Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1884-01-31
Reply to Rev. j. F. DeLons.

Reply to Rev. j. F. DeLons
am only too happy to be able TO re.
plv, to what seems To be an attempted
answer from Rev. J. +. DeLong, to my
exceptions To his Zwingli memorial ad.
dress on New Years evening in Centre
Hall. have most patiently waited f.r
an explanation of his shortcomings rs
pointed out in my structures to his ad.
dress on the occasion above referred to,
and my patience has his continued gen.
oralizalions as its reward. Ny charge
from the first was, that Luther was not
fairly presented in Mr.. De Longs ad
Sress. He made it appear that Luther
Was too emotional as over against the
strong intellectually of Zwingli. He
esid, Luther was a predestinarian, not
ceiling how far and in what way. He
said Luther did not distinguish
or 4" clearly apprehend " the differ
.enee between faithin imam and a doc
crime" He said further that Zwingli
was more liberal than Lu ther and that
Luther was wrong in refusing Zwinglis
hand extended to bridge the chasm be-
tween them because Of their divergent
views on the Lords supper. And fol
Sowing this he had the temerity to say
chat "Lutheran- largely have come to
Ywiugli's view, which tZwinglrs view
Is highly speculative and imaginary, to
say the least. II my friend insists on
denying this, | shall insist on his printing
Ais address. | was careful enough TO
cake notes Of this part of his address,
and am therefore in a position to know
whereof | affirm All the charges,
which have fairly stated, and which.
O. part of his address. were epigram-
matically put, not followed by any such
explanatory clauses as he states under
his 2nd head, all these charges are left
unanswered, with perhaps the except
ion Of the one referring to Luther and
predestinarian and, even that is an apollo
getic attempt at an answer. Let me
here add, that If my brother has
spirit toward the Lutheran church
other than that which conceive
him to have, and desires the public
generally and myself in particular 40 to
think, then let him explain himself out
OF his entanglements. ! attn certainly
not to blame for setting my own people
right, in regard 10 this matter, and this
b al / hare sought to do. That / was
obliged to csc the epithets of "bigot
and trickstcr." am only too sorry for.
what else could do2 Mr.. belongs
ore sidedness in this whole matter, his
saying on an occasion not long since.
that Luther denied the inspiration of
g. James, forgetting, very strangely
indeed, TO add that he lLuther,l has st.
james in his German Bible, oil this has
forced me into this matter in the light
en- which now stand. Before proceed
to examine the answer Of Mr. DeLong,
would kindly ask my readers that II,
after 3 years of most careful drilling in
Lutheran theology by the soundest
Lutheran divines, am still ignorant Of
Lutheranism, they will excuse me if | re.
fuse TO sit at my friend belongs feet to
De Lutheranly indoctrinated. Twill show
you in little while what he (DeLongl
knows of Lutheranism.
I. | find fault with Mr. belongs
faY statement, that Luther was n pre-
destinarian. He replies that Luther
vas more extreme than Calvin on this
msttar. In SUPPORT Of his statements.
herefsrs me to Luther's "De Servo Arblt-
sio" OF Servitude Of the Will. Now let
me put alongside Of Mr.. DeLong's gar.
Died quotations from Luther on this
subjeci, a few sentences from Luthardt's
H2eitschrift fur Kirchliohe Wissenschlft
and Kirchliches Leben," vol. I, p. lg5.
aLuthsr's entire oral aud literary activ
ity proves that he does not deny the
universal human conscience Of freedom
- founded on moral accountability. And
when in his treatise "De Servo Arbitrio,"
he in no sense denies this, il is an anti
aofny whose two sides are based upon
experience, upon the experience of the
telieving heart that is freely and indspend
city convinced Of its faith, and yet does
aot ground the same in itself but pri
aaarily upon tho operations Of divine
grace" Further on says the same au.
Ihor: "Luther's predestinarian views
spring out of his own personal exper.
ience of Salvation out Of the con.
eciousncss, on the one hand, of his ina.
Lility 10 do anything whatsoever in his
own power to obtain Salvation and on
Ghe other hand from the certainty of
kaying been led 10 Salvation by di
vine grace alone" Hence it must
be such New Testament views
e. correspond to that conscious
uess and certainty, which are 70
&c regarded - the Biblical foundation
for Luther's opinion. If Mr.. DeLong
would read the matter up, (as he evi.
IDENTIFY has not done It, he will see that
Luther with Paul, denies simply the re-
Gsions worth and import ofman, bal mol
lfce-actiyi,y itself Erasmus ran coun