Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1884-03-13
Answer to Rev. ]. f. DeLong.

According to the rules Of debate, il il
my privilege to close this discussion be.
tween Rev. DsLong and myself. To do
this, shall take up his last article item
by item.
/. Ny charge against Rev. DeLoug in
his use Of the Smalcald Articles was
simply that he did not quote enough
from them to properly understand
them. He must not close his eyes to
my language here | said he used only
"a line or two" from these Articles.
Where i there room, therefore for Rev
belongs saying that "by reason OF the
commission OF that insignificant word
(again') in the translation, he unblush
ingly, insiuuates the charge OF twist.
ing 2 Ny point, reiterate, rested
simply on the fact that "a line or two
from the Smalcald Articles could not
settle the controversy of predestination
as far as those Articles Derc concerned
This little explanation will Justify my
being "captious." And il Rev DeLong
cannot help chatting under my setting
him right by quoting the Article in hW,
let him lay ii to the charge OF the "emo.
tional' Luther, who never asked about
logical consistency" and yet who is the
author OF the Incompatible document
from which that article is quoted.
p By way ofstrengthening his charge
OF predestination against the Smalcald
Articles, Rev. DeIong asks: "WIll Rev
Fischer please tell US why his own syn.
Cd refused so to receive them ?" iihc
Smalcald Articles Most gladly do
answer this Rev. DeLong, you see. is
still sitting at my feet, learning a little
more of Lutheranism. Surely he ought
to be proioudly grateful while he lives,
for the educational influences of this
discussion. But to my answer. The
General Synod does not repudiate the
Smalcald Articles. The Augsburg Con
fession being the confession adopted
after the Reformation begun, the Gen.
eral Synod believes il still sufficient to
require Of its clergy, subscription TO Il
aione. II can not be "legitimately" in
ferred. indeed it is non ScgHiiv, that,
the General Synod, because Il demands
subscription to the Augsburg Con fession
alone, thereby rejects the Smalcald Arti.
cles.. furthermore, ] distinctly showed
by my quotations lin my last article,
from the Augsburg Confession and the
Smalcald Articles. that there is no such
clashing between them on this matter
OF predestin alton. For the reason,
therefore, that Rev. DeLong has in
nothing shown, that the Lutheran
church in her symbols teaches predesti.
nation, am obliged to reiterate the
statement thst that doctrine is not only
not t1uJhi, but on the contrary, most
positively rejected by US. II Rev. De
Long insists on scenting out this doc
trine, why not quote Calvsnisn at once.
and thus settle the question onos for
all.
tinsrian have a final word also One
thing is very apparent to the reader Of
Rev. belongs last article, and that is,
that he comes over TO my ground. I
never once said Luther did not show
predestiuarian tendencies. From the
beginning maintained that Rev. De.
Long did not state hot0 far Luther was a
predestinariaB. Now he admits with
me, that Luther was once on hat soay.
but did not remain upon il. Still fur.
ther, have shown Rev. belong that
Luther's utterances on this question
we're not his calm, studied sentiments a.
. theologian, and this he has not dared
to gainsay. I also quoted Luthardt TO
prove that Luther was not an absolute
predestinarian," and | further stated
that he, tLuther) nowhere has a re.
corded utterance a. q doctrinal state.
ment to this effect. n all this is an al
mission that Luther was predestinari.
an, then Rev. belong has discovered
the English language capable of saying
more than any one else ever knew IL TO
be capable OF expressing.
4. Rev. DeI.ong can make no capital
OF the fact that ! have dragged no
names into print to sustain my charge
against him. Nothing but a gentleman.
ly instinct has kept me from doing this.
have not forgotten Judge Orvis' state
ment aud can back up my charge. Ny
veracity Is unquestioned, and still give
my friend the privilege OF seeing and
hearing these witnesses. What can be
more honorable than this:
5. Ny being silent on the point Of
Luther's not -'distinguishing properly
between saving faith and doctrinal
faith" is very easily explained. In my
very 6Fst article 1 stated that Ghe key
70 al theology Luther found in an In.
caFDate God. He insisted that this was
the very heart Of divine truth and at
the problems which sprsng out Of that
he lsboFed. | regarded that sufficient
answer on this point. therefore. my
silence. Rev. DeLong seems TO think
that consider him defeated because OF
His silence on this one point. Not at all.