AMERICAN LUTHERANISM VINDICATED; OR, EXAMINATION OF THELUTHERAN SYMBOLS, onCERTAIN DISPUTED TOPICS:INCLUDING A REPLYTO THE PLEA OF Rev. W. J. MANN. BYS. S. SCHMUCKER, D. D. , Professor of Christian Theology in the TheologicalSeminary of General Synod at Gettysburg, Pa. Earnestly contend for the faith, once delivered to the saints. JUDE 3. BALTIMORE:PUBLISHED BY T. NEWTON KURTZ, No. 151 WEST PRATT STREET. 1856 Entered according to act of Congress in the year 1856, BY S. S. SCHMUCKER, IN THE CLERK'S OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. STEREOTYPED BY GEORGE CHARLES, NO. 9 SANSOM ST. , PHILA. PRINTED BY C. SHERMAN & SON. TO THE READER. The design of the following treatise, and the occasion which elicitedit, are indicated both on the title page and in the introduction of thework itself. Its primary object is not to discuss the obligation ofSynods to adopt the doctrinal basis of the Platform. What we felt it aduty to the church to publish on that subject, we have presented in theLutheran Observer. But the pamphlet of the Rev. Mann, entitled Plea forthe Augsburg Confession, having called in question the accuracy of someof the interpretations of that Confession contained in the DefiniteSynodical Platform, and affirmed the Scriptural truth of some of thetenets there dissented from; it becomes a question of interest among usas Lutherans, which representation is correct. For the points disputedare those, on the ground of which the constitutions of the GeneralSynod and of her Seminary avow only a qualified assent to the AugsburgConfession. In hope of contributing to the prevalence of truth, and theinterests of that kingdom of God which is based on it, the writer hascarefully re-examined the original documents, and herewith submits theresults to the friends of the General Synod and her basis. Since theseresults as to the question, what do the symbols actually teach? arededuced impartially, as must be admitted, from the original symbolicalbooks themselves, as illustrated by the writings of Luther, Melancthon, and of the other Reformers of the same date; those who approve of thosebooks should so far sustain our work: and those who reject these tenets, that is, the New School portion of the church, will not object to seeinga vindication of the reason why they and the General Synod avow only aqualified assent even to the Augsburg Confession, namely, because theseerrors are there taught. _The topics here discussed, _ are all such as are left free to individualjudgment, both by the Constitution of the General Synod, and that of herTheological Seminary. Both explicitly bind to the Augsburg Confession, only so far as the _fundamental_ doctrines, not of that confession, butof the _Scriptures_ are concerned. A _fundamental_ doctrine of Scriptureis one that, is regarded by the great body of evangelical Christians asessential to salvation, or essential to the system of Christianity; sothat he who rejects it cannot be saved, neither be regarded as abeliever in the system of Christian doctrine. The doctrinalpeculiarities of no denomination, though often highly important, cantherefore be regarded as _fundamental, _ without unchurching all otherdenominations and consigning them to perdition. The topics herediscussed are, 1. Ceremonies of the Mass. 2. Private Confession andAbsolution. 3. The Divine institution of the Christian Sabbath. 4. Nature of Sacramental Influence. 5. Baptismal Regeneration. 6. Thenature of the Saviour's presence in the Lord's Supper; and, 7. Exorcism. Now, not one of these is found in the list of fundamentals published bythe Synod of Maryland, and by the great Evangelical Alliance of all theprominent Christian denominations assembled in London in 1846, consisting of more than a thousand ministers of Christ, delegated fromnearly all parts of Europe and America. That list is found in theLutheran Manual, and is the following:-- "1. The Divine inspiration, authority and sufficiency of the HolyScriptures. 2. The right and duty of private judgment in theinterpretation of the Scriptures. 3. The unity of the Godhead, and theTrinity of persons therein. 4. The utter depravity of human nature inconsequence of the fall. 5. The incarnation of the Son of God, his workof atonement for sinners of mankind, and his mediatorial intercessionand reign. 6. The justification of the sinner by faith alone. 7. Thework of the Holy Spirit in the conversion and sanctification of thesinner. 8. The Divine institution of Christian ministry, and theobligation and perpetuity of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; and 9. Theimmortality of the soul and the judgment of the world by our Lord JesusChrist, with the eternal blessedness of the righteous and the eternalpunishment of the wicked. " Not one of these are here discussed. As to the _doctrines taught_ in this little volume, they are the sameinculcated in our Popular Theology twenty-one years ago, and in ourdifferent works published since that time. And here it seems proper toavail ourselves of this public opportunity to correct an errorcommitted by our esteemed friend, Dr. Schaff, of Mercersburg, in hisrecent work on the American churches, in which he represents us asdenying the _reality, _ as well as the guilt of natural depravity. Thisis entirely a mistake. The reality of Natural Depravity is a doctrineso clearly taught in God's word, as well as by the history of the humanrace, that we have never even been tempted to doubt it. In the eighthedition of the Popular Theology, (p. 144, ) which has recently left thepress, our views on this subject are thus summed up:-- "The AugsburgConfession seems to combine, both these views, (_i. E. _ both absence ofholiness and predisposition to sin, ) and the great body of Lutherandivines has regarded natural, or original, or innate depravity, as thatdisorder in the mental and bodily constitution of man, which wasintroduced by the fall of Adam, is transmitted by natural generationfrom parent to child, and the result of which is, that all men who arenaturally engendered, evince in their action want of holiness and apredisposition to sin. Without the admission of such a disorder in thehuman system, _no satisfactory reason can be assigned for theuniversality of actual transgression_ amongst men. " "Our own views onthis disputed subject, maybe summed up in the following features: 1. All mankind, in consequence of their descent from fallen Adam, _are bornwith a depraved nature, _ that is, their bodily and mental system is _sodisordered, as_ in result of its operation _to evince a predispositionto sin. _ 2. This natural depravity _disqualifies its subjects forheaven_. Because the action of depraved (disordered) faculties andpowers, would not, even in heaven itself, be conformed to the divinelaw, and _could not be acceptable to God_ In our natural state, moreover, we have not the _qualifications requisite for the enjoymentof heaven_, having no spiritual appetites. But we cannot suppose thatGod would condemn us to positive and eternal misery merely on account ofthis depraved (disordered) nature; for we are in no sense the authors orcauses of it; and a just God will not punish his creatures for actswhich they did not perform;" (p. 147. ) It is evident, therefore, that wedo maintain _the reality_ of natural depravity inherited from our firstparents, but _deny the imputation of it to us as personal guilt_. Thiscorrection, we doubt not, Dr. Schaff will make in the future editions ofhis work. Nor are we more chargeable with even the remotest tendency torationalism, than the great mass of American and English theologians, including such men as Drs. Dwight, Mason, Woods and Alexander, who alldistinguish things _above_ reason from those _contrary_ to it, andwhilst they deny that revelation teaches any doctrine of the latterclass, admit and believe a number of its doctrines, such as the Trinity, Incarnation, &c. , to be _above_ the comprehension of human reason. Withthem, moreover, we maintain, that in doctrines which lie within thegrasp of human reason, it is proper and a duty to expect and toinculcate a harmony between the teachings of revelation and the dictatesof reason, thus to exhibit and confirm the _intrinsic moral fitness andglory of those truths of revelation_. And it is these and similar thingswhich a certain class of German theologians of late are wont to stylerationalizing tendencies. As to the _necessity of this work;_ two little volumes have appeared, assailing some of the positions of the Definite Platform, and none invindication of them. The New School must therefore receive credit formoderation. Those volumes were hailed with exultation by the four orfive Old-School papers of our church, and all of them, even theMissionary, invite the continuance of the discussion in pamphlet form. Those publications did not agitate the church, neither will this. Thatman must be ignorant of human nature, who does not perceive a vastdifference between a controversy conducted in the newspapers of thechurch, and one confined to independent pamphlets or volumes. In theformer case, the dispute is forced upon all who see the paper, andreaches fifty times as many persons, amongst whom may be many who, fromprejudice, or want of sufficient intelligence, do not appreciate theimportance of the discussion; in the latter, it reaches only those whodesire to see it, and feel sufficient interest to purchase the volume. Yet the Definite Platform, be it remembered, was not the cause but theresult of Symbolic agitation, continual, progressive, and aggressive, inthe several Old-School papers and periodicals, for eight or ten yearspast. As it evinced a spirit of resistance, they of course pounced downupon it, and labored hard for its destruction. But their continueddiscussion has brought to light such high-toned and intolerant groundsof opposition, that the church generally, we doubt not, will settledown, in a just appreciation of the case. The course pursued by the ministers of the General Synod, has alwaysbeen a liberal one. They have freely expressed their sentiments on thesedisputed topics, and cheerfully conceded to others the same liberty. This principle pervades the Constitution of the General Synod and ofher Seminary. Even within the last few weeks, the Directors of theSeminary have listened to a vindication of the entire symbolic system, in the Inaugural of their German Theological Professor, and resolvedto publish it, although it advocates some views rejected by themajority of the Board, and by the other members of the Faculty. Aftersuch a specimen of liberality, we may well hope that the propriety ofany of the other Professors advocating the doctrines, which have fromthe beginning been taught in the institution, will be conceded by all. For the information of those foreign brethren who have recently takenpart in our ministry, we deem it just to remark, that the term_American_ was employed in reference to our church, many years beforethe existence of the political party now designated by this name, andis used by us, not in distinction from those born in foreign lands, butto designate those peculiarities of doctrine, discipline, and worship, which characterize the great mass of the churches of the General Synod, as the terms _Danish_ Lutheran, or _Swedish_ Lutheran, and _German_Lutheran, indicate the peculiarities of our church in those countries. Some of our best _American_ Lutherans are natives of foreign lands. In conclusion, we repeat the assurance, that it has been with deepregret that we have felt compelled, in defence of American, that is, New School Lutheranism, to exhibit what we regard the errors of theformer symbols. But as the existence of these errors has of late yearsbeen perseveringly denied, and New School Lutherans have beenincessantly reproached for not yielding an unqualified assent, to thesebooks, necessity was laid on us; and the evil of the controversy, ifany, lies at the door of the aggressors. Praying that our Divine Master may bless this little volume to theadvancement of his glory and the welfare of his church, we submit itto the friends of truth. S. S. SCHMUCKER. Gettysburg, April 23d, 1856. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS..... 13Religious Controversy. Plea of Rev. Mann. Apostolic Church. Authorityof Creeds. Apostles' Creed. Augsburg Confession-altered by Melancthon. CHAPTER II. REPLY TO THE GENERAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE PLEA..... 24Augsburg Confession the only universal symbol of the Lutheran Church. Definite Platform liberal. The Episcopalians, Presbyterians andMethodists, altered their European Creeds in this country. Creedssubordinate, to Scripture. Progressive light of Scripture. Humancreeds fallible. Drs. Lochman, Endress, F. C. Schaeffer, Hazelius, Bachman, &c. Origin of the Definite Synodical Platform. Dr. Kocher onCreeds. CHAPTER III. DISADVANTAGES UNDER WHICH THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION WAS PREPARED..... 47Diet of Augsburg. Alarm of Melancthon-his complaints to Luther-hisletters to Camerarius, remarkable letter to Campegius. Luther checksMelancthon's Concessions. CHAPTER IV. POSITIONS OF THE DEFINITE SYNODICAL PLATFORM ESTABLISHED..... 57The Reformers progressive. Rigid Symbolic System rejected in Germany. Reinhard, Knapp, Storr, Olshausen, Tholuk, Hengstenberg, &c. Analysisof the American Recension of the Augsburg Confession, it is almost theentire Augsburg Confession. CHAPTER V. SYNODICAL DISCLAIMER..... 63Luther on the Elevation of the Host. Ceremonies of the Mass. Drs. Murdock, Fuhrman. Import of the term Mass among Romanists, and amongstthe Reformers whilst in the Romish Church. Testimony of Luther in hisTreatise on the Mass, in his letters to Spangler, to Duke George, inthe Short Confession, letter to Justus Jonas, &c. Testimony ofMelancthon, in his letter to Luther during the Diet. Testimony of otherReformers, Aurifaber, Spalatin. Testimony of the Romish Refutation ofthe Augsburg Confession. Internal evidence from the Augsburg Confessionitself. Separate captions and articles for Mass and the Lord's Supper. The two kept distinct in Melancthon's translation; if you exchange thewords the articles make nonsense. The Romanists understood theConfession to mean mass proper. Melancthon in the Apology to theConfession so understands it. Refutation of the proofs. Reference tothe author's former works, the Popular Theology, the History of theAmerican Lutheran Church. CHAPTER VI. PRIVATE CONFESISONAND ABSOLUTION..... 97Import of the phrase. Dr. Funck's early Lutheran Directories forWorship. Formularies for private Confession and Absolution, Luther's, that of Wolfgang, &c. , in 1557. Proof that this rite is inculcated inthe Augsburg Confession. Siegel, Prof. Jacobsen. Augsburg Confessionadmits the want of Scripture authority for it. God alone can forgivesin. CHAPTER VII. DENIAL OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTION AND OBLIGATION OF THE CHRISTIANSABBATH..... 107Proofs of the Charge, Drs. Rucker, Hengstenberg, Walter, Murdock. Ground taken by the Plea. The same opinion taught by Luther in hisCommentary, Larger Catechism, &c. , and by Melancthon, in LociCommunes, or system of Divinity, &c. , in Augsburg Confession, and inhis Apology to it. CHAPTER VIII. GENERAL NATURE OF THE SACRAMENTAL INFLUENCE..... 121Doctrine of the Plea-not fully developed. Scriptural view ofSacramental Influence. Man a sinner by nature and practice, Divinetruth the grand instrumentality of the Spirit in our spiritualrenovation. The stage of progress in this renovation, morally requisitefor pardon, is that of living faith, or entire surrender to God. Evidence of this pardon or justification, is internal; peace, love, joy, testimony of the Spirit, fruits of the Spirit, and not any outwardrite-Sacraments therefore only mediate and not immediate conditions ofpardon-proofs, Mosheim, Reinhard, Knapp. CHAPTER IX. BAPTISMAL REGENERATION..... 135Is taught in Symbolical books and by the Reformers and earlyTheologians, Hunnius, Gerhard, Buddeus. Influence of this doctrine onthe pulpit-proofs against it. CHAPTER X. THE LORD'S SUPPER..... 148Extracts from the Symbols. Arguments. Supposed Sin-forgiving Power ofthe Eucharist. CHAPTER XI..... 155EXORCISM. Altered interpretation of this rite. Proofs that it was regarded assymbolic and was practised in different parts of the Lutheran Church. Testimony of Drs. Guericke, Koellner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Augusti, Siegel, Sigismund, Baumgarten. At some periods regarded as a test oforthodoxy. CHAPTER XII. CONCLUDING REMARKS..... 161What is our duty under these circumstances? Erroneous reasonings ofthe rigid Lutherans. Four different remedies considered--the true one. APPENDIX..... 169 EXAMINATION OF THE LUTHERAN SYMBOLS. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. Religious controversy, though it often degenerates from that calm anddignified character, which it should ever sustain as a mutual searchafter truth, seems sometimes to be necessary and proper. It springs outof the nature of that moral evidence, never amounting to demonstration, by which religious doctrines are sustained, and from the fact, thatwhilst the word of God reveals what is necessary to salvation withentire distinctness, it leaves undecided, or to be deduced from clearerpassages of Scripture, many points which are both interesting andimportant, as well as naturally sought for by the constitutional, systematizing tendencies of the human mind. Discussions on such topicsof practical utility, are alike pleasing to God and beneficial to thechurch, if conducted in a Christian spirit, and if the parties havetruth and not victory for their aim. Truth is the will of God, exhibited in the diversified creations of his hand, either physical, intellectual, or moral, and the revelations of his word, correctlyapprehended by the human mind. Since truth, therefore, is of God, itneed fear no investigation. The divinity that is in it, will secure itsultimate triumph. Though it may for a season be obscured, or crushed toearth by passion, prejudice, or irresponsible authority, it will sooneror later assert its rights, and secure the homage of all upright minds. No friend of truth should dread impartial investigation. If he hasunconsciously imbibed erroneous opinions, he will thus be conducted tothe truth; and if his views are correct, they will be confirmed byinvestigation. "Eternal vigilance has been styled the price of civil'liberty;'" and to "search the Scriptures daily, " to "prove all thingsand hold fast that which is good, " is the grand safeguard of religioustruth and ecclesiastical purity. No new enterprise of Christianbenevolence has ever been achieved, no reformation of establishedinstitutions or doctrines ever been accomplished in the church ofChrist, without discussion and controversy either oral or written;because error when assailed by the truth, will always make more or lessresistance. The life of the greatest moral hero of the sixteenthcentury, to whom Christianity is so hugely indebted, was almostentirely expended in controversial efforts; and even the mild andpeace-loving Melancthon, though he advised his aged mother not totrouble herself about religious controversies, himself felt it his dutyto devote much of his time, his learning, and his talents to thevindication of the truth against its enemies. [Note 1] We are commanded"earnestly to contend for the faith once, delivered to the saints, " andby inference for those regulations, which tend to secure that faith. Weare taught to pray for the unity of the disciples of Christ, "that theymay be one as He and the Father are one, " and consequently to opposesuch regulations as tend to sever the bonds of union among God's people, and cause divisions in the household of Christ. Such means fordefending the faith, are creeds which inculcate only those doctrinesclearly taught in Scripture; such hindrances to union and apples ofdiscord, are creeds embracing many minor points, not clearly decided inScripture, on which true Christians differ, and which are not necessaryfor cordial co-operation among the children of God. Within the last few months, a discussion on creeds has occupied thereligious papers of our church in this country, the specific subjectsof which were the merits of the "_Definite Synodical Platform_"recently adopted by several of our Western Synods, and the import andscriptural truth of some portions of that venerable document, the_Augsburg Confession_. In these discussions we took part, in a seriesof articles over the initials of our name, in the Lutheran Observer, invindication of the Definite Platform, which we hold to be a faithfuland definite exhibition of the import of the _generic_ doctrinal pledgeof the General Synod. That pledge includes, in connection with absoluteassent to the Word of God, as the only infallible rule of faith andpractice, the belief "that the fundamental doctrines of Scripture aretaught in a manner substantially correct in the doctrinal articles ofthe Augsburg Confession:" and the Platform is an unaltered copy ofthese articles of that confession, only omitting those parts, which weknow by long acquaintance with American Lutherans, to be generallyregarded by them not only as nonfundamental, but _erroneous_. TheDefinite Platform, therefore, retains _even more_ of the AugsburgConfession than the General Synod's pledge requires; for it containssome specifications of the Augsburg Confession, which though true, arenot fundamental. The Platform is, therefore, more symbolic than theGeneral Synod's doctrinal basis, though the contrary opinion hasrepeatedly been expressed, by those who have not carefully examined. Had both parties in this discussion exhibited more christian comity, and abstained from personalities, levelling their logical artilleryagainst opinions instead of the persons entertaining them; the effectupon the church would, we think, have been favorable, and unity ofsentiment might have been promoted. That a different impression hasbeen made on many minds is, doubtless, owing to the human infirmityand passion that mingled in the contest. Which party exhibited thelargest amount of this weakness, we will not undertake to decide, although we doubt not, that here as in most other cases, the judgmentof the Leyden cobbler would be found correct, who was in the habit ofattending the public Latin disputations of the university, and whenasked whether he understood Latin, replied, "No, but I know who iswrong in the argument, by seeing _who gets angry first_. " Nevertheless, christian truth has often been defended in a very unchristian way, anddoubtless more depends on the natural temper and the manners of thedisputants, as well as the extent to which divine grace enables them tosubdue their passions. The disposition occasionally evinced, to frowndown discussion by invective and denunciation, is not only illogical, as it proves neither the affirmative nor negative of the disputedquestion; but in this free country, where we acknowledge no popes, andin the judgment of free Americans, who think for themselves, it mustalways reflect unfavorably on its authors. The same topic, so closely connected with the prosperity of our belovedchurch, is to engage our attention on the present occasion, in reply toan interesting, christian, and gentlemanly pamphlet, from the pen ofthe _Rev. Mr. Mann_, of Philadelphia, who controverts some of thepositions of the Definite Synodical Platform. It shall be my earnesteffort to write in the same christian manner, and my prayer is that theSpirit of our Divine Master may direct my pen, that it may record "No line, which dying, I could wish to blot. " In order that our readers may follow, with advantage, the reasonings ofthis treatise, it is necessary that we should conduct them to theproper stand-point, from which the interesting and important subjectbefore us should be examined. The same object, viewed from differentpositions, often presents a very different appearance; but contemplatedfrom the same point of observation, by impartial observers of soundvision, it will, by the laws of our organization, appear the same toall. The questions before us relate to the meaning of certaindocuments, which were adopted some centuries ago in a foreign land andforeign tongue, as a creed or test of membership in the church. A verybrief glance at this church, the authority of human creeds, and thecircumstances under which this one was published, will prepare us forthe more satisfactory solution of the points in question. The most important visible organization of the human family, isundoubtedly the church of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Thepolitical institutions of the world, such as republics, kingdoms andempires, are instituted to administer the temporal affairs of men; butthe church of the divine Redeemer involves the never-dying interest ofimmortal souls. The former are established and conducted by theordinary powers of men; the latter is heaven descended, and was foundedby the incarnate Son of God, and his inspired Apostles. The former aresustained, as far as defensible, by the ordinary evidences of humanwisdom, manifest in their adaptation to secure our material interests;the _divinity_ of the latter is established by the most stupendousmiracles of Jesus and his Apostles, as well as by internal evidence ofsuperhuman wisdom, goodness and knowledge, seen alike in theinstitutions it embraces and the truths it inculcates. These _inspired_ Apostles left a _written record of this divineinstitution_, of the church with its ordinances, as well as of thedoctrines and duties to be inculcated by its teachers. They alsopronounce this record to be _complete_, and threaten to blot out fromthe book of life, the names of those who add to or subtract from it. Hence it is evident, that the church of this record is not as Romanistsand Puseyites imagine, a mere seminal principle or germ, to whichequally binding additions may be made by the church of every generation;but on the contrary, that the _church of the New Testament_ is thechurch in its most perfect and faultless form, _is the model church forall ages_, which in its development and adaptation to differentcountries and generations, must ever remain faithful to its primitiveand inspired lineaments. This church, whilst administered by inspiredmen during the first century, must also have been more pure, than inits subsequent periods, when placed under uninspired and fallibleteachers, and in corrupting contact with Pagan philosophy, as well asin debasing union with civil governments. Now, in this apostolic age, this golden era of the church, we hear ofno other creed than the word of God itself, which was regarded assufficient. And certainly, if as Romanists, after the report of_Rufinus_, believed the Apostles had either written or employed thiscreed, the piety of that age would have enrolled it in the Scripturecanon, and the early church have guarded it with special care. Butthere is not a word in the Old or New Testament authorizing orcommanding the church of any future age to frame a creed in addition tothe Bible, as a rule for admission into the church, or exclusion fromit. The only scriptural ground for such a creed is inferential. We areinstructed "earnestly to contend for the faith (doctrines) oncedelivered to the saints, " and "not to bid God speed, " to him whopreaches another Gospel, or denies that Jesus is the Christ. In orderto obey these injunctions we must demand, of applicants for churchmembership or ordination, their views of the prominent doctrines ofthe Bible, and judge whether they accord with ours. Or we may state tothem our views of these topics, and require their assent. In eithercase, we have a creed, and for obvious reasons it is preferable for usto prepare a carefully written statement of Bible truth, so that it maybe known, examined and improved by renewed comparison with God's word. On the other hand, the Apostle commands us to "receive into ourcommunity the brother (him whom we regard as a true disciple of Christ, )who is weak in the faith, (imperfect in some of his views of the truth)but not for doubtful disputations;" not for the purpose of disputingwith him on doubtful points. Moreover, the primitive disciples, ofcontiguous residence, were all united into one church by the Apostles, and the Savior enjoins it on _all_ his disciples to love one another, to "be one, as He and his Father are one. " Therefore, it was thensinful to divide and separate true Christians from one another, andmust be so at present, as a general rule. Now, as human creeds, whenextended so as to embrace minor doctrines, on which good men differ, necessarily do divide, them, such creeds are inconsistent with theprecepts of Christ. The result of these two principles, the duty toexclude fundamental errorists on the one hand, and the command not toseparate, but to unite the true disciples of Christ on the other, byreciprocal limitation, affords us the rule, to employ a human creedspecifying the cardinal truths of the Scriptures, but not to include init minor doctrines, which would divide the great mass of true disciplesof Christ; nor to introduce more specifications of government or modesof worship, than are necessary to enable enlightened Christians to walkharmoniously together. Accordingly, we find that such was the character of the earliestuninspired creed of the church, the only one that was extensivelyemployed in the admission and exclusion of members during the firstthree centuries of her history. We allude, of course to the Apostles'creed, so called, not because the Apostles were at first supposed tohave written it, but because, it confessedly contained doctrinespromulged by the Apostles. This creed, which was for along timecirculated orally among the churches, embraces only fundamentaldoctrines, forms less than half a page in the Definite SynodicalPlatform, and is believed by all evangelical denominations at thepresent time. Here then we have the christian church in her _goldenage_ of greatest purity, the first three centuries, relying on theword of God alone, with only this brief human creed. In the fourth century, (A. D. 325, ) the Council of Nice adopted acreed, which is but a paraphrase of the above, following the order ofits subjects, and adding various specifications to repel heresies whichhad arisen. Yet even this does not amount to one page in the DefinitePlatform. Near the close of the fifth, or perhaps in the sixth century, the so-called Athanasian Creed was adopted, which would form less thanthree pages of the Platform. During the subsequent, centuries ofRomish corruption, different councils made various enactments for thechurch, but they generally related to the multitudinous rites andceremonies introduced into the popish worship, or to the functions, rights and privileges of the pope, the different ranks of priests, bishops, arch-bishops and the inferior officers; and in the progressof time, men were allowed to adopt almost any error, provided theypaid their dues to the priests, and performed the superstitiousceremonies of the church. In the age of the Reformation, Luther had obligated himself to theentire Romish system, yea, had at the receipt of his Doctorate, takenan oath to _obey the Church of Rome, and not to teach any doctrinescondemned by her_ [Note 2] But having been enlightened by the study ofthe Bible, which providentially fell into his hands, he saw his errors, and wisely judging that _an oath to do any criminal deed ceases to beobligatory after the sinfulness of the contemplated act is seen_, herenounced those errors one after another, as fast as the light oftruth illumined his mind. This work he commenced in 1517, and continuedfrom year to year till near the close of his life. In 1530, elevenyears after, he began the work of reform, and sixteen before his death, he approved the Augsburg confession, as drawn up by Melancthon, although he told him in a letter during the diet, that he had yieldedtoo much to the papists, as will be seen in the sequel. But Luthernever signed any confession of faith; nor was a pledge to the Augsburgconfession or to any other symbol required of the ministers of thechurch during his lifetime; although the Augsburg confession wasregarded as the exponent of the prevalent views of the Protestantchurches in Germany. It was not until a quarter of a century afterLuther had left the church militant, and not until the Lutheran churchhad been established in Germany for full half a century, that theso-called _symbolic system_ was regularly and generally introduced bythe civil authorities of the major portion of Protestant Germany. Nowit is in regard to the import of this Confession of Augsburg, published before the middle of Luther's labors as a reformer, thatsome differences of opinion have been entertained. To ascertain thetrue sense of such passages according to the most impartial and justprinciple of exegesis, is one principal object of our investigationsin the following pages. It has often been affirmed by some, who have not examined the historyof that eventful diet with particular care, that the AugsburgConfession was prepared under the most favorable circumstances for animpartial and full exhibition of all the views of the confessors, bothof positive truth and papal errors. The contrary was, however, thecase, as will be distinctly shown in the sequel. But we will firstreply to the _General Observations_ of the Plea of our esteemed brother, the _Rev. Mr. Mann_. Let it be remembered, however, that whatever maybe the import of this and other creeds, they have all been formed sincethe age of inspiration, they are all uninspired and therefore fallible. Hence, it is equally the duty of the church, in every generation, totest her existing creed by the word of God, and to correct and improveit, if found unscriptural in any of its teachings, or if experience hastaught that it is too brief or too extended, successfully to accomplishthe legitimate purposes of such documents. The idea of theinfallibility of any human creed, or even its semi-inspiration, isphilosophically unreasonable, and either a remnant of Romishsuperstition, or an amiable weakness of judgment. Melancthon himselfdid not regard his Confession as perfect, for he made sundryalterations in it in his successive editions. And even at Augsburg, after the confession had been sent to Luther, at Coburg, and returnedwith his approbation on the 16th of May, Melancthon, in a letter tohim, dated six days later, (May 22, ) employs the following language:"In the Apology, (which was the name first intended for the AugsburgConfession, ) I daily make _many changes_. The section concerning'_Vows_, ' which was too meagre, I have stricken out, and have treatedthe subject more fully. I am now doing the name with the sectionconcerning '_The Keys_. ' I wish you could have reviewed the doctrinalarticles, " (namely, as now amended, ) "and then, if you found nothingdefective in them, I would discuss the remaining articles as well asmay be. _For, in Articles of faith, some change must be made, fromtime to time, and they must be adapted to the occasions. " [Note 3] Hereis anything else than the idea of the immaculate and unalterable natureof the Augsburg Confession for all after times. Note 1. In 1529, whilst Melancthon was attending the Conferences atSpire, this great and good man made a little excursion to Bretton, tovisit his mother. During their interview, she asked him what she shouldbelieve amid so many disputes, and repeated to him her prayers, whichwere free from superstition. "Go on, mother, " said he, "to believe andto pray as you have done, and never trouble yourself about religiouscontroversies. " Note 2. As this oath is a literary curiosity, we subjoin it, in theoriginal, for the gratification of our learned readers: Ego juroDomino Decano et Magistris Facultatis Theologiae obedientiam etreverentiam debitam, et in quocunque statu utilitatem universitatis, et maxime Facultatis Theologicae, _pro virili mea_ procurabo, et omnesactus theologicos exercebo in mitra, (nisi fuerit religiosus) vanas, peregrinas _doctrinas, ab ecclesia damnatas, et piarum auriumoffensivas non dogmatisabo_, sed dogmatisantem Dn. Decano denunciabointra octendium, et manutenebo consuetudines, libertates et privilegiaTheologicae Facultatis _pro virili mea_, ut me Deus adjuvet, etSanctorum evangeliorum conditores. _Juro etiam Romanae ecclesiaeobedientiam_, et procurabo pacem inter Magistros et Scholasticosseculares et religiosos, et _biretum_ in nullo alio gymnasiorecipiam. " Lib. Statutorum facultatis theol. Academiae Wittemberg. Cap. 7. Note 3. An der Apologie (Confession) aendere ich taeglich Vieles. DenAbschnitt von den Geluebden, der zu mager war, habe ich gestrichenund den Gegenstand ausfuehrlicher abgehandelt. Eben so verfahre ichjetzo mit dem Abschnitt von "den Schluesseln. " Ich wuenschte, duhaettest die "Glaubensartikel" ueberblickt, wo ich dann, wenn du nichtsfehlerhaftes darin gefunden, das uebrige, so gut es gehen will, abhandeln werde. Denn es musz zum oeftern an den Glaubensartikelnabgeaendert werden, und man musz sie den Gelegenheiten anbequemen. Inthe Latin: Vellem percurisses articulos fidei, in quibus si nihilputaveris esse vitii, reliqua utcunque tractabimus. "_Subinde enim, mutandi stint atque ad occasiones accommodandi. " Christian Niemeyer'sPhilip Melancthon_, im Jahre der Augsburgischen Confession, pp. 13, 14. CHAPTER II. REPLY TO THE GENERAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE PLEA. In replying to the general observations, which constitute theintroduction of the Plea, we shall pursue the order of their occurrence. "We shall, in this short tract, " says the author, "not speak of theobjections, which in the Definite Platform are set forth against someerrors, contained in some other symbolical books of the Lutheran Church, but we shall confine ourselves exclusively to the errors pointed out inthe Augsburg Confession, the work of Luther and Melancthon themselves, and _the only one of our Confessions which was universally received assuch, by the whole Lutheran Church in all parts of the world_, " p. 4. This concession is no less honorable to the reverend author, than thefact itself is important in the discussion of the subject before us. Asthe contrary has frequently been asserted in this country, in the faceof history, it seems proper to advert to its details. The facts in thecase are the following: _The Form of Concord_ was rejected in Denmark, Sweden, Hessia, Pommerania, Holstein, Anhalt, and the cities of Strasburg, Frankfurta. M. Speier, Worms, Nuerenberg, Magdeburg, Bremen, Dantzig, &c. Forparticulars see Koellner's Symbolik, Vol. I, pp. 575-77. _The Smalcald Articles_ were rejected by Sweden and Denmark. _The Apology_ to the Augsburg Confession, was denied, officialauthority, by Sweden and Denmark. _The Larger Catechism_ of Luther, in Sweden and Denmark. Even _the Smaller Catechism_ of Luther was not received as symbolic inSweden. See Guericke's Symbolik, pp. 67, &c. , 113. Here, then, we perceive, that those ultra Lutherans of our day, whoinsist on the whole mass of former symbols as essential to Lutheranism, must unchurch a very large portion of the Lutheran Church even of thesixteenth century. But among these we can by no means class the authorof the Plea, who is evidently a Lutheran of the more enlightened andliberal class. The author of the Plea represents "the Augsburg Confession, as the_unexceptionable_ password of the adherents of the Lutheran Church forthree centuries. " The idea designed probably is, that the _great mass_of doctrines taught in this confession has been thus received. For itis a historical fact, that cannot be contested, that private confession, which is enjoined in the eleventh, twenty-fifth and twenty-eighthArticles of the Augsburg Confession, and was retained by Luther, Melancthon and their churches, was from the begining [sic] rejected bythe _entire Lutheran Church in Sweden and Denmark_, as well as otherplaces, and a public confession of the whole church, such as is nowemployed in Germany and this country, introduced in its stead. SeeSiegel's Handbuch, Vol. I. , p. 200. "Of course the accusation against the Augsburg Confession, involves anexhibition of Luther and Melancthon, those pillars of the Reformation, as teaching _heretical doctrines_, which are not in accordance with theword of God. " p. 4. This language we regard as not entirely correct. Those errors alone are, in correct English, usually termed "heretical, "which are of fundamental importance, and deny some doctrine that isnecessary to salvation. That this is neither affirmed or implied by thePlatform, must, we think, be admitted by all. But that both Luther andMelancthon did entertain some erroneous views in 1530, some of whichare taught in the Augsburg Confession, namely, those specified in thePlatform, is affirmed by the great body of our American LutheranChurch. "The errors are not, on the side of the Augsburg Confession, but on theside of those _who agitate our Lutheran Church_ with the introductionof a fatherless and motherless child, the Definite Platform. " To thiswe reply, the Platform was publicly adopted by three or four Synods inthe West, within a few weeks after its publication. As to itsauthorship, we never denied having prepared it, at the urgent requestof some of those brethren, on the plan agreed on by them, and someEastern brethren of the very first respectability. It was carefullyrevised by ourselves and Dr. B. Kurtz, and we have not yet found asingle one of its positions refuted. That the request was made andcomplied with, will not be regarded as discreditable to either party byimpartial judges, after the smoke of battle shall have disappeared, andthe vision of men again be unobstructed. As to the friends of thePlatform being agitators of the church, we regard the supposition aserroneous. The Platform was designed to be adopted by those WesternSynods, as it has been, publicly, but without controversy, as otherSynods had done before with their symbolic platforms. But enemies ofthe Platform raised the alarm, and agitated the church with threateneddangers. That the friends of the assailed instrument should stand up inits vindication, was an indispensable act of self-defence, to which noimpartial man will object. "We shall endeavor to maintain in this controversy, a dignified andChristian spirit, as becomes this holy subject, and those who, differing in some points, know one Master and one service. People onearth will always differ in their opinions. The truth will gain bygiving free scope to investigation, and by the illustration of thedifferent sides of the same question. " This position is true, andcreditable alike to the head and the heart of the author. Churchgovernment and doctrine are topics of primary importance to theprosperity of the kingdom of the Redeemer, and no reason can beassigned why they cannot be debated to the edification of the church, except the human frailty of disputants. Had these subjects beendiscussed in our religious papers with calmness, and in a Christianspirit, they would have been alike instructive and edifying both toministers and laity. The discussion would have infused into laymen adeeper interest for the welfare of the church, and a larger liberalityin the support of her institutions. Are we not commanded to prove allthings, and hold fast that which is good; and to be always ready togive to him that asked us a reason for the hope that is in us? But letus not despond; God will overrule even these controversies to the goodof his church. _Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit. _ "The Synods adopting this Platform are expected to make it a principle_not to receive into their membership any one who will not subscribethis Definite Platform_, " (meaning the whole pamphlet, ) p. 6. On thissubject the Platform was entirely misapprehended, by the readers notreflecting that the third resolution, on p. 6, must be construed inconnection with the two immediately preceding and numerically connectedwith it. Resolutions first and second declare the "doctrinal Platform"to consist of the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the AmericanRecension of the Augsburg Confession, together with the General Synod'sFormula of Government and Discipline. And the third resolution adds, noone shall be received into this Synod who will not subscribe "_this_Platform, " namely, the one just defined. This American Recension orRevision of the Augsburg Confession, contains, _unaltered_, thedoctrinal articles of that Confession, except, that a few sentences areomitted, and _nothing added in their stead_. Now, if it be admitted thatwhen an enumeration of the parts of a whole is professedly andexplicitly made, any thing not included in that enumeration is excluded, then certainly, as the first two resolutions enumerated specificallythe Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the American Recension of theAugsburg Confession, as the parts constituting the Platform to whichassent was required, it follows that the list of Symbolic Errorsrejected, which is not named at all, and which formed a separate part ofthe pamphlet, is excluded. But the misapprehension evidently arose fromthe fact, that after the term _doctrinal platform_ had been used in thework, to designate the doctrinal and disciplinarian basis contained inthe first part of it, the name _Definite Synodical Platform_ wasselected for the whole pamphlet, and the distinction not kept up withsufficient prominence before the mind of the reader. This is remedied inthe second edition, by employing the phrase _Doctrinal Basis or Creed_for the first, and "_Synodical Disclaimer_, or List of SymbolicalErrors" for the second part. Moreover it is expressly stated, on p. 5, that "whilst we will not admit into our Synod any one who believes inExorcism, Private Confession, and Absolution, or the Ceremonies of theMass, " (not one of which is practiced, so far us we know, by a singleminister connected with the General Synod), the Platform "grantsliberty in regard to all the other topics, omitted from the AugsburgConfession in the American Recension of it. " For it adds, "We arewilling, as heretofore, to admit ministers who receive these views, provided they regard them as _non-essential_" (that is, as_non-fundamental_, not, as has been asserted by others, as of minor orof little importance), "and are willing to co-operate in peace withthose who reject them. " To the List of Errors rejected no one isrequired to subscribe, and it is published by the Synod as a disclaimerof these errors, which are often imputed to us, but which are rejectedby the great body of the American Lutheran Church. The Platform cannot, therefore, with truth, be said to exclude old-Lutherans, unless theyare so rigid as to regard their own views on these disputed points asessential, and are unwilling to co-operate in _peace_ with theirbrethren: and in that case it is certainly preferable for all parties, that they should organize a Synod for themselves. Says the author of the Plea, p. 6: "Suppose some Episcopal ministershaving arrived at the conviction that some of their church canons werewrong, " "would it be regarded as anything else than a most _astoundingpresumption_, for such men to dare to change the character of the churchcanons and denounce some of them as errors, and at the same time tomaintain that _they themselves are the true representatives of theEpiscopal Church_, and can _unchurch_ others?" Here are threepositions, all of which we regard as erroneous. In the _first_ place, it is not presumptuous, but a Christian duty, when ministers of achurch are firmly convinced, that the avowed standards of their churchcontain some tenets contrary to the word of God, publicly to disavowthem, that their influence may not aid in sustaining error; and if themajority of a synod participate in this opinion, it is their duty tochange their standards into conformity with God's word. The AugsburgConfession itself was such, a disclaimer of Romish errors, and avowalof the truth: and if it was the duty of the ministry in the sixteenthcentury to make their public profession conform to their belief ofScripture truth, it is equally the duty of every other age. Butalthough their case involves the _principle_ objected to by the _Plea_, the following cases are more exactly analogous. The Episcopal ministryand laity did, after the American Revolution, change their doctrine, that the king is the head of the church and adopted the opinion that nocivil officer, as such, has any office in the church. They accordinglyrejected from their creed Article XXI. , and also excluded from theirliturgy and forms of prayer, all allusion to the king as the head orgovernor of the church. Listen to the testimony of the _Episcopal_ministers of Maryland, in 1783, soon after the acknowledgment of theindependence of this country. They passed a number of resolutions, ofwhich the fourth reads thus: "That as it is the _right_, so it will bethe _duty_ of the Episcopal Church, when duly organized, constituted, and represented in a Synod or Convention of the different orders of herministers and people, to revise her liturgy, forms of prayer and ofpublic worship, in order to adapt the same _to the late Revolution_, and OTHER LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF AMERICA, " [Note 1] &c. Our _Presbyterian_ brethren also changed their Confession of Faith, andadapted it to their belief. Hear the testimony of _Dr. Hodge_, in hisConstitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in the UnitedStates: [Note 2] the Synod then "took into consideration the twentiethchapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the third paragraph ofthe twenty-third chapter, and the first paragraph of the thirty-firstchapter; and having made some alterations, agreed that the saidparagraphs, as now altered, be printed for consideration, together witha draught of a plan of government and discipline. " They weresubsequently adopted. In like manner did our _Methodist Episcopal_ brethren deal with theThirty-nine Articles of the Episcopal Church, which they had avowedfrom the days of Wesley. They not only rejected the recognition of theking as the head of the church, but also entirely omitted ArticleXVII. , which is supposed by many to inculcate Calvinism, together withseveral others; and materially altered Articles I. , II. , VI. , IX. , XXVI. , and XXXIV. If, then, it be competent for these several Synods, or Conferences, to change the Westminster Confession and Thirty-nineArticles, which were prepared far more deliberately, and with much lessrestraint, and had become equally venerable by age, without any onepretending to deny their authority, or to pronounce the measure"presumptuous, " why may not the Synod of Wittenberg, and other similarbodies, correct the Augsburg Confession, by the omission of severaltenets, believed not only by her members, but by the great body ofAmerican Lutherans, to be unscriptural? Now the Definite Platform wasprepared at the request of the leading members of those Western Synods, according to a plan previously agreed on among them and others, for theexpress purpose of being proposed for discussion, correction, and_adoption by these Synods;_ and, until so acted on, was a mereunofficial proposal, _such as any friends of the church have a right tomake_. And who can dispute their right, or the right of any Synod, toadopt a Confession of Faith for herself, when the Constitution of theGeneral Synod originally conceded this power specifically to eachSynod, and still does so, in Article III. , Section 3, by requiring themonly to adhere to the _fundamental_ doctrines of the Bible, as taughtby our church? Is not a Lutheran Synod possessed of as much power as anEpiscopal or Methodist convention? And although an individualnecessarily drew up the document, it was prepared according to the plandecided on by about twenty brethren, and claimed no authority untilacted on by Synod. The Definite Platform could never, _with truth_, beregarded as the work of a few individuals. Its inception was the resultof a consultation of a large number of influential brethren, especiallyof the West, who had been convinced by the aggressions of surroundingsymbolists, that a decided, but also a more _definite_ stand on theground of the General Synod, was necessary in self-defence. It wasprepared and published at their request, not as an official document, but as a draft of such a basis as they had agreed on. It was presentedto them, and taken up for consideration by their several Synods; andthe unanimity with which they adopted it is conclusive proof that itwas prepared according to the stipulated principles. By denying theright of the several Synods of Ohio, and of any other Synod, to improveor decide on their own doctrinal basis, within the fundamentals ofScripture as taught in the Augsburg Confession, the enemies of thePlatform _renounce the principles of the General Synod_, whichexpressly allows this right; and they also renounce the original anduniversally acknowledged Independent or Congregational principles ofLutheran Church Government, avowed by Luther, Melancthon, and all theleading divines of our church, one part of which is the right andobligation to form our own views of Scripture truth, and to avow themto the world. No individual can justly pronounce the Platform an invasion of hisrights; for it has never even been proposed by _its friends_ to anySynod other than those at the request of whose members it was prepared;and should it, at any time hereafter, be presented, it will possess noauthority unless conferred on it by Synodical action, in which eachminister has a right to participate. The war that has been and is stillwaged against the Platform, by old Lutheran Synods, and papers, to whomit was never proposed for adoption, is wholly offensive; and whilst wedo not deny the right of any Synod to take it up by way of counsel, theintolerant and aggressive principles avowed by Old School papers, is adirect assault on the rights of American or New School Lutherans, whichcannot in the end fail to unite them in measures of self-defence. _Secondly_, the Plea is mistaken, in supposing that the friends of thePlatform profess to be the true representatives of the Lutheran Churchin the _symbolic_ sense of the term: for have they not reiterated, in ascore of publications, for five and twenty years past, that they do nothold all the views of the former symbols; and does not the Platformitself explicitly disclaim any such idea, by publicly protestingagainst the errors of those books? _Thirdly_, the idea of our "unchurching others, " is openly disclaimedby the Platform, as was proved above. Again, says the Plea: "Those who undertake to change the doctrinalbasis of a church, take upon themselves an awful responsibility, " p. 7. True; but there is an equally awful responsibility resting on thosewho, favored by Providence with the increased light of three centuries, continue to avow in their creed, and thus lead multitudes to embracethe superstitious and truly dangerous errors, which remain in thesedocuments issued in the earlier and immature stages of the Reformation, and some of them under circumstances unpropitious to a free expressionof views of Scripture doctrine. If these errors constituted the essenceof Lutheranism, we ought to forsake the church; but as they do not, weare under sacred obligation to expunge them from our creed, so that wemay not aid in their perpetuation. "From this renewed church (of the Reformation) as from a new heart, ofmankind, new and fresh and vigorous blood flows in an uninterruptedstream through mighty arteries, into the whole world. " p. 7. Or rather, we would say, this fresh and vigorous blood flows not from the church, much less from the errors which she retained in her symbols, but fromthat amount, of _God's truth_, which constitutes the great mass of herconfession. The separation of these errors, instead of impairing theefficiency of the church, will greatly multiply her energies, and pavethe way for new and enlarged conquests over the world. "Let any one examine the theological mastership, which this learnedand honored disciple of Christ (Melancthon) exhibited in his Apologyfor the Augsburg Confession--and he will be convinced of the folly ofthose, who presume to think, that he, or his mighty coadjutor, (Luther, ) might be materially benefited by the dogmatical and exegeticalinstructions of the theological professors and authors of the presenttimes. " p. 7. 8. This all sounds well enough in the abstract, and weourselves have frequently and with equal sincerity, praised these greatreformers. But after all, they were fallible men. This same Melancthon, in this same Apology for the Augsburg Confession, regards PrivateConfession and Absolutism [sic] as the third _sacrament_. Atthe Diet of Augsburg, he was willing to yield to Romish bishops thedangerous powers which they formerly had exercised over the churches, and when he saw danger thicken around him, he positively wrote toLuther, inquiring whether they might not, yield to the papists in thematter of _private and closet masses_, as will be seen in the sequel!Besides, these modern "professors, authors, " and, we will add, pastors, do not propose to improve the Confession by any light of their own; butby the progressive light, which the Providence of God has vouchsafed tothe prayers, the philological and exegetical studies of three centuries. This light we receive with gratitude to God, and cannot for a momentdoubt, that if these noble servants of Christ were now living, theywould be amongst its most grateful recipients. They both continuedthrough life to study the word of God, and to profess their improvedviews without the least hesitation. So far was Melancthon himself fromregarding any of his works perfect, that he continued deliberately tomake improvements, even in this same Augsburg Confession, after thestorms of papal persecution had subsided, till the end of his life. Andwe might easily fill pages with the declarations of Luther, avowing hissense of the imperfections of his publications, and of the work ofReformation in his day. "We believe, " says the Plea, "that they (Luther and Melancthon) are nomore than guides to the fountain of truth, to the gospel; and wheneverwe find that they lead us off from the Word of God, we are bound not tohesitate in our decided deviation from their views. " p. 8. This isprecisely the noble, enlightened, and christian stand point of theAmerican Lutheran Church. In principle, the respected author of thePlea, does not differ from us. It is only in its application toparticular cases, that we may occasionally not coincide. "The state of theology and religion of an age, does not at all dependupon the progress of general science and social life. " p. 10. From thissentiment and the train of observation in reference to it on the samepage, we do not dissent. But no American Lutheran appeals to _this_spirit of the age, exhibited in the progress of the physical sciences, as proofs of any advance in theology. The sciences to which we refer asmedia of increasing life, are those on which the proper interpretationof the sacred volume depends, philology, archaeology, hermeneutics, &e. , and certainly our brother cannot dissent from this position, he will notmaintain, that no progress has been made, in the knowledge of theoriginal languages of Scripture by continued studies of scores of theablest philologians the world has ever seen, especially during the lasthalf century. He will not deny, that the exploring labors of travellers[sic] to the lands of holy writ, the increased study of the manners andcustoms and institutions of the nations inhabiting them, haveillustrated some portions of the sacred volume. Nor will he affirm theutter fruitlessness of all the prayerful efforts of men of God, duringthe last three centuries, to understand the general principles oflanguge, [sic] the different significations of words, (the literal, thetropical, the typical, the allegorical, &c. , ) and the proper rules forthe interpretation of the Sacred Record. He is too well acquainted withthe literary fame of Germany and the writings of that galaxy oftheological luminaries, that has reflected so much glory on the land ofthe Reformation, not to admit that many parts of the Sacred Record arebetter understood at present, than they were three centuries ago. Butthe principal difficulty which prevented the full and clear appreciationof divine truth in the earlier Reformers, was the fact that _they wereeducated till adult age, [Note 3] in all the superstitious rites andceremonies of the Romish Church_, and we all know that it is impossibleentirely to emancipate ourselves from the prejudices of early education. Under these circumstances the marvel is, not that they retained a fewpapal views and practices, but that they accomplished as much as theydid, in unlearning the errors of their early education. "If all Christianity were to take its first start to-day;-to-morrowalready interpretations and confessions would spring up like mushroomsin a hot-bed. " p. 11. This idea is expressed rather too strongly forthe claims of history; as it is certain that during the golden era ofChristianity, the first three centuries, no other creeds were employedby the churches generally, than the so-called Apostles' and the NiceneCreeds. It is chiefly since the period of the Reformation, that thechurch of the Redeemer has been cut up into so many denominations, professing different and some of them very extended creeds. "Every denomination has an individual life, and the law ofself-preservation ought, to teach her, that she is throwing herselfaway, if she, is not determined to stand by her banners and to defendher position. " p. 11. Whatever definition we may adopt of theindefinite and cloudy term "_life_" in this passage, our reply is, thelife of every Christian church ought to be the _life of the Gospel_, and the life of the church as established and conducted by the inspiredapostles. Every thing in the life of any church inconsistent with this, must be wrong. It is true, since the formation of the differentProtestant denominations, each one of them has a different creed, andis characterized by some peculiarities of government or worship, and ifthese peculiarities are intended by the "peculiar life" of adenomination, we judge it would be equally wrong for the members of anychurch, to lay it down as a rule in every case to defend them. It wouldbear some resemblance to the corrupt, political motto, so justlydenounced by all good men: _Our Country right or wrong_. Had Lutheradopted this rule, it would have required him to defend all the errorsof Rome, which had been fully sanctioned by that church. But hisjudgment taught him differently, and he gradually rejected every one ofthose elements of the peculiar _life_ of Romanism, which he foundhostile to the life of the [sic] God's word. But if it be replied, that by "peculiar life" is intended those peculiarities of ourchurch, which are accordant with the Gospel; we fully assent to theposition. This is precisely the principle, on which we endeavor to act. _We defend and retain every peculiarity of the church of our fathers, which we find taught in the word of God, or consistent with its spirit_;whilst we deem it a privilege and duty to labor at the improvement ofour church and her ecclesiastical framework or platform, by removingfrom it every thing which, after a life of prayerful study, we arepersuaded is offensive to God, because opposed to His word. Even theForm of Concord affirms the principle for which we here contend, byrepresenting creeds as exhibitions of the sense in which _Christians ofa particular age_ understood the Bible; and never, until the duty of thechurch in every age to conform her standards to the word of God, isconceded; can she as a whole become more united, more pure andscriptural, and the kingdom of Christ be extended throughout the earth. The Plea objects to what it styles "the officious manner in which somepersons raise alarm throughout the church, promulgate their intentionto change the Augsburg Confession, and act in such a manner as if theirviews in regard to the so-called errors of the Augsburg Confession wereabsolutely above all possibility of error. " p. 13. This objection isprobably based on a want of acquaintance with the history of our churchin this country, if it is designed to refer particularly to theDefinite Platform; which would be excuseable in our brother, as hisresidence amongst us is comparatively of recent date. But the truth is, that the rejection of the custom of requiring assent to the AugsburgConfession by the fathers in the Pennsylvania Synod _fifty years ago_, is proof enough of their dissatisfaction with that document. Nor didthey hesitate distinctly to declare their dissent from some of itstenets. This was done not only privately, but also in their occasionalpublications. As to private confession and absolution, _they neveradopted that practice in this country;_ but from the beginningemployed a _public_ and _general_ confession, preparatory to the Lord'sSupper, as our church in Sweden and Denmark did in the days of theReformation. As to the _ceremonies_ of the public mass, they wererejected by our church universally, some years after the diet ofAugsburg, as private and closet masses had been before. The GeneralSynod, at the adoption of her constitution in 1820, freely expressedher dissatisfaction in the public discussions, with some parts of theAugsburg Confession, and inserted a clause in her constitution, giving_power both to the General Synod and to each District Synod to form anew Confession of Faith_, for their own use. _Dr. Lochman_, one of themost active, pious, and respected divines of our church, in hisCatechism, published in 1822, states it as one of "_the leadingprinciples_ of our church, [sic on quotation marks] "thatthe Holy Scriptures and _not human authority_, are the only sourcewhence we are to draw our religious sentiments, whether they relate tofaith or practice. " "That Christians are accountable to God alone fortheir religious principles, " and says not a word about adherence to theAugsburg Confession, as one of the principles of our church. He also published an edition of the Augsburg Confession, in his work, entitled Doctrine and Discipline of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, inwhich _he made more omissions than are found in the AmericanRecension;_ and yet no one found fault with him for doing so. That thereader may judge of the extent of these omissions, we specify them: In Art. I. He omitted the definition of _person_, in the Trinity. Art. II. Omits the condemnatory clause. Art. III. Omits the epithet _pure_, in reference to the Virgin Mary, and the reference to the so called "Apostles' Creed. " Art. IV. Omits the closing sentence, that God will regard this faith asrighteousness. Art. V. Omits the condemnatory clause, and part of another sentence. Art. VI. Omits the word "_true_" in reference to the unity of thechurch. Art. VIII. Omits the condemnatory clause concerning the _Donatists_. Art. IX. Omits the name _Anabaptists_. Art. X. Omits the condemnatory clause. Art. XII. Omits "absolution" and part of the condemnatory clause. Art. XVII. Omits the condemnatory clause. Art. XVIII. Omits the name of Augustine's work, Hypognosticon, andabout _ten lines at the close_. Art. XIX. Omits the _last sentence_. Art. XX. Omits different portions of this long article, amounting toone-half of the whole. Art. XXI. Omits all that is said on war, and the Turks, &c. , and theentire concluding paragraph, amounting to half a page 12mo. Yet this work was circulated throughout the church, and we never hearda single word of objection, although the notes appended to it are farfrom being symbolic. Rev. J. A. Probst, in his work on the Reunion of the Lutheran andReformed Churches, published in 1826, speaking of this country, andespecially the Synod of Pennsylvania, of which he was a member, says, "Zwingle's more liberal, rational, and scriptural view of this doctrine, (election) as well as of the _Lord's Supper, has become the prevailingone among the Lutheran and Reformed_, " p. 74. The same fact, therejection of some of the articles of the Augsburg Confession, is taughtin some publications in 1827, by _Dr. Endress_, one of our mostrespected and learned ministers; and is confirmed by the language of theresolution passed by the Synod of Pennsylvania in 1823, on the subjectof union between the Lutheran and Reformed churches in this country, between which bodies they affirm a _unity of doctrinal views_. Thisdissent, was publicly avowed by Dr. _F. C. Schaeffer_, of New York, who, in his edition of Luther's Catechism, published in 1820, omitted theword "_real_ or _true_" in reference to the Saviour's body in theeucharist, (p. 21, ) and in his Address at the Laying of the Corner-stoneof St. Matthew's Church, thus expresses himself. "We rejoice withthanksgiving before the Lord, because he has given us _our greatsymbolical book, the bible_. This is preferable to all the "books" and"_confessions" of men_. According to a fundamental principle of theLutherans, we depend not merely on the irrigating streamlets thatoriginate in the fountain to which we have access, but we rather drinkfrom that fountain itself. The study and proper interpretation of thesacred writings, accompanied by the use of all outward helps whichGod's providence has furnished, and aided by fervent prayer in theacceptable name of Jesus Christ the Mediator, is mainly inculcated inthe Evangelical Lutheran Church. " p. 10. This same dissent from the symbols, was also publicly avowed by _Dr. Hazelius_, who in his Annotations on the Augsburg Confession, published in 1841, says, "The opinions now entertained in the Lutheranchurch, as to the nature of the sacrament of the _Lord's Supper_, differ in no material point from those entertained by the otherprotestant churches on the subject. " p. 21. This dissent innon-fundamentals from the Augsburg Confession, is also avowed by _Dr. Bachman_, in his Discourse on the Doctrines and Discipline of theLutheran Church, published in 1837, and sanctioned by his Synod: alsoby _Dr. Lintner_, in his preface to the Augsburg Confession, in 1837, pp. 3, 4; by _Dr. Krauth_, in his Sketch of the Evangelical LutheranChurch in the United Slates, for Buck's Theological Dictionary, in1830; in which he says the doctrines of the Evangelical Lutheran Churchare _substantially_ those of the Augsburg Confession, " [sic onquotation mark!] implying dissent from that creed in somenon-essentials; and recently his own dissent in an article in theLutheran Observer, and the Evangelical Review of July, 1850. _Dr. G. B. Miller_ published his dissent from the Confession on some of itsrepresentations of baptism, (baptismal regeneration, as he contends, )and the _real presence_ in the Eucharist, in his Sermon before theMinisterium of New York, in 1831. The same dissent was freely expressed by _Dr. Baugher_, in his Reporton the "Doctrines and Usages of the Synod of Maryland, " in which hethus describes his position and that of this Synod: "ON REGENERATION. --We believe that the Scriptures teach thatregeneration is the act of God, the Holy Ghost, by which, through thetruth, the sinner is persuaded to abandon his sins and submit to God, on the terms made known in the gospel. This change, we are taught, isradical and is essential to present peace and eternal happiness. Consequently, it is possible, and is the privilege of the regeneratedperson to know and rejoice in the change produced in him. " "OF THE SACRAMENTS. --We believe that the Scriptures teach, that thereare but two sacraments, viz. : Baptism and the Lord's Supper, in eachof which, truths essential to salvation are symbolically represented. We do not believe that they exert any influence '_ex opere operato_, 'but only through the faith of the believer. _Neither do the Scriptureswarrant the belief, that Christ is present in the Lord's Supper in anyother than a spiritual manner_. " "OF THE SYMBOLICAL BOOKS. --Luther's Larger and Smaller Catechisms, theFormula Concordiae, Augsburg Confession, Apology, and SmalkaldArticles are called in Germany the Symbolical Books of the church. Weregard them as good and useful exhibitions of truth, but do not receivethem as binding on the conscience, except so far as they agree with theWord of God. " To this catalogue we might add the names of many others, who haveavowed the same position of dissent from this venerable symbol, longbefore the Definite Platform was thought of. No one in former timespresumed to deny the right of our ministers and synods expressing thisdissent, and proposing to form a new creed, if they deem it requisite. To call the dissenting position of the _Definite Platform_ a new one, is therefore a historical error; and to attempt to cast odium on it bythe charge of officiousness, is also an act of injustice. The samecharge would equally lie against the greater part of our bestministers during the last half century, _and against the founders ofthe General Synod themselves_. With this occasional disclaimer of these errors, American Lutheranshave hitherto been satisfied, nor would the question of officiallyadopting a new creed have been raised at this time, had not theUltra-Lutherans of our land, of late become animated by a new zeal todisseminate their symbolic errors, and to denounce as not Lutherans, all who do not receive them. When the adoption of a new creed was thusforced upon them, a number of the brethren advocated the formation ofone entirely new; but others believing it best to retain the venerablemother symbol of Protestantism, as far as we could regard herteachings as Scriptural, proposed the omission of the few disputedpoints, and the adoption of the residue unaltered, thus retainingnearly the whole of the doctrinal articles. The suggestion wasadopted, as being more respectful to the venerable symbol of ourchurch, we were urged to prepare the work for the consideration ofsome of the Western Synods; and thus the American Recension of theAugsburg Confession originated from respect for that creed, ratherthan the want of it. The talk about sacrilege, &c. , would sound morenatural among Romanists than Protestants; and the idea of deceptionis utterly unfounded, because the very name adopted, "AmericanRecension, " is a constant notification to the reader of some change. Neither one or the other charge was ever made against the MethodistEpiscopal Church, for making four times as many changes in theThirty-nine Articles. As to respect for the Confession, we see butlittle difference between several methods proposed amongst AmericanLutherans; to adopt the Confession as to the fundamentals of Scripturedoctrine, leaving all free to reject the non-fundamentals; or topublish the symbol, with a list appended of some of its articles, which may be rejected; or to omit those same articles, leaving themfree, and adopting all the residue unconditionally. On neither ofthese three plans does the _matter_ of the Confession remain intact, even if the letter does; for in _all_, certain parts of it divestedof binding authority, and left to the judgment of each individual. The American Recension is nothing more than a revised edition of theConfession, in which those parts are omitted that had already beendivested of binding authority, and thus been superseded by subsequentecclesiastical legislation. And is it not creditable to any church, when she finds some tenets ofher creed in conflict with the Scriptures, and calculated to circulateerror, to reform and improve it? We should suppose that everyenlightened and reflecting theologian, and still more every intelligentlayman, would concur in the sentiments of that devoted friend anddefender of the Lutheran Church, _Dr. Koecher_, of Jena, in 1759, who, discussing the charge that our church had changed her doctrines, says, "It avails nothing merely to charge a church with having made changesin her Creed; we must direct our attention to the subject or doctrineitself, and inquire whether it is true or false. Because, _not everyalteration in matters of faith is inadmissible and censurable_. Suppose a church to perceive that a doctrinal error has crept into hercreed, and to correct it by the exclusion of the error; does she notmerit our approbation, much rather that our censure or abuse? Supposethat the Lutherans did formerly believe in transubstantiation (as hasbeen charged, ) but in the course of time rejected this doctrine, because they found it militate against divine truth; suppose theearlier Lutheran divines did approve of the doctrine of unconditionalelection, and limited grace of God, whilst our later theologians hadrenounced them, because they are in conflict with the teachings ofGod's word:--we say, suppose this had been the case, though it was not;their procedure would not be improper, and their doctrinal changewould merit our approbation and praise, rather than censure. " How muchmore christian and manly are these views, than the position which, though not avowed, is acted on by many, that the members of a churchshould never attempt to improve her symbols; but, as a matter ofcourse, defend any doctrine taught by them, because it is thereinculcated. What is this else than practically to elevate Luther, Melancthon, Zwingli, Calvin, or Wesley, above Christ? What is it else, than prefering [sic] to be Lutherans rather than Christians, if we arenot ever ready to renounce anything Lutheran, if found not to beChristian? How can the church of Christ continue to develope [sic]herself in accordance with the divine purposes and plan, unless everypart of the church is kept in constant contact with the Bible, and isever willing to improve and conform its entire framework to theincreased light of God's word and Providence? It was Luther's deepsense of obligation to the Bible, as paramount to all human authority, which enabled him and his Spartan band of coadjutors, under God, toreform the church of Germany from so many Romish errors, and nothingshort of the same noble principle can conduct the church safely in herhigh and holy mission of converting the world. Whilst, therefore, welove Luther much, let us, my brethren, ever love Christ more. Andwhilst we respect the soul-stirring productions of the illustriousreformers, let that respect never induce us to sanction any errorscontained in them, or bias our minds against the free and fullreception of the revelations of God's holy Word! Note 1. Colton's Genius of the Protestant Episcopal Church in theUnited States, &c. , p. 151. Note 2. Vol. Ii. , p. 498. Note 3. Luther was a faithful papist until he was upwards of _thirtyyears_ did, when he began to protest against the errors of Rome. CHAPTER III. DISADVANTAGES UNDER WHICH THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION WAS PREPARED. In forming an idea of the estimate which should be placed on theAugsburg Confession, as an expression of the results attained by thebiblical studies of Luther, Melancthon and their associates, at thedate of the diet in 1530; much depends on the question, whether thecircumstances under which it was prepared, and the design for which itwas intended, were favorable to a free and full exhibition of theirviews. The affirmative of this question has often been declared in thiscountry; but the contrary is incontestably established by authentichistory, as well as by the declarations of the Reformers themselves. The diet, it will be remembered, was appointed by the Emperor ofGermany, Charles V. , for the purpose of settling the controversiesbetween the Pope and the Protestant princes of his empire, as well asfor other political purposes. The place selected was the City of_Augsburg_, in Bavaria, about two hundred English miles fromWittenberg, and about ninety miles from Coburg, where Luther was leftby the Elector during the diet. [Note 1] The Pope had long been urgingthe emperor to adopt violent measures for the suppression of theProtestants. He fondly anticipated that a deathblow would now be givento the Protestant cause, and with which party the emperor would sidewas not fully known, although, being a Romanist, little favor could beexpected by the Confessors. The Confession was composed by Melancthonout of the Torgau Articles, at Augsburg, where he and the Elector John, with his retinue, arrived on the 2d of May. On the 10th of May, it wassent to Luther, at Coburg, for his revision, and he returned it withhis approbation on the 16th, remarking, "I have read Philip's Apology(the Confession, ) and am very well (_fast_ wohl, an obsolete meaning ofthe term "fast, ") pleased with it. I know nothing to improve or alterat it; nor would it be suitable, as I cannot tread so softly andlightly. " [Note 2] As the emperor did not arrive until about a monthlater, Melancthon continued to make various alterations, to render theConfession more acceptable to the Romanists; for the fears of theProtestants were greatly excited, as will appear by the followingextracts from Melancthon's own letters, penned at this eventful period. In a letter to _Luther_, dated Augsburg, June 15th, Melancthon says, "On the day before Corpus Christi festival, at 8 o'clock, P. M. , theemperor arrived at Augsburg. From the imperial court, it appears, wehave nothing to expect; for the sole object which _Campegius_ seeks toaccomplish, is that we should be suppressed _by force_. Nor is thereany one in the emperor's entire court, who is milder than he himself. "[Note 3] This was indeed a gloomy prospect, for they were entirely atthe mercy of their emperor. He could reenact the scenes of the previouscentury, and send them, like Huss and Jerome, to the dungeon and thestake. On the 26th of June, the day after the public presentation of theConfession, he again addresses _Luther:_ "We live here in the _mostlamentable anxiety and incessant tears_. To this a new source ofconsternation has been added today, after we had read the letter of_Vitus_ (Dietrich, Luther's friend, ) in which he states that you are somuch offended at us, that you are unwilling even to read our letters. My father, I will not increase my sufferings by words, but I merely begyou to consider, where and _in what danger we are_, where we can havenothing to tranquilize us except your consolations. Streams of sophistsand monks collect here daily, to inflame the hatred of the emperoragainst us. But the friends, if we could formerly number them amongstour (party, ) are no longer with us. Alone and despised, we are here_contending against endless dangers_. Our Vindication (the Confession)has been presented to the emperor, and I herewith send it to you forperusal. (If it had not been altered after Luther had seen and approvedit, it would have been superfluous to send him another copy. ) In myjudgment, it is strong enough; for you will here perceive the monksdepicted sufficiently. Now, it appears to me, that before our enemiesreply, we must determine, _what we will yield to them_ in reference tothe 'eucharist in both kinds, ' what touching matrimony (_celibacy_ ofpriests, ) and what in regard to 'CLOSET MASSES. ' In [sic] appearsthey are determined in no case to yield the last two. " [Note 4] In a letter to _Camerarius_, [Note 5] he thus describes his condition:"My spirit is _filled with lamentable anxiety_, not for the sake of ourcause, but on account of the indifference of our associates. Be notconcerned about me, for I commit myself to God. But _somethingremarkable disturbs us_, which I can only tell you personally. " [Note 6] To _Luther_, he writers [sic] on the 27th of June, "I cannotdescribe how deeply I was distressed, on reading in the letter of_Vitus_, (or Dietrich, a favorite of Luther, who remained with him atCoburg, as his associate, ) that you are irreconciliably [sic] offended, because I do not write with sufficient frequency. " "The condition of ouraffairs here is still such, that we spend the _greater part of our timein tears_. We have written very often, as we can prove. " From this andother passages in Melancthon's letters, as well as from his complaints, that he could not induce [Note 7] the _Protestant princes_ to sendmessengers regularly to Luther, Niemeyer regards it as evident, thatLuther's displeasure arose in part from the fact, that the princes feltdisposed, at this important juncture, to act without either hisknowledge, counsel, or co-operation, probably under the impression, that, they could more easily effect a reconciliation, if the intrepid, firm and hated Luther were kept out of view. But to proceed with Melancthon's letter. "Our Confession (he says, ) hasbeen presented to the emperor, and I have sent you a copy. I entreatedyou (in my former letter) to inform me, how far we might _yield to ouropponents_, if it is practicable. It is true, as you know, we havealready consulted on these subjects; but they are always adjusted in adifferent manner on the field of battle (sie geben sich im Schlachtfeldallezeit anders, ) from what they are when previously made the subjectsof discussion. I presume the greatest conflict will occur in regard to_private masses_. But as yet I have no certain information. " [Note 8] In another letter to Luther, dated Aug. 6, he says: "The Landgraveproceeds with great moderation, and has openly told me, that in orderto preserve peace, _he would submit to still more severe conditions_, provided they could be accepted without bringing reproach on thegospel. " During the pendency of these negotiations, Melancthon made repeatedefforts by letter to conciliate influential individuals of the papalparty. Among these is his letter to _Cardinal Campegius, the apostoliclegate, of July 6th, which reflects no little light on the state of hismind. This intense anxiety to gain the imperial favor for theProtestant cause, could not fail strongly to tempt him to make theConfession as palatable as possible to the Romanists, by yieldingnearly everything that he did not regard as essential. Hear the letter: "_Most Reverend Sir:_--As many good men applaud the very greatmoderation exhibited by your Eminence, amid your honors and elevation, I am induced to cherish the hope, that your Eminence will receive myletter with favor. Verily it was a true saying which Plato uttered, that nothing more desirable, or better, or more divine, can happen tomen, than when wisdom is associated with power in government. Hence, when the intelligence arrived, that your Eminence was sent to this Diet, as judge in the pending religious controversy, many good mencongratulated Germany, that the investigation of these most importantaffairs was confided to a man, who transcended others not merely by hishigh (official) dignity, but also much more by his wisdom; for evenheretofore the fame of your Eminence's wisdom him resounded through allGermany. Now, as I believed, that with this wisdom your Eminence wouldgreatly abhor violent measures, I was thereby induced to write to yourEminence, that it might be made known to you, that we also long onlyfor peace and concord, and reject no condition for the restoration ofpeace. " "We have _no doctrine different from that of the Romish Church_, (wirhaben keinen von der Roemischen Kirche verschiedenen Lehrsatz, ) yea, wehave restrained many who wished to disseminate pernicious doctrines, asmay be proved by public testimonies. [Note 9] _We are prepared to obeythe Romish Church, if, with that mildness which she has alwaysmanifested toward all men, she will only overlook and yield, somelittle_, (einiges Wenige, ) _which we could not now alter if we would_. "[Note 10] Let not your Eminence believe our enemies, who wickedlypervert our writings, and falsely impute to us anything which caninflame the general hatred against us. We reverently _pledge obedience[Note 11] to the authority of the Roman Pontif_, [sic] and to the entireorganization of the (Verfassung) of the [sic on repetition]church, only let not the Pope of Rome reject us. Many feel assured, that if your Eminence were better acquainted with our cause and views, you would not approve of these violent counsels. For no other reason dowe incur greater hostility in Germany, than because we defend thedoctrines of the Romish [Note 12] Church with the utmost steadfastness. This fidelity, if the Lord will, we will show to the Romish Church_until our last breath_. There is indeed some _small_ difference inusages, which seems to be unfavorable to union. But the ecclesiasticallaws themselves declare, that the unity of the church may continue evenamid such diversity of customs. " [Note 13] Is it possible that any impartial man, after reading this letter cansuppose the circumstances of this diet to have been favorable to a freeand full expression of the points of dissent, between the Protestantsand Papists, even at that day? During the entire six weeks thatMelancthon was at Augsburg, before the arrival of the Emperor, his mindwas in this agitated and alarmed condition. According to his ownaccount he continued daily to make changes in the Confession, _after_it had been submitted to Luther. No wonder, therefore, that Luther, responding to Melancthon's inquiry, "what more they could yield to theRomanists, " makes this rather dissatisfied reply, under date June 29:"_Your Apology_ (the Augsburg Confession, as altered by Melancthon. After Luther had sanctioned it on the 15th of May, and it had beenpresented to tho diet on the 25th of June, ) _I have received, andwonder what you mean, when you desire to know, what and how much, maybe yielded to the papists. As far as I am concerned, TOO MUCH HASALREADY BEEN YIELDED TO THEM IN THE APOLOGY (Confession). " [Note 14]Here it in evident that the various changes, made by Melancthon betweenthe 15th of May and 25th of June, led Luther to affirm what AmericanLutherans now maintain, that _he had yielded too much to the papists inthe Augsburg Confession_. "I daily altered and recast the greater partof it, (says Melancthon himself, ) and would [Note 15] have altered stillmore if our counsellors [sic] had allowed it. " And so much greater washis dissatisfaction at the still more important concessions, [Note 16]which Melancthon and his associates were willing to make, in theirnegotiations after the Confession had been delivered, that, in a letterof Sept. 20, to _Justus Jonas_, one of the principal Protestanttheologians at the Diet, he gives vent to his feelings in the followingremarkable language: "I almost burst with anger and displeasure, (Ichboerste schier fuer Zorn und Widerwillen, ) and I beg you only to cutshort the matter, cease to negotiate with them (the Papists, ) anylonger, and come home. They have the Confession. They have the gospel. If they are willing to yield to it, then it is well. If they areunwilling, they may go. If war comes out of it, let it come. We haveentreated and done enough. The Lord has prepared them as victims for theslaughter, that he may reward them according to their works. But us, hispeople, he will deliver, even if we were sitting in the fiery furnace atBabylon. " [Note 17] Thus have we heard abundant evidence from the lipsof Melancthon and Luther themselves, that the circumstances under whichthe Augsburg Confession was composed, in eight days, before itssubmission for Luther's sanction, and the increasing pressure underwhich Melancthon afterwards made numerous changes in it, during fiveweeks before its presentation to the Diet, were far from being favorableto a full and free exhibition of the deliberate views of the Reformerseven at that date, and fully account for some of the remnants ofRomanism still found in that confession, whose import we are now toexamine. The declaration of that elaborate historian _Arnold_, istherefore only too true; "_Melancthon had prepared the Confession amidgreat fear and trembling, and in many things accommodated himself tothe Papists_. " (Nun hatte dieselbe Melancthon zuvor in grossen Zitternund Angsten aufgesetzet, und sich in vielen nach den Papistenbequemet. " [Note 18] Of similar import is the judgment of _Dr. Hazelius. " [sic onquotation mark] [Note 19] In reference to the article of Baptism, sayshe, we have first to remind the reader of the sentiments expressed bythe Confessors, in the preface to this (the Augsburg) Confession, declaring there, and in various passages of their other writings, that_it was their object_, not only to couch the sentiments and doctrinesthey professed, in language the least offensive to their opponents, but also to GIVE WAY AS FAR AS CONSCIENCE WOULD PERMIT. This beingpremised, we shall endeavor to discover the meaning of the Reformers inregard to the article of baptism from some of those portions of theirwritings, where they had not cause to be so circumspect and careful ofnot giving offence to the Roman party, as they had in the delivery ofthe Augsburg Confession. " Nor is it at all surprising, that, as Luther's views of the evils of themass were so much clearer even at this period, he should, after sevenyears more time for study, and in times of peace and security, expresshis abhorrence of this Romish error in such strong terms as we meet inthe Smalcald Articles. Indeed, it was this undecided character of theAugsburg Confession on some points, which led the Elector, who, in otherrespects valued it highly, to have this new Confession prepared byLuther for the Council, which Pope Paul III. [sic] hadconvoked, to meet at Mantua, in 1537, for the purpose of settling thesereligious disputes. Because, says Koellner, "the Augsburg Confessionhad been prepared with the view to give the _least possible offence tothe opponents_. But now, the Evangelical party, being stronger, were notonly able to avow the points of difference more openly; but they werealso determined to do so; and for such negotiations a different form(from that of the Augsburg Confession) was of course requisite. Finally, the transactions at Augsburg, during the reciprocal efforts atreconciliation, and especially through the great mildness and yieldingdisposition of Melancthon, had in regard to many doctrines, obliteratedthe clear and real point of difference, so that in many of them the_opponents affirmed, there was no longer any difference at all_. "Koellner's Symbolik, Vol. I. , p. 441. Note 1. The reason why he was left, was because the civil authoritiesof Augsburg excepted him in the safe passport, which they sent to theElector, under date of April 30. See Koellner, Vol. I. , p. 172. Note 2. "Ich habe M. Philipsen's Apologie ueberlesen, die gefaellt mirfast wohl, und weisz nichts daran zu bessern, noch zu aendern, wuerdesich auch nicht schicken: denn ich so sanft und leise nicht tretenkann. " Note 3. We mention here once for that all our extracts fromMelancthon's Letters are translated from _C. Niemeyer's_ work, entitled_Philip Melancthon_ im Jahre der Augsburgischen Confession, Halle, 1830. Note 4. Niemeyer, pp. 26, 27. Note 5. At that time Professor of Greek and Latin Literature in theGymnasium of Nurenberg. Note 6. Niemeyer, p. 28. Note 7. Niemeyer, p. 78. "Ich kann es bei Hofe nicht erlangen, dasz vonheir [sic] ein bestimmter Bote an Luther geschickt wird. " Note 8. Page 30. Note 9. Dogma nullum habemus diversum a Romana Ecclesia. Note 10. Here Niemeyer also gives the Latin: "Parati sumus, obedireecclesiae Romanae, modo ut illa pro sua dementia, qua semper ergo omneshomines usa est, pauca quaedam vel dissimulet, vel relaxet, quae jam nequidem, si velimus, mutare queamus. Note 11. Ad haec Romani Pontificis auctoritatem et universam politiamecclesiasticam, reverenter colimus, modo non abjiciat nos RomanusPontifex. Note 12. Here, says Niemeyer, Melancthon probably means the Romishchurch as she ought to be, and not as she was. Note 13. Page 32. Note 14. Eure Apologia habe ich empfangen, und nimmt mich wunder wasihr meynet, dasz ihr begehrt zu wissen, was und wie viel man denpaepstlichen soll nachgeben. _Fuer meine person ist ihnen allzuvielnachgegeben in der Apologia (Confession)_. Luther's Werke, B. XX. , p. 185, Leipsic Edit. Note 15. See his letter to Camerarius, dated June 26, 1530. "Ichveraenderte und gosz das meiste taeglich um, und wuerde noch mehreresgeaedert [sic] haben, wenn es unsere Raethe erlaubthatten. " Niemeyer, p. 28. Note 16. Melancthon had agreed to the restoration of the power of thebishops, and evidently, as seen by his letter to Luther, of June 26, if Luther had not objected, he would have made some retractions on thecelibacy of the clergy, the communion in both kinds and even theprivate and closet masses. The Protestants did admit that the saintspray for us in heaven, and that commemorative festivals might be keptto pray God to accept the intercession of these saints; but by nomeans that our prayers should be addressed to the saints themselves. Niemeyer, p. 87. Note 17. Luther's Works, Vol. XX, p. 196. Note 18. Gottfried Arnold's Unpartheische Kirchen und Ketzer Historien, Vol. I. , p. 809, edit. 2d of 1740. Note 19. Doctrine and Discipline of the Synod of South Carolina, pp. 18, 19, published in 1841. CHAPTER IV. CUMULATIVE PROOF OF THE TRUTH OF THE SEVERAL POSITIONS OF THE DEFINITESYNODICAL PLATFORM. _The Preamble_. On the subject of the preamble, we will add a few authorities for oneor two of its positions, which we have heard called in question. Onpage 3, we read:-- "Subsequently, Luther and his coadjutors _still further changed_ theirviews on some subjects in that Confession, such as the mass. " The truthof this position is demonstrated even by the extract from the SmalcaldArticles, given on p. 22 of the Platform. In the Augsburg Confession, Melanchon [sic] says (and Luther approved of it): "It, is_unjustly_ charged against our churches, that they have abolished themass. For it is notorious that the _mass is celebrated among us_ withgreater devotion and seriousness than by our opponents. " But sevenyears later, in the Smalcald Articles, Luther employs this verydifferent language, which was sanctioned by his coadjutors: "_The massin the Papal church, must be the greatest and most terribleabomination_, since it is directly and strongly opposed to this chiefarticle (of Justification through faith in Christ, )" &c. Here thecontradiction in words is positive and unqualified. But we mustrecollect that the term mass here, as will be fully proved hereafter, does not signify the Papal mass in full. It is a well-known fact, andthe Confession itself informs us, that the confessors had long beforerejected _private and closet masses_, and also had rejected the idea ofthe public mass being a _sacrifice_, or offering of Christ, for thesins of the living or the dead. But that the word mass cannot beregarded as merely synonymous with Lord's Supper, or communion, in thispassage, as it frequently is elsewhere, is clear from the context. Forwe are told that by proper and diligent instruction "in the design andproper mode of receiving the holy sacrament, " "the people are attractedto the _communion and to the mass_, " (zur communion _und_ mess gezogenwird;) clearly proving that by mass they here meant something else thancommunion, namely, the public mass, divested of its _sacrificial_nature, and of its design to benefit any others than the communicantsthemselves; in short, regarding it, thus modified, as an admissible_preparation_ for the holy communion. This mass, which the Platform, _with great moderation_, styles merely "_Ceremonies_" of the mass, " p. 21, they confessedly did subsequently also abandon, as they had doneprivate and closet masses before. Again, if we may believe Luther himself, they certainly did a afterwardchange their ground in regard to the jurisdiction of the Pope andbishops. Hear his own language in 1533, three years later: "Hitherto wehave always, and especially at the diet of Augsburg, very humblyoffered to the Pope and bishops, that we would not destroy theirecclesiastical right and power, but that we would gladly be consecratedand governed by them, and _aid in maintaining their prerogatives andpower_, if they would not force upon us articles too unchristian. Butwe have been unable to obtain this; on the contrary, they wish to forceus away from the truth, to adopt their lies and abominations, or wishus put to death. If now, (as they are such hardened Pharaohs, ) theirauthority and consecration should fare as their indulgences did, whosefault will it be?" He then proceeds to denounce the power andconsecration which he had admitted at the time of the Augsburg Diet, and declares the church's entire independence of Rome for ordination. [Note 1] Again, the Preamble asserts, "That the entire Lutheran Church ofGermany has rejected the symbolical books _as a whole_, and alsoabandoned some of the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, amongothers the far greater part of them, the doctrine of the _bodily_presence of the Saviour in the eucharist. " The truth of these positions is well known to those acquainted withthe churches in Germany generally. A few extracts from standardauthorities may be pleasing to those not well informed on this subject. Says _Koellner_, in 1837: "The theologians of more recent times have, as a body, departed from the rigid doctrinal system of the symbols, andlet it be particularly noted, not only those who in the opposing partiesare termed rationalists, but also those who, in antithesis to these, desire to be regarded as _champions for the doctrines of the church. _Accordingly, not only those who have been sufficiently denounced asheterodox, have abandoned the doctrines of the symbols, but also theso-called _orthodox_, such as _Doederlein, Morus, Michaelis_, thevenerable _Reinhard, Knapp, Storr, Schott, Schwartz, Augusti, Marheinecke_, as well as _Hahn, Oltshausen, Tholuk_, and _Hengstenberg_. In like manner has the public _pledge to the symbols_ been greatlyrelaxed, and is _nowhere unconditional_; but in fidelity to theprinciples of Protestantism, and guarding it, the obligation is alwaysexpressed with the _explicit reservation_ of the supreme authority ofthe Scriptures, as is evident from an inspection of the pledgesprescribed in the different Protestant countries. " [Note 2] Again: "Itmay as well be confessed and openly avowed, for the good of the church, that, _there are but few theologians who still believe and teach thedoctrines of the symbols_. " [Note 3] Professor _Schultz_, in his work on the Eucharist, [Note 4] in 1831, says: "If, in the most recent times, individuals have here and therearisen in the Lutheran Church itself, as defenders of Luther's viewsof the Lord's Supper, it must not be overlooked, that even they, sensibly feeling the difficulty of their undertaking, resort to allmanner of subtle explanations and arbitrary additions, in order toexplain away the objectionable aspects of this view. " Finally, listen to the testimony of _Dr. Hagenbach_, of Basel, one ofthe most distinguished orthodox divines of Europe: "_How few Lutherans_, in this rationalizing period, firmly _adhere to the doctrine of thebodily presence_ of Christ in the eucharist: and how few Reformedadhered consistently to the doctrine of unconditional election. If, therefore, the one, party relinquished the one, and the other party theother point (or dividing doctrine, ) then the union between them was ofcourse effected in the most natural way possible. " [Note 5] We close our observations on this topic with the impressive counsels ofthe venerable Dr. Knapp: [Note 6] "Speculations concerning the mannerof the presence of the body and blood of Christ, have not the leastinfluence upon the nature and efficacy of the Lord's Supper. What theChristian chiefly needs to know is the object and uses of this rite, and to act accordingly. Vide §145. He must there therefore believe fromthe heart that Christ died for him; that now, in his exalted state, heis still active in providing for his welfare; and that hence it becomeshim to approach the Lord's table with feelings of the deepest reverenceand most grateful love to God and to Christ. Upon this everythingdepends, and this makes the ordinance truly edifying and comforting inits influence. These benefits may be derived from this ordinance by allChristians; and to all who have true faith, or who allow this ordinanceto have its proper effect in awakening attention to the great truthswhich it exhibits, it is a powerful, divinely-appointed means of grace, whatever theory respecting it they may adopt--the Lutheran, the Reformed, or even the Roman Catholic transubstantiation, gross as this error is. " _The American Recension of the Augsburg Confession_. The general principle, on which this Recension was constructed, is topresent the doctrinal articles entire, without the change of a singleword, merely omitting the several sentences generally regarded aserroneous, together with nearly the entire condemnatory clauses, and_adding nothing_ in their stead. All that the Recension contains istherefore the unadulterated Augsburg Confession, slightly abridged. Thefollowing list will show, that _almost the entire Confession is thusretained, _ a single article only being omitted, viz. : that on PrivateConfession and Absolution. ART. I. _Of God:_ retained _entire_. ART. II. _Of Natural Depravity:_ entire, except the omission of thewords, "by baptism and the Holy Spirit. " The condemnatory clause isalso given, except the name " Pelagians and others, &c. " ART. III. _Of the Son of God and his Mediatorial Work:_ retained_entire_. ART. IV. _Of Justification:_ retained _entire_. ART. V. _Of the Ministerial Office:_ retained _entire_. ART. VI. _Concerning New Obedience_ (or a Christian Life:) _entire_. ART. VII. _Of the Church: entire_. ART. VIII. _What the Church is: entire_, except the omission of thelast two sentences. ART. IX. _Concerning Baptism:_ according to the German copy. _entire_. ART. X. _Of the Lord's Supper:_ omits the words "_body_ and _blood_"and "_truly_, " and the phrase "are dispensed_, " &c. ART. XI. _Of Confession:_ omitted, as private confession andabsolution" [sic on punctuation] are confessedly not taughtin Scripture. ART. XII _Of Repentance (after Backsliding:) entire_, except theomission of "the church's granting _absolution_ to those manifestingrepentance, " and that faith is produced also "_by means absolution_. " ART. XIII. _Of the Use of the Sacraments. Entire_. ART. XIV. _Of Church Orders, (or the Ministry. ) entire_. ART. XV. _Of Religious Ceremonies. Entire_. ART. XVI. _Of Political Affairs;_ (excepting the word "imperial. ")_entire_. ART. XVII. _Of Christ's Return to Judgment. Entire_. ART. XVIII. _Of Free Will. Entire_. ART. XIX. _Of the Author of Sin. Entire_. ART. XX. _Of God's Works. Entire_. ART. XXI. _Of the Invocation of the Saints_, (except a reference tothe authority of the Romish church, the canons and the fathers. )_entire_. Note 1. See Luther's Works, Vol. XXI. , p. 34, Leipsic ed. See thissubject ably discussed in several articles in the Evangelical Lutheran, of December, 1835, by Dr. S. Sprecher, President of WittenbergCollege, Ohio. Note 2. Koellner's Symbolik, Vol. I. , p. 121. Note 3. Idem. P. 148. Note 4. P. 344. Note 5. Hagenbach's Church History of the Eighteenth and NineteenthCenturies, Vol. II. , p. 358; also Hahn's Lehrbuch, 1828, p. 578. Note 6. See Knapp's Theology, translated by L. Woods, Jr. , page 513, 1(Glauben's Lehre, &c. , 1827, ) or German copy, Vol. II. , p. 505. CHAPTER V. SYNODICAL DISCLAIMER, _or List of Symbolic Errors rejected by the great body of the churchesbelonging to the General Synod_. Having now arrived at the second part of the Definite SynodicalPlatform, namely, that part which is not to be subscribed to by themembers of Synod; but which is published as the view of the majority, from which individuals are allowed to dissent; we shall pursue thefollowing order in regard to each topic: 1. We shall recapitulate, briefly, what the Platform does assert. 2. State the objections made to these positions by the plea of Rev. Mr. Mann. 3. Examine these objections and vindicate what seems to be the truth. And as the Rev. Mr. Mann confines himself to the alleged errors of theAugsburg Confession, we shall, with little exception, do the same. CEREMONIES OF THE MASS. 1. As to _what the Platform teaches_ on this topic, there ought to beno difficulty; because, _a_. On page 5 of the Platform, we find a definite list of the errorscontained in the Augsburg Confession, viz. : 1. The approval of the _ceremonies_ of the mass. 2. Private Confession and Absolution. 3. Denial of the Divine obligation of the Christian Sabbath. 4. Baptismal Regeneration. 5. The real presence of the body and blood of the Saviour in theEucharist. Here it is evident that the charge is, that the Confession advocatesthe _ceremonies_ of the mass, but _not the mass itself_, as has beenalleged. _b_. In the same connexion it is stated, "These are the _only_ errorscontained in the Augsburg Confession. " But if these are the only errorscharged, then it follows that the error of inculcating the mass itself, or doctrine of the mass, is at all events _not charged in thePlatform_, if it is in words even contained in the Confession. _c_. The _caption_ in the list of errors on page 21 of the Platform, isnot headed the _Mass_, as is the article of the Confession to which itrefers; but what the Confession calls mass, the Platform, _with greatmoderation_, styles _Ceremonies_ of the mass. _d_. In the list of errors, the profession of which should exclude frommembership in Synods accepting the Platform, we find p. 15, thefollowing: "Whilst we will not admit into our Synod any one whobelieves in Exorcism, Private Confession and Absolution, or the_Ceremonies_ of the Mass. " Here again _Ceremonies_ of the mass arestated, but if the Platform taught that the Mass itself is inculcatedin the Confession, believers in the Mass would, _a fortiori_, have alsobeen mentioned as excluded. What then is the meaning of the sentence on page 22 of the Platform, "In refutation of the _tolerant views of the mass_ above expressed, &c?" Why, of course we should suppose it meant those views of the masswhich the Platform charges against the Confession, as taught in thesepassages, namely, retaining and approving the _ceremonial_ of the mass, which constituted by far the greater part of the public mass, socalled, although its nature had been changed by denying the_sacrificial_ character of the minister's act of self-communion, andits being performed for the benefit of _others_, either living or dead. We think also, some objectionable parts of the ceremonial itself werechanged, although the Confession asserts that the addition of someGerman hymns, along with the Latin, was the only alteration made. Amongthose objectionable parts retained, was _the elevation of the host_, of which Luther thus speaks, in his _Short Confession about theSacrament_ against the Fanatics, in 1544. [Note 1] "It, happened abouttwenty or twenty-two years ago, when I began to condemn the mass(messe, ) and wrote severely against the papists, to show that it (themass) was not a sacrifice, nor a work of ours, but a gift and blessingor testament of God, which we could not offer to God, but ought andmust receive from him. At that time I was disposed to reject _theelevation of the host_, on account of the papists, who regard it, as asacrifice, &c. But as our doctrine was at that time new and exceedinglyoffensive over the whole world, I had to proceed cautiously, and onaccount of the weak, to yield many things, which I, at a later period, would not do. I therefore suffered the elevation of the host, toremain, especially as it admits of a favorable, explanation, as Ishowed in my little work '_De Captivitate Babylonica, &c. _'" Theelevation of the host was still practised in Saxony generally in 1542, [Note 2] twelve years after the Confession was written, approving ofthe ceremonies of the mass, of which this was one. This remnant ofpopery was, however, universally rejected soon after this period, certainly before 1545, and in Wittenberg, in 1542. _Again_, what is the natural import of the phrase on page 21 of thePlatform: "Accordingly the Lutheran church, in Europe and America, hasunanimously repudiated alike the mass and its ceremonies. " The passageitself specifies no time, when either was rejected, and neither saysnor implies that both were rejected at the same time. The word"accordingly" refers to what preceded. The whole reads thus: "Topic I. , _Ceremonies_ of the mass. The error taught on this subject by theAugsburg Confession and Apology to it (namely, the error on theseceremonies of the mass) was rejected by the reformers themselves a fewyears after the Confession was first published. Accordingly, theLutheran Church, both in Europe and America, has unanimouslyrepudiated alike the mass and its ceremonies. " As the AugsburgConfession expressly teaches that private and closet masses had been_previously_ rejected, and the Platform says the _only_ error in theAugsburg Confession on this subject is the _ceremonies_ of the publicmass, its sacrificial and vicarious nature having also been repudiatedlong before, it follows, that the thing here spoken of as the mass andits ceremonies is that remnant of this rite, which, as proved above, had not yet been rejected before 1530, the essential doctrine even ofthe public mass having been rejected long before. Hence, the import ofthis passage is: that whilst the reformers had long before the Diet ofAugsburg rejected the doctrine of the mass, as a sacrifice or avicarious service for the benefit of others, and had wholly rejected_private and closet masses;_ they retained the ceremonies or ritual ofthe public mass, preceding communion: but even this latter also theyrenounced soon after; and accordingly, the Lutheran church, every wherein Europe and America, imitating their example, has repudiated alikethe mass and its ceremonies, which with the above-mentioned variousqualifications, are taught in the passages cited from the Confession. Had we been writing for those unacquainted with the AugsburgConfession, the qualifications here referred to, might have beenspecified. 2. Our _next inquiry is, What objection does the Plea make to therepresentations of the Platform on this subject? The whole charge of our respected friend against the Platform is, thatit misapprehends the _import of the word mass_ in the 24th Article, andtherefore misrepresents the Confession, in charging it with sanctioningthe ceremonies of the Romish mass. To support this charge he affirms, that the word mass (or missa, mess, ) was at the time of the Confession, in 1530, _in general use for the eucharist;_ and that in later yearsthe term mass, in this sense, was entirely given up by the Reformers, page 15 of Plea. The charge is certainly a grave one, and if unfounded, a grievousinjustice is done to the venerable mother symbol of Protestantism. Viewing it in this light, we were slow to admit its truth ourselves, until a pretty extensive acquaintance with the writings of theReformers compelled us to yield our conviction. Still we would havegreatly preferred to remain silent on the subject and throw the mantleof oblivion over this deformity of our symbolic mother; had notill-advised ultra-symbolists of late years carried on a crusade againstall Lutherans who will not adopt the entire symbolic system. The chargein the Platform was advisedly made, after careful examination. Sincethe charge has been denied, we have again extensively examined thewritings of the Reformers, and whilst it would afford us pleasure towithdraw it, and acknowledge our error; our conviction has grown morefirm, and we shall be greatly surprised if the great majority ofimpartial minds do not find the evidence of our position fullysatisfactory. At the same time, whilst we charge the Confession withfavoring merely the _ceremonies_ of the mass, other writers of thefirst respectability, have expressed the charge in stronger language. Thus _Fuhrmann_, in his Lexicon of Religious and Ecclesiastical History, speaking of the Romish mass, says: "_That Luther for some time toleratedit, and gave if a a German garb and afterwards abolished it, isnotorious_. [Note 3] And that impartial and highly respectable historianof our own country, Dr. Murdock, whose extended and valuable additionsto the classic church history of Dr. Moshiem, abundantly prove hisacquaintance with the subject; in giving a synopsis of the contents ofthe Augsburg Confession, thus epitomises the 24th Article: "_TheProtestants are falsely taxed with abolishing the mass_. They onlypurified it; and discarded the idea of its being a work of merit, oroffering for the sins of the living and the dead, which militatesagainst the scriptural doctrine, that Christ's sacrifice is the onlysin offering. " [note 4] In order that we may give this question an impartial and conscientiousinvestigation, let us first inquire into the meaning of the word massamong the Papists, apart from the present dispute. "_Mass_ (missa, Mess, ) says _Fuhrmann_, in his Lexicon of Religious and EcclesiasticalHistory, [Note 5] at first signified that worship of God, which_preceded_ the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Subsequently, andespecially in the fifth century, ministers termed the public celebrationof the eucharist, _mass_ (or missa, dismissed); because this servicetook place after the catechumens were dismissed. This word 'missa' wasgradually corrupted into _mass_. But how did that mode of celebratingthis ordinance arise in the Romish Church, _which consisted in thepriest's giving the sacrament to himself alone, connected with solemnturnings around, and moving about from place to place, and changes ofattitude, resembling in some degree a theatrical exhibition, which istermed mass?_" He then proceeds to explain the history of the Romishmass here defined. _Siegel_, in his excellent Manual of Christian EcclesiasticalAntiquities, published at Leipsic, in 1837, in four volumes, presentsan extended view of this subject, from which we will extract littlemore than his definition of the mass. "The mass, in the Roman Catholicsense of the term, belongs not to the centuries of Christian antiquity, but to a later period. " [Note 6] We take up the subject at the timewhen the Catholic doctrine of _transubstantiation_ was fully developed, (since the Lateran Council of 1215. ) In conformity to this view of thesacrament, (the doctrine of transubstantiation, ) _the idea of the masswas so developed, as to signify that solemn act of the priest, decorated with many ceremonies, by which he offers the unbloodysacrifice at the altar. " [Note 7] The mass service is a commixture ofScripture passages, long and short prayers, extracts from the gospelsand epistles (pericopen, ) liturgic forms, which are divided intoseveral chief parts, designated by different names, Introitus, Offertorium, Canon missae, " &c. [Note 8] This whole service amounts tosome fifteen or twenty octavo pages, including the directions forgenuflections, crossings, tergiversations, &c. , occupying about an hourin the reading, the performance of which by the priest was termed"reading mass, " as the listening of the audience was called "hearingmass. " In view of these authorities, we may take for granted, what we supposeno one will deny, that in the Romish Church, not only of the presentday, but since several centuries before the Reformation, and, therefore, in 1530, the most common and primary meaning of the word_mass_, was not Lord's Supper; but that long ceremonial, including theconsecration of the elements, elevation of the host, and self-communionof the priest, as an offering of the body of Christ a sacrifice for thesins of the living and dead, _which preceded_ the distribution of thesacrament to the people. _Again_, it will be admitted, that whilst among Papists the abovespecific meaning of the word mass was the most common one, that termwas also not unfrequently used by synecdoche, as a part of the whole, to designate the sacramental celebration in general: just as we use theword "_preaching_" which specifically signifies the delivery of asermon, for the whole services of public worship in the phrase, "willyou go to preaching to-day?" _Finally_, it will be admitted, that the Reformers, having beeneducated as Papists, were trained up to this twofold use of the wordmass, namely, specifically the extended services above described, which_preceded_ the communion, and sometimes informally the eucharist, communion or sacrament in general. The question then seems definitely to be reduced to these two inquiries;first, _Did the Reformers retain this distinction in the use of the wordmass at the time of the Diet at Augsburg; and, secondly, did they employthe word in its specific sense in the disputed passages of thatConfession? _First Inquiry_. We shall _first_ inquire whether this distinction in the use of the wordmass was observed by the Reformers at and before the time of theAugsburg Diet? I. And _first_ let us listen to _Luther_ himself. In 1523, the greatReformer, 1, in his "_Method of conducting Christian Mass_, " addressedto Rev. Nicolas Hausman, after having rejected such portions of theRomish mass, as he thought wrong, he approved others, as explained byhimself, such as the, Introitus, the Kyrie eleison, the Collecta orprayer epistles, the Singing of the Gradual, a short sequens, theGospel, the Nicene Creed, and a number of other matters, including theelevation of the host, but not for worship, [Note 9] he proceeds to thenext part of the Treatise which is headed "How to _administer the mostholy sacrament to the people, " [Note 10] and his first sentence is thefollowing: "Let this much suffice to be said of the _Mass_, and serviceof the minister; we will now proceed to treat of the manner in which theholy _sacrament_ shall be administered to the people, for whose benefitespecially the Supper of our Lord was instituted. " Here we clearly seethe distinction between the performances of the priest _before_ thecommunion which constitute the _Mass_, and the distribution of theelements to the people, which he terms holy _sacrament_. Then, afterhaving discussed the subject of the communion, that it should bereceived in both kinds, &c. , he adds, "Let this suffice for the presenton the subject of the mass _and_ communion. " [Note 11] 2. In his _letter to Lazarus Spengler_, in 1528, Luther observes thissame distinction. "In the first place, " he remarks, "it is unreasonablethat any one should be forced to receive the sacrament or to abstainfrom it. " And he adds: "All masses, at which there are _nocommunicants_" (that is, at which the sacrament is not administered, )"should absolutely be omitted. " [Note 12] Here the administration ofthe supper to the laity is termed _sacrament_, and that serviceperformed by the minister, which was sometimes succeeded by thesacrament or communion, and at others not, is called _mass_. 3. _The Counsel of Luther and Pomeranius_, in 1528, to Duke George:"First, as you inquire concerning _parish_ masses, &c. Be it known toyou that no minister can with good conscience perform mass alone, whenthere are no communicants. Therefore here there is no room for furtherinquiry; either there must be communicants, or them should be nomass. " [Note 13] 4. Luther's "_Confession of the Christian Doctrines, in XVII. Articles_, " published in 1530. This is a very short Confession, eacharticle containing but three or four sentences, and the whole amountingto only three or four 8vo. Pages. In Article X. He says: "The_eucharist_ or _sacrament_ of the altar also consists of two parts, namely that the true body and blood of Christ should verily be presentin the bread and wine;" and in Article XVI. He says: "Above all otherabominations, the _masses_, that have hitherto been regarded as a_sacrifice_ or _good work_, by which one designed to procure grace forthe other, are to be rejected. " [Note 14] Here the distinction is notonly made between the mass and eucharist, but the doctrine of the massas a sacrifice of Christ offered by the priest for others, is alsodenounced. It will also be recollected that this view of the mass as asacrifice, and as vicarious, is strongly denounced in the AugsburgConfession, whilst the charge of having rejected the rite itself withthese and other modifications, is flatly denied, in these words: "It is_unjustly_ charged against our churches, that they have abolished themass, " (Art. XXIV. , p. 21 of the Platform, ) a thing never chargedagainst them in reference to the eucharist, for from the very beginningof the Reformation, they charged the Papists with having mutilated it, and claimed the restoration of the cup also to the laity. 5. In a _letter_ of September 20, 1530, addressed _to Justus Jonas_, oneof the theologians at the diet, Luther thus expresses himself: "For, what else do our opponents, (the Papists, ) presume to propose, than thatthey shall not yield a hairsbreadth, but that we not only yield on thesubject of the canon, _the mass_, the _one kind_, (in the eucharist, )celibacy, (of the clergy, ) and jurisdiction (of the bishops); but shallalso admit that they have taught the truth, and acted properly in allthings, and were falsely accused by us. " [Note 15] Here the mass isagain distinguished from the eucharist in one kind. He then adds: "If wewill get at it (yielding to the Papists, ) let us yield only the canon, and the closet masses; and either of these two is sufficient fully todeny our doctrine and to confirm theirs. " The _canon_ was that part ofthe ritual of the mass which contained the forms of transubstantiation, which were positively rejected by the reformers, the closet masses arerejected in the Augsburg Confession; but Luther says nothing against thepublic mass, qualified as it is in the Confession. 6. In his _Exhortation to the Sacrament_ of the body and blood ofChrist, published in 1530, he says: "If the Papists do, as usual, quibble at my language, and boast that I myself here make a sacrificein the _sacrament_, although I have hitherto contended that the _mass_is no sacrifice; then you shall answer thus: I make _neither the massnor the sacrament_ a sacrifice, ("Ich mache _weder_ Messe _noch_Sacrament zum opfer, ") but the remembrance of Christ, " [Note 16] &c. Here the two are distinguished as clearly as language can discriminatebetween two separate objects, and even placed in antithesis to oneanother: and let it be remembered, that all the examples are taken fromworks published either before or in the very year in which the AugsburgConfession was written. A few years later, in 1534, in a letter to afriend, in which he inveighs strongly against the closet masses and theperverted order or arrangements of the mass, (verkehrte ordnung derMesse, ) and against the Romish mass in general: "I wish, and would verygladly see and hear, that the two words mass and sacrament wereconsidered by every one as being as far apart as light and darkness, yea, as the devil and God. For they (the Papists) must themselvesconfess, that mass dues not signify the reception of the sacrament asChrist instituted it; but the reception of the sacrament they do, (andno thanks to them, ) they _must_ call _communion. But that is called_MASS _which the priest alone performs at the altar, in which no commonchristian or layman takes part_. " All other christians do nothing morethan receive the sacrament, _and do not perform mass_. [Note 17]Certainly it must be evident that Luther did not regard the word mass asthe ordinary term for eucharist, but had a clear idea of thedistinction, and of the importance of observing it. II. Let us now adduce similar evidence from the writings of_Melancthon himself_, who wrote the Confession, to show that he alsoobserved the distinction between _mass_ and _eucharist_. This evidencewill be the stronger as all his letters quoted, were written fromAugsburg itself, during the very time that he composed the Confession, and whilst it was under consideration in the Diet. [Note 18] 1. In a letter to Luther, dated Augsburg, July 30, 1530, Melancthonsays: "Zwingle has sent hither a printed Confession. His views of the_Eucharist_ (Abendmahl) he urge strongly. He wishes all bishops to beextirpated. " Then after speaking of human traditions, he adds: "In thematter of the _mass_, (not eucharist, which he had just mentionedbefore, ) and in the first discussion (Aufsatz, composition) of thedoctrinal articles I think I was cautions enough, but on the topicsconcerning unwritten traditions, I was never rightly satisfied withmyself. " [Note 19] 2. In another letter to Luther, of August 6th, he says: "At last, onAug. 3d, we heard the (Romish) Refutation (of the Augsburg Confession), and also the declaration of the emperor. His declaration was terribleenough, but the Refutation was composed in such a puerile manner, thatwe could not but heartily congratulate each other. There is not asingle composition of Faber, (the pensman of the Refutation, ) howeversilly it may be, that is not exceeded in silliness by this. On thedoctrine concern the two kinds, (in the Eucharist, ) he adduced thehistory of the sons of Eli, who desired bread to eat; and wished toprove by it, that it becomes laymen to be satisfied with the mere breadin the _Eucharist_. His defence of the _Mass_ was very frosty. " [Note20] Here we find the eucharist and the mass spoken of as separatethings, and the discussion of the one represented as silly, and that ofthe other frosty. 3. In a letter to Luther, dated August 22d, he thus writes: "Yesterdaywe closed the discussion, or rather the quarrel (Gezaenk) which has beenconducted before the umpires. The third point was the question of merit, &c. Then he came to the _two kinds_ (in the eucharist). Here he exertedhimself to the utmost to prove that _both_ kinds are not commanded. Hemaintained that it was a matter of indifference whether one or bothkinds are received, and and [sic] that if we would teachthis, he would cheerfully allow us both kinds. This I could not accedeto; nevertheless, I excused those who had hitherto erroneously receivedbut one kind; for they cried out, the whole church is condemned by us. What think you of this? The command of Jesus refers to ministers andlaymen. Hence if it is our duty to receive the _sacrament_, we are alsoobligated to retain the form of the entire sacrament. If you also areof this opinion, then inform me of it distinctly. On the subject of the_mass_, vows and marriage, there was no discussions, only someconditions were proposed, which we, however, did not accept. " [Note 21]Here again, the distinction between the sacrament and the mass isclearly made, and we are told that at the disputation before theumpires, the former was debated and the latter not. Can anything beplainer, than that a distinction is here made between eucharist andmass? 4. Under date of August 28, Melancthon thus writes to _Luther:_ "They(the Papists, ) wish us to admit, that neither those who administer butone kind, nor those who receive it, are guilty of sin. We have, indeed, exonerated those from blame, who receive but one kind; but as to thosewho administer but one, --there is the knot. The Synod of Basil concededthe _whole sacrament_ to the Bohemians, on condition that they wouldacknowledge that it may, with propriety, be taken and received in onekind only. This confession they also wish to extort from us. _Eckius_says he contends for this point, merely because the people cannot beretained in the discharge of duty, unless _we_ also release theirconsciences in regard to the _sacrament_ (that is, unless the reformerswould admit, that its reception in one kind was also allowable). Wetherefore desire to know your judgment on the case. As to theapplication of _masses_, they are willing to postpone this till themeeting of the synod (or council); and thus they intimate, that theywill not oppress us with the reception of their ungodly views on the_mass_ (Koethe's edition: mit der gottlosen Application der Messe, withthe ungodly application of the mass, _i. E. _ to the living and dead). And yet they desire us to receive the _canon_ of the mass, (_i. E. _ themost objectionable part of the ritual of the mass, relating to thetransubstantiation of the bread and wine, its application to others, &c. , ) but with a convenient and devout explanation. " [Note 22] Hereagain, the distinction between the mass and the sacrament is clearlyseen. 5. On Sept. 4th, he again writes to _Luther:_ "I know that this longsilence must be very annoying to you, especially at this time, when weought to consult one another most frequently; but believe me, nothingis so much opposed to my wishes in the court, as this indifference indispatching more frequent messengers to you, and yet I am unable toinduce them to do it. We have not yet received from our opponents theproposed conditions in reference to the _two kinds_ (in the eucharist), marriage and _the_ mass. " [Note 23] Here again, who does not see thedistinction? 6. In a document, which Melancthon prepared for a friend of thechancellor of the bishop of Luettich, in which he states how far theyyielded, and also the points in which they could not agree, we find thefollowing: "_Of the two kinds_. --Here we excused those (the laity, ) whoreceive one kind alone (that is, merely the bread in the eucharist), for as they do not distribute the sacraments, they have to receive thesacrament as it is given to them. " [Note 24] "_Of the mass_. --In regardto the mass we have already given our reply: namely, that our partyretain the substantials (substantalia, ) and principal parts of themass, so far as the consecration is concerned, &c. " [Note 25] "_Themass is not_ a work which, when applied to others, merits grace forthem _ex opere operato;_ but according to the confession of the wholechurch, the _Lord's Supper is_ the sacrament, through which grace isoffered to him that receives it, which grace he also really receives, but not by the more external act, but through faith, when he is certainthat, in it. , grace and pardon of sins are offered. " [Note 26] III. We will add a few short _extracts from other reformers_, writtenat the time of the Diet, to confirm our position that they also made adistinction between the mass and the eucharist, and that by the formerthey meant that performance of the priest alone at the altar, whichpreceded the communion. 1. _Aurifaber_, who was a particular personal friend of Luther, and waspresent at his death. In his account of the incidents of Luther and hisdoctrines in the year 1530, speaking of the special committee which wasappointed on the 16th of August, consisting of seven members on eachside, he remarks: [Note 27] "These assembled and took intoconsideration the Augsburg Confession of the Protestant States, deliberating on one article after another, and the first day agreedupon eleven articles. The second day they continued their negotiationsand agreed toll [sic] to twenty-one articles. But on thearticles concerning _the mass_, marriage of priests, _the Lord'sSupper_, monastic vows and the jurisdiction of the bishops, &c. , theycould not agree and remained at variance. " Here the mass and the Lord'sSupper are distinctly classed as different topics. 2. _Spalatin_, one of the theologians who attended the Elector toAugsburg, in his narrative of what occurred during the diet, giving abrief abstract of the contents of the Augsburg Confession, epitomisesthe, Xth Article thus: Of the Holy _Sacrament of the true body andblood of Christ_ in the Sacrament of the altar; and the XXIV Article, "of the _Mass_, how it is celebrated amongst us, and the reason whycloset masses have been rejected by us. " Here again, who does not seethat the two are represented as distinct? IV. We shall close this cumulative mass of evidence for thedistinction between the terms mass and eucharist or Lord's supper, atthe time of the diet of Augsburg, by an extract from the professed_refutation of the Augsburg Confession_, prepared by the _papists_during the diet; from which it will be evident, not only that they makethis distinction themselves, which no one denies, but that _theyunderstood the Augsburg Condition as making it also_. In their reply to Article XXIV. Of the Confession, (or the III. Of theAbuses Corrected) they state: "For the _mass_ is celebrated, in orderthat the _holy eucharist_ may be offered in memory of the passion ofChrist. " [Note 28] "In those churches, (which apostatize in the lattertimes) _no more masses_ will be celebrated, _no more sacrament_distributed, no more altars, nor images of the saints, &c. " [Note 29]Finally, near the close of their pretended refutation of this Articleof the Augsburg Confession, (XXIV. ) the papist Refutation says, "It istherefore not rejected or regarded as wrong that the (Protestant)Princes and cities (according to their Confession, Article XXIV. , )celebrate one common (public) mass in their churches; if they onlyperformed it properly, according to the holy rule and canonicalregulations, as all Catholics perform it. But that they (theProtestants, in their Confession) reject all _other_ masses, canneither be tolerated nor suffered by the christian faith and Catholicprofession, (that is, cannot be allowed by us, who profess the RomanCatholic faith. ) [Note 30] Here then, in view of all this mass of evidence, we appeal to everycandid and conscientious reader, whether it is not impossible, fairly, to resist the conviction, that the Reformers did, at and before thediet at Augsburg in 1530, ordinarily observe the distinction to whichthey had been trained in the Romish church, between the words _mass_and _eucharist_, or _Lord's supper_, so that in all cases whereprecision was necessary, and especially where both were spoken of, eachwas called by its appropriate name? We say "ordinarily, " because wefreely admit that sometimes they did use the word mass in a more generalsense, as a part for the whole, to include both the eucharist and themass proper, just as we now use the term preaching for the whole of thepublic service, in the inquiry, "Will you go to preaching to day?"whilst in its proper meaning, preaching has reference only to thesermon. Our chain of argument is therefore not complete until we addanother link, and prove that the Reformers employed the word mass inits specific and proper signification, in the disputed passages of theAugsburg Confession, as they did in the numerous passages above cited, and as the Papists themselves understood them to do. _Second Inquiry_. Let us now, in _the second_ place, inquire, _Whether the Reformersemployed the word mass in its proper and specific meaning in thedisputed passages of the Augsburg Confession_. The affirmative of this question is, we think, certain, from a varietyof evidences. 1. Because we find _two different articles of the Confession, the onewith mass (Messe) for its caption, and the other headed:_ OF THE HOLYSUPPER (vom Heiligen Abendmahl. ) Now, if mass here signified HolySupper, the probability is that one or the other term would have beenused in both places. The design of captions prefixed to a chapter orarticle, is to indicate the general contents of such article; and adiversity of caption or title, naturally raises the presumption thatdifferent subjects are discussed. The most natural method of decidingthis question concerning the meaning of the caption, is to inquire what, are the subjects discussed in each article. If the subjects discussed inboth articles are the same, then the captions are or ought to besynonymous, and as the Lord's Supper never signifies mass in itsspecific sense, it follows that mass would have to mean Lord's Supper. But if different subjects are treated of in the two articles, then thecaptions, if appropriate, must mean different things. Now, it will notbe denied, that whilst the Article X. , headed Lord's Supper, discussesmatter specifically relating to the eucharist, (namely the real presenceof the body and blood of the Saviour in the Holy Supper;) the ArticleXXIV. , headed the _Mass_, actually discusses what is specifically termedthe mass, namely, the ceremony and acts of the priest or minister_preceding_ the Lord's Supper. Thus, the article states, "No perceptiblechange was made in the public ceremonies of the mass, except theaddition of German hymns along with the Latin; but it is well known thatthere are no other "public ceremonies" connected with the Lord's Supperin the Romish church, except those embraced in _the_ mass, specificallyso called, and that the _Latin_ hymns were part of this mass, "Massesare bought and sold at annual fairs, and the greater part of them (themasses) in all the churches, were sold for money;" but we have neverheard that Romanists had to pay for receiving the communion, it is onlyfor a certain performance of the priest, called mass, that they pay thepriest. These "money masses and closet masses, " are condemned; whilst noobjection is made to public mass, at which the sacrament isadministered; on the contrary, it is stated, that by proper instruction, "the people are attracted to communion _and_ the mass. " The question isreferred to "whether a mass performed for a number of personscollectively, was as efficacious as a separate mass for eachindividual;" but who ever heard of christians receiving one Lord'sSupper collectively, for a number of other persons, or for anindividual? And if the thing is done by the priest, then it is what isspecifically called mass. So also, who ever heard of the Lord's Supperbeing received "for the dead;" but it is very common for the priest tosay _mass_ for the dead. Thus, might we add additional sentences fromthis Article XXIV. , which applied to the Lord's Supper, make no sense, but are appropriately and historically true of the mass in its specificsense. Since then almost the whole article treats of the mass proper, does not common sense, as well as the legitimate principles ofinterpretation, require us so to interpret the word mass in the captionand passages cited from this article? The same reason would apply to acomparison of the caption of Article XXII. , or I, of the AbusesCorrected, namely, "Of Communion in both kinds, " compared with the wordmass; but we deem it unnecessary. 2. That the word mass is here used in its appropriate sense, is evident, _because Melancthon himself, in translating the Latin original intoGerman_, always renders the Latin term for mass (missa) by the Germanterm messe (mass); whereas if he had used the Latin term in its moregeneral sense in Article XXIV. , he would at least sometimes havetranslated it eucharist, or Lord's Supper. But so far as we haveexamined, the word mass (messe) is always employed in this article, where the German is a translation of the Latin. In one case at least wehave found the German and Latin Confessions pursue different trains ofthought; so that though mass is found in the one, nothing correspondingis contained in the other. The same may be affirmed of all translationsinto English that we have seen, whether made in this country or inGreat Britain. No translator, so far as our knowledge extends, hasventured to render "missa" or " messe, " by Lord's Supper or eucharist;but by the appropriate term "_mass;_" because they all felt that thecontext and scope of the Article demanded it. 3. Another proof in Article XXIV. Itself, that the word mass is used todesignate that ceremonial, which preceded the distribution of thesacrament, is found in _the fact that both the word mass and sacramentare used together, with the copulative conjunction_ AND _connectingthem. A_. Thus, near the commencement of the article, we read: "Ourpeople are instructed repeatedly, and with the utmost diligence, concerning the design and proper mode of receiving the holy sacrament;namely, to comfort alarmed consciences; by which means the people areattracted to the _communion_ AND _the mass_, " [Note 31] (dadurch dasvolk zur communion _und_ Mess gezogen wird. ) The Latin copy here has adifferent train of remarks. _b_. Again, the following passage near the close of the Article: "Theancient canons also show that one of the priests performed the mass, _and_ administered the communion to the other priests and deacons. "[Note 32] (Auch zeigen die alten canones an, dasz einer das Amtgehalten hat UND die andern Priester und Diakon communicirt. ) _c_. Alsothe passage preceding this: "Our custom is, that on holy days, and alsoat other times, if communicants are present, _we hold mass_ AND _admitto communion_ such as desire it. " (So wird diese Weise bei uns gehalten, dasz man an Feiertagen, auch sonst so communicanten da sind, mess haelt, und etliche so das begehren, communiciert. _Servatur_ apud nos _unacommunis missa_ singulis feriis, atque aliis etiam diebus, si quisacramento velint uti, _ubi porrigitur sacramentum his qui petunt_. )Here, then, we find three passages in this very Article itself, in whichthe mass is distinguished from the distribution of the supper, and thetwo things are connected by "and, " necessarily implying their diversity. 4. That the words [sic] mass is used in its appropriate specific sensein this Article, and not as synonymous with Lord's Supper, or eucharist, as the Plea for the Augsburg Confession [Note 33] asserts, is proved bythe fact, that _if you substitute either of these words for it, manypassages in the Article will not make sense_. We will present a fewspecimens, which may be multiplied by any one who will take ArticleXXIV. Of the Confession and read it, substituting either Lord's Supperor eucharist in place of the word mass. "By which means the people are attracted to the communion and the_eucharist_, (the mass;") which is equivalent to saying, they wereattracted to the eucharist and the eucharist. "An annual fair was made, at which _eucharists_ (masses) were boughtand sold. " This would be historically untrue. "And the greater part of them (the _eucharists_) in all the churches, were performed for money. " To this the same remark applies. "These money-_eucharists_ and closet _eucharists_ (masses, ) have ceasedin our churches:" but the eucharist certainly had not ceased. "Hence also arose the controversy, whether a _eucharist_ (mass)performed for (not by) a number of persons collectively, was asefficacious as a separate _eucharist_ for each individual. " Thisquestion applies only to the mass proper, and was never mooted aboutthe eucharist. "The ancient canons also show, that one of the priests performed orcelebrated (halten, celebrare) _eucharist, and administered thecommunion to the other priests and deacons. " [Note 34] This specimen, like the first, would be purely tautological. 5. That the word mass is used in Article XXIV. , distinctively for themass, is evident from the fact that the _Romanists so understood_ it, and in their answer to the Confession attempt to refute the Protestantrejection not of the Lord's Supper, but of the private _masses_, thecloset _masses_, and the sacrificial and vicarious nature of the _mass_in general whilst they applaud the retention of public mass by theReformers, if they would only celebrate it according to canonicalregulations. We will cite a single passage, out of many that might beadduced:-- "It, is therefore not rejected, nor regarded as wrong, that the(Protestant) princes and cities (according to Article XXIV. Of theirConfession, on which they are commenting, ) celebrate one common (orpublic) mass in their churches; if they only performed it properly, according to the holy rule and canonical regulations, as all Catholicsperform it. But that they (the Protestants) reject all _other_ masses, can neither be tolerated nor suffered by the Christian faith andCatholic profession;" (that is, cannot be allowed by us who profess theRoman Catholic religion. [Note 35]) As this Romish Refutation is rarelymet with, we add the exact original: "_Wird demnach nicht verworfennoch fuer unrecht erkannt, dasz die Fuersten und Staedt halten eingemeine Mess in der Kirchen, wann sie solche nur ordentlich und richtignach der heiligen Richtschnur und canonischen Regel hielten undthaeten, we es alle Catholischen halten: Dieweil sie aber alle andereMessen abschaffen, das kann der Christlich glaub und CatholischeProfession und Bekaentnisz weder dulden noch leiden_. " 6. The same fact is confirmed still further by _the Apology to theAugsburg Confession_, written by Melancthon, in reply to the RomishRefutation, from which we have just presented an extract. From this itis evident that the Papists had correctly understood the AugsburgConfession as speaking of the mass properly so called; and that we havetherefore also not misunderstood or misrepresented it. Speaking of thevery part of the Refutation from which the above passage is cited, Melancthon says: "In the first place, we must state, by way ofintroduction, that we _do not abolish the mass_. For on every Sundayand Festival, _masses_, (Messen) (not Lord's Suppers) are held in ourchurches, at which the _sacrament_ is administered to those who desireit. " Here evidently mass and the sacrament are two things. "Our opponents make a great talk (geschwaetz) about the _Latin_ mass, that is about the Mass which, as is well known, was and is _read_ inLatin; but certainly they did not talk about the Latin Lord's Supper. "But where do we find the Pharisaic, doctrine written, that the_hearing_ of the mass without understanding it, is, ex opere operato, meritorious and saving?" The term _hearing_ evidently refers to themass, which was read; but what sense would there be in the phrase_hearing_ the Lord's Supper? "That we do not celebrate private masses, but only a _public mass_(eine oeffentliche Messe, ) when the people also commune, is not at allcontrary to the common (or general) Christian church. " Here the_private_ masses are distinguished from the _public_ mass, and the factaffirmed, as clearly as language can convey the idea, that the_Reformers did retain and practice_ PUBLIC _mass on sacramentaloccasions_. " [Note 36] We might easily adduce a number of otherpassages from this book, but really it seems to be a work ofsupererogation. To this decided declaration of Melancthon, we might add his assertionson other occasions. Let a single one suffice. In his letter to MargraveGeorge, of Brandenburg, on the _private_ mass, he uses this language:"Finally, as your excellence wishes to know what we retain in ourchurches of the ceremonies of the mass, I would inform your excellence, that the mass is entirely abolished, _except when are persons present_who wish to receive the Lord's Supper;" [Note 37] that is, we haveentirely abolished private masses; at which, as it is well known, noone communed but the priest himself, but retain the _public mass_ atcommunion seasons. _Finally_, to make assurance doubly sure, we will add a similartestimony from Luther himself, in a letter of Counsel to LazarusSpengler, in 1528: "In the _first place_, let all masses be absolutelydispensed with at which there are no communicants present; as theyproperly ought to be set aside. Secondly, that in the two parishchurches (namely, in Nuerenberg, where Spongier resided, ) one or twomasses should be held on Sabbath and holy days, according as there maybe many or few communicants. " [Note 38] Now, in this passage, the word mass either means Lord's Supper ingeneral or mass in particular. It does not mean the former, because itwas something which Luther says had been performed _without any_communicants being present, but should not be performed hereafter, unless there were communicants. Again, he says, that on Sabbath or holydays, when there are communicants present, this mass, which from itsnature _could_ be and had been performed without communicants, shouldbe performed once or twice. But what sense is there in terming that theadministration of the Lord's Supper at which there are no communicants. Or in talking about administering one or two Lord's Suppers, as thenumber of communicants might be large or small? For ourselves, it isimpossible to doubt, that the mass proper is here intended, which wasoften celebrated by the minister alone, and which, at communionseasons, was the usual preparation for the communion. _And now, what is the result of our inquiry?_ We premised, as conceded by all, that as the word mass among theRomanists does now, so it did at the time of the the [sic]Reformation, and several centuries before, specifically signify acertain service of about an hour's length, consisting of a commixtureof Scripture passages, long and short prayers, invocations, extractsfrom the gospels and epistles, liturgic forms, the forms ofconsecration of the elements and transubstantiation of them into theSaviour's body and blood, with numerous crossings, genuflexions, theelevation of the host and especially the self-communion of the priest, as an offering of the body of Christ a bloodless sacrifice for the sinsof the living or dead; all of which was read and done by the _priesthimself_ before the altar; and which preceded the sacramentalcommunion of the congregation, and was the only preparation for thecommunion. We also admitted, that then, as now, the word mass was sometimes usedby the Romanists for the sacramental celebration in general, includingthe mass proper. Thirdly, we assumed as undenied, that the Reformers, having been bornand educated in the Romish religion till their majority, wereaccustomed to this two-fold use of the term mass. We then asserted that the Reformers continued the twofold use of theterm, and as its occasional use for the eucharist in general is notdisputed, we especially proved that they continued to observe thedistinction and to employ it in its _specific sense_, whenever themass proper was spoken of. We proved from various letters and other documents of _Luther_, writtenin the year of the Diet, that he makes the distinction and uses theterm mass for the above described mass proper. We proved from various letters and other articles of _Melancthon_, written during the session of the Diet, that he employed it in thisspecific sense. We proved that the other Reformers used the word in this specificsense, such as Aurifaber, and Spalatin. And finally: We proved that the _Romanists_ used it in this sense at the Diet, intheir pretended Refutation of the Augsburg Confession. There being no possible doubt of the Reformers using the word mass tomean the specific mass, in their other writings at that time; the, onlyremaining question was, whether Melancthon so used it in the disputedpassages of the Article XXIV. Of the Augsburg Confession. That he did here employ it, in this specific sense, we proved by thefollowing facts: Because he made two different captions or headings fortwo different articles, and in the one headed "Of the Lord's Supper, "he discusses that subject, and in the other headed "The Mass, " hediscusses what is specifically termed mass. We proved, that Melancthon and all other translators from the Latin orGerman copy, have translated these passages, messa, and _mass_, and notAbendmahl, or Lord's Supper, or Eucharist. We have proved, that in this very Article XXIV. , the mass and sacramentare spoken of in the same sentence as different things, being connectedtogether by the word "_and_. " We have proved, that if we substitute the Lord's Supper instead of massin this Article, many of the passages will make nonsense. We have proved, that the Romanists themselves in their Refutation ofthe Augsburg Confession, understood this Article XXIV. As speaking ofthe Mass proper, and censured it for rejecting private masses, _whilstit approved of it_ for retaining public masses. _Finally_, we have proved, that Melancthon, in replying to this RomishRefutation, does not charge them with having misunderstood the XXIV. Article; but goes on to refute their arguments, implying that they hadunderstood him correctly. In view of all these facts it is impossible for us to doubt, that theword mass in the objected passages of the Article XXIV. , signifies themass in its specific sense, and not the Lord's Supper in general: andthat when the Reformers affirm in their Confession, that "they areunjustly charged with having abolished the mass" they meant that theyretained the mass on sacramental occasions, with the limitations andaltered explanations of the nature and application of it, specified indifferent parts of the Confession; whilst they freely admitted, thatthey had rejected private and closet, masses, and indeed all masses, except on occasions when the sacrament was administered to the people. What the Romanists considered as the essential doctrine of the mass, viz. , its being a sacrifice of Christ, offered by the priest, and itsbeing offered by him for others than himself, either living or dead, and its being performed at any other time, or for any other purposethan as a preparative for Sacramental Communion, the Confessionrejects, but the _outward_ rite itself, on public sacramental occasions, it professes to retain: and this being the only charge made in the_Platform_ on this subject, we appeal to every candid reader to decide, whether it has not been fully established. Whether Melancthon and the princes had yielded more in this Confessionthan Luther approved, and whether any of the alterations confessedlymade in the Confession after Luther had approved it, related to thisArticle, is quite a different question, and cannot affect the meaningof the Article itself. It is not improbable that such was the case;but even the ritual, which Luther prepared in 1523, contained thegreater part of the Romish mass, such as the _Introitus_, the _KyrieEleison_, the _Collecta_, or prayer and _epistles, Singing of theGradual_, a _Short Sequens_, the _Gospel_, the _Nicene Creed_, and anumber of other matters, not excepting even the _elevation_ of the host, but not for adoration, which latter he retained till [sic]_till twelve years after the Diet at Augsburg!_ Yet, even at that time, he had rejected the greater part of the most objectionable portions ofthe mass. Hence, as the Platform charges the Confession only withfavoring the _Ceremonies of the Mass_, the charge is not only sustained, but falls short, of what we have established in the preceding pages: andall the vituperation aimed at us by different individuals, who havestudied the subject imperfectly, or not at all, we cheerfully forgive, conscious that the aim of all we have published on this subject has beenthe prosperity of the church, and assured that it will be blessed by theMaster to this glorious end. _Reference to the author's former works containing representations_ ofthis subject. In view of these indisputable results of a careful investigation of theoriginal sources, it may not be amiss to cast a glance at therepresentations of this subject in our former publications during thelast quarter of a century, as we have frequently been charged, notindeed by the author of the Plea, but by superficial writers, withself-contradiction and misrepresentation. It would indeed have been inperfect unison with the habit of the best authors of Europe and America, to change our opinions as we extended our investigations, and freely toprofess such change. Nor should we feel any reluctance in following suchdistinguished authorities, if we felt that our case required it. But inreperusing our former statements, we cannot see that they differ, in anymaterial point, from the results of our latest investigations abovegiven. In the Popular Theology, (page 406 of the seventh edition, ) firstpublished in 1834, speaking of the article of the Augsburg Confession onthe Mass, we find the following:--"On this subject, (the mass, ) thelanguage of the Confession was less condemnatory, than that which theysoon after employed. In the Smalcald Articles, which were publishedseven years after this Confession, in 1537, Luther declares the Papalmass to be a most momentous and abominable corruption; because itmilitates directly and powerfully against the fundamental doctrine, (justification by faith in Jesus Christ. ") We then add several extractsfrom the Augsburg Confession, showing that the confessors rejected the_sacrificial_ and _vicarious_ nature of the mass, as well as otherobjectionable features of it. Now here we find the same two positionstaken, which the preceding discussions of this chapter have established, namely, that the Confession is less condemnatory than the later SmalcaldArticles; that it favors the mass more, and speaks of it in milderlanguage than was employed at a subsequent period. As no one of any noteat that day pretended to urge the adoption of the entire AugsburgConfession, much less of all the symbolical books, there was nonecessity of dilating on the objectionable features of the Confession, and we of course abstain from doing so. In this silence we would havepersevered to this day, had not a new generation of European symbolistssince then sought refuge on our shores, and carried on aggressiveoperations, incessantly assailing the General Synod and her members, andcharging them with unfaithfulness to Confessions which they neveradopted, except as to fundamentals; thus compelling us to expose theseremnants of Romish error which they certainly do contain. When, we turn to our _History of the American Lutheran Church_, published in 1852, we find on pages 240, 241, the following statement:--"The mass, that is, _the name and some of the ceremonies_ of the Romishmass, were retained in the Augsburg Confession; although the errors indoctrine, by which the Romish mass grew out of the Scripture doctrineof the Lord's Supper, were rejected in that as well as subsequentsymbols. " "Our churches, " (says the Augsburg Confession, Art. XXIV. )"are _unjustly_ charged with having rejected the mass, (messe. ) For itis publicly known that the mass is celebrated amongst us with greaterdevotion and earnestness, than amongst our opponents. " "Nor has therebeen any perceptible change made in the public ceremonies of the mass, except that at several places _German_ hymns are sung along with the_Latin_ ones. " "Our custom is on holy days (and at other times also, _ifthere be communicants_) to _say mass_, (not to say a Lord's Supper, ) andthose who desire it, receive the Lord's Supper. " Subsequently, however, great changes were made in the public ceremonies attendant on the Lord'sSupper, and Luther in his Smalcald Articles rejects the mass entirely, both the name and accompanying ceremonies. And soon after the wholeLutheran church followed him. Still, if the Augsburg Confession were_strictly binding on us_, we should be under the necessity of adoptingon sacramental occasions all the public ceremonies then and now usual inthe Romish Church in celebrating public mass. " Here again we see thefollowing points, which were clearly proved above: 1. That the AugsburgConfession denies having rejected the mass. 2. That she does rejectthose doctrinal errors which gave rise to the Romish mass. 3. That itwas their custom on public occasions (when persons were present whodesired to commune) to say a mass, and then administer the sacrament tothem. 4. That the Confession explicitly asserts that "_no perceptiblechange_" had been made in the public ceremonies of the mass, except theintroduction of German hymns along with the Latin ones in severalplaces. Hence the inference would necessarily follow, that if they hadmade no perceptible change in the public ceremonies of the mass, wecould make none, if the Confession was _strictly binding_ on us: and asthe ceremonies of the Romish mass are the same now as then, theceremonies which the Confession prescribes are the same as those nowobserved in the church, and if we obeyed the Confession, we should haveto perform the same without any "_perceptible_" difference, except theaddition of German hymns along with the Latin, which were at that timeused in the Lutheran Church. These, Luther for sometime himselfdefended, as it is certain he did the elevation of the host, (but notfor adoration, ) till 1542, more than _twenty years_ after he commencedthe Reformation. Those who object to these statements confound theteachings of the Confession with the _subsequent practice of Luther andthe churches_; yea, it has appeared to us, in the course of our recentexaminations on these subjects, that the Augsburg Confession was noteven up to the progress of reform attained by churches at that day, andthis may be one reason why Luther told Melancthon he had yielded toomuch to the Papists in the Confession. In our Lutheran Manual, we havesimply presented the article of the Confession in full, injuxtaposition with the Smalcald Article, treating of the same subject;and have done so without note or comment, except the remark, that thelatter refutes the tolerant views of the mass expressed in the former. We can, therefore, see no inconsistency between what we have publishedon this subject at distant intervals, certainly much less than mighthave occurred to the most careful and conscientious writer, on asubject so closely connected with the fluctuations of language. Doubtless, by taking detached portions of a paragraph apart from thelimitations connected with them, and falsely imputing sinister motivesto almost every sentence, it in possible to make the most correct authorcontradict himself and misrepresent his subject; but with such men, whether their misrepresentations arise from deliberate design orinveterate general habit, we cannot consent to debate. The injury doneis rather to the cause of Christ and of truth than ourselves, and we canwell afford to commit the case for adjudication to that OmniscientBeing, "who judgeth righteously. " Note 1. See Luther's Works, Leipsic ed. , Vol. Xxi, pp. 447, 448. Note 2. See Luther's letter to Prince George in his Works, Vol. Xxi. , p. 430. Note 3. Vol. Iii. , p. 114. Note 4. See Murdock, Edition of Moshiem's History, Vol. Iii, page 53, Harper's edition. Note 5. Fuhrmann's Lexicon, Vol. Iii. , p. 3. Note 6. Siegel's Manual, Vol. Iii. , p. 362. Note 7. Ibid, p. 366. Note 8. Ibid, p. 375. Note 9. Luther's Works, Vol. Xxii. , p. 233-37. Note 10. Ibid, p. 237. Note 11. Ibid, p. 240. Note 12. Ibid. P. 338. Note 13. Luther's Works, Vol. Xix. , p. 666. Note 14. Ibid. , Vol. Xx. , p. 3. Note 15. Luther's Works, Vol. Xx. , p. 195. Note 16. Ibid. , p. 257. Note 17. Luther's Works, Vol. Xxi. , p. 63. Note 18. The edition from which all our translations of Melancthon'sLetters are made is that of Niemeyer, published at Halle, in 1830, entitled Philip Melancthon in Jahre der Augsburgischen Confession. Note 19. Niemeyer's Melancthon, pp. 41-43. Note 20. Ibid. , p. 56. Note 21. Niemeyer's Melancthon, p. 71. Note 22. Niemeyer's Melancthon, p. 76. Note 23. Niemeyer, p. 90, 91. Note 24. Koethe's Melancthon's Works, Vol. I. , p. 263. Note 25. Ibid. , p. 265. Note 26. Ibid. , p. 267. Note 27. Luther's Works, Vol. XX. , p. 199. Note 28. Pfeiffer's Augapfel, second edit. , p. 1045. Note 29. Ibid. P. 1048. Note 30. Pfeiffer's Aug. Appel. , second edit. , p. 1050. Note 31. See the Lutheran Manual, p. 288, and Muller's Symb. Bucher, p. 51. Note 32. See Lutheran Manual, p. 289. Note 33. Plea, &c. , p. 15. Note 34. Lutheran Manual, pp. 288, 289, and Muller's Symb. Pp. 51, 52, 53. Note 35. Pfeiffer's Augapfel, 2d ed. , p. 1045. Note 36. Mueller's Symb. Books, pp. 248, 249. Note 37. Koethe's Melancthon's Werke, Vol. I. , p. 250. Note 38. Luther's Works, Leipsic ed. , Vol. Xxii. , p. 338. CHAPTER VI. OF PRIVATE CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. This rite, in any sense of the term, that can be given to it in theAugsburg Confession and other former symbols of the Lutheran church, has long since been abandoned throughout our church in Europe, excepting in that small portion of German churches, known as OldLutherans, and among those foreigners in the west of our country, whoconstitute the Missouri Synod. It is historically unjust to apply theterm _private_ confession to that public confession of sins, made bythe congregation collectively, as part of our preparatory exerciseson sacramental occasions, and usually a misnomer to apply the nameprivate confession, to the habit of some of our German ministers, (termed Anmeldung, ) of having all communicants call on them forconversation on their spiritual state, prior to sacramental communion. Although these customs both grew out of private confession properly socalled, neither of them retains its essential elements. Let us first inquire _what does the Augsburg Confession mean by thephrase Private Confession_. Among the Romanists, _Auricular_Confession is that rite, in which every individual of both sexes must, at least once a year, appear before the priest at the confession boxin the church or chapel, and confess in detail all the sins that hecan recollect; after which, the priest assigns the penitent some actsof penance, and on his promising to perform them, he then, as in thestead of God, professes to forgive him his sins. The Reformers, however, distinctly rejected the necessity of the penitents enumerating hisindividual sins, and the propriety of the minister's prescribing anypenance to the penitent. They also distinctly made confession optionalwith the penitent, and the absolution dependent on his faith; and thispurified rite they termed _Private_ Confession, although in some partsof the church it was still called Auricular Confession (Ohrenbeicht). [Note 1] The manner in which this rite was performed in the LutheranChurch, is thus described by _Funk_ in his work entitled"Kirchenordnungen of the first century of the Lutheran Church inGermany, " in which he presents the results of thirty of the _oldest_Lutheran Formulas of Church Discipline and Worship. "Absolution wasreceived _privately_, by each one _individually, kneeling_ before the_confessional_, the confessor _imposing his hands_ at the time. Privateconfession was given only _in the church_, in which the confessionalwas so located _near the pulpit_, that _no other person could be near, or hear what was said_ by the penitent. " [Note 2] But I. What does the Platform teach in regard to _this Private Confession?_The Platform teaches, 1. That it was retained by the AugsburgConfession and other symbolical books. 2. It is objected to by thePlatform, as unauthorized by the Word of God. 3. And thirdly, as beinginconsistent with the fundamental doctrine of the Reformation, that_faith it the only condition_ of the justification or pardon of thesinner. II. What does the Plea object to these positions? 1. That the impression might be made by the Platform, that the Lutherandoctrine has some affinity to the Romish doctrine of AuricularConfession. But the Platform expressly states the rejection of_Auricular_ Confession by the Reformers, and their retention of whatthey called private confession in its stead, the latter differing fromthe former as above stated. The Plea next introduces a formula ofabsolution, used in Wittenberg, in 1559, to show the harmlessness of therite. But here, unfortunately, if we are not entirely mistaken, ourfriend has overlooked the fact, that it is a formula for _public_, and_not private_ confession which he cites. This is certain from thelanguage throughout, being addressed "_to all such as are herepresent_, " &c. It is well known that _private_ confession was rejectedin the Lutheran Church in Denmark and Sweden in the beginning, as wellas by different portions of Germany at an early day, and a public orgeneral confession adopted in its stead. In Luther's Short Directoryfor Confession, &c. , [[Note 3] tr. Note: there is no note number in theoriginal to go with the corresponding footnote, but this appears to bewhere it should go] we have his formula for _private_ or individualabsolution, which will convey to the reader a more correct idea of itsform: After the directions for confession of sins; the Confessor says: "_God be merciful to thee and strengthen thy faith. Amen_. " "_Dost thou believe that my remission of thy sins is God's remission?_ Answer of the penitent: "_Yes, dear sir, I do_. " Then the confessor says: "_According to thy faith, so be it unto thee. And I, by command of our Lord Jesus Christ, forgive thee thy sins, inthe name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen. Depart inpeace_. " Another specimen of private absolution we find in the Kirchenordnung, [Note 4] or Church Directory of Count _Wolfgang_, of the Palatinate, on the Rhine, &c. , published in Nuernberg, 1557. "The Almighty God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, will be graciousand merciful to thee, and will pardon all thy sins, for the sake of hisdear Son Jesus Christ, who suffered and died for them. And in the nameof this, our Lord Jesus Christ, by his command, and in virtue of hisdeclaration, 'Whose sins ye remit they am remitted, ' &c. , _I pronouncethee free and clear of all thy sins_, that they shall all be forgiventhee, as certainly and completely, as Jesus Christ by his sufferings anddeath merited the same, and in his gospel has commanded it to bepreached to all the world. Receive, therefore, this consoling promise, which I have now made to thee in the name of the Lord Christ, let thyconscience be at rest, and do thou confidently believe, that thy sinsare assuredly forgiven thee, for Christ's sake, in the name of theFather, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen. " 2. The Plea affirms, that private confession may be useful as a meansof bringing the, members of the church into personal interview withtheir pastor. The advantage of such interviews we freely admit; butthey can be and are secured in our churches without this rite; and asit is confessedly destitute of Scripture authority, we have no right toinvent a _new ordinance_ in Christ's church for any purpose. 3. The Plea maintains that explanation of "the power of the Keys, "which authorizes a minister to pronounces absolution of sins, andappeals to Matth. Xviii. 18, "Whatsoever ye shall bind one arth, " [sic]&c. But the previous context "tell it to the _church_" &c. , clearlyshows that it refers to church discipline, and signifies "whatever actsof discipline ye enact in regard to such an individual, I will ratify inheaven. " But this has no bearing on private confession and absolution. The other passage from John, xx. 23, "Whosoever's sins ye remit, " &c. , was uttered on a different occasion, after the Saviour's resurrection;and either refers to a miraculous power bestowed on the apostles, todiscern the condition of the heart, and to announce pardon to thosewhom they knew to be truly penitent and believing; or it confers on theministry, in all ages, the power to announce _in general_ theconditions on which God will pardon sinners. But it contains noauthority to uninspired ministers to apply these promises toindividuals, the condition of whose hearts they cannot know, as is donein private absolution. III. We therefore feel constrained to maintain the positions of thePlatform on this subject also. 1. _That private confession and absolution were inculcated by theAugsburg Confession_, is so evident, that it cannot be successfullydenied. Nor is this done only in the Abuses Corrected, as the Pleaseems to suppose, p. 20. In Art. XI. Of the Confession, we read: "Inregard to confession, they teach, _that private absolution ought to beretained in the church;_ but that an enumeration of all ourtransgressions is not requisite to confession. " In the _Apology [Note 5] to the Confession_, Melancthon employs thislanguage: "Wherefore it would be _impious_ to take away privateabsolution from the church. " (Quare impium esset, &c. ) _Luther_, in theSmalcald Articles, Art. VIII. , says, confession and absolution ought _byno means_ be abolished in the church, &c. , (Nequaquam in ecclesiaconfessio et absolutio abolenda est, &c. ;) and he is speaking of_private_ confession. The Romish alleged Refutation of the Augsburg Confession, on the abovecited Art. XI. , thus expresses its approbation: "This article (Art. XI. ) that private and special absolution should remain, and bepreserved in the churches is _Catholic_. Yet two things must be requiredof them, (of the Reformers, ) that both men and women should attendconfession at least once a year, &c. ; secondly, to confess all the sinsyou _can_ recollect. " [Note 6] _Dr. Plank_, in his celebrated and elaborate History of the Origin andChanges of the Protestant Doctrinal System, [Note 7] speaking of thenegotiations between the Reformers and Papists during the Diet ofAugsburg, says, "On the subject of the Confessional _there was an entireagreement_, for they (the Reformers) had declared that they regardedConfession as a very useful institution, and had no idea of suffering itto fall, and also regarded it as good, that the people should beaccustomed to confess their sins, " viz. , at the confessional. _Siegel_, in his Manual of Christian Ecclesiastical Antiquities, [Note 8] after stating that Luther rejected _Auricular_ Confession, as asacrament, and a means of oppressing the conscience, adds: "But, on theother hand, Luther was as unwilling as Melancthon, to have _privateconfession_ abolished, and the latter had, in his Loci Theologici, pronounced private absolution to be as necessary as baptism. " In regardto confession in the Lutheran Church of Germany, the fact is, thatprivate confession, which the Reformers so earnestly recommended, isalmost entirely abandoned and changed into a general (and public)confession, which may with more propriety be termed preparatory servicesto the Lord's Supper. " Finally, we will add the testimony of only one more witness, _Prof. Jacobson_, in the excellent _Theological Encyclopedia of Dr. Herzog_, now in progress of publication in Germany, who says, "Whilst thecompulsory part of the institution (private confession, ) fell to theground, each one was left to judge whether and how much he wouldconfess. The institution itself _was retained_, and _privateconfession_ especially recommended. The Augsburg Confession presupposesit (private confession, ) _as the rule:_" Our custom is not to give thesacrament to those who have not first been confessed and absolved;" andthe Smalcald articles [sic] teach that Confession andAbsolution must by no means be allowed to be omitted in the church. "[Note 9] After all this testimony, it may be regarded as incontestablyestablished, that the former symbolical books of our church do teach_private confession_ and absolution, with some modifications, andhence, that the church in Sweden and Denmark _always rejected this partof the Augsburg Confession_, in practice, and that the entire church inGermany and the United States, which now use a _public_ confession, have made a similar departure from the teachings of the AugsburgConfession as well as of Luther, Melancthon and the other Lutheranreformers. 2. That _this rite of private confession, is unauthorized by anycommand of the Word of God, in so clear, that the Symbolical booksthemselves admit it_, and commend the rite merely on the ground ofhuman expediency, and inferential scriptural reasoning. The sameacknowledgment is made by the Plea of the Rev. Mr. Mann. In Art. XXVI. Of Augsburg Confession, being Topic V. Of the Abuses Corrected, theconfession says: "Confession is _not commanded in Scripture_, but hasbeen instituted _by the church_. " [Note 10] 3. The rite of _private absolution_, on which the Reformers lay muchstress, is in like manner destitute of scriptural authority, and mostinjurious to the interests of spiritual religion. The _omniscient_Saviour could well say to the sick of the palsy, "Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee, " Matt. Ix. 2; for he knew the heart of man. For the same reason he could say to Mary Magdalene, "Thy sins areforgiven. " Luke vii. 48. But, even the inspired apostles never in a single instance, eitherundertook to forgive sins themselves, or to announce the pardon of sinto any _individual personally_. It is therefore a solemn thing forministers, unguided by inspiration, to assume greater power. Toproclaim publicly and privately the willingness of God to pardon theimpenitent, is an important and delighful [sic] part of the minister'sduty; but for uninspired men to institute a special rite in the church, for the express purpose of announcing _pardon to individuals_, even whendone conditionally, as the reformers maintained it always should be, isinevitably calculated to lead, especially the less intelligent, tobelieve their sins forgiven, at least in part, because the ministersannounce the fact, and because they have professed penitence to him. But this is wholly unauthorised in God's Word. On the contrary:-- (_a_) The Scriptures throughout represent _God_, and _the Lamb of God_, as the only beings that can "forgive" and "take away" sin. Exod. Xxxiv. 6, 7. The Lord passed by before him and proclaimed, "The Lord God, merciful--_forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin_. " The blessed Saviour, in his memorable prayer, teaches us to addressour supplication, not to the minister, but to our _heavenly Father_, "forgive us our sins, " &c. , Luke xi. 4. He says nothing, nor does anywriter of the Old or New Testament _say a word_ about advising a resortto the priest or minister to obtain forgiveness of sins. The same truthis taught in a multitude of other passages. We refer the reader to afew: Eph. Iv. 32; Acts viii. 22; 1 John i. 9; Matth. Ix. 6; Mark xi. 25;1 Kings viii. 30; 2 Chron. Vii. 14; Psalm lxxxvi. 5; Jerem. Xxxi. 34;Dan. Ix. 19. (_b_) The very fact, that sin is committed essentially _against God_, is a violation of _his_ law, implies that no other being, not even anangel or archangel, much less a man, can forgive it, "Against thee, thee only have I sinned, " said the Psalmist, "and done this evil inthy sight. " (_c_) The offers of pardon in God's Word, are all _conditional_ and_general_, and these alone has the minister the right to proclaim, either to a congregation or to an individual. The implication of thepromise to individuals is made by the Holy Spirit, working faith in theindividual, or enabling him to trust in Christ. "Being justified byfaith, we have peace with God, " and this peace is the believer'sevidence, is the Testimony of the Spirit, that our sins are forgiven. (_d_) The actual pardon of individuals by God, depends on theirpossessing the moral fitness required by him. It is based on theirhaving performed the prescribed moral conditions sincerely, of whichnone but the Omniscient Jehovah can certainly judge; hence, even thedeclarative annunciation of pardon to individuals, is not onlyunauthorized but dangerous. Because, even if conditionally announced, the formality of the absolution, and the fact that the church has madea _special rite_ of it, are calculated to beget the idea, especially inthe unintelligent, that the granting of absolutions by the minister, isproof of the genuineness of their faith, and reality of their pardon. (_e_) Finally, the doctrine of ministerial absolution, or the supposedsin-forgiving power of the ministry, is inconsistent with the doctrine, that justification or pardon can be attained only by a living faith inJesus Christ, a doctrine of cardinal importance in the eyes of theReformers, and the one which Luther has styled the _articulus stantisvel cadentis ecclesiae_, the doctrine with which the church must standor fall. " The Scriptures and also the Reformers, teach that pardon orjustification can be obtained only through the merits of Christ, whichmerits must be apprehended by a living faith, which living faith can befound only in the regenerate or converted soul. Hence, as none but aregenerate sinner can exercise living faith, no other can be pardoned, whatever else he may do or possess. Now those who attend confession areeither regenerate, or they are not. If they were regenerated orconverted before they went to confession, they had faith, and werepardoned before; if they were unregenerate or unconverted, then neithertheir confession, nor the priest's absolution, can confer pardon onthem, because they have not a living faith, although they may besincere and exercise some sorrow for their sins. On the other hand, ifany amount of seriousness and penitence, short of true conversion orregeneration, could, through the confessional, or any other rite, confer pardon of sin; the line of distinction between converted andunconverted, between mere formalists and true Christians would beobliterated; we should have pardoned saints and pardoned sinners in thechurch, converted and unconverted heirs of the promise, believing andunbelieving subjects of justification, and the words of the Lord Jesuswould prove a lie, "That, _unless a man be born again, he cannot enterthe kingdom of heaven!_"-Def. Platform, p. 25. On the subject of this rite, we regret to state, that a more carefulstudy of the subject, as presented in the above results, will notpermit us to speak as favorably of the practice of the Reformers, as wedid in some of our former publications, twenty years ago, and evenlater. The positions above maintained, we think, cannot be successfullycontroverted, as our investigations of the original sources has beensufficiently extensive to dispel all doubt. Note 1. See Koecher, p. 515. Note 2. Funk's Kirchenordnungen, pp. 189, 190. Note 3. Mueller's Symb. B. , p. 364. Note 4. Page 97. Note 5. Mueller's Symb. B. , p. 185. Note 6. Pleiffer, p. 534. [sic] Note 7. Vol. Iii. Pt. 1, p. 125. Note 8. Vol. I. , pp. 199, 206. Note 9. Vol. Iv. , p. 781. Note 10. Lutheran Manual, p. 293. CHAPTER VII. DENIAL OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTION AND OBLIGATION OF CHRISTIAN SABBATH. The incalculable importance of the proper observation of the ChristianSabbath to the progress of the kingdom of Christ in general, and tothe growth of piety in the heart of every Christian in particular, isa point on which, we are happy to state, there is no difference betweenthe Plea and the Platform. Yet we cannot resist the conviction, that inour efforts to observe this day, not with the pharisaic formalities ofthe Jew, but with the conscientious spirituality of the Christian, thequestion whether in doing so, we are obeying an injunction of God, exhibited in the inspired example of his apostles, or are merelyconforming to an uninspired regulation of the church, must be of greatimportance. The lax views of the early reformers on this subject are so frequentlymet with in theological discussions, that we had not expected to findthe position of the Platform disputed; but rather that the theory ofthe Reformers would be defended, as is done by writers of no mean namein Germany at the present day. The author of the Plea, however, takes adifferent view of the Confession, and affirms that this venerabledocument does not deny the divine institution and obligation of theChristian Sabbath. "Luther and Melancthon (says he, ) had received fromthe older church, the doctrine and practice of the Christian Sabbath, as a holy day, as a divine institution and obligation, and they had nota word to say against this view of the Sabbath. But they had a greatdeal to say against the abuses, by which the bishops made the Sabbath aday of sin and dishonor to God and his church, instead of making it aday devoted to his glory, " p. 28. This opinion is different from that commonly entertained among thelearned. A few authorities alone may suffice to sustain our statement. _Dr Ruecker_, in his work on _The Lord's Day_, in which he thoroughlyexamines the views of the church on this subject, in all the differentages of her history, fully confirms the position of the DefinitePlatform. He says, "_The Reformers do not recognize in the religiousobservance of Sunday an institution resting on an immediate divinecommand;_ and the idea of a transfer of the Sabbatic law of the Old tothe New Testament Sunday, is altogether strange to them, and ispositively rejected by them, as in consistent with the gospel" (DieReformatorem erkennen in der Sonntagsfeier _keine unmittelbargoettliche anordnung, &c. _) Ruckert, von Tage des Herrn, p. 48. And again, on p. 67, he affirms this more liberal view of the Lord'sDay, to be the more general one in Germany at the present time. "Sofar, " says he, "as we know, the most important, living, theologicalwriters, of the present day, entertain this so-called more liberal orlax view, (namely, that of Luther. )" _Dr. Hengstenberg_, the well-known editor of the Evangelical ChurchPaper at Berlin, Prussia, and author of numerous learned and valuableworks, uses the following language: "What Luther's views were, on thelaw concerning the Sabbath, may easily be inferred from his views ofthe Old Testament law in general, and of the Decalogue in particular. The distinction which became current after his day, between the moraland ceremonial law, according to which Christ abrogated only thelatter, whilst the former is regarded as universal and binding on allages, was distant from his views. He regards the whole law as anexternal, coercive letter, designed only for the Jews. " "How _Luther_regarded the Sabbath from this general view, is so clearly exhibited inhis Larger Catechism, that the introduction of other passages from hiswritings, is entirely superfluous. " He then quotes the passages whichwill be given in full in our next section, in which Luther declares theSabbath to be designed only for the Jews, and that in its outward senseit does not concern Christians. (Darum, says Luther, gehet nun diesgebot nach dem groben Verstande uns Christen nichts an, &c. ) Melancthon(continues Hengstenberg, ) agreed with Luther, and this view wasintroduced into the Augsburg Confession. " See Hengstenberg, ueber denTag des Herrn, Berlin, 1852, pp. 108, 109, 110. But the accuracy of the Platform will no longer be disputed, when even_Dr. Walter_, [sic; should be Walther] the leader of the old LutheranSynod of Missouri, and editor of their periodical, a man of acknowledgedtheological learning and rigid advocate for the entire AugsburgConfession, bears testimony in favor of our position. In the March No. Of the Lehre und Wehre, p. 93, he thus expresses his views: "We cannotagree with him (the author, whom he is reviewing) in the views heexpresses concerning the Sabbath. He asserts that the Sabbath orChristian Sunday _is a divine institution_, and that this is thedoctrine of the Lutheran Symbols: That the Lutheran Church differs fromthe Calvinistic only in the mode of observing the Sabbath, the formeradvocating an evangelical, the latter, a legal method. _The contrary ofthis is clearly evident from Article XXVIII. Of the AugsburgConfession_, and it would be _almost incomprehensible how the authorcould fail to perceive this_, were it not for his manifest desire tomake the sanctification of the Sabbath as binding a duty as any otherprecept in the decalogue, and his apprehension that this could not beaccomplished any other way, than by maintaining the divine appointmentof the Sunday. Once more, let us listen to the the [sic] testimony of thatlearned and impartial historian of our own country, _Dr. Murdock_, himself, though a native American, a highly respectable German scholar:"The XXVIII. Article of Augsburg Confession, " says he, "teaches that asto Sundays and other holy days, and rites and forms of worship, bishopsmay and should appoint such as are convenient and suitable; and thepeople should observe them, NOT AS DIVINE ORDINANCES, but as conduciveto good order and edification. " Murdock's Mosheim, Vol. Iii. , p. 53, Harper's edition. I. _What is the charge of the Definite Platform against the AugsburgConfession on this subject?_ It is, that The Augsburg Confession "treats the Sabbath as a mere Jewishinstitution, and supposes it to be totally revoked whilst the proprietyof our retaining the Lord's Day or Christian Sabbath as a day ofreligious worship, is supposed to rest only on the agreement of thechurches for the convenience of general convocation. II. What ground does the Plea take? It denies the position, and affirms the contrary, as above stated, whileit supposes the Confession to object not to the divine institution andobligation of the Lord's Day, but to the corruptions which the Romishchurch had connected with it, and especially the idea that theobservance of the Lord's Day was a meritorious work, which would secureour justification before God. The observations of the Plea against the self-righteous abuse of theSabbath are just and Christian, but do not affect the position of thePlatform. The author also intersperses other useful practical remarks, which we have not have room to quote. The simple point of difference, of any moment, is that relating to the question whether our obligationto observe the Christian Sabbath rests on its appointment by God or bythe church. Indeed, it can scarcely be said that this question remains, for the author of the Plea, at the close of his discussion, virtuallyacknowledges the point affirmed by the Platform, when he says: "TheAugsburg Confession, notwithstanding her definite assertion that theChristian Sabbath rests on _no special dictate of the Word of God_, maintains that by necessity, and by right, the _church_ instituted ourChristian Sabbath, and we ought to keep it. " P. 34. To this we shallconfine our proof. III. _We shall prove that the Augsburg Confession does deny the divineappointment of the Christian Sabbath or Lord's Day_. In establishing this position, we shall first prove from the otherwritings of Luther and Melancthon, that they both rejected the divineappointment of the Christian Sabbath or Lord's day; secondly, show fromthe Augsburg Confession itself, as well as the Apology to it, bothwritten by Melancthon, that its divine appointment is there denied. Let us listen to the _declarations of Luther_ on this subject. In hisCommentary on the Pentateuch, speaking of the decalogue, he says:"Saint Paul and the entire New Testament have abolished the Sabbath ofthe Jews, in order that men may understand that the Sabbath concernsthe Jews alone. It is therefore unnecesssary [sic] that the Gentilesshould observe the Sabbath, although it was a great and rigid commandamong the Jews. " [Note 1] "Among Christians, under the New Testament, every day is a holy day, and _all days are free_. Therefore, saysChrist, the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day. Matt. Xii. 8. Therefore Paul, at different places, admonishes the Christians, not tosuffer themselves to be bound to any particular day. Ye observe days andmonths, and times and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowedupon you labor in vain. Gal. Iv. 10, 11. And still more clearly inColossians ii. 16, 17. Let no mint therefore judge you in meat or indrink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of Sabbathdays: which are a shadow of things to come. " "But although the Sabbathis _now revoked_, and the consciences of men are free from it, it isnevertheless good and necessary that _some_ particular day of the weekbe observed, in order that the word of God may be dispensed on it, maybe heard and learned; for not every one can attend to it every day. Moreover, nature demands that both man and beast rest one day in theweek, and abstain from labor. Hence, if any one desires to make anecessary command out of the Sabbath, as a work required of God, he mustobserve Saturday and not Sunday, for Saturday was enjoined upon theJews, and not Sunday. But Christians have hitherto observed Sunday, andnot Saturday, because on that day Christ, arose. Now this is a certainevidence to us that the Sabbath, yea the entire Moses (Mosaicdispensation) no longer concerns us, else we would be under obligationto observe Saturday. This is a great and strong proof that the Sabbathis revoked; for throughout the whole New Testament we find no place inwhich the observance of the Sabbath in enjoined upon Christians. " "But why (continues Luther, ) is Sunday observed among Christians?Although, _all days are free and one day is like another_, it is stillnecessary and good, yea, very necessary, that some one day be observed, _whether it be Sabbath, Sunday or any other day_. For God designs tolead the world decently, and govern it peaceably; therefore he gave sixdays for work, but on the seventh day, servants, hirelings, andlaborers of every kind, yea, even horses and oxen and other laboringanimals shall have rest, as this precept requires, in order that theymay be refreshed by rest. And especially in order that those, who atother times have no leisure, may hear the preached word and therebylearn to know God. And for this reason, namely, of love and necessity, Sunday has been retained, not on account of the Mosaic precept, but forthe sake of our necessities in order that we might rest and learn theword of God. " [Note 2] In his larger Catechism, Luther thus expresses himself. [Note 3] "_This commandment, therefore, with respect to its outward and literalsense, does not concern us Christians; for it is wholly an externalthing, like other ordinances of the Old Testament, confined to certainconditions, and places, which are all now left free through Christ_. But in order that we may draw up for the uninformed, a Christianmeaning of what God requires of us in this commandment, is is necessaryto observe, that _we keep the Sabbath-day, not for the sake ofintelligent and learned (gelehrten) Christians; for these have no needof it:_ but in the first place, on account, of physical reasons andnecessities, which nature teaches and requires for the _common mass_ ofpeople, _men-servants_ and _maid-servants_, who attend during the wholeweek to _their labor and employments_, so that they may also have a dayset apart for _rest and refreshment (erquicken:_) in the second, mostlyfor the purpose of enabling us to take time and opportunity on theseSabbath-days, (since we cannot otherwise attain them, ) to attend _todivine service_, so that we may assemble ourselves to hear and treat ofthe Word of God, and then to praise him, to sing and pray to him. "But this, I say, is not so confined to time, _as ii was among the Jews, that it must be precisely on this or that day; for one day is notbetter in itself than another, but it should be daily attended to;_ butsince the mass of the people cannot attend to it, we should _reserveone day in the week, at least, for this purpose_. Inasmuch, however, asSunday has been _set apart from of old_ for this purpose, we shouldtherefore let it remain so, that the Sabbath may be observed with_uniformity_, and that no one create disorder through unnecessaryinnovation. " The above testimony of Luther is so distinct and decided, that hecertainly would not have approved of the Augsburg Confession ifMelancthon had introduced a different doctrine into it. But there wasno difference of opinion on this point, between these two luminaries ofthe church. 2. _Melancthon_, in a letter addressed to Luther from Augsburg, datedJuly 27, 1530, thus speaks of the Christian Sabbath: "When St. Peterappoints the religious observance of Sunday, I regard this work (theobservance of the day) _not as divine worship_, (Gottesdienst, cultus, )but as being attended by bodily advantage, (leiblichen Nutzen, ) if thepeople assemble together on a fixed day. " [Note 4] Again, in his _System of Divinity_, or _Loci Theologici_, " [Note 5] wefind the following unequivocal declaration: "We have, heard above thatthe Levitical _ceremonies_ are abolished. But the law concerning theSabbath is a Levitical ceremony, and _St. Paul_ expressly says, Col. Ii. , Let no one judge you, if you do not observe the Sabbaths, "(Niemend [sic] soll euch richten, so ihr die Sabbathe nicht haltet;) whythen (it may be asked) do you insist so rigidly on this precept? Answer. This precept in the words of Moses embraces two things, one _common_, that is necessary to the church at all times, and a _particular day_, which concerned only the government of Israel. The _common_ part (ofthis precept) is the proper public office (or duty) to preach and toobserve the divine ceremonies, which God has at any time enjoyed. This_common_ precept binds all men; for this honor all rational creaturesowe to God, to aid in sustaining the office of preacher, and Christianassemblies, (public worship, ) according to the condition and calling ofeach one, as shall be farther stated hereafter. _But the particularpart, concerning the seventh day_, DOES NOT BIND US: therefore we holdmeetings on the _first day and on any other days_ of the week, _asoccasion offers_. " Such then being the views of the illustrious reformers, one of whompenned the Augsburg Confession, and the other sanctioned it, we mightnaturally expect to find them expressed in the Confession itself, whicha bare recital of a few passages, will prove to be the case. And, I. From the _Augsburg Confession_, Art. XXVIII. "And what are we to believe concerning _Sunday_ (the Lord's day, ) andother similar ordinances and ceremonies of the church? To this inquirywe reply, the bishops and clergy may make regulations, that order may beobserved in the church, not with the view of thereby obtaining the graceof God, nor in order thus to make satisfaction for sins, nor to bind theconsciences, to hold and regard this as a _necessary_ worship of God, orto believe that they would _commit sin_ if they _violated_ theseregulations without offence to others. Thus St. Paul to the Corinthians(1 Cor. Xi. 5, ) has ordained that _women shall have their heads_ coveredin the congregation; also, that ministers should not all speak at thesame time in the congregation, but in an orderly manner, one afteranother. "It is becoming in a Christian congregation to observe such order, forthe sake of love and peace, and to obey the bishops and clergy in thesecases, and to observe these regulations so far as not to give offenceto one another, so that there may be no disorder or unbecoming conductin the church. Nevertheless, the consciences of men must not beoppressed, by representing these things as _necessary to salvation_, or_teaching that they are guilty of sin, if they break these regulationswithout offence to others;_ for no one affirms that a woman commits sinwho goes out with her head uncovered, without giving offence to thepeople. SUCH ALSO IS THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING SUNDAY, Easter, Whitsunday, and similar festivals and customs. For _those who supposethat the ordinance concerning Sunday_ instead of Sabbath, _is enactedas necessary, are greatly mistaken_. For the Holy Scripture hasabolished the Sabbath, and teaches that all the ceremonies of the oldlaw may be omitted, since the publication of the gospel. And yet, as itwas necessary to appoint a certain day, in order that the people mightknow when they should assemble, the _Christian church_, (not theapostles, ) has up appointed Sunday (the Lord's day) for this purpose;and to this change she was the more inclined and willing, that thepeople might have an example of Christian _liberty_, and might knowthat _the observance of neither the Sabbath nor any other day isnecessary_. There have been numerous erroneous disputations published, concerning the change of the law, the ceremonies of the New Testament, and the change of the Sabbath, which have all sprung from the false anderroneous opinion, that Christians must have such a mode of divineworship as is conformed to the Levitical or Jewish service, and thatChrist enjoined it on the apostles and bishops, to invent newceremonies, which should be necessary to salvation. " [Note 6] Here we are distinctly taught, (_a_) that the Jewish Sabbath isentirely abolished; (_b_) that no particular day was divinely appointedin its stead; (_c_) that those who suppose the ordinance concerningSunday instead of Sabbath is enacted as necessary, "are greatlymistaken. " (_d_) But that, as it was necessary to appoint a certain dayfor the, convocation of the people, "the _Christian church_ (not theapostles, ) appointed Sunday. " II. Of similar import are the teachings of the _Apology to theConfession_, which also flowed from the pen of Melancthon. _Apology to the Confession, Art. IV. _ "But we maintain, that the harmony of the church is no more broken byvariations in such _human ordinances_, than it is by variations in thenatural length of the day in different places. Yet we like to see the_general ceremonies_ uniformly kept, for the sake of harmony and order, as in our churches, for instance, we retain (behalten) the _mass_, the_Lord's Day_, and _other great festivals_. "And we approve, all _human ordinances_ which are good and useful, especially those which promote good external discipline among youth andthe people generally. But the inquiry is not, shall human ordinances beobserved on account of external discipline and tranquillity? [sic] Thequestion is altogether different; it is, is the observance of suchhuman ordinances a divine service by which God is reconciled; and thatwithout such ordinances, no one can be righteous before God? This isthe chief inquiry, and when this shall have been finally answered, itwill be easy to judge whether the unity of the church requiresuniformity in such ordinances. " [Note 7] Here again the Lord's day (_a_) is classed in the category of _human_ordinances, the observance of which is free, and may differ indifferent places. (_b_) Yet uniformity in general ceremonies is pleasing, such as "themass, the Lord's day, and other great festivals. " (_c_) It is classed again with _human_ ordinances which promote goodexternal discipline among the people. And now having proved that the lax views of the Christian Sabbath, charged by the Platform on the Augsburg Confession, are attributed toit by the learned in Germany generally, that Luther and Melancthonteach them in their other writings: in view of all these evidences, weask every impartial, conscientious reader, whether it is possible todoubt the accuracy of the positions maintained by the Platform on thissubject--namely, that the Augsburg Confession treats the Sabbath, orreligious observance of the _seventh_ day of the week, as a mereJewish institution, an institution appointed of God for the Jews alone;whilst the propriety of retaining the _Lord's day_ or Christian Sabbath, as a day of religious observation and worship, in their judgment, restson the appointment of the church, and the necessity of having some oneday for the convenience of the people in assembling for public worship. The act of keeping any one day _entirely_ for religious observance, they regard as ceremonial and temporary, and the moral or common partof the precept, as stated in our extract from Melancthon, they resolveinto the general duty of preaching and hearing the gospel, and ofsustaining public assemblies for this purpose; that is, of bearing theexpenses incident to the support of the ministry and the ordinances ofGod's house. "Our American churches, on the contrary, as well as some few inGermany, believe in the divine institution and obligation of theChristian Sabbath, or Lord's day, convinced that the Old TestamentSabbath was not a mere Jewish institution; but that it was appointed byGod at the close of the creative week, when he rested on the seventhday, and blessed it, and sanctified it, (Gen. Ii. 2, 3, ) that is, setit (namely, one whole day in seven, ) apart for holy purposes, forreasons of universal and perpetual nature, Exod. Xx. 11. Even in there-enactment of it in the Mosaic rode, its original appointment isacknowledged, '_Remember_ the Sabbath day--because in six days God madeheaven and earth--and rested on the _seventh; wherefore_ he, (_then_, inthe beginning, ) _blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it_. ' Now thisreason has no more reference to the Jews than to any other nation, andif it was sufficient to make the observance of the Sabbath obligatoryon them, it must be equally so for all other nations before and afterthem. 'Since therefore the observance and sanctification of a portion of histime, is based on universal reasons in the nature of man, especially asa religious being, and the proportion of time was fixed at a _seventh_, by the example and precepts of the Creator in the beginning; theSabbath or religious observance of one day in seven, must beuniversally obligatory, and the abrogation of the Mosaic ritual, can atmost only repeal those ceremonial additions which that ritual made, andmust leave the original Sabbath as it found it. Now whilst the apostles, and first Christians under the inspired guidance, for a season alsoattended worship on the Jewish Sabbath, they observed the day of theLord's resurrection, the first day of the week, as their day of specialreligious convocations; and this _inspired example_ is obligatory onChristians in all ages. Still the essence of the institution consists, not in the particular day of the week, though that is now fixed, but inthe religious observance of one entire day in seven. " [Note 8] We do not, indeed, maintain that the conduct of the apostles wasinspired on all occasions; but it seems just and necessary to maintain, that when engaged in the specific and appropriate duties of thatoffice, for which they were inspired, they were as much under theguidance of the Spirit in their _actions_, as their words. On the divine institution and obligation of the Christian Sabbath, werefer the reader to an extended argument in its favor, in the author'sLutheran Manual, pp. 310-24. Note 1. Luther's Works, Leipsic edit. , Vol. Iii. , pp. 642, 643. Note 2. Luther's Works, Vol. Iii. , p. 643. Note 3. Symbolical Books, pp. 449, 450, corrected by the original. Note 4. Niemeyer's Briefe Melanchthons, [sic] p. 50. Note 5. Vol. Iv. , p. 113, of Koethe's edit. Note 6. See Schmucker's Lutheran Manual, pp. 306, 307. Note 7. See Symb. B. Newmarket, ed. 2d. , corrected by the German, p. 223. Note 8. See Definite Synodical Platform, p. 27. CHAPTER VIII. GENERAL NATURE OF THE SACRAMENTS. On this subject the author of the Plea does not pursue the order of thePlatform, in which baptism and the eucharist are discussed separately;but he unites the two under the caption of Baptismal Regeneration andthe Real Presence in the Eucharist, and enters into some discussions ofthe sacraments in general, and then introduces remarks on each inparticular. Whilst we deem a separate discussion of each sacramentnecessary to its proper elucidation, there are certain general viewscommon to them both, which may with propriety be considered inconnexion. We, therefore, devote some pages to this purpose, under thehead of the _General Nature of the Sacraments_, and reserve thediscussion of each one individually to subsequent chapters. It wouldrequire an extended volume to discuss all the several aspects of thisinteresting and solemn subject glanced at by our author. He does not, however, present in definite lineaments the precise system, which heattributes to the Lutheran Symbols; and lest we should do him injusticein endeavoring to present his system in detail, in order to controvertit, we deem it more Christian and courteous to specify only a few itemsof his chapter, and occupy our space chiefly in presenting anddefending what we regard as the doctrine taught in the Word of God onthis subject. This doctrine is also the theory that underlies thepositions of the Definite Platform, and, we suppose, is assented to byits friends. The Plea affirms, "The Lutheran doctrine maintains that the Sacramentshave an _intrinsic value; but the Definite Platform seems to regardthem as mere _signs_, which may have a tendency to _promote piety_, p. 35. On this point we think our author has not clearly presented thepoint of difference between the friends of the Platform and the Plea. We not only admit, but strenuously affirm, that the sacraments have animportant _intrinsic_ influence. The Platform thus describes it:"Baptism in adults is a means of making a profession of previous faith, or of being received into the visible church, as well as a _pledge_ and_condition_ of obtaining _those blessings purchased by Christ_, andoffered to all who repent, believe in him and profess his name bybaptism, " p. 30. As to the question, whether this influence is intrinsicor not, it is not touched in the Platform; although we doubt not itsadherents very generally hold the affirmative. But the real point ofdispute is the _precise nature_ of the influence exerted by thesacraments. The symbols _seem_ to regard _forgiveness of sins_, that is, justification, as the _immediate_ effect of every worthy reception ofthese ordinances; whilst the friends of the Platform hold this influenceto consist in their tendency to produce that _living faith_, resultingfrom regeneration, which is the _only condition of pardon_, and withoutthe possession of which God has not promised to forgive the sins of anyone, no matter what outward duties he may perform. For God will notforgive the sins of an unconverted sinner. The symbols do, indeed, ofteninsist on the necessity of faith, yet they speak as though in those whodo believe, it was the sacrament, and not their faith in the Redeemer, which secured the blessing. Nor do they in many passages sufficientlydiscriminate, that it is not a mere historical or intellectual, but aliving faith, a faith of the heart also, a faith that works by love andpurifies the heart and overcomes the world, a faith that involves anentire surrender to the soul of God, which is required to the fullefficacy of the sacraments. The Plea affirms that the primitive church regarded the sacraments as"_mysteries_;" p. 37. But the author presents no evidence of this factfrom God's word, or the _apostolic_ church; and the church of subsequentages is no conclusive doctrinal authority for us as Protestants. The Plea states: "He (God) is able to accomplish by the Holy Baptism, performed in the mysterious name of the ever adored Trinity, a work ofregeneration in the heart of the little child. " "The expression used inthe Augsburg Confession, Art. II. , is, regenerated by baptism and theHoly Ghost, (John iii. 5. ) This doctrine, however, is not to beunderstood as if the new creation was fully completed by new generation. It is complete so far as a _live seed_ is complete in itself. This does, by no means, exclude subsequent development brought about by favorableinternal and external influences;" p. 36. "And Christ, the Godman, isable to make us poor earthly creatures partakers of his celestialnature_, (2 Pet. I. 4, ) in the most solemn rite of his church, (theeucharist, ) which is therefore communion between Christ and man, in thefullest manner possible on earth;" p. 37. Here the respected author, byadopting the theory that _a living seed_ is implanted _by baptism_, (whether into the soul or body he does not specify, ) and then that theGodman Christ Jesus makes these baptized individuals _partakers of hisCELESTIAL NATURE by the sacramental supper_, seems to favor somethinglike that theory of concorporation, or a physical union between Christand the believer, which is known in _various_ phases as Puseyism inEngland, and Nevinism in the German Reformed Church of this country, and which has spread a withering influence over the interests ofpractical piety wherever embraced. Yet we would by no means affirm thatthe Rev. Mr. Mann has embraced all the cardinal features of this system. The objection that is fatal to it in our mind is, that we cannot find itin God's word. [Note 1] We shall therefore proceed to ascertain the Scripture doctrine in regardto the influence of the sacraments in general. For the sake of brevityand perspicuity, we shall present it in a concatenation of propositions, that in the end will cover the whole ground, and conduct us safely tothe surest biblical results. _Scripture view of the Influence of the Sacraments_. I. The plan of salvation, revealed in God's word, presupposes that, manis a _fallen creature, depraved in nature and practice_, --that all menare rebels against the righteous government of God, lying under hisrighteous displeasure, and morally disqualified for heaven. And also, that without holiness no man shall see the Lord! [Note 2] "That whichis born of the flesh, is flesh, " is sinful, and except a man be _bornagain_, he cannot see the kingdom of God. " [Note 3] Consequently, without a new-birth, an entire moral renovation, in which the rebellays down the arms of his rebellion, and the slave of sin is deliveredfrom the dominion of his depraved habits, and becomes an obedientservant of Christ, loving holiness and delighting in the service ofGod, it is impossible for him to obtain pardon or to be justifled. II. The _grand means_ by which the Holy Spirit effects this moralreformation, is _divine truth_, either oral, written or symbolic. "Goye into all the world, says the Saviour, and _preach the gospel_ toevery creature; he that _believeth_ and is baptised, shall be saved, and he that _believeth_ not shall be damned. " Here preaching the"gospel, " the truths of God's word, is placed _foremost_ in the list ofinstrumentalities, and baptism is only appended as a rite to beperformed _after_ the Holy Spirit, through the preached word, haswrought faith in the hearer's soul. But faith presupposes regeneration. Hence, as truth is the instrumentality employed by the Holy Spirit inthe production of _regeneration_, and _faith_, as baptism is to beadded _after_ the great moral change, conversion has been effected inadults, it follows that the truth or word is the grand and principalmeans of grace, and not secondary to baptism. In other passages the _mission of the apostles_ is characterized as amission to _preach_, and baptism is not even named at all. Jesusordained the twelve, we are told, that they might be with him, and thathe might send them forth to _preach_, &c. ; Mark iii. 14, 15. And Pauleven thanks God, in his epistle to the Corinthians, [Note 4] that hehad baptized none of them save Crispus and Caius, and adds: "For Christsent me, _not to baptise_, but to _preach_ the gospel. " Paul, therefore, certainly regarded preaching as far more important than baptism. Of theapostles, Luke informs us, they _daily_ in the temple and in everyhouse, ceased not _to teach and preach_ Jesus Christ; Acts v. 41, 42. And in order to gain more time for their great work, they appointeddeacons to attend at tables, that they might give themselves"continually to prayer and the _ministry of the Word_, " but they saynothing of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Paul expressly tells theRomans (x. 13-15, ) that faith comes by _hearing_ (not by baptism); andto the Corinthians he says, "For in Christ, Jesus I have begotten you, through the _gospel_. 1 Cor. Iv. 15. We are regenerated by theincorruptible "_seed of the word_. " [Note 5] We are sanctified by "_thetruth_. " In short, our call, [Note 6] our convictions, [Note 7]regeneration, our faith, our sanctification, [Note 8] our preservation[Note 9] and salvation, [Note 10] are all produced by the _word_ or_truth_, and it must be the grand means of grace. [Note 11] This truth, contained in God's Word, is therefore fully adequate to theproduction of all the progressive changes, by which we pass from thecondition of the careless sinner to that of the advanced and sanctifiedbeliever. III. The _stage of progress_ in this moral renovation which in_requisite_ before the returning sinner is _morally_ qualified forpardon or justification, is that implied by a _living faith_. Thisjustifying faith may be defined to be, "that voluntary act of theilluminated and evangelically penitent sinner, by which he confides inthe mercy of God through Christ for salvation, on the terms offered inthe gospel. " [Note 12] A more historical faith implies no suchpreparation, nor the more intellectual belief of the reality and truthof the statements of God's Word, whilst the heart is estranged from him;for with such a faith the devils believe and tremble but remain devilsstill. Nor does the state of the convicted, or penitent, or seeking, butyet unconverted sinners furnish such moral preparation to receivepardon. Evidently nothing short of living faith will satisfy therepresentations of God's Word and the nature of the case. Whenever thereturning sinner exercises the first act of this living faith, he isjustified, that is, then God performs that judicial or forensic act, bywhich a believing sinner, in consideration of the merits of Christ, isreleased from the penalty of the divine law, and is declared to beentitled to heaven. [Note 13] In this state of justification thebeliever continues through life, unless he by voluntary transgressionfalls from a state, of grace and becomes a backslider. IV. _The evidence of this pardon or justification, to the believerhimself, is within his own heart:_-- (_a_) It is that peace of God, or sense of pardoned sin, wrought in thesoul by the Holy Spirit. "Being justified by faith, we have _peace withGod_, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Rom. V. 1. (_b_) "_The love of God shed abroad in our hearts_ by the Holy Ghostwhich is given unto us. [Note 14] (_c_) It is the testimony of "the Spirit bearing witness with ourspirits that we are children of God. " [Note 15] "He that believeth haththe witness in himself. " [Note 16] (_d_) It is the _fruit of the Spirit_, exhibited in the believer's life, "which is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. " [Note 17] (_c_) It is "being led by the Spirit of God, " for then, says theapostle, " [sic on punctuation] they are the sons of God. [Note 18] All these evidences presuppose or involve that great change of heartand life, termed by the Saviour new birth, by which the sinner becomesmorally qualified for that pardon, purchased by the blood of Christ, and appropriate to the believer by his faith. But no outward rites_necessarily_ imply such moral preparation, and hence they could not bethe conditions of justification, according to the analogy of God'sWord. V. Hence the sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, are not the_immediate_ conditions or means of pardon or justification; _but theyare means of grace, like the Word of God, and seals of grace to allworthy recipients_. They have _an intrinsic efficacy_ by virtue of thetruths symbolically represented by them, and an _additional specificefficacy_ in virtue of their peculiar nature, in connexion with theinfluence of the Holy Spirit, to awaken, convert and sanctify the soul. The distinguished Lutheran divine, _Dr. Baumgarten_, speaking of adultreceivers of these ordinances, thus expresses his view: "The sacramentsstand in the same relation to these influences, (namely, those ofcovenant grace, ) as does the _Word of God_. Hence they are also calledthe visible word of God, _verbum visible;_ because the _offer_ of theirreformatory, changing and restoring influence is universal, and reachesevery recipient of these ordinances; but its actual communication andfull effect take place only in those, who permit themselves to be madesusceptible of it. " [Note 19] In regard to children, however, he withequal propriety adds, that the blessings which baptism confers on them, are bestowed irrespectively of any action of their own. These sacraments, however, do not necessarily prove the existence of anyparticular progress in the work of conversion, or any definite state ofmind, except, a general disposition to seek the Lord, which is impliedin the willingness to attend on these ordinances. They cannot thereforebe the condition of pardon or justification. These influences, like those of the truth, may be resisted, and dependfor their success on the disposition of the recipient; they do not act_ex opere operato_. The _special_ influence of the sacraments, so far asknown, is the same in kind_ as that of the truth. _That the sacraments are not_ IMMMEDIATE _conditions of pardon orjustification_, is evident, from a multitude of considerations. 1. If the sincere reception of the sacraments actually secures pardonor justification _per se, immediately_, without the interveninginstrumentality of a living faith, then faith is not the only conditionof justification as the scriptures teach, but we are justified eitherby faith, or by the sacraments, and then there will be _three conditionsof justification_, faith, baptism, and the Lord's Supper! For thousandsreceive the eucharist sincerely, who are unregenerate, and have not aliving faith. 2. Because no sinner is morally qualified for pardon, until he has beenregenerated, and has consecrated himself to the service of God; butmultitudes receive the sacrament who are unregenerate, and whotherefore cannot be justified or pardoned, even by the sincerereception of the sacraments. Hence as the reception of the sacramentsis no certain proof of pardon, it cannot be the immediate condition ofit. 3. The sacraments are not immediate conditions of justification orpardon, because _previous faith_ is required in the recipients of eachof them. "He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved, " [Note 20]says the great Redeemer; "but he that believeth not shall be damned. "But if some may be baptised who are destitute of faith, then theexistence of faith is not necessarily involved in baptism. And asbaptism without faith does not rescue the soul from damnation, itevidently cannot be the _immediate_ or certain condition of pardon; forif the immediate condition of a blessing is performed, that blessingmust be conferred. And since previous faith is required in baptism, andnone but the baptised are admitted to the Lord's Supper, it is evidentthat faith is also required of communicants. 4. That they are not _immediate_ conditions of pardon, is evident, because the same truths which the sacraments inculcate, do not whentaught orally or in God's word, invariably or necessarily secure thepardon or justification of all attentive hearers. The result of theproper use of the truth preached or read, is invariably the spiritualadvancement of the sinner, whatever the stage of his progress may be. And such appears to be the operation of the sacraments. As it is absurdto affirm that each sermon preached, will convert or affect the pardonof every sinner who attentively hears it; so it were equally gratuitousto affirm the same of the sacraments. If the sinner had been on theverge of regeneration and faith _before_ he heard the sermon inquestion, and the hearing of that discourse completed the change, theresult might be affirmed of the last sermon which preceded his faith, but not of its predecessors; and so also of the sacraments as means ofgrace. Every sermon attentively heard will benefit all who thus hear it. But whether it will produce conviction, or penitence, or faith, or asense of pardoned sin, depends on the recipient's previous stage ofprogress in the divine life. 5. If the sacraments were possessed of a sin-forgiving power, in such asense, as to be the _immediate_ conditions of pardon or justification, then the sinner would be dependent for pardon on the sacraments, and onthe clergyman who administers them, and not immediately on the Spiritof God. But this would virtually be one of the most dangerous featuresof Puseyism and Romanism, by which the minister is thrust in betweenthe penitent, sinner and his God, and the priest is elevated to theposition of the dispenser of pardon, holding in his hand the keys of thekingdom of heaven. Now it is indeed flattering to the frail heart of theminister (for we are all mere men) to find himself elevated to such anexalted post, to stand (as the Papists say of their priest) in the placeof God, and have his whole congregation _look to him_ for the pardon ofsin, in private confession and the sacraments; and this may possibly beone of the reasons why this Puseyite, semi-Romish system is more popularwith the clergy than with the laity. But Protestant ministers shouldnever forget, that the Saviour himself asserted it as his peculiarcharacteristic, "that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgivesin. " Mark ii. 7. 6. That the sacraments are not the necessary or certain conditions ofpardon, is evident, also, from the fact, that some, as the thief uponthe cross, were saved without them after their institution, whilstothers who had partaken of them were lost, of which Judas and SimonMagus are examples. 7. That the sacraments are not immediate conditions of pardon isfinally evident from the declaration of the apostle Peter, "The likefigure whereunto baptism doth now save us; _not the putting away of thefilth of the flesh_, that is, _not the mere outward rite_ of applyingthe water, but the answer of a good conscience toward God. " [Note 21]that is, the faithful performance of the duties to which our Christianprofession, made in baptism, obligated us, by keeping a conscience voidof offence before God and man. From all this, it is very clear, that whilst the sacraments are divinelyappointed as means and seals of grace, they operate like divine truth, either oral or written, by promoting that great change of heart, withoutwhich no man can see God: that where they are received with a livingfaith, there is indeed pardon of sin or justification; but this pardonis the result of that living faith, the appointed condition ofjustification, and not of the sacraments, which can only tend to securepardon by promoting faith. That these views of the mode of operation of the sacraments, aresustained by many of our ablest divines, is evinced by the followingextracts from their works. _Dr. Mosheim_, one of the greatest ornamentsof the Lutheran Church, expressly affirms, "Those who possess _faith_have the benefits of Christ sealed and confirmed to them. Let ittherefore be remarked, that _faith is necessary to the salutary fruitand effect of the sacraments_, though not required as necessary to theiressence (namely, as valid outward ordinances. ") [Note 22] Thedistinguished _Dr. Reinhard_ says, "We attribute to the sacraments areally beneficial influence in effecting our salvation, only in as faras they are used in accordance with their design. This is a necessaryinference from the nature of a ceremony (or rite) in general, which canonly then be of any service, when it excites _those views and feelings_, which it is designed to produce. " Here this illustrious divine evidentlyimplies that the sacraments exert their influence by promoting certainviews and feelings, and that these are the _immediate_ causes of thebeneficial results, such as pardon and salvation: consequently thesacraments are mediate, but not immediate conditions of pardon. One extract more, taken from the "Biblical Theology" of the venerable_Dr. Knapp_, of Halle, edited by _Dr. Guericke_, may suffice: "The powerand influence of these several religious ordinances or sacraments, is_not physical_ and _mechanical_, and also _not magical_, or operating byenchantment (or charm. ) Nor does the mere external rite exert anyinfluence. On the contrary, they stand in the most intimate connexionwith the doctrines themselves, which they represent, and never exert anyinfluence without them. Therefore they can by themselves exert noinfluence in the case of a person who has no knowledge and livelyconviction of the doctrines which they represent. But the truths whichare thereby represented to the senses, and are to be appropriated toourselves, operate precisely in the same way, or the Holy Spirit worksthrough them on the hearts of men, in exactly the same way as thesetruths are wont to act apart, (from the sacraments, ) when they areheard, read or meditated on by any person; only, that in the case ofthe sacraments, these truths are not communicated by words, but in adifferent way presented to the senses. All that we have said (Part. I. , Art. 8) on the influences exerted by the Holy Spirit, through the word, (or divine doctrine, ) and in the use of the divine doctrines on thehearts of men, is also applicable to this subject. For he operates ina similar manner in these religious ordinances, through the divinedoctrines which are represented by them to the senses, and appropriatedby ourselves. Against the abuse of such divinely appointed religiousordinances, when their mere external performance is regarded assufficient, (as in the case of the sacrifices, ) even Moses and all theprophets, protest in the most emphatic manner. " [Note 23] From all those considerations it is most evident, that although _baptismand the Lord's Supper are important, and influential, and divinelyappointed ordinances; neither of them can be the immediate condition ofpardon or justification, because neither necessarily involves that stateof moral qualification, which, the Scriptures require for pardon_, namely, genuine conversion or regeneration, evinced by its immediate andinvariable result, a _living faith_. Note 1. For the information of such of our readers as prefer askeleton of the Puseyite system of the sacraments, rather than wadethrough volumes of Semi-romish discussion, we annex its features:--- I. That man is "made a member of Christ, the child of God, and aninheritor of the kingdom of heaven, " in and by holy Baptism. II. That man "made a member of Christ, the child of God, and aninheritor of the kingdom of heaven, " in and by holy Baptism, is renewedfrom time to time in holy Communion. III. That a "death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness" isgiven to every adult, and every infant, in and by the outward visiblesign or form in Baptism, "water, in the name of the Father, and of theSon, and of the Holy Ghost. " IV. That the gift may be received, in the case of adults, worthily orunworthily, but that it is always received. V. That the body and blood of Christ are given to every one whoreceives the Sacramental Bread and Wine. VI. That the gift may be received worthily or unworthily, but that itis always received. There is no mistaking the meaning of this. It is clear and explicit;but wherein it differs from Romanism it would be difficult to tell. Note 2. Heb. Xii. 14. Note 3. John iii. 6, 2. Note 4. 1 Cor. I. 14-17. Note 5. See also 1 Pet. I. 23. Luke viii. 4, 11, 15. Here the wholeprocess of conversion is described, and the grand instrumentality is theword or seed, but not a syllable is said of baptism. Also James i. 18. Note 6. 2 Tim. Ii. 14. Note 7. Jer. Xxiii. 29. Note 8. John xvii. 17. Note 9. Psalm cxix. 11. Note 10. 1 Tim. 4. Note 11. Verbum Dei est medium salutis _efficacissimum_, quippe cujusvis non est tantum objectiva, sed etiam effectiva. Hollazii Theol. Dog. II. P. 452. See the writer's Elemental Contrast, pp. 26, 27. Note 12. Mark i. 15. _Repent_ ye and _believe_ the gospel. James ii. 14-17 Even so _faith_, if it have not works is dead, being alone, &c. Note 13. Rom. V. 1, 2; iii. 21, 22, 23. John iii. 18. Note 14. Rom. V. 5. Note 15. Rom. Viii. 16. Note 16. 1 John v. 10. Note 17. Rom. Viii. 15. Note 18. Gal. V. 22. Note 19. Dogmatik, Vol. Iii. , p. 285. Note 20. Mark xvi. 16. Acta ii. 37, 38: viii. 37, &c. Acts ix. 11. &c. Note 21. 1 Peter, iii. 21. Note 22. Elementa Theol. Dog. , Vol. Ii, p. 295. Qui fidem habent, illisbeneficia Christi obsignantur et confirmantur. Notandum ergo est, fidemquidem ad salutarem fructum et effectum sacramentorum, non autem adcorum essentiam requiri. Note 23. Biblische Glaubenslehre von Dr. H. E. F. Knapp, Prop. Halle, 1840, p. 292. CHAPTER IX. BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. In regard to this error, the author of the Plea, relieves us from thenecessity of proving that it is contained in the Symbolical books, byhimself not only acknowledging the fact, but also defending thedoctrine. For ourselves we do not think it taught as clearly in theAugsburg Confession, as most of the other errors touched on in theDefinite Platform. But although not inculcated as explicitly as theothers, the substance of the doctrine runs through the entire symbolicsystem, and therefore is justly chargeable on it. The name is not oftendistinctly met with there, but the thing meets us on many occasions. This seems evident even from the following few citations. _Proof that this doctrine was taught by the Lutheran Symbols and earlyLutheran divines. ART. II. - _Augsburg Confession_ "Our churches teach that this innate disease and original sin, is trulysin, and condemneth all those under the eternal wrath of God, who are_not born again by Baptism and the Holy Spirit_. " _Apology to Augsburg Confession_, p. 226. "Our opponents also agree to the ninth article, in which we confess that_Baptism is necessary to salvation_, and that the baptism of infants isnot fruitless, but necessary and salutary. _Luther's Smaller Catechism_. "_What does Baptism confer or benefit?_ "_Ans_. --It effects the _forgiveness of sins, delivers from death_ and_the devil_, and confers _everlasting salvation_ upon all who believeit, (not believe in Christ, ) as the words and promise of God declare. " "_How can water effect such great things?_ "_Ans_. --Indeed it is not the water that has such effect, but the Wordof God that is with and in the water, and the faith trusting such Wordof God in the water. For without the Word of God the water is merewater, hence no baptism; but with the Word of God it constitutes abaptism, that is, a gracious water of life, and a _washing ofregeneration_, in the Holy Ghost. "--_Symb. B_. , p. 421. _Luther's Larger Catechism_. "Every Christian, therefore, has enough to learn and practice inbaptism during his life; for he must ever exert himself to _maintain_ afirm faith in _what it promises and brings_ him, namely, triumph overthe devil and death, the _remission of sins_, the grace of God, Christwith all his works, and _the Holy Ghost with all his gifts_. In short, the blessings of baptism are so great, that if feeble nature could butcomprehend them we might justly doubt their reality. For, imagine toyourself a physician, who possessed an art preventing persons fromdying; or, even if they died, immediately restoring them to life so asto live eternally afterwards, how the world would rush and flock aroundhim with money, while the poor, prevented by the rich, could notapproach him! And yet, here in _baptism_, every one has such a treasure, and medicine gratuitously brought to his door-a medicine which abolishesdeath, and preserves all men to eternal life_. "--_P_. 525. _Luther's Larger Catechism_. "It (baptism) is, therefore, very appropriately called food for thesoul, which flourishes and strengthens the new man; _for through baptismwe are born anew;_ but beside this, the old vicious nature in the fleshand blood nevertheless adheres to man, in which there are so manyimpediments and obstacles, with which we are opposed as well by thedevil as by the world, so that we often become weary and faint, andsometimes stumble. "--_Symb. B_. , p. 533. In the _Visitation Articles_, published fourteen years after the othersymbolical books for the purpose of explaining their true import, andthen made symbolic in Saxony: ART. III. --_On Baptism_. SECT. II. "By baptism as the _laver of regeneration_, and _the renewingof the Holy Ghost_, God saves us, and works in us such righteousnessand purification from sins, that whosoever _perseveres_ in suchcovenant, and reliance, _will not be lost_, but have eternal life. " SECT. IV. "Baptism is the bath (laver) of regeneration, _because in itwe are regenerated_, and sealed with the spirit of sonship and obtainpardon. "-_Mueller's Symb. Buecher_, pp. 848, 849. That the doctrine of baptismal regeneration was taught by Luther, andthe prominent older divines of our church, is well known to thoseacquainted with their works. 1. _Luther_, indeed, sometimes expressed the most extravagant ideas ofbaptism, maintaining that the water in baptism, was pervaded by thedivine majesty, and was a (durch goettertes Wasser, ) water penetratedthrough and through with God! [Note 1] He compares the water in baptismto heated iron, in which, though you see nought but iron, fire also iscontained, which represents the divine name and power pervading thewater. But we will not enter any further into his extravagantillustrations of the power of baptism. The result at which he arrivesis thus expressed: "Therefore, he (this omnipotent name or power ofGod, ) must also in baptism, make pure and holy, heavenly and divinepersons, as we shall hereafter further see. " (Darum musz er auch in derTaufe reine und heilige und eitel himmlishe, goettliche Menschen machen, wie wir hernach sehen werden. ") [Note 2] In his sermon on Baptism, Luther thus describes the influence of thisordinance:--"The import of baptism is a blessed dying unto sin, andresurrection in the grace of God, that the old man that was conceivedin sin, may arise and go forth _a new man_ born of grace. Thus St. Paulin, Tit. Iii. 5, terms baptism a bath of _the new birth_, that in thisbath men may be _born again_ and renewed. Thus also Christ, in John iii. 3, says: Unless ye are born again of water and the Spirit (of grace), yecannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven. For just as a child is born ofits mother, and by this bodily birth is a sinful being and a _child ofwrath;_ thus also is man taken and _born spiritually_ from the baptism, and by _this birth he is a child of grace and a justified person_. Thusare sins drowned in baptism, and thus does righteousness arise in theplace of sin. " [Note 3] 2. _Melancthon_, whilst he by no means indulges in the extravagant andunscriptural views of a change in the water employed in baptism, by theDeity's pervading it, &c. , seems however in substance to haveentertained views of the efficacy of this ordinance, amounting tobaptismal regeneration. "The real use of baptism, " (says he, ) "is taught by these twoparticulars, the outward sign and the promise, 'he that believeth andis baptised shall be saved;' also the words which are used in baptism, 'I baptise thee in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the HolyGhost:' that is, through this outward sign (baptism) I, in the place ofGod, _testify that you are reconciled to God, and accepted of him_, whois Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Father receives you for the sake ofthe Son, and grants you the Holy Spirit, by which he will renew, makealive, comfort, and sanctify you. " [Note 4] And, again, when discussing the subject, of pedobaptism, he thusdescribes his view:--"In and by baptism the Holy Spirit is given tochildren, who operates in them according to their measure (masse) orcapacity, as he operated in John in the womb of Elizabeth. And althoughthere, is a difference between the old and the young, inasmuch as theold are attentive to the works, still the influences of the Holy Spiritare in both old and young a tendency toward God. " [Note 5] That this doctrine was also taught by the great majority of the mostdistinguished older theologians of our church, is a point which requiresno proof to those acquainted with those authors. As their works areaccessible to comparatively few of our readers, we will annex aquotation from several of them, at the same time abbreviating them asmuch as is consistent with perspicuity. Thus, Dr. Hunnius, professor atWittenberg, and subsequently Superintendent at Luebeck, [Note 6] in hisEpitome Credendorum, says:--"The sacrament of baptism is a spiritualaction, instituted and ordained by Christ, by the performance of which aman is baptised with water, in the name of the Father, and the Son andthe Holy Ghost; and by means of which he receives _forgiveness of sins_, is received into God's covenant of mercy, and is made partaker of themerits of Christ, of _adoption_ and of _eternal salvation_. " [Note 7]Again, "Baptism is not a sign of regeneration, that is to take placesome time after baptism had been administered to him. For as _baptismcauses regeneration_, it cannot be said to signify the same, " &c. [Note8] And again, "Nevertheless, we have seen it to be the will of God, thatthey (children) should enter the kingdom of heaven, and it thereforebecomes indispensably necessary for them to be regenerated. But this_regeneration is brought about by no other means than by baptism_, whichwe know to be the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the HolyGhost, " &c. [Note 9] The celebrated _Dr. Gerhard_ says, "The holyTrinity is present with his grace (in baptism). The Father receives thebaptized person into favor; the Son bestows his righteousness upon him, and the Holy Spirit _regenerates_ and _renews him_, --produces faith, _regeneration_ and renovation, and seals the covenant of grace in thehearts of the baptized. " [Note 10] Again, "Baptism is the first gateway of grace, the sacrament ofinitiation: the Lord's Supper is the sacrament of confirmation; bybaptism we are _regenerated_, by the Holy Supper we are nourished andstrengthened to eternal life. As in nature so in grace, we are firstborn and then fed, first generated and then we increase, (ix. 67. ) _Dr. Buddeus_, one of the most distinguished theologians of the School ofHalle, in his "Theologia Dogmatica, [sic on punctuation] p. 1127, says, "The design of the baptism of infants is their_regeneration;_ in the case of adults, the confirmation and sealing ofthat faith, which they should have before (the reception of the rite. ") Since therefore we have seen that the doctrine of baptismalregeneration was taught not only by the symbolical books, but also byLuther and Melancthon in their other writings, as well as by theleading divines of the first two centuries after the Reformation, whoall received the symbolical books, and understood their import, we mayregard the charge of the Platform as established beyond contradiction, that this tenet was a part of Symbolic Lutheranism. _Influence of this Doctrine on the Pulpit_. Now the influence of this doctrine on the ministrations of the pulpit, is of the most deleterious nature. The word of God represents allmankind as by nature dead in trespasses and sins. Paul tells us that"there is none righteous, no not one, for all have sinned and come shortof the glory of God:" and affirms that the carnal mind is enmity againstGod. The faithful ambassador of Christ must therefore announce thecommand of God, "that all men every where should repent: and that unlessthey do repent, they shall all likewise perish. He must divide hiscongregation into two classes, the friends and the enemies of God, thosewho are for the Saviour and those who are against him: and he mustinsist upon judging not by their profession, "Lord, Lord, but by thequestion, whether they _do the will of our Father in heaven_. " Thus whenthe faithful servant of Christ represents all as unconverted, andexposed to the curse of the divine law, who do not give evidence ofregeneration in their walk and conversation; careless sinners becomealarmed and feel the necessity of fleeing from the wrath to come, byrepenting and turning to God, by seeking pardon and a new heart, andconsecrating all their powers of mind and body to the service of God. But all this the believer in baptismal regeneration cannot consistenly[sic] do. Because 1. If we believe all our hearers _regenerated_, (forthey are generally all baptised) even those whose life presents not theleast evidence of piety, and many proofs to the contrary; we stillmust believe them in some sense the children of God, as they are bornagain! We cannot tell them that they are in the gall of bitterness andbonds of iniquity; because we profess to believe them regenerated--therefore children of God in some sense. 2. We cannot exhort the impenitent baptised, though apparently dead intrespasses and sins, to pray for a _new heart_ and a new spirit; forthese, as regenerated persons, they have obtained. 3. The minister who believes in baptismal regeneration, cannot withPaul proclaim, "If any man be in Christ Jesus and is a new creature, old limits are passed away, behold all things have become new;" for hisungodly baptised hearers are all new creatures by baptism, and yet theirold sinful habits _have not passed away_, and all things have not becomenew to them. 4. He cannot consistently preach, that those who have put on the new man(Ephes. Iv. 24, ) are created in righteousness and true holiness; for themajority of those said to be regenerated, or to have put on the new manby baptism, continue in sin and are destitute of righteousness and trimholiness. 5. He cannot, with the blessed Master, preach, "by their fruits ye shallknow them; for here, on his theory, are regenerate souls bringing forththe fruits of death, good (regenerate) trees bringing forth rottenfruits, " which is as incredible as thorns producing grapes, and thistlesyielding figs. 6. The believer in baptismal regeneration cannot consistently preach, that "not every one who saith, "Lord, Lord, " shall enter into thekingdom of heaven, but only those who also do the will of our heavenlyFather; for here are regenerate men who have the germ of eternal life inthem (by baptism) who do not the will of God. Now as these on his theoryare regenerate men, the bible promises them salvation. But according tothe Saviour they shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. The apostle James Inquires, [sic] "What doth it profit, mybrethren, though a man say he hath faith and have not works? Will his(dead) faith save, him?" Or we may add, can his dead baptismalregeneration do it? As the apostle of the Gentiles declares, thatcircumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keepingof the commandments of God: so as baptism occupies the place ofcircumcision, baptism is nothing and the want of it nothing, unlessaccompanied with a sincere, universal and irrevocable purpose to keepthe commandments of God. If any one responds, we do not mean regeneration in its proper sense, when we ascribe it to the influence of baptism; then do not deceiveyourselves and others by employing the name, when you do not mean thething. The Saviour uses it for an entire, and radical change, and wehave no right to use it for anything else. Or does any one say, by baptismal regeneration, we understand aninferior kind or degree of regeneration, the beginning of the change. Ifso, then do not mistake the beginning for the completion of this greatspiritual renovation; nor ascribe to the one, the precious promises andspiritual benefits which belong only to the other. In short, if the word regeneration, in connexion with baptism, beemployed to signify anything resembling its proper meaning, itsinfluence on the preached gospel must be baneful; and just in proportionas we use it in a sense approximating to its legitimate import, does itobscure, confuse and derange the ideas of men as to the great andglorious plan of salvation in the gospel, which represent all men aseither for or against Christ, and appeals to their works as decisive oftheir actual, spiritual character, as friends or as enemies of theRedeemer. Such being the deleterious influence of this doctrine, it is importantto show, that it finds no sanction from a just interpretation of theWord of God. By baptismal regeneration is properly meant the doctrine that baptismis necessarily and invariably attended by spiritual regeneration; andthat such water baptism is essential to salvation. In the case of all adults, the Scriptures represent _faith in Christ_ asthe necessary prerequisite to baptism, and baptism as a rite by whichthose who had already consecrated themselves to Christ, or beenconverted, made a public profession of the fact, received a pledge ofthe divine favor, or of forgiveness of sins, and were admitted tomembership in the visible church. The same inspired records also teach, that if men are destitute of this faith, if they believe not, they shallbe damned, notwithstanding their baptism. "He that _believeth_ and isbaptized shall be saved, and he that _believeth_ not, shall be damned, "Matt. Xvi. 16. And Philip said to the eunuch, "If thou _believest_ withall thy heart, thou mayest be baptized, " Acts viii. 37. "_Repent_ and bebaptized, " Acts ii. 38; viii. 62; xviii. 8. Hence if baptism requiredprevious faith and repentance, or conversion in adults, and if, whenthey were destitute of this faith or conversion, they were damned, notwithstanding their baptism; it follows that baptism was not, and isnot, a converting ordinance in adults, and does not necessarily effector secure their regeneration. Now that baptism cannot accomplish more in infants than in adults, isself-evident; hence if it is not a converting ordinance in adults, itcannot be in infants. The effects of baptism on _infants are nowhere specified in Scripture;_hence we must suppose them to be same as in adults, so far as childrenare naturally capable of them. Of _regeneration_, in the proper sense ofthe term, infants are incapable; for it consists in a radical change inour religious views of the divine character, law, &c. ; a change in ourreligious feelings, and in our religions purposes and habits of action;of none of which are children capable. Again, as regeneration does not destroy but merely restrains the naturaldepravity, or innate, sinful dispositions of the Christian, (for thesestill remain in him after conversion, ) it must consist mainly in achange, of that _increased predisposition to sin arising from action, ofthat preponderance of _sinful habits_ formed by voluntary indulgence ofour natural depravity, after we have reached years of moral agency. Butinfants have no such _increased_ predisposition, no _habits_ of sinprior to moral agency, consequently there can be no change of them, noregeneration in this meaning of the term. Hence, if baptism even dideffect regeneration in adults, which we have proved not to be the case;still it could have no such influence on infants, as they are _naturallyincapable_ of the mental exercises involved in it. The child, on itsfirst attainment of moral agency, has merely natural depravity, until byvoluntary indulgence in sin, it contracts personal guilt, and formshabits of sinful action. If the child, by the grace of God and properreligious instruction, continues to resist the solicitations of itsdepraved nature, its continued obedience will form holy habits, and thispreponderance of holy habits, when established, constitutes itsregeneration. If the growing child, as its powers of moral agency aredeveloped, for any reason indulges its innate sinful propensities, itbecomes a confirmed sinner, and its subsequent regeneration, if it takeplace, will be the more striking, as its change of habits must begreater. Baptism in _adults_, is a means of making a public profession, ofprevious faith, or of being received into the visible church, as wellas a pledge and condition of obtaining those blessings purchased byChrist, and offered to all who repent, believe in him, and profess hisname by baptism. Baptism in _infants_, is the pledge of the bestowment of those blessingspurchased by Christ for all. " As in Adam all die, even so in Christshall all be made alive. " And "The promise is to you and your_children_, " Acts ii. 39. These blessings are forgiveness of sins, orexemption from the penal consequences of natural depravity, (which wouldat least be exclusion from heaven on account of moral disqualificationfor admission, ) reception into the visible church of Christ, grace tohelp in every time of need, and special provision for the nurture andadmonition in the Lord, to which parents pledge themselves. The language of the Saviour to Nicodemus, John iii. 6, "_Unless a man beborn of water and the spirit_" doubtless refers also to baptism, whichhad been known to the Jews, and practiced by John the Baptist, beforethe ministry of Christ, as a mode of _public reception_ of proselytes, who were then said to be new born. Its import is to inform Nicodemus, that he must _publicly_ profess the religion of Jesus by baptism, andalso be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, if he desired to enter thekingdom of heaven. Thus, also, the words, Acts xxii. 16, "_Arise and bebaptized, and wash away thy sins_, " were addressed to Paul _after_ hehad surrendered himself to Christ, and signifies: "Arise, and publiclyprofess Christ by baptism, and thus complete your dedication ofyourself to his cause, the condition, on the sincere performance ofwhich, God will for Christ's sake, pardon your sins. " Baptismal regeneration, either in infants or adults, is therefore adoctrine not taught in the Word of God, and fraught with much injury tothe souls of men, although inculcated in the former symbolical books. At the same time, whilst the doctrine of baptismal regenerationcertainly did prevail in our European churches, and is taught in theformer symbolical books, it is proper to remark, that the greater partof the passages in the symbols relating to this subject, are explainedby many in the present day, to signify no more than we above inculcate, and therefore a not teaching baptismal regeneration. Note 1. Luther's Works, Vol. Xii. , p. 339. Note 2. Ibid. Note 3. Ibid. Vol. Xxii. , p. 139. Note 4. Melanchthon's [sic] Works, Koethe's edit. , Vol. Iv. , p. 234. Note 5. Ibid. Pp. 251, 242. Note 6. Died in 1643. Note 7. Gottheil's Translation, p. 187. Note 8. Ibid. P. 188. Note 9. Ibid. P. 193. Note 10. Loc. Com. Vol. Iv. , p. 260. EXAMINATION OF THE LUTHERAN SYMBOLS. CHAPTER X. THE LORD'S SUPPER. That the doctrine of the _real presence_ of the body and blood of theSaviour in the eucharist, is taught in the symbolical books, isacknowledged by the Plea of the Rev. Mr. Mann, and indeed generallyadmitted, though variously stated and explained. It would therefore beunnecessary to quote those symbols in proof, were it not that many ofour readers have not access to them elsewhere, and that thecompleteness of our representation, as well as the plan of our workrequire it. The following passages will suffice to explain this view:-- _Augsburg Confession_, Art. X. OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. "Concerning the holy Supper of the Lord, it is taught, that the _truebody and blood_ of Christ are truly present, under the form of breadand wine, in the Lord's Supper, and are there administered andreceived. "--_Symb. Books_, p. 112. _Apology to the Confession_, Art. VII. , VIII. (IV. ) "Our adversaries (the Romanists, ) do not object to the tenth article(of the Augsburg Confession, ) in which we confess that the _body andblood_ of Christ our Lord, are _truly present_ in the holy supper, andadministered and received with the visible elements, the bread and wine, as hitherto maintained in the (Romish) church, and as the Greek Canonshows. "--_Symb. Books_, p. 227. _Smalcald_, Article VI. "Concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, we hold that the bread and winein the Eucharist, are _the true body and blood_ of Christ, which areadministered and received, not only by pious, but also by impiousChristians. "--_Symb. Books_, p. 384. _Luther's Smaller Catechism_. "_What is the Sacrament of the altar?_ "_Ans_. --It is the _true body and blood_ of our Lord Jesus Christ, withbread and wine, instituted by Christ himself, for us Christians to eatand drink. "--_Symb. Books_, p. 124. _Form of Concord_, Pt. I. , Art. VII. "We teach that the _true body and blood_ of our Lord Jesus Christ, aretruly and essentially, or substantially, present in the Lord's Supper, administered with the bread and wine, and _received with the lips byall_ those who use this sacrament, be they worthy or unworthy, good orevil, believing or unbelieving; being received by the believing untoconsolation and life, but by the unbelieving unto judgment. "-_Symb. Books_, p. 570. "We believe, teach, and confess, that the words of the testament ofChrist, are not to be understood otherwise than according to their_literal_ sense, so that the bread does not signify the absent body ofChrist, and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but on account oftheir sacramental union, _that the bread and wine_ ARE _truly the bodyand blood of Christ_. " (Sondern dass es wahrhaftig um sacramentlicherEinigkeit willen der Leib und Blut Christi sei. Sed ut proptersacramentalem unionem panis et vinum _vere sint corpus et sanguisChristi_. )--_Idem_. , p. 571. "We believe, teach, and confess, that not only the truly believing andthe worthy, but also the unworthy and the unbelieving, _receive thetrue body and blood of Christ_. "-Page 572. "In addition to the above clear passages, incontestably teaching thereal presence, it deserves to be ever remembered, that only fourteenyears after the Form of Concord was published, when Duke FrederickWilliam, during the minority of Christian II. , published the VISITATIONARTICLES OF SAXONY, in 1594, in order to suppress the Melancthoniantendencies to reject this and other peculiarities of the symbols, theArticle on this subject which was framed by men confessedly adhering tothe old symbols, and designing to re-enunciate their true import, andwhich was enforced upon the whole church in Saxony as symbolic, givesthe most objectionable view of this doctrine, viz. : I. 'The puredoctrine of our church is, that the words, '_Take and eat, this is mybody: drink, this is my blood_, are to be understood _simply andaccording to the letter_. ' II. That the body (which is received andeaten, ) is the _proper_ and _natural body_ (der rechte natuerliche Leib)of Christ, _which hung upon the cross;_ and the blood (which is drunk)is the _proper_ and _natural blood_ (das rechte natuerliche Blut) _whichflowed from the side of Christ_. ' Mueller's Symb. Books, p. 847. Now wecannot persuade ourselves, that this is the view of a single minister ofthe General Synod, or of many out of it; and yet these are the viewsthat those are obligated to receive, who avow implicit allegiance to theformer symbolical books of our church in Europe. If any adopt themodification received by many of our distinguished divines, such asReinhard Storr, Knapp, and others, they do not faithfully embrace thesymbolical doctrine, and cannot fairly profess to do so. " In regard to the arguments against this view of the _mode_ of theSaviour's presence, we shall merely add an enumeration of the principal, and refer the reader for a more full and detailed discussion of thesubject to Discourse IV. Contained in our History of the AmericanLutheran Church, pp. 120 to 154, 5th edition. The Reformers justly rejected the Romish error, that the bread and winewere transformed and transubstantiated into the body and blood ofChrist. But they still adhered to the opinion, that the real body andblood of the Saviour are present at the Eucharist, in some mysteriousway, and are received by the month of every communicant, worthy andunworthy. This view of the subject appears inconsistent with the Wordof God, for various reasons:- (_a_) When Christ uttered the words, this (bread) is my body, his bodywas not yet dead, but living and reclining, at their side at the table. It was therefore certainly not received by them into their mouths. Thelanguage must, therefore, have been figurative, such as Jesus wasaccustomed often to employ. Thus, when he said, "I am the _door_" Johnx. 9, he certainly does not mean a literal door, such as a door of woodor stone or brass or of any other material. He means that theacceptance of the atonement and mediation by the sinner is theappointed condition of salvation to him. Thus also when he says, "I amthe _true vine_" John xv. 1; or "The field is the world, " "The seed isthe word, " &c. , he evidently is speaking figuratively and communicatingimportant moral truth, by images drawn from physical nature, as isnaturally done by nearly all writers and speakers of all ages and inall languages. (_b_) The blessed Saviour himself exhorts us, "Do this in remembrance ofme;" but we can remember only that which is past and absent. Hence whenhe admonishes us to do this in remembrance of him, he teaches us, thathe is not personally or bodily present at the eucharistic celebration. (_c_) Paul also represents the design of this ordinance to be, "To showor publish the _Lord's death_, " until he comes. But the Lord's deathupon the cross occurred about eighteen hundred and twenty years ago. Therefore, according to Paul, the object of the holy supper is tocommemorate a _past event_, and not a present person. (_d_) The doctrine of the real presence of the true body and blood ofChrist, contradicts the clear and indisputable testimony of our senses, for as the body and blood are to be received by the mouth of thecommunicant, they must be circumscribed by space, and the reception mustbe a local and material one, which if it did occur at sacramentaloccasions, could be observed by the senses. (_e_) It contradicts the observation of all nations and all ages, thatevery body or material substance must occupy a definite portion ofspace, and cannot be at more than one place at the same time. For these and other reasons the great mass of our ministers andchurches, connected with the General Synod, reject this doctrine, asinconsistent with the word of God. The disposition to reject this error, or at least to leave the mode of the Saviour's presence undecided, wasmanifested by Melancthon himself, as is evident from his having strickenout the words which teach it from the Augsburg Confession, and from hishaving inserted others in their stead of a general nature, leaving roomfor different opinions on this question. The same disposition prevailedextensively in Germany in the latter third of the sixteenth century. But during the first quarter of the present century, the conviction thatthe Reformers did not purge away the whole of the Romish error from thisdoctrine, gained ground universally until the great mass of the wholeLutheran Church, before the year 1817, had rejected the doctrine of thereal presence. During the last twenty years the doctrines and writingsof the Reformation in general have been the subject of extensive studyby the reviving church in Germany, and as is natural, a small portionof the churches have embraced the symbolic view of this doctrine infull, and have become known as Old Lutherans, whilst others, both thereand in this country, have embraced various modifications of it. But thegreat body of the ministers and churches regard the real presence ofthe _body_ and _blood_ of the Saviour, in any proper sense, which thewords convey, as a misapprehension of the word of God. _The supposed special Sin-forgiving Power of the Lord's Supper_. On this subject, important as it is, especially to the masses of theless educated, who are most liable to these erroneous views, but littleneed be said in addition to the principles established on the subjectof the sacraments in general. The word of God clearly inculcates thedoctrine, to which Luther and his coadjutors gave such prominence, thatno one can be justified or pardoned except by a living faith in Christ, and such a faith is found only in the regenerate mind. And whenever thesinner exercises this living faith in Christ he is justified, that is, his sins are pardoned, he is in a _state of justification_, andcontinues in it, until by deliberate, voluntary violation of God's law, he falls from grace. Now, every communicant either possesses this faith, or he does not. If he does, he is justified or pardoned before hecommunes; if he is destitute of this faith, his communing cannot justifyor pardon him; for man is justified by faith alone. Yet are therethousands of church members who afford no satisfactory evidence ofregeneration, or of that faith which works by love, and purifies theheart, and overcomes the world; who, because they approach thesacramental table with seriousness and sincerity, and perhaps with somesorrow for their sins, believe that they obtain pardon for theirtransgressions, and yet still continue in their unregenerate state. Itcannot be said that the symbolical books clearly teach the above error, but they are not sufficiently guarded, and are understood by many asinculcating the doctrine, that a sincere and devout participation ofthe Lord's Supper secures the pardon of sin, even where satisfactoryevidences of regeneration are wanting, the persons referred tomistaking a mere historical belief for a living faith. Hence, as the_Scripture nowhere connects the forgiveness of sins with the duty ofsacramental communion_, any more than with the performance of any otherprominent christian duty, it is not proper that we should do so. Thedesign of the Holy Supper is to show forth the Lord's death, to professthe name of the Redeemer before the world, to confirm the previousfaith of the communicant, to bring him into closest spiritual communionwith his blessed Saviour, and to secure his special spiritual blessing:but not to bestow forgiveness of sins upon the unregenerate, howeverserious they may be. Against this dangerous error all should thereforecarefully guard, and ever remember the declaration of the Lord Jesuswhen he said, "_Unless a man be born again_ (become a new creature inChrist Jesus) _he cannot see the kindom [sic] of God_. " CHAPTER XI. EXORCISM. This superstitious practice, which consists in a prescribed formula ofadjuration, accompanied by various menacing demonstrations, by the useof which the priest professes to expel the evil spirits from anindividual, of whom they are supposed to have taken possession, waspractised in the Romish Church, principally before the baptism ofinfants. The rite was retained, with an altered interpretation, invarious parts of the Lutheran Church in Europe, for several centuries. In the American Lutheran Church, it was never received by the fathersof our church, and is regarded as unscriptural and highly objectionable, under the most favorable interpretation that can be given it. As exorcism is not touched by the Augsburg Confession, it is also notdiscussed by the Rev. Mr. Mann, in his Plea. But as others haveobjected to the Platform for representing it as in any degree a part ofthe Symbolic system, we will adduce evidence enough to satisfy everyimpartial and reasonable reader, that it was so regarded for severalcenturies, by a considerable portion of the Lutheran Church in Europe;and that the assertion of the Platform, "_that this rite was retained, with an altered interpretation, in various parts of the Lutheran Churchin Europe, for several centuries_, " (p. 23, ) is even more thansustained. As our church, in common with the other state churches of Europe, iscontrolled by the civil government, the ministers and members of thechurch were never invited or permitted to deliberate and decide on thequestion what books they will receive as symbolical or binding. Thiswork the political rulers or princes determined for them, inconsultation with some leading divines. Still we may fairly regard thoseconfessional writings as symbolical, which have been prescribed by thegovernment, and received and _practiced_ on by the churches. Now, if the"Taufbuechlein, " " Tract or Directory for Baptism, " of Luther, _in whichExorcism is commanded_, was thus prescribed and received [tr. Note:there is a space here which could be meant to contain the word "by"] twoor three principalities or provinces of Europe, the position of thePlatform is vindicated; but the truth is, it was received by entirekingdoms and provinces, and retained in practice for centuries; so thatthe Platform is more than sustained. Let us _first_ hear the testimonyof the best authorities of Germany on the subject, and _then_ sum upthe results. (_a_) _Dr. Guericke, [Note 1] Professor of Theology at Halle, the authorof a well-known Church History, testifies: "Moreover, the SmallerCatechism (of Luther) contained, even in the oldest known Germanedition, (Wittenberg, 1529, ) several forms of prayer, the Familydiretory [sic] or selection of Scripture passages on theduties of all orders and conditions of men, and the Directory formarriage and _baptism, all of which supplementary tracts were alsoreceived into the_ FIRST _authentic edition of the German "Book ofConcord_. " The baptismal directory was therefore received into the veryfirst authentic edition of the symbolical books. (_b_) _Dr. Koellner_, Professor of Theology at Goettingen, in hisexcellent "Symbolik, " p. 501, states: "There was a Latin Directory forBaptism extant, (in the Romish church, ) which Luther translated intoGerman unaltered in 1523. It is found in Vol. II. Of his works, Jenaedition, pp. 248-252, and Vol. II. All, pp. 304-327. But in 1524 or 1526he wrote the Baptismal Directory, and brought it into the form in whichit was added to the Catechism. Thus it is found Vol. II. Of Altenb. Ed. P. 227. It was therefore added to the Catechism by Luther himself, andat the earliest period (of the Reformation. ) [Note 2] The directory forthe solemnization of matrimony was also added by Luther in the 2dedition. Both those Tracts were usually published together with thesmaller Catechism; and were also received into the Corpus Thuring. Andinto _the first edition of the Book of Concord_, June, 1580. " Again, we see that this Directory for baptism in which exorcism isprescribed, was not only the production of Luther, but also added byhim to his Catechism, and introduced into the very first collection ofthe symbolical book. (_c_) _Dr. Baumgarten Crusius_, Professor of Theology at Jena, in hisHistory of Christian Doctrines, Vol. II. P. 322, thus testifies: "Bymeans of the religiously energetic language of Luther, _exorcism_ wasintroduced among his party, and established itself amid much opposition, (amongst others from the Papists) in rigid opposition to Calvinism, andas is the case amongst us _at present_, (1846, ) from attachment toancient, stern orthodoxy, and their idea of genuine Lutheranism, as wellas from the superstitious belief of a magic influence over the kingdomof evil spirits. "--"The liturgic formula (for exorcism) retained in theLutheran church, was first zealously espoused by the populace, when theCrypto-Calvinists especially in Saxony, raised opposition to it; andsince then it has been regarded as a _criterion of Lutheranism_, although exorcism is not mentioned in the Saxon Articles of Visitation, and from an early period it was defended by the Lutheran theologiansmerely as a free matter of indifference, with only a figurativemeaning. " Here we find not only that exorcism has extensively prevailedin the Lutheran church of Germany, but that as late as 1846, it stillwas adhered to by some in Saxony: and that for a long time after therise of Crypto-Calvinism in the latter part of the sixteenth century, adherence to this rite was regarded as a _test_ of genuine Lutheranism. How vain therefore the attempt to deny that it was regarded as a part ofsymbolic Lutheranism in some parts of the church! (_d_. ) _Dr. Augusti_, Professor of Theology at Bonn, and more recentlyat Berlin, the celebrated author of numerous works, bears the followingtestimony: "At the close of the sixteenth century the vindication ofexorcism was considered a proof of _Lutheran orthodoxy_ in opposition tothe Reformed and Crypto-Calvinists. In the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies there was much contention for and against it; and even in the_nineteenth_ century its retention or rejection was not yet regarded asa matter of indifference. " p. 350. (_e_) In _Siegel's_ Manual of Christian Ecclesiastical Antiquities, (alearned and excellent work in four volumes, published in Leipsic, 1836, )vol II. P. 64, 65, 67, we find the following testimony: "Inasmuch as he(Luther) pronounced this rite not indeed as necessary, but yet as_highly useful_, in order to remind the people very impressively of thepower of sin and the devil; it was not remarkable that the zealousadherents of Luther were also unwilling to abandon his views on thissubject. Hence we find that _in all countries in which the views andexample of Luther were rigidly adhered to, as in Saxony, Wuertemburg, Hanover, Sweden, and other places_, a strong attachment to exorcismprevailed, which was often regarded _as the criterion of orthodoxy_. ""Some Lutherans cherished exorcism with a kind of _passionatefondness_. " "In the sixteenth century exorcism was alternately defendedin one place and disapproved in another; and in the latter half of theeighteenth, attention was again directed to the subject partly byaccidental circumstances, and partly also by the great changes in thedepartment of theology. The result has been that exorcism has beenentirely abolished in different individual towns; and in severalcountries. This, for example, was the case in Regensburg in 1781, inHamburg in 1786, and since 1811, in all Sweden. " "In other ProtestantLutheran Stales, it is still left to the choice of the parents, whetherthey will have their children baptised with or without exorcism. " "Theauthor (says Siegel) was himself placed in the unpleasant predicamentin the year 1836, " of having been requested to perform baptism withexorcism!! (_f_) _Dr. Sigismund J. Baumgarten_ of Halle, one of the most learnedand profound divines that ever adorned the Lutheran church, who himselfpublished one of the best and the most extensively circulated editionsof the symbolical books in 1747, not only inserts the Directory forBaptism (which inculcates exorcism) among the symbolical books, but onp. 637 bears the following testimony: "The Directory for solemnizingmarriage, as well as the following _Directory for Baptism_, are found inthe _oldest Corp. Doctrinae_, in the _Thuringian, Julian, Brandenburg_, and first DRESDEN EDITIONS, and also subsequently, in the Leipsic andReineccian, " p. 637. From these historical testimonies the following points are clearlyestablished: 1. That the Directory for Baptism, in which _exorcism_ is prescribed, was certainly received into the first and authentic edition of theGerman Book of Concord, or collection of symbolical books. This isattested by Drs. Guericke, Sig. Baumgarten, and Koellner. It wassubsequently republished in various other editions, down till the recenteditions of Mueller, and also of Ludwig in our own country. In othereditions [Note 3] it was omitted, because in some portions of Germanyexorcism was rejected at an early day, as stated in the History of theAmerican Lutheran Church. 2. It is proved that the _practice of exorcism_ was for a long timeregarded as a _test of orthodoxy_ in many Lutheran territories ofGermany. Attested by Drs. Augusti, Baumgarten Crusius and Siegel. Inthese countries editions of the symbolical books containing theBaptismal Directory were in use, and the rite was regarded assymbolical. 3. The rite was received and practised throughout Sweden, the entirekingdom of Wuertemberg, Hanover, Saxony, &c. , &c. Siegel and others. [sic] 4. It is established incontestibly [sic] that the practice was continuedfor centuries in some of these countries, and was but recently renouncedby others. Siegel and others. [sic] We may therefore well affirm, that the position of the DefinitePlatform on this subject has been established beyond the possibility ofserious doubt, namely, "_That this rite was retained, with an alteredinterpretation, in various parts of the Lutheran Church in Europe forseveral centuries_. " p. 23. As to making the symbolic character of a book depend on its being foundin any particular number of editions or in them all, it is inadmissible, because, as Dr. Hase remarks, and the respected author of the Pleaadmits, the Augsburg Confession is the only one of the Lutheransymbolical books which has been universally received throughout thechurch. These editions, moreover, have been published, some by the civilgovernments, and others by private individuals; and the Lutheran churchas such, has never been called on to decide which books are symbolic. The practice of different portions of the church is different, thereforethe distinction must be made as to the extent to which each book wasreceived; and as it is certain that exorcism was in some countries andperiods even regarded as a _distinctive test_ of orthodoxy, _thenand there_, this rite must have been regarded as symbolic in thehighest degree. Note 1. Symbolik, p. 103, n. 2. Note 2. The original is: Also von Luther selbst und schon in den ersten_Zeugen_ von ihm dem Katechismus ange haengt. " [sic onpunctuation] _Zeugen_ here is evidently a typographical error forZeiten. Note 3. For particulars see the writer's History of the AmericanLutheran Church, pp. 239-241. CHAPTER XII. CONCLUDING REMARKS. We have thus found the statements of the Definite Platform, as to thetenets taught in the Augsburg Confession and other Symbolical books, established by the most careful and conscientious investigation of theoriginal sources. Such are the facts incontestibly [sic] proved. Theyare true, and will remain true, notwithstanding all the ill-advisedefforts to hide them. The Augsburg Confession, and other symbols, doteach the tenets ascribed to them in the Platform, and, in the judgmentof the great mass of American Lutherans, the Word of God rejects them, and inculcates the contrary. All the invective and vituperation, not ofthe author of the Plea but of multitudes of old-Lutherans, &c. , cannotchange the truth, for it is unchangeable and eternal; nor is it theirduty to deny it, any more than it is ours. The question then arises, what is our duty under these circumstances?What does God expect of us, in view of these facts, as men to whom theinterests and management of a portion of his church are confided? As mento whom he has given his inspired oracles, as the sure word of prophecy, to which we are to give heed? As men who love Luther and hisfellow-laborers much, but desire to love Christ more? Does our duty call on us to deny the truth, and say, these doctrines arenot taught in these books, when the most careful examination has assuredus of the contrary? No honest man can affirm this. Is it honest or honorable to avow, unconditionally, creeds containingerrors, and then labor to gloss over or defend these errors, becausethey are there? This would be to descend to the level of corruptpoliticians, who professedly defend every measure of their party, whether right or wrong. Is it our duty to profess such creeds, then by arbitrary interpretationsto explain away these errors, and thus endeavor to hide them from thepublic view? This would be injustice to the memory of their authors, andcast reproach on the principles of the Reformation, the essence of whichwas, that human errors must be rejected in favor of God's Word; and thatthe standards or professed doctrines of the church, must in every age beconformed to her views of Scripture truth. Is it our duty, is it the Master's will, that we should try to believethose tenets of a creed which the Scriptures condemn? This would betreason to the Master, and be hearkening to the teachings of man ratherthan of God! Yet how many are there from whose lips the phraseconfessional fidelity (Bekenntnisstreue, ) is heard far oftener thanfidelity to God's word (Bibeltreue)! Is it our duty to renounce the Augsburg Confession altogether? Thiswould be the case, _if its errors were fundamental_. But as they are fewin number, and all relate to non-fundamental points, this does notnecessarily follow. As nineteen twentieths of the creed are sustained byScripture, and embody a rich and ample exhibition of divine truth, tentimes as extended as that which was invested with normative authority inthe golden age, the first three centuries of the Christian church, andused as a term of Christian fellowship, we may well retain the creed, after in some way disavowing its several errors. And the historicalimportance of the document, as the type of a renovated Christianity, authenticated by the blessing of Heaven, renders its retentiondesirable, as far as it has approved itself to the conscience of thechurch, after the increasing philological, exegetical, and historicallight of three progressive centuries. The position of those who maintain that _genuine Lutheranism_ demandsperpetual adherence to everything contained in this Confession, yea, assome affirm, to all the former symbolical books, is utterly untenable. In the _first_ place, these brethren forget that the symbolic system, _i. E. _, the practice of binding ministers to the so-called symbolicalbooks, was _not_ adopted at the organization of the Lutheran Church, _nor at any time during Luther's life_, nor until more than half acentury after the rise of Lutheranism, and more than a quarter of acentury after the noble Luther had gone to his heavenly rest. _Symbolism is therefore no part of original Lutheranism_. The efforts ofLuther to reform the Romish Church began in 1517--the first regularorganization of Lutheran churches was not made until some time after hisexcommunication by the Pope, in 1520. The first directory for Lutheranworship was published by Luther in 1523, in which, although privatemasses and the idea of the mass being a sacrifice had been rejected, the_ceremonies_ of the mass, even the _elevation of the host_, (though notfor adoration) were retained; another improved one in 1526; and theAugsburg Confession was presented to the Diet in 1530; but the fullsymbolic system contended for by some of our opponents, was not adopteduntil 1580, _after the Lutheran church had existed more than half acentury!!_ That system, historically considered, is not, therefore, Lutheran, but _Post_-Lutheran and _Ultra_-Lutheran, for it is after himin time, and goes beyond him at least in one point of doctrine, and farbeyond him in the abridgement [sic] of ministerial liberty of doctrinalprofession, and in exaction of uniformity on minor points. Again, thesebrethren forget that Luther thought it his duty to _reform_ the churchof his birth, and did _not leave it until driven out by the Pope_. Theefforts of American Lutherans to reform and render more biblical theecclesiastical framework of our church, is therefore, _truly Lutheran inprinciple_, indeed far more Lutheran, than to retain unaltered thosesymbols, when we believe that the progress of Protestant light andbiblical investigation for three hundred years, has proved them tocontain important errors. Thirdly, they forget that _Luther himself never saw, much less approved, the most objectionable and stringent of these books_, the Form ofConcord, the profession of which they would make essential toLutheranism. Fourthly, they overlook the fact that _entire Lutheran kingdoms, such asDenmark and Sweden, from the beginning rejected some of these books_, and yet are everywhere acknowledged as Lutherans. Fifthy, [sic] they forget that the _Form of Concord itself professes toregard Confessions of faith only an exhibitions of the manner_ in whichChristians of _a particular age understand the Scriptures;_ implyingthat they were not supposed even by the authors of the symbolic systemthemselves to be unchangeable, although their incorporation with thecivil law of the land, closed the door against all subsequentimprovement. A revision of our symbolic standpoint, is therefore perfectly consistentwith primitive Lutheranism; and according to the Congregational orIndependent principles of Lutheran church government, advocated byLuther, and hitherto practiced on by our American church, as well asavowed by the Constitution of the General Synod, each District Synod iscompetent to do this work for herself as long as she retains "the_fundamental_ doctrines of the Bible as taught by our church. " How then can this important work be best accomplished, of releasingourselves on the one hand from the profession of the errors containedin the Confession, and on the other of avowing the unadulterated truthsof God's word? 1. Shall we _drop the practice of binding our ministers to any creedexcept the Bible_, and refer in unofficial ways to the _AugsburgConfession_, as in general a correct summary of our views of Bibletruth? This was the practice of the _fathers of our church in the Synodof Pennsylvania from the beginning of this century, till within two orthree years_. It was practiced by that body whilst it was controlled by_Drs. Helmuth, Schmidt, Muhlenberg_, of Lancaster, _Schaeffer_, ofPhiladelphia, _Endress, Lochman, J. G. Schmucker, Geissenhainer_subsequently of New York, _Muhlenberg_, of Reading, and the presentvenerable Senior of the Ministerium, Rev. _Baetis_. This plan we alwaysregarded as too lax, and preferred the distinct avowal of the AugsburgConfession as to the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, and wereourselves instrumental in introducing its qualified recognition intothe General Synod's Theological Seminary in 1825, and her Constitutionfor District Synods in 1829. Still we have recently been denounced asunfaithful to the confession, by those unacquainted with the history ofour church during the last five and thirty years. 2. Shall we _adopt a new creed_, to supercede [sic] the venerableAugsburg Confession? This is unnecessary, because the points regarded aserroneous in it, are confessedly few and non-essential. When these areerased, the great mass of Christian truth remains intact, and not oneof all the cardinal doctrines of the Reformation is affected. 3. Shall we adopt and publish the entire Augsburg Confession, _with alist annexed to it, of those points believed by the majority to beerroneous_, providing that they may be rejected by all who do notbelieve them? This would be a contradictory procedure, first to publishthe whole, and then to reject a portion of it as not symbolic orbinding. If these supposed errors are not to be received, whyperpetuate their memory, and afford to the enemies of our venerablechurch, a constant supply of material to fight against us, and renderthe church odious in the popular eye? 4. Shall we remain satisfied with _the General Synod's doctrinal basis_, of absolute assent to the _Bible_, and agreement with the _AugsburgConfession_ as far as the _fundamentals_ of God's Word are concerned? This pledge we always regarded as accordant with the principles of God'sWord, and sufficient for the necessities of the church. Amid the recentprogress of more rigid symbolism, and symbolic sympathies, it has, however, been disparaged by some connected with the General Synod. Westill believe it sufficient, _provided all_ the Synods embraced in theGeneral Synod will adhere to it; and those who have recently adopted theentire symbolic system, will return to it. But if District Synods ofsymbolic tendencies, will adopt the obligation to the mass of symbolicbooks; New School Lutherans are compelled, in self-defence, also todefine their position more minutely, that the christian public may nothold them responsible for the errors of the former symbols, nor theirsupposed adherence to them tend to give them currency. If, therefore, Old School Synods adhere to their recent pledge to all the symbolicalbooks, we prefer the following course for other District Synods. 5. The best plan by far in our judgment is to _retain the great body ofthe Confession unaltered, and simply to omit the few sentencesinculcating the disputed or erroneous topics_. The remainder is believedby all, and can be subscribed by all, whether they believe the omittedtopics or not. This is precisely the thing done by the American Recension of theAugsburg Confession. _It's [sic] principle is to omit thedisputed points and, retain unaltered the remainder, on which we allagree_. On the three disputed points which alone are believed by anyamongst us, namely, baptismal regeneration, the real presence of theSaviour in the eucharist, and the denial of the divine appointment ofthe Christian Sabbath, entire freedom is allowed. As to the others, private confession and absolution, the ceremonies of the mass, andexorcism, which was taught not in the Augsburg Confession, but in theAppendix to Luther's Smaller Catechism, --they are not received by anyone within the pale of the General Synod, and are so distinctlysemi-Romish that they are prohibited by the Platform. The adoption ofthe name, _American Recension_, always notifies th reader of somerevision, and precluded the charge of an attempt to pass it off for theunaltered Confession of the sixteenth century. The Synodical Disclaimer or List of these rejected errors, which isannexed to the Platform, can be dropped as soon as the churches arefully informed of the ground of our not receiving the other symbolicalbooks, or if this be deemed unnecessary, it may be dropped at once. Bythe adoption of either of the latter two methods, and especially of thelast, by the individual District Synods, they would present to theworld a clear profession of their faith, have a sufficient test for theadmission of members, and the rejection of heretics, and couldharmoniously labor together for the furtherance of the gospel. We havethus in the fear of God and in the spirit of Christian love; butuninfluenced by the fear or favor of man, presented our deliberateconvictions on the subjects now agitating the church, after six andthirty years of study of the Bible, and experience in the ministry ofour divine Master. And we close with the earnest prayer, that the GreatHead of the Church, may employ these pages for the advancement of hisglory, that he may conduct his beloved Zion onward in her march ofdevelopment and progress, until she has attained her millennialfeatures, and her world-wide extension, and until "the kingdoms of thisworld are become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ, and he shallreign for ever and ever. " APPENDIX. DEFINITE PLATFORM;BEING THEDOCTRINAL BASIS OR CREED, CONTAINED INPART I. OF THEDEFINITE SYNODICAL PLATFORM, REFERRED TO IN THE PRECEDING WORK, AND CONSTRUCTEDIN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THEGENERAL SYNOD. PREFACE. As the American Recension, contained in this Platform, adds not a singlesentence to the Augsburg Confession, nor omits anything that has theleast pretension to be considered "a fundamental doctrine of Scripture, "it is perfectly consistent with the doctrinal test of the General Synod, as contained in her Formula of Government and Discipline, Chap. XVIII. , § 5, and XIX. , § 2. The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds are also universallyreceived by our churches. Hence any District Synod, connected with theGeneral Synod, may, with perfect consistency, adopt this Platform. DOCTRINAL BASIS OR CREED. Whereas it is the duty of the followers of Christ to profess his [sic]religion before the world (Matt. X. 32), not only by their holy walkand conversation, but also by "walking in the apostles' doctrines"(1 Cor. Xiv. 32), and bearing testimony "to the faith once delivered tothe saints" (Jude 3), Christians have, from the earlier ages, avowedsome brief summary of their doctrines or a Confession of their faith. Such confessions, also called symbols, were the so-called Apostles'Creed, the Nicene Creed, &c. , of the first four centuries after Christ. Thus also did the Lutheran Reformers of the sixteenth century, whencited by the Emperor to appear before the Diet at Augsburg, present theConfession, bearing the name of that city, as an expose of theirprincipal doctrines; in which they also professedly reject only the_greater part_ of the errors that had crept into the Romish Church. (See conclusion of the Abuses Corrected. ) Again, a quarter of a century after Luther's death, this and otherwritings of Luther and Melancthon, together with another work whichneither of them ever saw, the Form of Concord, were made binding onministers and churches, not by the church herself, acting of her ownfree choice, but by the civil authorities of certain kingdoms andprincipalities, in consultation with some prominent theologians. Themajority of Lutheran kingdoms, however, rejected one or more of them, and the Augsburg Confession alone has been acknowledged by the entireLutheran Church. (Hutterus Red. P. 116, § 50. ) Whereas the entire Lutheran Church of Germany has rejected the bindingauthority of the symbolical books as a whole, and also abandoned someof the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, and our fathers in thiscountry more, [sic] than half century ago, ceased to requirea pledge to any of these books, whilst they still believed and invarious ways avowed the great fundamental doctrines contained in them: And whereas the General Synod of the American Lutheran Church, about aquarter of a century ago, again introduced a qualified acknowledgment ofthe Augsburg Confession, in the Constitution of her TheologicalSeminary, and in her Constitution for District Synods, at the ordinationand licensure of ministers, without specifying tho doctrines to beomitted, except by the designation that they are not fundamentaldoctrines of Scripture; and whereas a desire has extensively prevailedamongst our ministers and churches, to have this basis expressed in amore definite manner; and the General Synod has left this matteroptional with each district Synod: _Therefore, Resolved_, That this Synod hereby avows its belief in thefollowing doctrinal Basis, namely, the so-called _Apostles' Creed_, the_Nicene Creed_, and _the American Recension of the Augsburg Confession_, as a more definite expression of the doctrinal pledge prescribed by theGeneral Synod's Constitution for District Synods, and as a correctexhibition of the Scripture doctrines discussed in it: and that weregard agreement among brethren on these subjects as a sufficient basisfor harmonious co-operation in the same church. DOCTRINAL BASIS OR CREED. _The Old and New Testaments the only Infallible Rule of Faith andPractice_ 1. "We believe, teach, and confess, that the only rule and standard, according to which all doctrines and teachers alike ought to be triedand judged, are the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments alone, asit is written, Psalm cxix. 105: 'Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and alight upon my path. ' And St. Paul, Gal. I. 8, says 'Though an angel fromheaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preachedunto you, let him be accursed. ' 2. "But all human writings and symbols, are not authorities like theHoly Scriptures; but they are only a testimony and explanation of ourfaith, showing the manner in which at any time the Holy Scriptures wereunderstood and explained by those who then lived, in respect to articlesthat had been controverted in the church of God, and also the grounds onwhich doctrines that were opposed to the Holy Scriptures, had beenrejected and condemned. "--_Form of Concord, pp_. 551, 552. THE APOSTLES' CREED I believe in God the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by theHoly Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, wascrucified, dead and buried. -- The third day he rose from the dead, heascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the FatherAlmighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy universal church; the communionof saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, andthe life everlasting. THE NICENO-CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten ofhis Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of light, true God ofthe true God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation, camedown from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the VirginMary, and was made man and was crucified also for us under PontiusPilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth onthe right hand of the Father; and he shall come again with glory tojudge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, whoproceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Sontogether is worshipped [sic] and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And I believe in one holy universal and apostolic church. I acknowledgeone baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrectionof the dead and the life of the world to come. AMERICAN RECENSION OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. ARTICLE I. - OF GOD. Our churches with one accord teach, that the decree of the Council ofNice, concerning the unity of the Divine essence, and concerning thethree persons, is true, and ought to be confidently believed, viz. : thatthere is one Divine essence, which is called and is God, eternal, incorporeal, indivisible, infinite in power, wisdom and goodness, theCreator and Preserver of all things visible and invisible; and yet, thatthere are three persons, who are of the same essence and power, and areco-eternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And the termperson they use in the same sense in which it is employed byecclesiastical writers on this subject: to signify, not a part orquality of something else, but that which exists of itself. ARTICLE II. - OF NATURAL DEPRAVITY. Our churches likewise teach, that since the fall of Adam, all men whoare naturally engendered, are born with sin, that is, without the fearof God or confidence towards Him, and with sinful propensities: and thatthis disease, or natural depravity, is really sin, and still causeseternal death to those who are not born again. And they reject theopinion of those who, in order that they may detract from the glory ofthe merits and benefits of Christ, allege that man may be justifiedbefore God by the powers of his own reason. ARTICLE III. - OF THE SON OF GOD AND HIS MEDIATORIAL WORK. They likewise teach, that the Word, that is, the Son of God, assumedhuman nature, in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that the twonatures, human and divine, inseparably united in one person, constituteone Christ, who is true God and man, born of the Virgin Mary; who trulysuffered, was crucified, died, and was buried, that he might reconcilethe Father to us, and be a sacrifice not only for original sin, butalso for all the actual sins of men. Likewise that he descended intohell (the place of departed spirits), and truly arose on the third day;then ascended to heaven, that he might sit at the right hand of theFather, might perpetually reign over all creatures, and might sanctifythose who believe in him, by sending into their hearts the Holy Spirit, who governs, consoles, quickens, and defends them against the devil andthe power of sin. The same Christ will return again openly, that he mayjudge the living and the dead, &c. , according to the Apostolic Creed. ARTICLE IV. - OF JUSTIFICATION. They in like manner teach, that men cannot be justified before God bytheir own strength, merits, or works; but that they are justifiedgratuitously for Christ's sake, through faith; when they believe, thatthey are received into favor, and that their sins are remitted onaccount of Christ, who made satisfaction for our transgressions by hisdeath. This faith God imputes to us as righteousness. ROM. Iii. 4 ARTICLE V. - OF THE MINISTERIAL OFFICE. In order that we may obtain this faith, the ministerial office has beeninstituted, whose members are to teach the gospel, and administer thesacraments. For through the instrumentality of the word and sacraments, as means of grace, the Holy Spirit is given, who, in his own time andplace (or more literally, when and where it pleases God), producesfaith in those who hear the gospel message, namely, that God, forChrist's sake, and not on account of any merit in us, justifies thosewho believe that on account of Christ they are received into (thedivine) favor. ARTICLE VI. - CONCERNING NEW OBEDIENCE (OR A CHRISTIAN LIFE). They likewise teach, this faith must bring forth good fruits; and thatit is our duty to perform those good works which God has commanded, because he has enjoined them, and not in the expectation of therebymeriting justification before him. For, remission of sins andjustification are secured by faith; as the declaration of Christ himselfimplies: "When ye shall have done all those things, say, we areunprofitable servants. " The same thing is taught by the ancient ecclesiastical writers: forAmbrose says, "this has been ordained by God, that he who believes inChrist is saved without works, receiving remission of sins gratuitouslythrough faith alone. " ARTICLE VII. - OF THE CHURCH. They likewise teach, that there will always be one holy church. Thechurch is the congregation of the saints, in which the gospel iscorrectly taught and the sacraments are properly administered. And forthe true unity of the church nothing more is required, than agreementconcerning the doctrines of the gospel, and the administration of thesacraments. Nor is it necessary, that the same human traditions, thatis, rites and ceremonies instituted by men, should be everywhereobserved. As Paul says: "One faith, one baptism, one God and Father ofall, " &c. ARTICLE VIII. - WHAT THE CHURCH IS. Although the church is properly a congregation of saints and truebelievers; yet in the present life, many hypocrites and wicked men aremingled with them. ARTICLE IX. - CONCERNING BAPTISM. Concerning baptism, our churches teach, that it is "a necessaryordinance, " [Note 1] that it is a means of grace, and ought to beadministered also to children, who are thereby dedicated to God, andreceived into his favor. ARTICLE X. - OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. In regard to the Lord's Supper they teach that Christ is present withthe communicants in the Lord's Supper, "under the emblems of bread andwine. " [Note 2] ARTICLE XI. - OF CONFESSION. [As Private Confession and Absolution, which are inculcated in thisArticle, though in a modified form, have been universally rejected bythe American Lutheran Church, the omission of this Article is demandedby the principle on which the American Recension of the AugsburgConfession is constructed; namely, to omit the several portions, whichare rejected by the great mass of our churches in this country, and toadd nothing in their stead. ] [tr. Note: bracketed in the original] ARTICLE XII. - OF REPENTANCE (AFTER BACKSLIDING). Concerning repentance they teach, that those who have relapsed into sinafter baptism, may at any time obtain pardon, when they repent. Butrepentance properly consists of two parts. The one is contrition, orbeing struck with terrors of conscience, on account of acknowledged sin. The other is faith, which is produced by the gospel; which believes thatpardon for sin is bestowed for Christ's sake; which tranquilizes theconscience, and liberates it from fear. Such repentance must besucceeded by good works as its fruits. ARTICLE XIII. - OF THE USE OF THE SACRAMENTS. Concerning the use of the sacraments our churches teach, that they wereinstituted not only as marks of a Christian profession amongst men; butrather as signs and evidences of the divine disposition towards us, tendered for the purpose of exciting and confirming the faith of thosewho use them. Hence the sacraments ought to be received with faith inthe promises which are exhibited and proposed by them. They therefore condemn the opinion of those who maintain, that thesacraments produce justification in their recipients as a matter ofcourse, [Note 3] who do not teach that faith is necessary, in thereception of the sacraments, to the remission of sins. ARTICLE XIV. - OF CHURCH ORDERS, (OR THE MINISTRY. ) Concerning church orders they teach, that no person ought publicly toteach "or preach, " [Note 4] in the church, or to administer thesacraments, without a regular call. ARTICLE XV. - OF RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES. Concerning ecclesiastical ceremonies they teach, that those ceremoniesought to be observed, which can be attended to without sin, and whichpromote peace and good order in the church, such as certain holy-days, festivals, &c. Concerning matters of this kind, however, men arecautioned, lest their consciences be burdened, as though suchobservances were necessary to salvation. They are also admonished thathuman traditionary observances, instituted with a view to appease God, and to merit his favor, and make satisfaction for sins, are contrary tothe gospel and the doctrine of faith "in Christ. " [Note 5] Whereforevows and traditionary observances concerning meats, days, &c. , instituted to merit grace and make satisfaction for sins, are useless, and contrary to the gospel. ARTICLE XVI. - OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS. In regard to political affairs our churches teach that legitimatepolitical enactments are good works of God; that it is lawful forChristians to hold civil offices, to pronounce judgment, and decidecases according to existing laws; to inflict just punishment, wage justwars, and serve in them; to make lawful contracts; hold property; tomake oath when required by the magistrate, to marry, and to be married. Hence Christians ought necessarily to yield obedience to their civilofficers and laws; unless they should command something sinful; inwhich case it is a duty to obey God rather than man. Acts v. 29. ARTICLE XVII. - OF CHRIST'S RETURN TO JUDGMENT. Our churches also teach, that at the end of the world, Christ willappear for judgment; that he will raise all the dead; that he willbestow upon the pious and elect eternal life and endless joys, but willcondemn wicked men and devils to be punished without end. ARTICLE XVIII. - OF FREE WILL. Concerning free will our churches teach, that the human will possessessome liberty for the performance of civil duties, and for the choice ofthose things lying within the control of reason. But it does not possessthe power, without the influence of the Holy Spirit, of being justbefore God, or yielding spiritual obedience: for the natural manreceiveth not the things which are of the Spirit of God: but this isaccomplished in the heart, when the Holy Spirit is received through theword. The same is declared by Augustine in so many words: "We confess that allmen have a free will, which possesses the judgment of reason, by whichthey cannot indeed, without the divine aid, either begin or certainlyaccomplish what is becoming in things relating to God; but only in'outward' [Note 6] works of the present life, as well good as evil. Ingood works, I say, which arise from our natural goodness, such as tochoose to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to choose to have afriend, to have clothing, to build a house, to take a wife, to feedcattle, to learn various and useful arts, or to do any good thingrelative to this life; all which things, however, do not exist withoutthe divine government; yea, they exist and begin to be from Him andthrough Him. And in evil works (men have a free will), such as to chooseto worship an idol, to will to commit murder, " &c. It is not possible by the mere powers of nature, without the aid of theHoly Spirit, to love God above all things, and to do his commandsaccording to their intrinsic design. For, although nature may be able, after a certain manner, to perform external actions, such as to abstainfrom theft, from murder, &c. , yet it cannot perform the inner motions, such as the fear of God, faith in God, chastity, patience, &c. ARTICLE XIX. - OF THE AUTHOR OF SIN. On this subject they teach, that, although God is the Creator andPreserver of nature, the cause of sin must be sought in the depravedwill of the devil and of wicked men, which, when destitute of divineaid, turns itself away from God: agreeably to the declaration of Christ, "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own. " - JOHN viii. 44. ARTICLE XX. - OF GOOD WORKS. Our writers are falsely acccused [sic] of prohibiting good works. Theirpublications on the ten commandments, and other similar subjects, show, that they gave good instructions concerning all the different stationsand duties of life, and explained what course of conduct, in anyparticular calling, is pleasing to God. Concerning these things, preachers formerly said very little, but urged the necessity of puerileand useless works, such as certain holy-days, fasts, brotherhoods, pilgrimages, worship of saints, rosaries, monastic vows, &c. Theseuseless things, our adversaries, having been admonished, now unlearn, and no longer teach as formerly. Moreover, they now begin to makemention of faith, about which they formerly observed a marvellous [sic]silence. They now teach, that we are not justified by works alone, butjoin faith to works, and maintain that we are justified by faith andworks. This doctrine is more tolerable than their former belief, and iscalculated to impart more consolation to the mind. Inasmuch, then, asthe doctrine concerning faith, which should be regarded as a principalone by the church, had so long been unknown; for all must confess, thatconcerning the righteousness of faith, the most profound silencereigned in their sermons, and the doctrine concerning works alone wasdiscussed in the churches; our divines have admonished the churches asfollows:- First, that our works cannot reconcile God, or merit the remission ofsins, grace, and justification: but this we can attain only by faith, when we believe that we are received into favor, for Christ's sake, whoalone is appointed our mediator and propitiatory sacrifice, by whom theFather can be reconciled. He, therefore, who expects to merit grace byhis works, casts contempt on the merits and grace of Christ, and isseeking the way to God, in his own strength, without the Saviour; whonevertheless has told us, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. " Thisdoctrine concerning faith, is incessantly inculcated by the Apostle Paul(Ephes. Ii), "Ye are saved by grace, through faith, and that not ofyourselves; it is the gift of God, " not of works, &c. And, lest any oneshould cavil at our interpretation, and charge it with novelty, we statethat this whole matter is supported by the testimony of the fathers. ForAugustine devotes many volumes to the defence of grace, and therighteousness of faith, in opposition to the merit of good works. AndAmbrosius, on the calling of he Gentiles, &c. , inculcates the samedoctrine. For thus he says, concerning the calling of the Gentiles:"Redemption by the blood of Christ is of little value, nor is the honorof human works subordinated to the mercy of God, if justification, whichis of grace, is supposed to be merited by previous works, so as to benot the gift of him that bestows it, but the reward of him that earnedit. " But, although this doctrine is despised by the inexperienced, theconsciences of the pious and timid find it a source of much consolation, for they cannot attain peace of conscience in any works, but in faithalone, when they entertain the confident belief that, for Christ's sake, God is reconciled to them. Thus Paul teaches us (Rom. V. ), "Beingjustified by faith, we have peace with God. " This whole doctrine must bereferred to the conflict in the conscience of the alarmed sinner, norcan it be otherwise understood. Hence the inexperienced andworldly-minded are much mistaken, who vainly imagine that therighteousness of the Christian is nothing else than what in common lifeand in the language of philosophy is termed morality. Formerly, the consciences of men were harassed by the doctrine of works, nor did they hear any consolation from the gospel. Some conscience droveinto deserts, and into monasteries, hoping there to merit the divinefavor by a monastic life. Others invented different kinds of works, tomerit grace, and make satisfaction for their sins. There was thereforethe utmost necessity, that this doctrine concerning faith in Christshould be inculcated anew; in order that timid minds might findconsolation, and know that justification and the remission of sins areobtained by faith in the Saviour. The people are also now instructed, that faith does not signify a mere historical belief, such as wicked menand devils have; but that, in addition to a historical belief, itincludes an acquaintance with the consequences of the history, such asremission of sins, by grace through Christ, righteousness, &c. , &c. Now, he who knows that the Father is reconciled to him through Christ, possesses a true acquaintance with God, confides in his providence, andcalls upon his name: and is therefore not without God, as are theGentiles. For the devil and wicked men cannot believe the articleconcerning the remission of sins. But they hate God as an enemy, do notcall upon his name, nor expect any thing good at his hands. Augustine, in speaking of the word faith, admonishes the reader that in Scripturethis word does not signify mere knowledge, such as wicked men possess, but that confidence or trust, by which alarmed sinners are comfortedand lifted up. We, moreover, teach, that the performance of works isnecessary, because it is commanded of God, and not because we expect tomerit grace by them. Pardon of sins and grace are obtained only byfaith. And because the Holy Spirit is received by faith the heart of manis renovated, and new affections produced, that he may be able toperform good works. Accordingly, Ambrosius states, faith is the sourceof holy volitions and an upright life. For the faculties of man, unaidedby the Holy Spirit, are replete with sinful propensities, and too feebleto perform works that are good in the sight of God. They are moreoverunder the influence of Satan, who urges men to various sins, and impiousopinions, and open crimes; as may be seen in the examples of thephilosophers who, though they endeavored to lead moral lives, failed toaccomplish their designs, and were guilty of many notorious crimes. Suchis the imbecility of man, when he undertakes to govern himself by hisown strength, without faith and the Holy Spirit. From all this it is manifest, that our doctrine, instead of beingcharged with prohibiting good works, ought much rather to be applauded, for teaching the manner in which truly good works can be performed. For, without faith, human nature is incapable of performing the duties eitherof the first or second table. Without it, man does not call upon God, nor expect any thing from him, nor bear the cross: but seeks refugeamongst men, and reposes on human aid. Hence, when faith and confidencein God are wanting, all evil desires and human schemes reign in theheart; wherefore Christ also says, "without me ye can do nothing" (Johnxv. ); and the church responds, Without thy favor there is nothing goodin man. ARTICLE XXI. - OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. Concerning the invocation of saints our churches teach, that the saintsought to be held in remembrance, in order that we may, each in his owncalling, imitate their faith and good works; that the emperor mayimitate the example of David, in carrying on war to expel the Turksfrom our country; for both are kings. But the sacred volume does notteach us to invoke saints or to seek aid from them. For it proposesChrist to us us our only mediator, propitiation, high priest, andintercessor. On his name we are to call, and he promises, that he willhear our prayers, and highly approves of this worship, viz. : that heshould be called upon in every affliction (1 John ii. ): "If any one sin, we have an advocate with the Father, " &c. This is about the substance of our doctrines, from which it is evidentthat they contain nothing inconsistent with the Scriptures. Under thesecircumstances, those certainly judge harshly, who would have usregarded as heretics. But the difference of opinion between us (and theRomanists) relates to certain abuses, which have crept into the (Romish)churches without any good authority; in regard to which, if we dodiffer, the bishops ought to treat us with lenity, and tolerate us, onaccount of the confession which we have just made. Note 1. German reading. Note 2. German reading. Note 3. Ex opere operato, from the mere outward performance of the act. Note 4. German reading. Note 5. German reading. Note 6. German copy. INDEX. Absolution, form of, 99, 100. Additions, no heterogeneous ones to be made to the divinely constitutedchurch, 18. Alterations in Augsburg Confession by Melancthon, 54. American, Lutheran, has no reference to place of birth, 9. American Recension, Digest of, 61. --------- --------- originated from respect to Augsburg Confession, 44. Anecdote of the Leyden cobbler, 16. --------- of Melancthon's mother, 14. Apology to Augsburg Confession, 25. Apostles' Creed, when and by whom formed, 20. Arnold on the diet at Augsburg, 55. Athanasian Creed adopted, 21. Augsburg Diet, Papists predominant at, 55. --------- --------- Melancthon's alarm at, 55. --------- --------- subscription to, not required in Luther's time, 22. --------- --------- itself a disclaimer of error, 30. --------- --------- practice of requiring assent to, rejected, by thefathers of Pennsylvania Synod fifty years ago, 39. Augsburg Confession, disadvantages under which it was prepared, 47. --------- --------- dissented from by Dr. Lochman, 39. --------- --------- parts of, omitted by him in his edition, 40. --------- --------- dissented from by many of our principal divines, 41, 42. Aurifaber's narrative of Augsburg Diet, 78. Bachman, Dr. , dissents from Symbolical books, 42. Baptism, its influence on adults, 143-144. --------- --------- infants, 144, 145, 146. Baptismal Regeneration, see Regeneration baptismal. Basel, Synod of, it conceded both kinds, 76. Bible, Luther's deep sense of obligation to, 46. --------- true and infallible symbol, 41. Bishops, Reformers willing again to submit to them, 58. Bohemians claim eucharist entire, 76. Campegius, Letter of Melancthon to, 51. Canon of the mass, 73, 77. Ceremonies of the mass, 64. Church of Christ, importance of the, 17. --------- no essential additions to be made to her, 18. Confession, Dr. Plank on, 102. --------- private, unscriptural, 103. --------- how performed, 98-100. Concessions, Melancthon's, 54, 49. --------- of the Reformers to Papists, 49. Concluding remarks, 161-68. Controversy, religious, sometimes necessary and useful, 13. --------- how it should be conducted, 16. --------- the present commenced by Old Lutherans, 8. Creed of the Council of Nice, 20. Creeds not commanded by the Bible, 19. --------- only inferential, 19. --------- human, all uninspired, 23. --------- not all changes in, to be deprecated, 45. --------- must be conformed to Bible truth in every age, 23, 29. Definite Platform, its origin, 26. --------- --------- its authors not agitators, 26. --------- --------- not a new rejection of errors, 43. --------- --------- retains more of the Augsburg Confession than theGeneral Synod's Pledge, 15. --------- --------- adopted by several Synods, 15. --------- --------- misunderstood, 28. --------- --------- an unofficial proposal till adopted by Synods, --rightto make it, 32. --------- --------- claimed no authority till adopted, 32. Denomination, a Christian bound not to defend, but to reject the errorsof its symbols, 38. Depravity natural, a scriptural doctrine, 6, 7. Design of this work, 3, 4. Disadvantages attending the preparation of Augsburg Confession, 48. Disclaimer, Synodical, 63. Doctrine, fundamental, list of, 5. Duty of a church to test her creed by Scripture, 23. --------- --------- to alter her creed if found erroneous, 29, 162-68. --------- --------- cannot be to deny the truth, 162. Elevation of the host, long retained by Luther, 65. Endress, Dr. , disavows parts of the Augsburg Confession, 41. Episcopal Church in America changed her standards, 30. Eucharist, the symbols on, 148, 149, 150. --------- real presence of Christ's body in, refuted, 151-52. --------- supposed sin-forgiving power of, not scriptural, 153-54. Exorcism, altered interpretation of, 155. --------- long retained in some parts of the church, 155, &c. --------- Koellner, Guericke, other authorities, 156. --------- ascertained facts in the case, 160. Faber, his attempted refutation of Augsburg Confession, 76. Faith, a living, always required for pardon, 130. Forgiveness of sin belongs to God alone, 104, &c. Form of Concord rejected by a large part of the Lutheran Church, 24. --------- --------- acknowledges the right of altering confessions, 38. Fuhrman on the mass, 68. Fundamental doctrine, what? 4. Funk on Private Confession, 98. General Synod, liberality of her basis, 9. Golden age of the Christian church, 20. Gospel, life of the, the true life of a church, 37. Hagenbach, Dr. , on bodily presence in the supper, 60. Hazelius, Dr. , on the Diet of Augsburg, 55. --------- Dr. , dissents from the Augsburg Confession, 42. History of American Lutheran Church, 93. Host, elevation of, long retained, 65. Improvement of erroneous creeds creditable to a church, 45. Investigation the safeguard of religious truth, 14. Jacobsen, Professor, on Confession, 102. Jonas, Justus, Luther's Letter to, 54. Justification, faith and not the sacraments the immediate conditionof, 130. Keys, power of, 100, 101. Knapp, Dr. , not symbolic, 59. --------- on the eucharist, 60. --------- influence of the sacraments defined, 133. Koecher, Dr. , views of the duty of a church to correct herconfession, 45. Larger Catechism of Luther rejected, 25. Latin hymns in the mass, 82. Life, the true, of the church, what? 37. Lintner, Dr. , dissents from the Augsburg Confession, 42. Lochman, Dr. , omits large portions of the Augsburg Confession in hisrecension, 40. Lord's Supper, see Eucharist. Luther, the Protestant princes abstain from consulting him during theDiet at Augsburg, 50. --------- progressive reformer, 65. --------- his use of the word mass, 71, &c. --------- engaged in constant controversy, 14. --------- was originally pledged to the whole Romish system, 21. --------- enlightened by the study of Scripture, 21. --------- never signed any confession of faith, 22. --------- his defiance of papists, 54. --------- his letter to Lazarus Spengler, 71, to Hausmann, 71, toJonas, 72. --------- acknowledges the imperfection of the reformation, 35. --------- his oath of obedience to Papacy, 21. --------- his sense of obligation to the Bible, 46. Lutheran Church, American, founded on Independent or Congregational, or Republican principles, 32, 33. Mass, closet, early rejected, 65. --------- public, rejected after Augsburg diet, 66. --------- ceremonies of, retained by Augsburg Confession, 66, 68. --------- its nature, 69, 71. --------- reformers trained to its Papal use, 70. --------- the usus loquendi of the word, 71, 72, 81-90. --------- distinct from sacrament or Lord's Supper, 71, &c. , 74. --------- Canon of, what, 73. --------- Luther's definition of, 74. --------- meaning, in the symbols, 81, &c. , 90. Mann, Rev. , misapplies the word heretic, 26. --------- misapprehends the profession of the New School Lutherans, 33. Melancthon, his concessions to Popery, 53, 54. --------- Luther's rebuke for his concessions, 53, 54. --------- on the mass, 74-78. --------- Letters to Luther, 75, 76, 77, 48. [sic]--------- advice to his mother, 14. --------- did not regard the Augsburg Confession as perfect, 23. --------- ready to submit to Romish bishops again, 35. --------- describes his danger and depression at the Diet, 49. --------- complains about the indifference of the princes to consultLuther, 50. --------- his remarkable letter to Campegius, 51. Methodists, Episcopal, made extensive changes in the Thirty-nineArticles, 31. Miller, Dr. G. B. , dissents from the Augsburg Confession, 42. Mosheim, Dr. , 68, 132. Murdock, Dr. , on the mass, 68. Natural Depravity, a Scriptural doctrine, 6, 7. --------- --------- reality of it taught by the author, 6, 7. New creed, advocated by some, 44. Our church, right or wrong, an unchristian motto, 38. Obedience, offered to the Romish church by Melancthon, to obtainpeace, 52. Pardon or justification, faith the condition of, 130. Peculiarities of our church when scriptural, to be retained, 38. Plank, Dr. , on confession, 102. Platform, Definite, see Definite Platform. Political institutions less important than the church, 17. Popular Theology, reference to, 93. Presbyterians changed their confession, 31. Private confession, how performed, 98. --------- --------- rejected, 25. Public confession substituted for private, 25. Puseyism, 131. --------- flatters the vanity of ministers, 131. Question, the true state of, 17. Rationalism, unjustly charged on some American writers by Germans, 7, 8. Recension, American, digest of, 61. Reformation, time of, at the diet, not favorable to the formation of afull, impartial creed, 22, 47. Reformers, progressive, 57, 58, 65. --------- fallible men, 35. Refutation, papal, of Augsburg Confession, 79. --------- distinguishes between mass and eucharist, 79. Reinhard, Dr. , not symbolic, 59, 132. Reply to Rev. Mann's general observations, 22-24. Responsibility, fearful, of disseminating error in creeds, 34. Right of ministers to dissent from the Augsburg Confession conceded, 43. Reformer's, the, if living would themselves reject these errors, 35. --------- were educated till adult age in all the superstitionsof Rome, 37. Regeneration, baptismal, 135, &c. --------- --------- taught by the symbolical books, 135, 136, 137. --------- --------- taught by the Reformers, 138-140. --------- --------- taught by the early theologians, 140, &c. Regeneration, baptismal, influence of this doctrine on thepulpit, 141, &c. Rufinus' report on the origin of the Apostles' creed, 19. Romanists and Puseyites in error, 18. Sabbath, views of the Reformers on, 107, 111, 112, &c. --------- Ruecker, Hengstenberg, Waler, on, 108, 109. Sacraments, their relation to pardon or justification, 9. Schaeffer, Dr. F. C. , dissents from the Augsburg Confession, 41. Schaff, Dr. , an inadvertence corrected, 5, 6. Schultz, Dr. , on German theology, 60. Scriptures, why better understood more than three centuries ago, 36. Siegel, on history of the mass, 69; confession, 102. Sin, pardon of, belongs to God, 104, &c. Smalcald Articles, more decided, 55. --------- --------- rejected by Sweden and Denmark, 25. Smaller Catechism of Luther, rejected in Sweden, 25. Spalatin, his abstract of Augsburg Confession, 79. --------- distinguishes between mass and Lord's Supper, 79. Standpoint of the American Lutheran Church, 35. Storr, Dr. , 59. Symbolism, Post-Lutheran and Ultra-Lutheran, 164. Symbolic, what makes a book such, 160, 161. Symbols, departure of German theologians from, 59. Symbolic System, when introduced, 22. --------- --------- no part of original Lutheranism, 163. Symbol, the mother, of Protestantism retained, 44. Synods, General, doctrinal basis defended, 4. Theologians, German, unsymbolic, 59. Theological Seminary, liberality of her doctrinal basis, 9. Topics discussed in this work, 4. Truth fears not investigation, 44. Ultra-Lutherans must unchurch the Lutherans of Luther's lifetime, 25. War on the Platform by Old Lutherans, offensive and not defensivewar, 25. Western Synods, the Platform primarily designed for them 27. Word of God, the inspired, complete, 18. --------- --------- the only creed used in the apostolic age, 18. Zwingle's Confession, 75. [tr. Note: after the index, the copy transcribed includes a 12 pagecatalog of books available from the publisher T. Newton Kurtz,