a of hiu vrrftfug IA Marion urofpasr,