Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1884-02-28

also TO perform the commandments OF
God, ms touching the substance OF our
actions"
For although nature be able in some
sort to do the external works (fcr IL is
able TO withhold the hands from theft
and murder) yet it canno. work the
inward motions, such as the fearof God,
trust ia God. chastity, patience, and
such like Now, my logical friend,
will you pie re put that magnifying
glass to your eyes once more, and search
our church Symbols through and
through, or may not now ask you to
have the frankness TO confess that the
Smalcald Articles do not teach predesti.
nation? Dsss this effort Of Rev. De
Longs TO charge upon the Lutheran
church the doctrine of unconditional
predestination, accord with his asserted
traternal spirit toward her, and espe'
cially when that doctrine is not even
implied in any of her doctrnal state
ments2 Mr.. De Long speaks of my
''bad temper" and "low abuse as over
against his calm dispassionate argu.
ment," which il not egotistic, is at least
an admission that IL was necessary to
inform his readers that what he wrote
was an argument How hard it is To
"twist' an assertion into an Argument
IT have been obliged dlone.to conduct
the discussion with dignity it is simply
because | desire truth aud justice TO
prevail without disparagement TO any
one Of the reformers.
"Revs. DR.. Fisher, Schaf, Hodge.
| Nevin, Cox, etc, are no authority"
| Nobody said they were. Indeed | am
not aware that they ever claimed to be
! Lutheraus Uop, then. can they b.
Lutheran authority Mr.. DE Longs
assertion that | either directly or indi.
rectly admitted that Luther was an
absolute unconditional predestinsrian'
is certainly news 10 any one having
read my former articles, to which !
would refer the reader TO my vindica.
tion OF Luther, but a. Mr.. De Long sees
everything to suit his .view on the ques
tion at issue, by implication, there is no
limit to his illogical differences. What
ever were the views and utterances Of
Luther on this subject, they were a
mere side issue--R mere ripple, and he
never asked to have them embodied as
a doctrinal statement. In regard 10
DR.. Walther, | again inform Mr. De Long
that he Waliherl positively declares Lis
views on predestination to be not Luz
theran, but Calvinistic. As TO my use
Of Seiss in consuhstantiation, Mr.. De
Long sees no call for that as he is not
aware Of even "mooting the much
hated word" lie has distinct recol.
lection" of part of his address in Centre
Hall, but of the language. gross carnal
conceptions OF Luther on the sacra.
ments, which he did use only a few
weeks ago in point, he has no recollec'
tion. And il Mr. De Long is desirous
Of knowing who the dozen or more OF
persons are who ! can bring forward to
subsian tiate my charge as to his saying
that "Lutherans have largely come to
Zwingli's view of the Lords supper |
will introduce him personally 10 each
Of them. If he 50 desires, as my veracity
has not yet been so questioned as to be
put to the strait OF dragging their
names into public print.
In regard 10 bringing to the notice OF
Dr. Seiss anything in connection with
which have used his Scis-' name, Mr.
De Long has my consent. ! will be
obliged TO him { De Long to do so. Let
me also confidently assure Mr.. De Long
that the General synod, whilstrcpudiat
ing the ''Galeshurg Rule" does not re-.
pudiAte Dr. Krauth's viudication Of
Luthers refusal of the hand Of Twin.
gl. In recent issue Of the Lutheran
Quytsrlg, published at Gettysburg, the
headquarters OF General synod Luther.
auism, q mastery article on this point
appears. by Dr. J.. Miller, a General
synod man, which il most heartily ap.
proved by our church. A. Ia my kuowi
edge of Or. Kahuis, know sulliCieu, OF
hiaa 10 say that be defends Luther end
the Lutheran symbols.
And now once more iu regard 90
LutheT's intellectual iu'ctloIIiv. U.dlt
not require intellectually al the highest
order to draw up the " Ninety live
Theses The Marhurr Article, the basis
of the Augsburg Confession, the ~mal
cald Article, whose fine doctrin8l State.
meuts have never vet been eNcelle1. the
larger and smaller cstecbism-, the
latter, according TO Hcr7oe CycloVadia,
IA said to be-. next 20 the Bible, the most
extensively used book ever written.
The Commentaries on Genesis and
Galatians, not 10 mention numerous
other controversial writings, and last.
because so ngrculsau task, the tfans-
,ation of the Bible into the German
ycruacular, thereby. at one stroke, re.
creating a language and literature
which is to-day acknowledged without
rival, 10 do all this, which Luther did,
was not the most vigorous intellect
needed? Aud yet Nr. DE Long says
that Luther was intellectually inferior.
Here let me close by calling Mr.. De
Longs attention TO few. things: You
have admitted tho five points; YOU are
silent on the charge that you dd, IN
substance. that stqS you could not
speak well of all the Rcformers and do
justice to Zwingli; have taken away
from you, by a tnH quotation from the
Sma1cald Articlcs. the charge Of pre-
destination. can, therefore, feeling
unusually good over the result OF this
controversy" leave you 10 rest on the
couch of your own making.
Centre Hall, Pa. FAIR Play
AaronsburR.